1 / 21

Rocket Flight Data Interpretation and Sensor Verification Study

Explore the analysis of rocket flight data using various sensors to verify physical properties and model rocket flights accurately. The study covers different rocket designs, sensor types, launch procedures, and challenges encountered during the experiments. Despite some limitations, the project provides valuable field experience in handling rocket technologies.

mckenzie-mclean
Download Presentation

Rocket Flight Data Interpretation and Sensor Verification Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Where No One Has Gone Before… E80: The Next Generation Section 1, Team 1 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 May 5, 2008

  2. Introduction Overall Objectives Overall Strategy Develop a method for reading and interpreting data retrieved Determine the physical properties of the rocket used Test and verify the sensors that would be used to obtain the desired data • Use various data to piece together an accurate picture of rocket flight • Model rocket flight and compare predicted values to collected data from actual rocket flight

  3. Background: The Rockets • Three rocket designs • Large, medium, and small • RockSim • Simulates the launches to give predictions

  4. Background: The Sensors • R-DAS • 5 V range • Onboard storage and telemetry • Sensors • IMU • Temperature and Pressure • Modal vibrations

  5. Launch Procedure • Launch site: Lucerne Valley Dry Lake • 3000 ft. elevation • Telemetry and rocket prep stations • Timed deployment of parachute as backup • Extensive safety precautions • Range safety officers • Extreme care handling motors and other explosives • All spectators alert during launch • Immediate recovery and data access

  6. Rocket 1: Large IMU • Launched on April 19th with a G339N motor • Notable windspeed during launch (15-25 mph) • Objective: Use data from accelerometers and gyroscopes to model the rocket's flight • Did not have all calibration equations

  7. Rocket 1: Large IMU • Z accelerometer data, integrated twice, yields an informative plot • RockSim predicts apogee at about 180 m. • Small error in calibration propagates significantly

  8. Rocket 1: Large IMU

  9. Rocket 2: Large Vibration • Launched on April 26th with a G339N motor • Equipped with 16 piezoelectric strain gauges: 6 selected along the rocket body • Objective is to collect data on modal vibrations experienced by the rocket during flight

  10. Rocket 2: Large Vibration • All sensors read two large spikes • Spike at ignition • Spike at parachute deployment • Spikes tend to be larger on sensors nearer the nose

  11. Rocket 2: Large Vibration • Fourier transform does not reveal any resonant peaks • Results consistent across all sensors

  12. Rocket 3: MediumTemperature and Pressure • Launched on April 26th with a G61W motor • Sensors on board • 4 Thermistors • 2 Pressure Transducers • 2 Accelerometers • Flight Objective • Observe temperature fluctuations during flight • Determine flight profile from pressure and acceleration readings

  13. Spike in fin thermistor reading at landing Rocket 3: MediumTemperature and Pressure • Internal avionics are protected • Temperature offset between different makes of thermistors

  14. IMU noise can be neglected Data does not compare well with RockSim predictions Bad accelerometer data and calibrations Rocket 3: Medium Temperature and Pressure • Converted pressure readings from both IMU and RDAS show an identical flight profile

  15. Rocket 4: Small IMU • Launched on April 19th with a G149 motor • Parachute fails to deploy • Fatal flat spin; rocket destroyed • Objectives • Cope with poor data • Consider data immediately prior to rocket destruction

  16. Rocket 4: Small IMU • Spikes caused by significant changes to forces acting on the rocket • Substantial oscillation upon downward flight

  17. Rocket 4: Small IMU • Strange shape of height trajectory caused by a lack of gravitational force on the R-DAS accelerometer • Reaches apogee at time and altitude consistent with RockSim prediction

  18. Recommendations • Some calibrations curves were inaccurate or missing • 200 Hz sampling rate of R-DAS limits accuracy of vibration and acceleration analysis • Limited sensor sensitivity • Pressure changes measured in discrete steps • No measured vibration for most of the flight

  19. Conclusions • Despite limitations, enough data and tools were provided to establish a coherent picture of each flight • Learning to cope with deficient tools and bad data is worthwhile • Valuable field experience

  20. Acknowledgements • E80 Faculty: Professors Spujt, Cardenas, Miraghaie • E80 Proctors • Mudd Amateur Rocket Club (MARC)

  21. References Spjut, Erik and Cardenas, Mary (2008). E80 The Next Generation Spring 2008. Retrieved 25 Apr. 2008 from http://www.eng.hmc.edu/NewE80/.

More Related