Critical Design Review Wildhorn Shared

Critical
Design
Review
Project Wildhorn
23.03.2022
Presentation Feedback
Handout
Slides Document
FYI - Handout
• Useful links
• Useful acronyms
• Systems engineering details
• Design and analysis details
• Subsystem questions
Handout 2
Slides Document
FYI – Feedback Document
• Any feedback or comments are welcome!
• Put your name if you want
• Indicate the slide number if possible
• Thanks a lot!
Handout 3
Slides Document
FYI – Unfolding of the event
Each subsystem will be presented by a speaker
Points requiring specific feedback and questions

are underlined during the presentation
Q&A session at the end of each subsystem

• Subsystem members will come on the scene to answer your questions
Handout 4
Slides Document
AGENDA
13h00 – 15h20 15h45 – 17h00
General & Payload

Systems Engineering Avionics
Flight Dynamics Ground Segment
- Break -
Propulsion
Conclusion
Structure
Recovery
5
Systems Engineering
Lucas Pallez
• Systems overview
• Mission objectives
• ConOps
• Interfaces
• MAI&T
6
SE – Team Overview
CTO SE SE
GS AV PR ST PL
Lucas Pallez Erik Uythoven Zaid Kaddour
SE SE Spaceshot SE
ST FD RE
Thomas Pfeiffer Kevin Marangi William Cottier
7
SE – Timeline
8
SE – Timeline
9
SE – Mission Objectives
• Participate and win the L1 Requirements
EuRoC 2022 competition The LV shall carry a payload to the altitude of 9000 m +/-
[10]%*
The LV shall be powered by a COTS solid rocket engine
The LV and its payload shall be recovered safely
The LV shall be designed for both EuRoC and testing in
Switzerland
Additional
The LV should sustain a velocity of Mach 1.8+ for 10+
seconds
* Margin of the motor given by the manufacturer 10

SE – Configuration
Rocket Characteristics
• Internal Diameter (ID): 99 mm • Airframe: ~100% CFRP
• Length: 2.7  0.2 m • Motor: Solid, Impulse Class N
• Dry Mass: 8  1 kg • Payload Size: 4U CanSat
• Loaded Mass: 22  3.8 kg • L/D Ratio: 27
11
SE – Configuration
Modules Integration
AV/RE integration:
• Both modules in one piece with the RE plate
• Attach 3-rings and main cords, slide all up to int. coupler
• Screw plate on and attach to parachutes
• Attach antennas through coupler
BATTERY
E-BAY CHUTE TUBE
MODULE
MOTOR PAYLOAD
• Motor integration by the boattail • PL integration by the nose cone

• Casing screwed on retainer plate • Held inside by the PIS
12
SE – ConOps
Timing T - 5 weeks T - 4 weeks T - 1 week T - 2 days T - 1 day T - 6 hours T - 3 hours T - 1 hour T=0
Check Lists
Assembly Flight Launch Installation
+ Final
Task Packing Shipping and Readiness Readiness on the Lift-off
Integration integration
verifications Review Review launch pad
Tests
13
SE – ConOps
1. Lift-off from launch rail
2. Powered ascent with solid
rocket motor
3. Unpowered ballistic flight
4. First event: Nose cone
separation and release of
drogue parachute
5. Descent under drogue
parachute
6. Second event: Release of
PAYLOAD
main parachute
PAYLOAD
7. Descent under main

T + 41s parachute until touch-down
1st event
T = 0s T + 40s T + 6min25s
Lift off Apogee 2nd event 14
SE – ConOps
Timing T + 30 min T + 1 hour T + 2 hours T + 3 hours T + 12 hours T + 1 day T + 4 days T + 1 week
Ground LV Post-Flight LV Flight data Operations LV cleaning

Task Shipping
recovery inspection Review disassembly analysis debrief and storage
15
SE – Interfaces
• Each interface has a PiC
• Update tracking document
• Organize interface
meetings when necessary
• Gathers needed
information
• Interfaces verification
• CAD allows to visualize
physical interferences
• Ground tests allow to
check information flows
16
SE – Interfaces
• Each interface has a PiC
• Update tracking document
• Organize interface
meetings when necessary
• Gathers needed
information
• Interfaces verification
• CAD allows to visualize
physical interferences
• Ground tests allow to
check information flows
17
SE – MAI&T
• Plan and track for

manufacturing and testing
• Updated every week
• Planned timeline on a
Gantt chart to ensure the
correct unfolding of the
process
AV MAI&T sample 18
SE – Documentation
Strategy
• Documentation written
on the wiki throughout
the year
• Spreading the workload
over time
• Wiki meant to transmit
knowledge
• Writing tone less formal?
• Less professional look?
Wiki: https://rocket-team.epfl.ch/ 19
SE – Cost Budget
Cost Budget Available Margin

CHF CHF CHF
3400 810 +2590
Main expenses
• EuRoC 2022 fees
• Print documentation, slides, etc
20
SE – Risk Analysis
Impact Meaning
5 Mission failure
4 40+ man hours to solve
3 20-40 man hours to solve Severity Matrix

5 2 3 6 9 12
Probability
2 4-20 man hours to solve 4 2 3 5 8 11
1 <4 man hours to solve 3 1 2 4 7 10
2 1 2 3 5 8
Probability Meaning 1 1 1 2 3 5
5 50-100% Chance 1 2 3 4 5
Impact
4 20-50% Chance
3 5-20% Chance
2 1-5% Chance
1 0-1% Chance 21
Risk Probability Impact Severity Mitigation
Interfaces issues and miss- Person in charge responsibility, interface

4 5 11
communication meetings
Covid doesn’t allow for the team to Work from home and plan for longer time
3 5 10
meet contingencies
Cost budget overrun 4 4 8 Search new sponsors, redistribute budgets
Members motivation drop 4 4 8 Organize team events, follow members closely
Minimize impact on stability with good mass

Length requirement not respected 3 4 7
management.
Competition cancelled due to

3 4 7 Find other test launch opportunities
Covid/Weather conditions
98 mm ID allows for multiple viable motor

Mass requirement not respected 5 3 6
choice,
Hard deadlines not respected 4 3 5 Contingency planned during summer
Safety issues, injuries 2 4 5 CSO during operation, procedures.

22
SE - Cost Budget
Contingency Cost with Contingency

Component Number Cost CHF
% CHF
EuRoC fees 30 100 0 3000
TOTAL 3000
Margins (req.) +2190
23
System Engineering
Question & Answers

24
Flight dynamics
Taha Bouwakdh
Joshua Cayetano-Emond
• Flight mission
• Airframe Optimization and Analysis
• Wind tunnel tests
• Hermes: the test bench
25
FD – Team overview
WTE WT SUP
Jacquart Sylvain Theodore Maradan

Team SUP
Lead simulator
Taha Bouwakdh Jan Schulz WT SUP WT SUP
Simulator CFD - Sinclair Augereau Pietro Davi

FEM
Louis Jaugey Tommaso Donelli WT SUP WT SUP
Elouan Maitre Romain Gauthier

FSI FSI
Adriano Cassella Stefano Tamo WT SUP WT SUP
Pedro Marques Eloi Andrieux

26
FD – HERMES Team overview
Hermes II Hermes II
Lead SE
Joshua Cayetano-Emond Bastian Winzer
Hermes II Hermes Hermes II

AV - HW II GS AV-SW
Charlotte Heibig Micheal Ha Mael Feurgard
Hermes Hermes Hermes

