Conceptual Design of

Two Stage Rocket

to cross Karman Line
A Journey Towards the Unknown and Infinite Possibilities

Team Gargantua

Supervised by
Mr Rakeshh Mohanarangan
Ms Rashika S N
Mr Vishnuvardhan Shakthibala

Co-supervised by
Mr Mahesh P

Internship and Project Division

Society for Space Education Research and Development
Bangalore

October, 2020

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Internship in SSERD.
 Declaration
We, Ms Kavathiya Khyati Hareshbhai, 1DS17AE020 of Dayananda Sagar college of
Engineering, Bangalore, Ms Krishna Murali, CB.EN.U4AEE18022 of Amrita Vishwa
Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Mr Tejas M, 1MV17ME083 of Sir M Visvesvaraya Insti-
tute of Technology, Bangalore, Ms Aarya Vishwaajeet Kulkarni, 19UME049 of DKTE’s
Textile and Engineering Institute, Ichalkaranji, Mr Fagun Ambrishkumar Pithadiya,
18BME089 of Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Ms Pooja R, 17GAEM9070 of University
Visvesvarya College of Engineering, Bangalore, Mr Sohan Sankeerth Nalla, 17011A0330
of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad college of Engineering, Hy-
derabad, Ms Yedida Jyothirmai, 120017048 of SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur,
Mr Harshad Donawade, 2GI17AE014 of KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi
hereby declare that:
This research internship work entitled “Conceptual Design of a Two Stage Rocket to
cross the Karman Line” has been carried out by us under the guidance of Mr Rakeshh
Mohanarangan, Propulsion Engineer, Ms Rashika S N, Space Engineering student at
Politecnico Di Milano and Logistics Officer of the Science team at Mission- Asclepios,
Mr Vishnuvardhan Sakthibala, Master of Science student at Politecnico Di Milano and
Mr Mahesh P, Head of Innovation at Space Education Research and Development.
 v

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the people without whom the comple-
tion of this project would have been impossible. We express our deepest gratitude
and indebtedness to Mr Sujay Sreedhar, the Co-Founder and Chairman of Society
for Space Education Research and Development and Ms Nikhitha C, the Co-founder
and Chief Executive Officer at SSERD.
The organization gave us the opportunity during the COVID-19 pandemic to
allow students from different parts of India to come and work together virtually.
We would like to thank Mr Mahesh P for taking up the role of our internal guide
and constantly monitoring our work. We extend our gratitude to Mr Rakeshh Mo-
hanarangan, Ms Rashika S N and Mr Vishnuvardhan Sakthibala for being our exter-
nal guides and giving us frequent guidance and the necessary support during the
project period. We would also like to thank Mr Thejas K V for being our support
network and helping us. Their constant encouragement and guidance was a crucial
factor in completion of this research work. The knowledge that we received from
them has helped us at each step in successfully completing our work on time.
We feel short of words to express our heartfelt thanks to the entire SSERD team,
to all our family members and friends, and to all those who have directly or indi-
rectly helped us during this Internship.
 vii

Abstract

Humanity’s interest in space exploration has grown by leaps and bounds since
the moon landing on 20th July 1969. Over 50 years later, rocketry has become far
more accessible than ever before, owing to technological advancements in materials,
fabrication, controls and other rocket subsystems. Challenges to space exploration,
such as affordability and efficiency, are being overcome with techniques such as the
use of composites, 3D printing, and computer simulation.
This steady development in rocket technology is being met with an equally
steady growth in the demand for space access. One of the biggest problems hu-
mankind is facing today, climate change, is causing us to look beyond earth for
solutions. This requires extensive research and data collection from the atmosphere
and beyond, which is why small scale experimentation rockets are essential.
This project is to demonstrate the conceptual design of a two stage sounding
rocket with a solid propellant motor capable of surpassing the Karman Line. The
rocket that we have designed can take a payload to the Karman Line and sustain
it above it for few minutes to perform scientific experiments. Our project aims at
making space travel more affordable by recovering and reusing the stages.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Literature Survey 3

