West Point-Beemer High School SLI Flight Readiness Review Presentation March 25,2008

1. West Point-Beemer High School SLI Flight Readiness Review Presentation March 25,2008

2. Vehicle Stability Both Stages

3. Vehicle Stability Upper Stage

4. Thrust to Weight Ratio T:W Ratio off pad: 6.4:1

5. Rail Exit Velocity • Launch guide data (Straight from RockSim): • Launch guide length: 116 In. • Velocity at launch guide departure: 56.88 ft / s • The launch guide was cleared at : 0.356 Seconds • User specified minimum velocity for stable flight: 43.999 ft / s • Minimum velocity for stable flight reached at: 70.543 In. Note: our total rail length will need to be 12’ since there is 28” between the bottom of the rocket and the top rail button. That leaves a guided length of 116”, which is acceptable.

6. Parachute Sizes and Descent Rates Upper PLB – 62” Tangle Free Pilot @ 21.4 fps Lower Sustainer - Rocketman R12 @ 15.4fps Booster - Rocketman R12 @ 17fps

7. Test Plans and Procedures • Scale model flight (Status: Complete) • Part cutout session at S & W welding to cut plywood parts for the vehicle on their CNC machine (Status: Complete) • Test session at Andrew’s workshop to determine flight suitability of electronics not specifically designed for rocketry use. These include the radiation monitors, voice recorders and remote backup systems. Tests included centrifuge and drop tests. Avionics testing was also performed (Status: Complete) • Science experiment test session at Mount Michael. Included testing the synchronization plan for voice recorders and verifying the operation of radiation monitors with the help of the physics teacher and radioactive materials (Status: Complete) • Pre-test flight checkout session. Included packing parachutes and practicing launch procedures. (Status: Complete) • Test flight. Full up test launch, with all onboard systems operational. To keep costs down, a K975WW to J280SS was used (Status: Complete)

8. Scale Model Test Flight • On Sunday, December 16, 2007, we successfully flew a 30% scale model of our final rocket. The airframe was 38mm in diameter and the total vehicle length was 37.5 inches. Liftoff weight was approximately 32 ounces. The vehicle was flown with an Aerotech G64-7 in the booster and an Estes E9-6 in the sustainer. An ARTS flight computer was onboard to electronically ignite the upper stage motor and deploy the upper stage parachutes. A Top-Flight 30” parachute was used for recovery of the booster section and a Top-Flight 24” parachute was used for the recovery of the sustainer. A standard BeeLine tracker was placed in the nose cone to assist with finding the vehicle after flight.

9. Scale Model Test Flight (cont) • The flight took place at a farm approximately 6 miles West of West Point. It was a cold, clear and nearly windless day. Liftoff occurred shortly after 3:00 pm. Ignition was slightly delayed, most likely by the use of a Copperhead igniter. The vehicle left the rail cleanly and weather cocked slightly more than expected to the west. This is probably due to the slow ignition and a few choughs apparent in the video of the rocket during its assent up the rail and during flight. Stage separation was perfectly on time at T+ 2.0 seconds. The second stage ignited right away as planned. From analysis of the video, the accelerometer data, and looking at the upper stage E9 post flight, it is evident the E9 blew the nozzle out at or very shortly after ignition. This resulted in an extended burn of about 6 seconds with no noticeable thrust. Other than lower than expected altitude, there was no other effect on the flight or damage to the vehicle. The final altitude was 1520’. The upper portion recovered approximately 200’ east of the launch pad and the booster recovered approximately 300’ north-west of the launch pad after falling with a tangled parachute. • The flight was deemed a success by nearly all measures with the only notable problems being the motor cato and the tangled parachute, both easy fixes.

10. Dual Deployment Avionics Test All of the deployment electronics we intend to use in this year’s rocket were flown in last year’s rocket or in various TARC rockets. All have a very high reliability. Ground testing was done on all electronics to confirm their operation before the test launch. No problems were encountered.

11. Ejection Charge Amount Test Ejection charge tests were completed by separating the nose cone section from the lower part of the sustainer and the interstage section from the lower part of the sustainer. The first nose cone separation test using 3 grams of 4fg black powder failed to separate the pieces. Another test using 4 grams of 4fg black powder successfully separated them. To ensure separation, 4.5 grams was used during the test flight and will be used in Huntsville. The interstage was separated successfully with 3.25 grams of 4fg black powder on the ground in the test shown below, but failed to separate during flight (the motor ended up separating them). More testing will be performed so that we can prevent our paint job from getting burned.

12. Payload Integration Feasibility Lone Radiation Monitor The voice recorder and radiation monitor are slid into the slot in the payload area as shown The radiation monitor shown to the left in position. The voice recorder is attached to the opposite side of the radiation monitor and is not shown in this picture. Due to the tight fit of components, no additional securing of the science payload beyond taping switches in place is required. This method of integration proved feasible during our test flight.

13. Full Scale Test Launch

14. Test Flight Data: • Launched at 2:34:37 pm on March 22, 2008 • Weather: 10-15mph wind, 38 degrees, overcast • Prep time: Just under 4 hours, mostly due to cold • Motors: AMW K975WW staging to a CTI J280SS • Liftoff weight: 42 pounds • Staging: On time at T+ 3.50 seconds via ARTS backed up by PET2 • Altitudes: Booster-1,906’, Sustainer-3,769’ • Recovery: Near Perfect. Booster-15.7fps, Lower Sustainer-15.3 fps, Upper Sustainer (tangled parachute) 37.4 fps

15. Problems/Lessons Learned • Only a single stage separation charge fit, not two as planned • A ladder was needed for arming the upper electronics, however, a vehicle ended up being used due to lack of ladder • The stage separation charge was not large enough to separate them, even though it worked in ground testing • The upper sustainer descended too fast under main and failed to properly deploy the landing parachute • BeeLine GPS units do not operate in cold weather

16. Fixes • Plan on using a single stage separation charge with two electric matches instead of two independent charges (Complete) • Have ladder available • Retest stage separation charge, hope it separates in flight but plan on the motor kicking them apart again if it doesn’t • Redesign upper section to allow for a bigger main parachute and devise a more reliable plan for deploying the landing parachute (Complete) • Do not operate Beeline GPS in cold weather (Complete-hopefully)