III Lead III SE III FD
Louise Cayroche Malena Aguiriano Corentin Rochet
27
FD – Overview
Subsystem’s Goals:
• Trajectory simulation: 3D trajectories, Apogee AGL, timing of events,
drop zones.
• Flight dynamics characterization: 3D dynamics, stability analysis,
pressure fields, thermal analysis during flight.
• Design tools: Air frame aerodynamics optimization, motor choice.
• Experimental campaigns: get theoretical/practical experience and
test simulation tools:
• Wind tunnel test with Sauber
• Testing facilities (small scale supersonic wind tunnel and other
experimental setups)
• Test bench: HERMES II & III projects
28
FD – Overview
Design tools:
Trajectory Air frame3D
simulation: aerodynamics
trajectories, optimization
timing of events, stability
analysis.
Provide RE/AV
Simulator trajectory, timings
Airframe
of events
operation optimization
Provide ST with relevant

CFD Provide SE simulations
trajectory and
motor choice
29
FD – Overview
Optimization 6 DOF Simulator HERMES CFD FSI

tool dev. Dev.
Airframe
optimization
Cross-simulator Simulator
tests validation
Provide RE/AV
with flight info. Provide ST with
Simulator relevant
operation Provide SE with simulations
motor choice 30
FD – Overview
WTE
Rocket Rocket model Dummy load- Pressure
holding parts manufacturing cell taps
Pressure
taps tests
WT Integration
Preliminary Test procedure SRAD Small
test prep.
CFD scale
Supersonic WT
WT Test at Past WT
Sauber data
CFD model
validation 31
FD – Leading Requirements
ID Description Validation method
SUP shall verify that the LV (including the Payload) ERT-S + Combination of COTS
2021-FD-SUP-FCT -01
has between 1.5 and 6 calibers for static stability simulators
SUP shall either ensure that the LV (including the

Payload) has an exit rail velocity above [30] m/s or ERT-S + Combination of COTS
2021-FD-SUP-COMP-FCT -02
prove that the LV is stable with an exit velocity of at simulators
least [20] m/s.
SUP shall verify that the LV (including the Payload) ERT-S + Combination of COTS
2021-FD-SUP-FCT -03
has a damping factor between [0.05] and [3]. simulators
SUP should be able to predict the trajectory of the ERT-S + Combination of COTS
2021-FD-SUP-FCT -04
rocket during ascent and descent. simulators
FD shall develop a supersonic simulator to predict Hermes + WT + Combination of

2021-FD-SUP-FCT -09
the LV's behavior during the flight. COTS simulators
2021-FD-HERM-FCT -01 Hermes shall perform supersonic flights. Several launches during the year
2021-FD-HERM-FCT -03 Hermes shall gather data from supersonic flights. Several launches during the year
32
FD - Trajectory • Simulation using OpenRocket,
RASaero II and ERT-S, considering
simulation mass contingencies and N3400 motor.
OpenRocket RASAero II ERT-S

Apogee AGL
9056 10300 11960
[m]
Apogee @t=
38.5 39.9 40
[s]
Max Mach
2.089 2.163 2.148
number
Max.
acceleration 20.68 21.70 21.67
[g]
Launch rail
departure 59.5 59.43 58.71
velocity [m/s]
Damping ratio [0.22, 0.305] - -

Fig. 1: Flight profile using different simulators
for the N3400 configuration.
33
FD – Motor • Simulation using OpenRocket
selection and RASaero II and ERT-S,
considering different motors.
Max.
Max. Requires Apogee AGL Apogee AGL
Motor ID acceleration Motor ID
Mach adapter OpenRocket RASAero II
[g]
N3400 20.68 2.09 No N3400 9230 9520
N1975 11.32 1.97 Yes N1975 9598 10500
N5600 9300 -
N5600 38 2.33 Yes
Tab. 2: Apogee [m] for different motors using

Tab. 1: Maximum acceleration and Mach OpenRocket and RASAero.
number for different motors.
34
FD - ERT Simulator state
• Goal: Develop a 6 DOF
simulator more precise and
adjustable to ERT’s needs
• Transonic and supersonic drag
model complete, but no
correction of center of pressure
and lift
• Analysis of data and
comparison to CFD and
Hermes data next. Fig. 2: Drag coefficient estimation using the 3 simulators.
Q: What could be the differences which lead to these results? To what point should we consider
time-efficiency?
35
FD – Airframe optimization
• Nosecone: Tangent square root found to be best.
• Fins: cross-section optimization (hexagonal shape) leads to +11% in apogee
Fig. 3: Fins (CAD) Fig. 4: Nosecone (CAD)

36
FD - Fluid
Structure
Interaction
Goals:
• Assess the impact of
aerodynamic loading
onto the rocket’s
airframe coupling
CFD and FEA.
• CFD / FEA setup and
procedure for next
designs.
Fig. 5: Hermes I rocket 3D pressure field
37
FD - Wind tunnel
• Annual test at Sauber Group, Hinwil
experiment • Test and analyse the reaction of the
rocket, quantify the aerodynamics.
• Validation & Finetuning of CFD
simulations
Fig. 6: Airflow visualization using UV paint on

Bella lui II, 2021 38
FD - WTE Procedure & Measurements
• Implementation of pressure taps on the nosecone and the fins to validate CFD
results locally.
• 3D 1:1 printed mock rocket, specifically for the test, with structural resistance
to maximal test’s range.
Parameter Range Measurement
Center of
Angle of -8° to +8°
pressure (CP) and
Attack static
drag force
CP movements
20 to 80 m/s
Wind speed and
sweep
local pressure
Fins Cross and “X” Lift force and fins

orientation static design
Tab. 4: Variation of parameter and Fig. 7: Schematics of pressure taps positions on

corresponding data acquired the fins and nosecone
39
FD - WTE Timeline
2022
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2022
Today
Mar 17 - Mar 28 Mock parts manufacturing

Manufacturin
Mar 17 - Apr 1 Pressure taps design
g, assembling
Mar 28 - Apr 4 General assembly
40
Apr 4 - May 20 Test pressure tabs and rehearsal
Testing
May 23 Test at Sauber
May 24 - May 31 Data post-process, Comparison with CFD

Data analysis Launch with on-board
Oct 8
pressure taps
Q: Pressure taps complexity worth for the results? Up to where can we trust the upcoming
experimental results over our reference (simulation) results?
40
FD - WT SUP Overview & Timeline
Long term goal: design a safe, low-cost, small scale
supersonic wind tunnel or experimental facility to generate
relevant experimental data for the team
Mar 1 - Mar 31 Litterature review

Apr 1 - May 31 Feasibility, concepts, sizing
Jun 1 - Jun 15 Demonstrator
Sep 20 - Dec 16 Design & iteration
Nov 15 - Apr 7 Prototyping & testing
Apr 10 - Sep 30 Manufacturing
2022 2023
Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep 2023
Today
41
FD - HERMES Overview
• Few (no) supersonic wind
! tunnels in Switzerland
Test current
Supersonic design and
wind
tunnels technologies
Small scale
experimental
setup
Gather data
for simulator
Launches and CFD
• Low launch ceilings
! 42
FD - HERMES II Design Overview
Characteristics:
• 3:8 scaled version of Wildhorn
• Fins scaled to 75% of Wildhorn fins to increase drag
• Dual-event recovery with drogue and main chutes
Properties:
• Outer diameter (OD): 41.9 mm
• Length: 1117 mm
• Mass: 866 g (dry), 1483 g (wet)
• Apogee: 1800 m
• Maximum velocity: 412 m/s (Mach 1.22)
• Maximum acceleration: 535 m/s2 (54.5 g)
43
FD - HERMES II Avionics
• Custom PCB powered by Teensy 3.5
• Logs data from various sensors:
• Total and static pressure
• IMU
• Accelerometers
• Gyroscopes
• Thermocouples
• Load cell
• GPS
• Telemetry
Fig. 8: Hermes II PCB
44
FD – HERMES II - Recovery
• Dual-event recovery
with drogue and
main chutes
• Redundancy for the
first separation
Figure: Concept of Operations (ConOps) for the recovery system