3 Methodology 7
3.1 Mission Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 Material selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Delta V and Mass estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3 Thrust and Altitude estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Propulsion System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 Propellant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Grain Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.3 Nozzle Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.1 Propellant tank design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.2 Outer shell design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 Aerodynamic optimization and stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.1 Nose cone design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.2 Fin design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.3 Mass Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.5 Interstage Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.5.1 Hold and Release mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.2 Separation mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

viii
Contents ix

3.6 Recovery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4 Conclusion 35

5 Reference 37
 List of Figures

3.1 Propellant grain configuration[8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2 Effect of propellant temperature on burning time and chamber pressure for
a particular motor. The integrated areas under the curves are proportional to
the total impulse, which is the same for the three curves [8] . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 CD nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Thin walled pressure vessel stresses[14] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Tank dimensions (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Outer shell dimensions (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7 Nose cone profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.8 Nose cone dimensions (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.9 Fin dimensions (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.10 CD vs Mach number plot for rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.11 OpenRocket model of rocket with all components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.12 Simplified 3D model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.13 Interstage Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.14 example sketch of Latch and catch plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.15 type of recovery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

x
 List of Tables

3.1 delta V contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2 Stage 1 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Stage 2 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Time stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Propellant mixture and their mass fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6 Metal and non-metal fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 Sample formula (assuming a binder percentage of 25, EW of 1250 for HTPB,
185 for MDI, and 164 for castor oil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8 Grain Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.9 Grain dimensions for both stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.10 Nozzle parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.11 Nozzle Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.12 Material and propellant properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.13 Tank dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.14 Outer shell dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.15 Loads acting on the rocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.16 Nose cone dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.17 Fin dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.18 Mass budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.19 Drag force calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.20 parachute recovery system calculated data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.21 Caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.22 overview of drogue parachute system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.23 detailed overview of main chute recovery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

xi
 1

Introduction

The endeavour to launch rockets to the Karman Line requires precision engineering
where speed, power, and accuracy must all come together under high-stakes scenarios.
There are four crucial areas of consideration when it comes to rocket engineering; Relia-
bility, Cost, Safety, and Reusability. Lately, despite many launch mandates for scientific
research’s using sounding rockets, the prospects of launches are regulated because of
high-cost of rocket launches.
Rockets that reach space and then return to Earth are classed as suborbital rockets.
They are usually sounding rockets (‘sounding’ refers to taking measurements). Sound-
ing rockets are one or two stage solid propellant rockets used for probing the upper
atmospheric regions and for space research. They also serve as easily affordable plat-
forms to test or prove prototypes of new components or subsystems intended for use in
launch vehicles and satellites. Sounding rockets are generally used to do experiments in
region of space between 50km to 700km where it is very difficult for traditional balloon
to reach altitude. They are used to do investigation such as detection of the solar activity
and anomalies, analysis of the constituents of the upper atmosphere, thermal analysis
on new materials, and generally, measurements of the space surrounding the Earth. It
has capability of achieving microgravity for experimental payload without man to per-
form experiments, and this reduces the cost of mission.
A vast number of sounding rocket has been designed such as American Black Brant
and Terrier-Orion, European Maxus, Raxus and Taxus, and Swedish Maser. Current
sounding rocket design has lots of disadvantages including high operational cost, ex-
treme G-Loads placed on Payloads, toxic propellant combination and lack of reusabil-
ity. These disadvantages have significantly curtailed the ability of students, researchers,
and corporations to conduct experiments and research in the high—atmospheric and
near—space region around Earth. Considering the emerging market for commercial

1
Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation

spaceflight, enabling efficient access to the region in the vicinity of the Karman Line is
of paramount importance.

1.1 | Motivation
On April 21, 2019, the University of Southern California’s Rocket Propulsion Labora-
tory (USCRPL) became the first undergraduate group to launch a completely student-
designed and student-built rocket that crossed the Karman Line, defined by the World
Air Sports Federation as 100 kilometres above Earth’s sea level. Their rocket, the Trav-
eler IV, reached 103,632 meters, with a margin of error of +/- 5120.64 meters (340,000
feet +/- 16,800 feet), into the air, completing the organization’s 15-year mission to be the
first college group to reach outer space.

1.2 | Aims and Objectives

The main objective of this present work is to design a Two Stage Sounding Rocket with
solid motor which can reach the Karman Line, 100Km above sea level, and to design a
rocket such way that it can take payload of 1 kg above Karman line and sustain it there
for few minutes to perform scientific experiments. The Aim of this project is to make
rocket stages recoverable and reusable to reduce the cost of the flight.