45
FD - HERMES Timeline
2021 2022
Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep 2022
Today
Mar 1 - Mar 31 Manufacturing

Jun 12 1st launch at Kaltbrunn
Hermes I
Sep 4 2nd launch at Kaltbrunn
46
Oct 9 Supersonic launch attempt at Cernier
Dec 1 - Feb 28 Design

Hermes II Feb 28 - Mar 23 Manufacturing
Mar 26 1st launch at Cernier
Mar 28 - May 8 Design

Hermes III May 9 - Jun 30 Manufacturing
Oct 8 Launch at Cernier
Fig. 11: Nominal

ejection of the
parachutes during the
second flight (subsonic)
46
Fig. 9: Fuselage damage after the first flight (subsonic) Fig. 10: The fin module after SUP flight
FD - HERMES III What’s next?
Characteristics:
• Larger diameter to give more room for payload
• Potentially active drag device to reduce apogee further and
increase maximum speed
• Potentially close to next rocket design
Future outlook:
• Set up experiments and payloads
• Prepare a platform for test and transition to practical test bench
47
FD - Technology Readiness Level
8
TRL8 Qualified for launch
7
TRL7 Integration
6
TRL6 Verification and qualification

5
TRL5 Manufacturing/Development
4
TRL4 Prototyping/Simulations
3
TRL3 Analytical Design 2
TRL2 Concept Design 1
TRL1 Basic principles 0

Supersonic HERMES II HERMES II HERMES III FSI WT SUP WTE
Simulator Avionics
Current juin-22 sept-22
48
FD - Budgets Recap
Mass Budget Requirement Margin

[g] [g] [g]
863 866 6

[CHF] [CHF] [CHF]
2089 2150 61
49
FD - HERMES - Mass Budget
Component Number Mass [g] Contingency Mass with Contingency

[%] [g]
Fins 4 160 5 168
Tubes 3 175 10 193
Avionics 1 200 5 210
Parachutes 1 100 10 110
Pyrocutters 1 65 10 72
Other structural
1 100 10 110
components
TOTAL 863
Margins (req.) -3
50
FD – Cost Budget
Component Number Cost [CHF]
[%] [CHF]
HERMES II Structure 1 233 20 280
HERMES II Avionics 1 260 20 312
HERMES II Recovery 1 110 20 132
HERMES II Propulsion 2 350 10 385
Supersonic WT tools (lenses and 1 200 20 240

pumps)
WTE Pressure taps and mock 1 350 20 370
rocket
Hermes III lvl 1 1 350 20 370
TOTAL 2089
Margins (req.) -61
51
FD - Risk Analysis
Risk (related to WH) Probability Impact Severity Mitigation
Error in dynamics computation Use a combination of COTS

2 5 8
leads to wrong stability simulators
Large error on aerodynamic

Use a combination of COTS
coefficients computation 3 4 7
simulators
leading to wrong dynamics
Operation failure leading to no 2 2 2 Use Hermes data instead
data during WT test
Mock rocket structure fail
1 2 1 Use Hermes data instead
during WT test
HERMES Failure 2 1 1 Relaunch next window
Risk (related to Hermes) Probability Impact Severity Mitigation

HERMES Structure Failure 2 5 8 Relaunch next window
HERMES Recovery Failure 2 5 8 Relaunch next window
HERMES Avionics Failure 2 5 8 Relaunch next window 52
Impact Meaning
5 Mission failure
4 40+ man hours to solve
3 20-40 man hours to solve Severity Matrix

5 2 3 6 9 12
Probability
2 4-20 man hours to solve 4 2 3 5 8 11
1 <4 man hours to solve 3 1 2 4 7 10
2 1 2 3 5 8
Probability Meaning 1 1 1 2 3 5
5 50-100% Chance 1 2 3 4 5
Impact
4 20-50% Chance
3 5-20% Chance
2 1-5% Chance
1 0-1% Chance 53
Flight dynamics
Question & Answers

Q: Pressure taps complexity worth for the
Q: What could be the differences which lead to
results? Up to where can we trust the
these results? To what point should we
upcoming experimental results over our
consider time-efficiency?
reference (simulation) results?
Propulsion
Théophile Balestrini
• Solid motor selection

• Motor casing
• Test plan
55
PR – Team overview
Testing and
Team lead
integration
Théophile Balestrini Florent Gaspoz
56
PR – Leading Requirements
ID Code Type Detailed description
2021-LV-PR-HUM-01 HUM The assembly of the PR shall require at most [2] operators.
2021-LV-PR-FCT-03 FCT The PR shall be able to bring the LV at [9000][+/-900] m AGL.
The motor loads shall be transmitted to the rest of the rocket

2021-LV-PR-FCT-04 FCT
using the thrust plate.
2021-LV-PR-PHY-01 PHY The PR mass shall be [14'000][+/-2500] g.
57
PR - N3400 SkidMark
• Max thrust: 3’973 N
• Average thrust: 3’403 N
• Burn time: 4.3 s
• Total impulse: 14’263 Ns
58
PR - Cesaroni P98-6GXL casing
• Length: 1239 mm
• Diameter: 98 mm
59
PR - Cesaroni • Length: 1239 mm
P98-6GXL casing • Diameter: 98 mm
• Capacity: 6 XL grains
60
PR – Testing plan
Fitting
Aft closure
Forward Custom
closure O-ring (3x) Casing plug
• Hydrostatic test of the

P98-6GXL casing
• Dry assembly of motor
• Integration into LV
61
PR – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3
TRL3 Analytical Design

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1
TRL1 Basic principles

0
P98-6GXL N3400 motor
Current May 2022
62
PR – Budgets Recap
Mass Budget Requirement Margin Cost Budget Available Margin

[g] [g] [g] [CHF] [CHF] [CHF]
14’671 16’500 1’829 2’576 4000 1'424
Length Budget Requirement Margin

[mm] [mm] [mm]
1’239 1’239 0
63
PR – Mass Budget
Contingency Mass with Contingency

Component Number Mass [g]
[%] [g]
P98-6GXL casing 1 5’501 5 5’776
N3400 Motor 1 8’471 5 8’895
TOTAL - 13’972 5 14’671
Margins (req.) 1’829
64
PR – Cost Budget

[%] [CHF]
P98-6GXL casing 1 1’165 5 1’223
N3400 Motor 1 1’110 10 1’221
Mockup liner 1 120 10 132
TOTAL - 2’395 - 2’576
Margins (req.) 1'424
65
PR – Length Budget
Length Length with Contingency

Component Contingency [%]
[mm] [mm]
P98-6GXL casing 1’239 0 1’239
TOTAL 1’239 0 1’239
Margins (req.) 0
66
PR – Risk Analysis
Motor assembly error 2 5 8 Motor integration drill
Motor factory defect 1 5 5 Visual inspection
Hydrostatic testing of casing
Casing factory defect 1 4 3
+ visual inspection
Severity Matrix
5 2 3 6 9 12
Probability
4 2 3 5 8 11
3 1 2 4 7 10
2 1 2 3 5 8
1 1 1 2 3 5
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
67
Propulsion
Question & Answers

68
Structure
Thomas Pfeiffer
• CFRP Airframe
• Nosecone PTFE Tip
• Payload Integration Structure
• Internal Coupler
• Fly Away Launch Lugs
• Coupler
• Boattail 69
ST – Team overview
Team Team
leader leader
Alfonso MONNA Alexandre CLEMENT
Internal E.Bay
Coupler Coupler Design &
Design Design PTFE Tip
Florian CHOQUART Giacomo CASSANI Enrique BOSCH TAMAYO
PIS & Fly away CFRP Thrust plate

boattail Launch Lugs structure Design &
Design Design Production PIS sim.
Antoine MARCHAND Guillaume HUEBER Vinski VOUTILAINEN Valentin MORET
CFRP
PIS Design Launch lugs Rocket
structure
physics stands
Simulation
Joseph BERNARD Simon FOREST Oscar FISCHER Albin SERVAIS
70
ST – Overview
• Four major parts
• Three assembly points
Propulsion Section Control Section Payload Section PTFE Tip

1.4 m 0.7 m 0.5 m 0.25 m
Boattail Fly Away Motor Coupler AV & RE Separation Payload Eggtimer

Launch Lugs modules Mechanism & PIS
71
ST – Leading Requirements
ID Code Short Description Detailed Description
2021-LV-ST-COMP-MS-01 Structural integrity The ST shall guarantee the structural integrity of the LV.
The ST shall guaranty the stability of the LV from the end
2021-LV-ST-FCT -01 Stability
of the launch rail to apogee.
The ST shall resist the short-term high temperatures
2021-LV-ST-ENV-04 Flight temperature range
encountered during supersonic flight at up to Mach 3.
2021-LV-ST-PHY-02 Height The total height of the LV shall be [2700][+/-200mm].
2021-LV-ST-PHY-03 Mass The total mass of the ST shall be [4500][+/-500]g.

The ST shall withstand a posigrade acceleration of [30]g
2021-LV-ST-PHY-04 Motor acceleration applied on the point of motor force transmission with an
additional FoS of [2]
The ST shall withstand a retrograde acceleration of [30]g
2021-LV-ST-PHY-05 Drag decelleration
applied on the LV's aft end with an additional FoS of [2]
72
ST – Airframe production results
• 6 fins (4 required)
• 3 tubes (2 required)
• 1 nosecone
• Next step:
• Measurements
• Post-processing
• Tubes cutting
• Bonding fins to tube
73
ST – CFRP Structure
Nosecone
• Woven Carbon Prepreg

(HexPly® 8552S/37%/280H5/AS4-3K)
• 6 layers [0/90°, ±45°, 0/90°]s
• Integrated slide-in section
• Interfaces:
• PTFE tip
• Separation mechanism
• PIS
74
Nosecone FEA
Layup [0,45,0,0,45,0]
Thickness [mm] 1,734
Tsai Hill bending 0,19
MoS bending 4.22
Tsai Hill
0,08
compression
MoS compression 12.27
Tsai Hill traction 0,09
MoS traction 10.49
75
Tubes
• Woven Carbon Prepreg
(HexPly® 8552S/37%/280H5/AS4-3K)
• 6 layers [0/90°, ±45°, 0/90°]s
• 3 sections:
• Propulsion section
• Control section (RE-AV)
• Cylindrical nosecone section
• Axial load including FoS = 15’000 N

• Margin of safety = 20.7
76
Tubes FEA
Layup [0,45,0,0,45,0]
Thickness [mm] 1,734
Tsai Hill bending 0,07
MoS bending 13,30
Tsai Hill
0,04
compression
MoS compression 23,00
Tsai Hill traction 0,05
MoS traction 20,71
77
Tubes FEA
Tsai Hill compression Tsai Hill bending
78
Fins
• Sandwich structure:
• Woven Carbon Prepreg Skin
(HexPly® 8552S/37%/280H5/AS4-3K)
• Expansive Foam Core (FM®410-1)
• Skin: 5 layers [0/90°, ±45°, 0/90°]s
• Bonded to the motor tube
• Flutter frequency: 465.6 Hz
• Resonant frequency: 589 Hz
(MoS = 0.26)
Q: Protection for leading

edges necessary?
79
Fins FEA
• Simulations made with a simplified geometry
that should be less rigid
• Real fins should have higher frequencies of
resonance
Fins FEA: 1st mode
Fins FEA: 2nd mode

80
ST – NOSECONE PTFE TIP
• Heat resistant
• RF transparent for Eggtimer (COTS altitude
logging & GPS tracking device)
• Aluminum insert bonded inside CFRP
nosecone
• M56x4.0 mm thread and radial set screws
• Interchangeable
Eggtimer + Battery
81
ST – Payload Integration Structure (PIS)
• Holds a 4U cansat payload (PL)
• Attached to the chutes cords (RE)
• Attached to the separation mechanism’s
upper ring (RE)
• Load on ring: 2700 N
• Weighs under 500g
# Part Material
1 Centering ring CFRP plate -
2 Stop ring CFRP plate
Compression
3 Elastomer
ring
4 Guiding tube Fiberglass
5 Lower ring Aluminium 6082-T6
6 RE plate Aluminium 6082-T6
82
ST – Payload Integration Structure
• Sub-assemblies Parachute Payload
ring
RE plate Lower Sep. mech.
Rings: Centering Stop Compression ring interface
83
ST – Payload Integration Structure
RE SEP mechanism integration
PIS Lower ring Separation mechanism Assembly mockup

«crown» interface
• Old design: PL was fitted through the separation mechanism

• New design: PL is inserted into the tube and separation mechanism is bolted after.
84
ST – Payload Integration Structure (PIS)
RE parachutes loop integration
Simulations - Recovery plate (critical part)

• Parachute opening load = 2700 N (3 kg * 30 g * FoS (3))
• 18 MPa on washer surface
• Max stress = 66 MPa
• MoS = 2.6
Displacement U:
→ Converges to 0.066 mm
85
ST – PIS
Stress S (von Mises):
<180 MPa in the «working zone»,
diverges in the zone below
Q: Edge effect in Abaqus?
86
ST – INTERNAL
COUPLER
• 6082-T6 aluminum
• Injection bonded to the CFRP

airframe
• Attachment point for RE plate

• Parachute attachment
• RE and AV electronics modules
attachment
87
ST – INTERNAL COUPLER
Simulations - traction on the coupler from the

shock cord (critical part)
• Parachute opening load = 13’500 N
(15 kg, 30 g, FoS (3))
Margin of safety: 0.54
88
ST – INTERNAL COUPLER
Injection bonding:
• Bonding agent is injected through holes in the
CFRP tubes
• Method already used for Bella Lui 2
Using single lap joint calculations:

• Bond width = 20 mm
• MoS = 0.07
89
ST – Fly Away Launch Lugs
• Goal:
• Guide rocket while on
launch rail
• Separate from rocket to
reduce drag
• Hermes 2 supersonic test this

weekend:
• Small scale: diam. 42 mm
• 60 g acceleration
Prototype of the mechanism (rubber bands not shown)

90
ST - Fly Away Launch Lugs M3 bolts
• Middle part in aluminium
→ Structure of the mechanism Rubber Rocket
• Rubber increases friction with the rocket body Aluminium
→ Held inbetween two plates

a) Section view of assembly
• Glued POM decreases friction between lugs and rail
•
Launchrail
Backup: Rocket features traditional lugs
attachement threads
Q: Should fly away lugs be attached to the ground so