2
 2

Literature Survey

Gorge P. Sutton [1] has introduced to basic principles of rocket propulsion for guided
missiles, space flight, or satellite flight in his book ‘Rocket Propulsion Element’. It de-
scribes fundamentals of rocket propulsion, its essential technologies, its key design, sys-
tems design, propellants, applications, manufacturing technologies and solid propellant
rocket motors. It gives detailed information about different propellant like PBAN, Lox,
and FIOx etc. It also describes Final lift off mass and stage masses calculations, drag
calculations and design procedure
Adam Okninski [2] has presented a methodology for finding close-to-optimal, in terms
of launch mass minimization, design configurations for small unguided sounding rock-
ets in his paper. A numerical, multidisciplinary approach is used. During the optimiza-
tion process vehicle sizing and corresponding aerodynamics modelling is done.
Adde Y. Alemayehu et al [3] has presented design of solid rocket propulsion for a
sounding rocket. It shows different materials for different parts of the propulsion sys-
tem based on density, cost and availability. In this paper, the design results show that
the mass of propellant is 960kg with volume of 0.546 m3 in the length of 1.944 m.
Merchant Coleman [4] has demonstrated the complete design and construction of two
flight ready vehicles capable of surpassing the Karman line, to be flight tested at Space-
Port America in New Mexico in May of 2019. It provides insight on the materials and
structural design employed in the sounding rocket constructed. It gives detail about
parts of sounding rocket like Aerodynamic design, Booster motor, Booster fincan, Inter-
stage coupling, Airframe and Nosecone and Recovery system design.
XUE YU et al [5] have described a brief introduction to the principle, mechanism and
method of separation between stages. It gives detailed study on hot separation and cold
separation.
Gerald Hagemann et al [6] has presented data of nozzle design of rockets, types of

3
Chapter 2. Literature Survey

nozzles like conventional nozzle dual-bell nozzle etc., method of calculation of nozzle
pressure, area ratio and mathematical and graphical analysis methods. It also contains
design parameters of different nozzle like toroidal plug nozzles.
W Gurkin [7] has described the specific design features and environmental factors to be
taken into account while designing a high altitude sub-orbital rocket in his paper ‘The
NASA Sounding Rocket Program and Space Sciences’.
L. Pepermans et al [8] have presented Design of a Parachute Recovery System for the
Stratos III Student Built Sounding Rocket; it contains the type of recovery system such
as no drogue, drogue parachute and drag augmentation system.
Dr Darrell Guillaume et al [9] have demonstrated the design, fabrication, launch, and
recovery of a supersonic experimental sounding rocket with a target apogee of 25,000
feet above ground level. The configuration of the rocket will consist of a booster stage
with a second stage, designed to carry a ten pound payload
Bollerma M et al [10] have described about super Loki sounding rocket. The Super
Loki Dart vehicle has been designed as a low cost replacement for the Cajun Dart for
high altitude wind measurements. The goal of the Super Loki system was to achieve an
altitude of a t least 95 km at less than one-half the cost of the Cajun Dart. A further goal
was versatility of the Super Loki rocket motor so that it could be used to propel darts of
various sizes containing various kinds of meteorological payloads
Marco Pallone et al [11] have presented a methodology in order to design, model, and
evaluate the performance of new sounding rockets in paper. A general configuration
composed of a rocket with four canards and four tail wings is sized and optimized, as-
suming different payload masses and microgravity durations. The aerodynamic forces
are modeled with high fidelity using the interpolation of available data.
Lars Pepermans et al [12] have described the various methods for parachute deploy-
ment, an overview of the advantages and disadvantage of the various systems. The
article provides a recommendation of when to use which deployment system.
David Keeports [13] has presented numerical calculation of model rocket trajectories,
also presented forces upon a model rocket, calculations for vertical launch, two dimen-
sional trajectories and three dimensional trajectories with mass drag and lunch angle
variation.
Blazej Marciniak et al [14] have described an overview of the development of the ILR-
33 “Amber” sounding rocket designated for microgravity experiments. The proposed
design enables performing experiments in microgravity for almost 150 seconds with an
apogee over 100km, also described the rocket structure and the vehicle’s capabilities.
The proposed design utilizes a hybrid rocket motor with High Test Peroxide as an ox-

4
Chapter 2. Literature Survey

idizer along with two reusable solid rocket boosters. The early phase analysis of the
rocket configuration and propellant considerations are also presented in the paper.
Eric T. Pillai [15] has presented a simulation—validated design for a sounding rocket
that will enable collegiate teams to surpass the Karman Line for the first time in history
while fulfilling three primary requirements critical to allowing collegiate teams to reach
space. The design criteria include 1) the rocket must be capable of reaching an altitude
of at least 100 km, 2) the rocket must be relatively easy to manufacture and free of toxic
materials, and 3) the rocket must be able to return telemetry, video, and data from on
board experiments.