POM
they don’t fly off too high? (Rail exit velocity = 50 m/s)
b) Close-up of top view of the lugs in 91
the rail
ST – Coupler
• Updated design: two-parts (male-
female) instead of 3 parts with central
nut
Upper
• Maximise the integration diameter and Set screw part
take the loads of the thrust plate holes
• Ematal surface treated 6082-T6 Pin wrench

holes
aluminum
• Ease of assembly and precise axial
rocket alignment
Motor
retainer Lower
plate part
Glued to
airframe
92
ST – Fabrication steps
1) Turning of the cylindrical surfaces

2) Machining of the retainer plate
3) Thread machining
4) Drilling of the holes at the center
5) Glueing of the parts in the carbon tubes
6) Drilling of the holes on the glued surfaces
93
ST – Assembly steps
1) Put the two airframe halves on

the assembly stands
(horizontal)
2) Screw the parts manually, by

holding the lower part with a
pin wrench
3) Apply the tightening torque

with the pin wrench and secure
with the set screws
Pin wrench
94
ST – Assembly steps
1) Put the two airframe halves on 2) Screw the parts manually, by holding 3) Apply the tightening torque with the pin wrench
the assembly stands (horizontal) the lower part with a pin wrench and secure with the set screws 95
ST – Coupler load distribution
During the burn After the burn
96
ST – Coupler analytical calculations
Nominal diameter 90 𝑚𝑚
• Analytical model for standard solid
Internal diameter screws
GEOMETRY
85.7 𝑚𝑚
(upper part)
→ stress do not apply
Pitch 4 𝑚𝑚
→ FEA
Angle 60°
Thread length 28 𝑚𝑚
Traction force 12,000 𝑁
Bending moment 300 𝑁𝑚
LOAD
Prestress (𝑞 = 2.5) 5,000 𝑁
Tightening torque 𝟖𝟎 𝑵𝒎
97
ST – Coupler analytical calculations
• Nominal diameter: 𝑑
• Internal diameter of the screw: 𝑑𝑖
• Pitch: 𝑝
• Safety factor on the acceleration: 𝑠 = 3
• Resistant section:
with
• Critical load case:
• Traction 𝐹 due to the
parachute opening:
• Bending moment 𝑀
due to the test:
• Pre-stress:
with as for bearing balls
• Von Mises Criteria:

98
ST – Coupler simulations
• Combination of traction and bending: worst case scenario
• Bending implies higher stress
Stress (MPa) Margin of Safety

Max stress 200 0.2
Stress at the transition glued
160 0.5
surface and screw
Stress at the thread 120 1 99
ST – Coupler risks and mitigation
• Tightening torque uncertainty

because applied using the
lever arm method: tighten
more than minimum value
• Thread seizure: Ematal surface
treatment
• Vibrations that can unscrew
the screw: pointy M3 set
screws to create a little
indentation on the coupler’s
surface
100
ST – Boattail
• 2 rings assembled by
clamping the motor
casing flange
• Lower ring and conical
aluminum sheet welded
together
• Aerodynamic transition
with fins
101
ST – Boattail
• 2 rings assembled by
clamping the motor
casing flange
• Lower ring and conical
aluminum sheet welded
together
• Aerodynamic transition
with fins
102
ST – Drag optimization
• With the aerocover, there was a potential for drag optimization
• Tested at different mach numbers and with curved, COTS and “empty” solution
103
ST – Drag optimization
104
ST – CFRP airframe characterization
Tube compression tests:

1. Cylindrical section
• Load transferred to bonded “coupler”
2. Cylindrical section with holes:
• The camera module will require 3 large
holes in the airframe → weak spot
Fins resonance frequency test

• Modal analysis via tap testing in EPFL lab
Fins FEA: 1st mode Fins FEA: 2nd mode

105
ST – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1

0
PTFE Tip Nosecone Tubes Fins Boattail
Current May 2022

106
ST – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1

0
PIS Internal Coupler Coupler Launch Lugs
Current May 2022
107
ST – Budgets Recap

4677 5000 323 10584 11000 416
Length Budget Requirement Margin

[mm] [mm] [mm]
3185 2700 +/- 200 - 285
108
ST - Mass Budget
Contingency Mass with Contingency

Component Mass [g]
[%] [g]
Nosecone module 1519 10 1671
Internal coupler 600 10 660
Coupler 604 10 666
Airframe 1400 10 1680
TOTAL 4677
Margins (req.) 323
109
ST - Cost Budget

Component Cost [CHF]
[%] [CHF]
CFRP Molds 4680 0 4680
Manufacturing 4000 20 4800
Raw material 750 20 900
Tools and service 250 20 300
TOTAL 10680
Margins (req.) 320
110
ST – Risk Analysis

Fins misalignment 3 5 10 Create jig to limit misalignment
Surface treatment, set screws for
Coupler assembly fail 2 5 8
tightening
Struct. integrity
compromised by camera 2 5 8 Reduce number of camera modules
holes
Detailed thermal analysis and heat
PTFE tip melting 2 3 1
resistance test
111
Structure
Question & Answers

Q: Protection for leading Q: Should fly away lugs be attached to
Q: Edge effect in Abaqus?
edges necessary? the ground? (Rail exit velocity = 50 m/s)
112
Recovery
Sixtine Asselot
• Flight mission
• Parachutes
• Clamp Band System
• Deployement Mechanism
• Avionics
113
RE – Team Overview
TM TM TM Parachutes
S.Abou Jaoude S.Asselot T.Rathjens
TM/SP TM TM
Separation
C.Kalbfuss K.Jonsson G.Paffi
SP SP TM Deployment
M.Gester J.Mayoraz J.Huser
TL SE/TM
Managment
D.Humbert W.Cottier
114
RE - Objectives
Objectives
RE will ensure the safe recovery of the LV after the apogee is reached.
The touch down speed shall be lower than [6][+/-2] m/s.
Develop a mechanism to implement as a separation point.
Develop a mechanism to deploy the main parachute.
115
RE - Parachutes Design
Drogue: ○ Ellipsoid
○ Diameter: 0.9 m
○ 23 m/s
○ 9000 m to 400 m AGL
○ black and white
Main: ○ Ellipsoid
○ Diameter: 2.6 m
○ 5.75 m/s
○ 400 m AGL
○ Red with a white Swiss cross
116
RE - Parachutes Manufacturing
• Laser cutter
• Fast and clean cut
• Sewing machine
• French seams and Welt seams
117
RE - Parachutes Testing
1. Drop tests for effective Cd calculation
2. Visual inspection
3. Traction tests
1. On shroud lines
2. On seams
118
RE - Line management
119
RE – Clamp Band System Design
• Separation caused by drag once mechanism is released, 5 g acceleration difference
120
RE - CBS Design
Holder
Tensioning tool slot
Dyneema loop
Irreversible worm wheel
assembly
Locking screw
121
RE - CBS Manufacturing
5-axis CNC for

clamps
Turning process for circular parts

Purchase of assembly elements
(screws, gear wheel, etc…)
Spliced Dyneema loop
122
RE - CBS Testing
1. Traction and shear tests on Dyneema rope (splicing, knot)
2. Integration test (Dyneema and nichrome through the holes)
3. Resistance test between the aero cover, the metal sheets and the clamps
4. Static ground tests in multiple orientation
5. Drop test of the whole system
123
RE - Deployment Mech. Design
3-rings + nichrome
2.5 cm
• Pros
• No pyrotechnics
• Large operating scale: 20 N to 10’000 N
• Easy to build and test
• Cons
• Nichrome connections have to be perfect
124
RE - Deployment Mech. Manufacturing
1. 3D-printing
2. Wires and nichrome brazed
125
RE – Deployment Mech. Testing
1. Traction and deployment tests from 20 N to
10’000 N
2. Impact tests by hitting it with a hammer and
shaking it violently
3. Drop tests
126
RE - SRAD Avionics (KRTEK)
• Goal: Interface with AV’s flight computer to manage flight event.
• Divided into three boards, each one having a specific function
• Allows for:
1. Pressure measurement and altitude computation
2. Acceleration measurement
3. Data logging on a flash memory
4. UART communication with the AV hostboards
5. Pyro signals up to 15 A
• The signal coming from the hostboards is independent of this
system. The events are triggered even if the system isn’t
powered. 127
RE - SRAD Avionics (KRTEK) Testing
• Testing plan
1. Ground tests for mechanisms triggering
2. Ground tests for communication with AV hostboards
3. Drop tests for data logging
4. Drop tests for mechanisms triggering
5. If available: flight test for algorithm validation
• The tests are to be performed in collaboration with the AV subsystem
128
RE - COTS Avionics (ALTIMAX G3)
• Goal: Backup flight computer • Previous year’s knowledges
• Allows for: • In our stock
• 30km altitude
• Pyro events
• Data events (servomotors)
• Mach delay
129
RE – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1

0
Parachutes Deployment Separation Electronics
Current May 2022
130
RE – Budgets Recap

3340 1500 -1740 2570 3500 930
Energy Budget Available Margin Length Budget Requirement Margin

[Wh] Energy [Wh] [Wh] [mm] [mm] [mm]
0.897 0.900 1.4 755 420 335
131
RE – Mass Budget
Component Number Mass [g] Contingency Mass with Contingency
[%] [g]
Deployment 1 880 10 980
Clamp Band System (CBS) 1 300 20 470
Electronics 1 250 10 170
TOTAL 3240
Margins (req.) -1740
S.Asselot 132
RE – Cost Budget
[%] [CHF]
Deployment 1 180 20 220
Clamp-Band System (CBS) 1 640 20 770
Electronics 1 320 10 350
Semester project 1 400 20 480
Misc (tools, fees,...) 1 500 20 600
TOTAL 2570
Margins (req.) +930
S.Asselot 133
RE – Length Budget
Length Length with Contingency

Component Contingency [%]
[mm] [mm]
Guiding tube 575 10 632.5
Clamb-Band-System (CBS) 48 10 53
Drogue + Nosecone cord 63 10 69
TOTAL 755
Margins (req.) -80%
S.Asselot 134
RE – Power Budget
Energy Contingency Energy with

Component Number
[Wh] [%] Contingency [Wh]
GPS 1 0.200 10 0.220
Krtek 1 0.500 10 0.550
Altimax 1 0.115 10 0.127
TOTAL 0.897
Battery 30
Margins (req.) +1.4%
S.Asselot 135
RE – Risk Analysis

CBS failure 3 5 10 Use backup design
Parachute manufacturing
3 5 10 Buy an alternative
failure
Deployment mechanism
2 4 8 Use line cutters
failure
COTS EOL by EuRoc 3 3 4 Use new required COTS AV
Use already implemented
SRAD RE avionics failure 3 2 2
COTS
S.Asselot 136
Recovery
Question & Answers

137
Time for a break!
Find us on 138
Payload
Loup Cordey
• Theoretical aspect of the experiment
• Cansat structure
• Experimental setup
• Electronics
• Testing plans
139
Payload – Team overview
System Electronics Experiment

Lead
Loup Cordey Alain Girard Giuliano Parma
Experiment Software Structure
Maxime Roud Elyes Ben chaabane Florent Piton
140
PL – Overview
New Rocket, Newer requirements

• 4U CanSat form factor
Payload
• 1 kg minimum mass requirements
• High G-load robustness
• New avionic to fit the CanSat form factor
• New manufacturing process for the structure
• New design process
141
Theoretical
aspect of the « Or how I learned to stop
worrying and love the foam »
experiment
142
PL – What is Sloshing
• Wave on the surface of a

liquid whose reservoir is
subjected to external
vibrations
• Sometimes these sloshings
can reach resonating modes
• pogo effect (ex: destruction of
Observation of the mode (2,0) in a
Emerald and N1 laucher)
rectangular tank in laboratory • lateral forces and moments of
force (modification of
trajectory)
143
PL – Sloshing in aerospace fields
• Traditionally mitigated with

the use of baffles built into
the tanks
• Our solution: use a material
that behave like a foam on
the surface of the liquid
144
PL – Anti-slosh marbles
• Mimmicks foam behaviours
• Are very efficient against sloshing
• Ligthweight
• Doesn’t take much volume
145
PL – Cansat structure « The little can that could.»
146
PL – Electronic bay 1.0
• 3D printed using SLS
190 mm
• In nylon for robustness and heat
resistance
120 g
65 mm 147
• M3 threaded heat inserts, used

to fasten the payload structure
to the PIS
148
• M3 threaded heat inserts, used to fasten

the electronic bay to the experimental
bay
149
PL – Experimental bay 1.0
• 3D printed using SLS
135 mm
• In nylon for robustness and
heat resistance
86 g
65 mm 150
• M3 Threaded hole,
used to maintain the
cover-bag closed
• Threaded, pass-
through and counter-
sunk holes for M3 hex
screws
151
• Camera hold
• RPI camera cable

management divet
152
PL – Experimental setup
• Cable management
through-hole
• M3 counter sunk through
holes for interfacing
• Locking «bumps» for the
liquid tank
153
PL – Experimental setup
• Compressive screw
• Sloshing experiment
tank
154
PL – Sloshing tanks
• Compressive cap
• 3D printed,
transparent resin tank
• Plexiglas panel glued

with a rubber gasket
155
PL – Electronics « Does it dream of electric sheep? »
156
PL – Electronics
Main board
• Based on Raspberry Pi
CM4
• Powered by Li-Ion battery
80 mm
• Can store two video
streams at 60 fps
• Wifi and Bluetooth enabled
• Buzzer for audio feedback
40 mm 157
PL – Electronics
Main board
• USB-C charging port

• Connected to the battery
and the main board
• Automatically switches
between power
transmission mode and
charging mode
158
PL - Full assembly
2U experiment
bay
460 mm
1U electronic
bay
159
PL - Testing plan
TESTING PHASE 1: STRUCTURAL 2.0 VERSION WITH IMPROVEMENTS

DESIGN IMPROVEMENT. AND TOPOLOGICALY OPTIMIZED
INTEGRATION TESTS. FRAME
31.03.22 JULY OCTOBER
MAY AUGUST
First build of the 1.0 version ZERO-G FLIGHT COMPETITION LAUNCH
160
PL – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1

0
Structure Avionics Experiment software
Current May 2022
161
PL – Budgets Recap
Mass Budget [g] Requirement [g] Margin Cost Budget Available Margin
[g] [CHF] [CHF] [CHF]
715 1500 785 600 1500 900
Energy Budget Available Margin

[Wh] Energy [Wh] [Wh]
6.6 13.2 6.6
162
PL – Mass Budget
Component Number Mass [g] Contingency Total mass with

[%] Contingency [g]
Structure 3 100 10 330
Reservoir 2 40 10 88
Battery 2 70 1 140
Cameras 2 10 1 20
PCBs 1 60 1 60
Arming switch 1 6 1 6
Dyneema outer-shell 1 50 10 55
Heat inserts 8 2 1 16
TOTAL 715g
Margins (req.) - 785
163
PL – Risk Analysis
No data acquisition 3 5 10 Code redundancy, visual and
auditive cue of the payload’s
activation.
Some part of the payload 1 3 2 Stronger manufacturing standards
loosen during the flight with heightened security factors.
Battery explosion 1 5 5 Enough “breathing” space for the
battery, privileging high quality
manufacturer. Ensuring a proper
physical protection for them to avoid
puncture.
Failure of PL’s structural 2 4 5 Design and analysis. Choice of

support inside the LV materials (i.e. glue …).
Failure of components under G 2 4 5 FEM analysis, strong tolerances
load
164
Payload
Question & Answers

165
Avionics
Iacopo Sprenger
• Avionics Hardware
• Standalone Camera Module
• Avionics Structure
• Battery Module
• Avionics Software 166
AV – Team Overview
Sensors Team Software
Leader
Mathilda Henoud Iacopo Sprenger Olivér Facklam
Sensors Software
Radio Power
Andrea Bruder Yohann Paulus

Martin Simik Johanna Crucke
Sensors Software
Antennas Hermes
Antonin Mignot Alex Schulster

Simon Berner Charlotte Heibig
GNSS Software
Camera
Joachim Despature Maxime Chantemargue
Lucas pallez
167
AV – Leading Requirements

The AV will measure, process and log data for further analysis. The AV also
2021-LV-AV-MS-01 MS sends the data back to the ground via Telemetry.
2021-LV-AV-FCT -01 FCT Data shall be measured and saved using the AV Electronics.
The data shall be logged and saved at a minimal frequency of [100] Hz during
2021-LV-AV-FCT -03 FCT the flight.
The LV shall carry a Global Position System (GPS) tracking system to facilitate
2021-LV-AV-FCT -04 FCT the rocket recovery.
2021-LV-AV-FCT -05 FCT The AV shall develop a standalone camera module to be secured inside the LV.
The AV shall establish and maintain wireless communication with the Ground
2021-LV-AV-INT-01 INT Station before, during and after the flight.
168
AV - Overview
Power Board
Feedback Board Recovery Board
Sensor Board
Sensor Board
GNSS Board Telemetry Board
Host Board
Structure
169
AV - Hostboard SWD port (programming)
Serial port USB Device

Power
SSH Connection
512 MB DDR3 Memory
STM32MP1
2x CA7 3x Socket extension
1x CM4 Serial
I2C
SPI
PWM
MicroSD card
Power management
RGB LED
Spine connector
Power
2x CAN
170
AV - Power
BAT2
BAT2 power regulator

5V, 1A
AUX 2 CAN 2
CAN 1
AUX 1
BAT1 power regulator

HostBoard connectors
5V, 1A
BAT1
171
AV - Sensors
USB (soldered)
Accelerometer
Barometer Barometer
Gyroscope
Gyroscope
Accelerometer
172
AV – Fake Sensors
Sensor emulator Real Time simulator
SPI / I2C UART
(Arduino) (PC)
173
AV – Recovery Interface
174
AV - Radio
Low power from -10 to 14 dBm
High power from 15 to 22 dBm
Wilkinson divider for double antenna
175
AV - GNSS
GNSS Receiver
Antenna connector
Antenna to be glued
outside the LV
176
AV - Feedback
Serial port
Buzzer
User leds
177
AV - Antennas Gain pattern
Optimized for 868MHz
178
AV – Camera Module Overview
Data Storage:
• PCIe 2.0 1x SSD
• SD Card
Accelerometer for lift-off detection
179
RPi CM4: Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4
AV – Camera Module: Configurations
Parachute deployment view 360° view

1x 720p/60fps 160° FoV Camera 3x 720p/30fps 160° FoV Cameras
180
FoV: Field of View
AV – Camera Module Link
181
AV - Structure
• 3D Printed main body
• 3D Printed cover
• Threaded rods
182
AV – Battery Module
• 3D printed Structure with Aluminum
reinforcements AV Batteries
• Embedded cable harnesses for RE / AV 2x 11.1V 6000mAh
• Holes for M4 threaded rods for Integration
KRTEK V2
Compute
Altimax G3 KRTEK V2
+ Battery Power
RE Battery
7.4V 2200mAh
183
AV – Software timings
• Theoretical analysis
• Timing
• ~6 ms/cycle CPU time
• 100 Hz operation frequency
• Bandwidth
• CAN bus → 290 kbps / 1 Mbps
• Latency
• ~80 ms end-to-end, sensors to recovery
184
AV – Software architecture
• Dual CAN bus

• Object dictionary
185
AV – Software interfaces
186
AV – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
TRL6 Verification and qualification 5
TRL5 Manufacturing/Development 4
3
2
1
TRL2 Concept Design
0
Current May 2022
187
AV – Budgets Recap

541 500 41 2595 2100 495
Losses Sensitivity Margin Length Budget Requirement Margin

[dBm] [dBm] [dBm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
- 129 -130 1 297 300 3

26.95 30 3.05
188
AV - Mass Budget
Component Number Mass [g] Contingency [%] Mass with Contingency [g]
Hostboards 2 30 10 66
Battery 2 120 10 244
Peripherals 6 10 10 66
RF Amplifier 1 30 10 33
TOTAL 541
Margins (req.) +41
189
AV - Cost Budget
Component Number Cost [CHF] Contingency [%] Cost with Contingency [CHF]
Electronic components 1 1965 0 1965
Hostboards 1 234 0 234
Extensions 6 5 10 33
Additionnal components 1 100 10 110
Tools 1 200 10 220
TOTAL 2595
Margins (req.) +495
190
AV - Length Budget
Component Length [mm] Contingency [%] Length with Contingency [mm]
Hostboards, sensors and peripherals 139 10 150
Power and batteries 150 10 165
TOTAL 297
Margins (req.) -3
191
AV - Power Budget
Component Number Energy [Wh] Contingency [%] Energy with Contingency [Wh]
Hostboards 2 2.5 10 5.5
Sensors 2 0.25 10 0.55
GNSS 1 1 10 1.1
Telemetry 1 3 10 3.3
RF Amplifier 1 15 10 16.5
TOTAL 26.95
Battery 30
Margins (req.) -3.05
192
AV - Link Budget
Element Loss/Gain
Receiver sensitivity -130 dBm
Power transmitted 15 dBm
Worst gain of the rocket’s antenna -5 dBi
Gain of the ground station 15 dBi
Polarisation missmatch -3 dB
Pointing missmatch -20 dB
Cables missmatch -20 dB
Path losses -111 dB
TOTAL 1 dBm
193
Severity Matrix
5 2 3 6 9 12
Probability
AV – Risk Analysis
4 2 3 5 8 11
3 1 2 4 7 10
2 1 2 3 5 8
1 1 1 2 3 5
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
Structure not rigid enough 3 4 7 Change structure design
Avionics integration failure 3 4 7 Change structure design
Batteries are drained to fast 2 4 5 Use bigger batteries
Software is not ready on Closely follow the
2 4 5
time developpement
Failure of components Secure everything with glue
2 3 3
under high G load and use large margins
Manufacture corrected
Design errors on PCBs 2 3 3
PCBs
194
Avionics
Question & Answers

195
Ground Segment
Lucas Pallez
• Ground Station Upgrade

• Rocket Tracker
196
GS – Team Overview
Team
Leader
Lucas Pallez
Tracker Ground
Station
Matthias Vesco Lionel Isoz
Tracker Ground
Station
Inge Kool Shrey Mittal
Tracker Antennas
Yohan Hadji Pablo Suárez Reyero
197
GS – Block Diagram
198
GS – Leading Requirements
2021-GS-GST-FCT-01 FCT The GST shall log and save the collected data.
2021-GS-GST-FCT-02 FCT The GST shall display in real time the received data.
2021-GS-RT-ENV-02 PHY The RT shall be tested on the ground using previously recorded flight videos.
The RT shall support the GST antenna, without blocking the line of sight of the
2021-GS-RT-FCT -02 FCT
other instruments.
2021-GS-RT-HUM-01 HUM The RT shall be light enough to be transported and set up by only one person.
199
GS – Ground Station Lessons Learned
• Implementation of EuRoC 2021 lessons learned:

• Dedicated Ground Station Hardware is a very good thing compared
to a simple member laptop.
• Portability and mobility is also a very big plus.
• Dust ingress robustness is an innavoidable requirement
• Solution: New Ground Station & data framework

• Dedicated computer in a smaller hardened case.
• Move to Lithium battery packs.
• Change in the way of handling telemetry data.
200
GS – Ground Station Framework
201
GS – Ground Station 2.0
• Switch to a smaller case

• One screen only
• Fully protected against dust
ingress
• New GS Telemetry Board

• LoRa: RFM95W Module
• WiFi: ESP32 Module
• Compatible with any WiFi or
USB device
202
GS – Rocket Tracker Overview
203
GS – Rocket Tracker
• Design made by a Team Member

• Dual BLDC Maxon Motors
• 21.6°/s Max rotation speed
• 95.6Nm Torque after reduction
• Tracking is done via:

• Computer Vision Algorithm
• Avionics GPS Location
• Avionics Position Estimation
• Simulated Trajectory
BLDC Motor: Brushless DC Motor 204

GS - Rocket Tracker Camera Gimbal
• Separate structure for cameras

• Based on DJI Ronin SC
• Communication with Rocket

Tracker via 3 SBUS control buses
205
Source: DJI
GS – Rocket Tracking Method
Live AV Data = GPS Location + Position estimation from sensors
206
GS – Testing plan
Ground Station Antenna Tests
• Anechoic chamber test

• Impedence matching tests
• GS – AV Range test up to 3x apogee
Rocket Tracker Tests:
• Ground tests with flight data/videos

• Live tests during small scale
rocket launches
207
GS – Technology Readiness Level
8
7
TRL7 Integration
6
5
4
3

2
TRL2 Concept Design

1

0
Rocket Tracker Ground Station Hardware Ground Station Software
Current June
208
GS – Budgets Recap

[CHF] [CHF] [CHF]
1990 2100 110

176 194 18
Losses Sensitivity Margin

[dBm] [dBm] [dBm]
- 129 -130 1
209
GS - Cost Budget

[%] [CHF]
Tracker parts 1 550 10 605
Battery Pack 1 550 10 605
Computer 1 600 10 660
Hard case 1 100 20 120
TOTAL 1990
Margins (req.) 110
210
GS - Power Budget
Energy Contingency Energy with
Component Number
[Wh] [%] Contingency [Wh]
Computer 1 80 10 88
Screen 1 80 10 88
TOTAL 176
388Wh Lithium Battery 194
(-50% Temperature contingency)
Margins (req.) 18
211
GS – Link Budget
Element Loss/Gain
Receiver sensitivity -130 dBm
Power transmitted 15 dBm
Worst gain of the rocket’s antenna -5 dBi
Gain of the ground station 15 dBi
Polarisation missmatch -3 dB
Pointing missmatch -20 dB
Cables missmatch -20 dB
Path losses -111 dB
TOTAL 1 dBm
212
Severity Matrix
5 2 3 6 9 12
Probability
GS – Risk Analysis
4 2 3 5 8 11
3 1 2 4 7 10
2 1 2 3 5 8
1 1 1 2 3 5
1 2 3 4 5
Impact

Robust link margins, extensive
Telemetry Link lost 2 5 8
testing, backup GST
GST Battery Failure 2 5 8 Backup Ground Station
Tracking failiure 2 5 8 Backup Ground Station
Camera Gimbal Failiure 2 3 3 Track with AV/FD Data
WiFi retransmission failiure 1 1 1 Only use main ground stations
213
Ground Segment
Question & Answers

214
Thank you
for your
attention!
215
Thank you for your support!

Critical Design Review Wildhorn Shared

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Design Review Wildhorn Shared

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical

• Systems engineering details

• Design and analysis details

• Any feedback or comments are welcome!

• Put your name if you want

• Indicate the slide number if possible

Each subsystem will be presented by a speaker

Points requiring specific feedback and questions

Q&A session at the end of each subsystem

13h00 – 15h20 15h45 – 17h00

General & Payload

Lucas Pallez Erik Uythoven Zaid Kaddour

Thomas Pfeiffer Kevin Marangi William Cottier

* Margin of the motor given by the manufacturer 10

• Internal Diameter (ID): 99 mm • Airframe: ~100% CFRP

• Length: 2.7  0.2 m • Motor: Solid, Impulse Class N

• Dry Mass: 8  1 kg • Payload Size: 4U CanSat

• Loaded Mass: 22  3.8 kg • L/D Ratio: 27

• Motor integration by the boattail • PL integration by the nose cone

7. Descent under main

Timing T + 30 min T + 1 hour T + 2 hours T + 3 hours T + 12 hours T + 1 day T + 4 days T + 1 week

Ground LV Post-Flight LV Flight data Operations LV cleaning

• Plan and track for

Cost Budget Available Margin

3 20-40 man hours to solve Severity Matrix

Interfaces issues and miss- Person in charge responsibility, interface

Cost budget overrun 4 4 8 Search new sponsors, redistribute budgets

Members motivation drop 4 4 8 Organize team events, follow members closely

Minimize impact on stability with good mass

Competition cancelled due to

98 mm ID allows for multiple viable motor

Hard deadlines not respected 4 3 5 Contingency planned during summer

Safety issues, injuries 2 4 5 CSO during operation, procedures.

Contingency Cost with Contingency

Question & Answers

Jacquart Sylvain Theodore Maradan

Simulator CFD - Sinclair Augereau Pietro Davi

Elouan Maitre Romain Gauthier

Adriano Cassella Stefano Tamo WT SUP WT SUP

Pedro Marques Eloi Andrieux

Hermes II Hermes Hermes II

Hermes Hermes Hermes

Provide ST with relevant

Optimization 6 DOF Simulator HERMES CFD FSI

SUP shall either ensure that the LV (including the

FD shall develop a supersonic simulator to predict Hermes + WT + Combination of

OpenRocket RASAero II ERT-S

Damping ratio [0.22, 0.305] - -

N3400 20.68 2.09 No N3400 9230 9520

N1975 11.32 1.97 Yes N1975 9598 10500

Tab. 2: Apogee [m] for different motors using

Fig. 3: Fins (CAD) Fig. 4: Nosecone (CAD)

Fig. 6: Airflow visualization using UV paint on

Fins Cross and “X” Lift force and fins

Tab. 4: Variation of parameter and Fig. 7: Schematics of pressure taps positions on

Mar 17 - Mar 28 Mock parts manufacturing

May 24 - May 31 Data post-process, Comparison with CFD

Mar 1 - Mar 31 Litterature review

Figure: Concept of Operations (ConOps) for the recovery system

Mar 1 - Mar 31 Manufacturing

Dec 1 - Feb 28 Design

Mar 28 - May 8 Design

Fig. 11: Nominal

• Solid motor selection