5
 3

Methodology

3.1 | Mission Design

3.1.1 | Material selection
The selection of the materials to be used in the rocket was done keeping the following
things in mind - majority of the rocket had to be recoverable and reusable, and the
mass budget requirement had to be met. For this reason, titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V was
chosen as the material for a majority of the rocket, i.e., the outer shell, nosecone, tank
and nozzle, owing to its high strength-to-weight ratio [1] .
The fins, aside from the strength requirement and mass budget constraints, needed
to be stiff to minimise flutter and aeroelastic damage especially in the supersonic regime,
so the material chosen was CFRP (Carbon-Fibre Reinforced Polymer) [2] .
The interstage coupling is a heavily stressed region, which meant that its reusability
would be low as compared to the other parts of the rocket, so to save on cost, aluminium
alloy AA2024 was chosen [3] .A CFRP shroud was chosen to cover this structure to min-
imise form drag.

3.1.2 | Delta V and Mass estimation

The rocket designed in this project has an objective to reach the Karman Line ( 100 kilo-
metres vertically above sea level) with a payload of 1-kilogram mass and sustain flight
beyond the KL for a minimum of 180 seconds and perform scientific experiments[4] . The
initial factor that has to be considered to design such a rocket is the delta V requirement.
Every mission has specific delta V requirement, which depends upon the apogee to be
attained, gravity losses and drag losses.

7
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.1. Mission Design

FACTORS DELTA V
Height 1400.7 m/s
Gravity Losses 2452.5 m/s

Table 3.1: delta V contribution

The final obtained delta V is 3853.2 m/s.

Note: The drag loss is not considered and it is remunerated by the increasing accelera-
tion (whose computation is beyond the scope of this paper.[5] )

The mass of rocket such as Lift-off mass, stage mass and propellant mass can be
estimated by using Rocket equation.The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation,

m0 m0
∆v = ve ln = Isp g0 ln
mf mf

Using this equation, selected specific Impulse and Dry mass of rocket, Mass of propel-
lant for both stages and total lift-off mass were estimated. Here, the dry mass of rocket
for both stages is assumed to be 30kg to make light weight rocket design.

3.1.3 | Thrust and Altitude estimation

Thrust is the force which moves the rocket through the air, and through space. Thrust is
generated by the propulsion system of the rocket through the application of Newton’s
third law of motion; For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. In the
propulsion system, an engine does work on a gas or liquid, called a working fluid,
and accelerates the working fluid through the propulsion system. The re-action to the
acceleration of the working fluid produces the thrust force on the engine. The working
fluid is expelled from the engine in one direction and the thrust force is applied to the
engine in the opposite direction.[6]
Considering estimated mass and minimum thrust to weight ratio for the rocket to be
greater than 1, Required thrust was selected for both stages 4200N for stage 1 and 2700N
for stage 2. Burnout time for rocket is depended on specific impulse, mass of rocket and
thrust value of rocket.The burnout time is given by,

1
∆t = Isp g0 (m0 − m f )
T

8
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.1. Mission Design

Using burnout time,thrust and mass of rocket, acceleration of rocket can be derived,

1
a = ( T − Mg)
M

Also, the burnout height of stages can be derived by[7] ,

" m0 #
ln m f 1
hb = g −tb Isp m0 + tb Isp − tb 2
mf −1 2

As rocket continues motion in vertical direction, Velocity will be increasing; the ini-
tial velocity at lift-off time is always zero,and the final velocity of rocket can be calcu-
lated using burnout time, burnout height and acceleration of rocket. The following table
shows vehicle parameters, engine parameters and height estimation of rocket.

STAGE 1

Vehicle Parameters
Initial Mass 258kg
Final Mass 106.1kg
Propellant 151.85kg
∆V 1975.7m/s
Acceleration 6.5 m/s2
Engine Parameters
Thrust 4200N
ISP 227s
Mass flow rate 1.89kg/s
Burnout time 80.51s
Altitude Estimation
Initial Velocity 0m/s
Final Velocity 520.8m/s
Burnout Height 36186.1m

Table 3.2: Stage 1 Parameters

9
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.1. Mission Design

STAGE 2

Vehicle Parameters
Initial Mass 76.15kg
Final Mass 31.33kg
Propellant 44.82kg
∆V 1975.7m/s
Acceleration 25.6m/s 2
Engine Parameters
Thrust 2700N
ISP 227s
Mass flow rate 1.21kg/s
Burnout time 36.97s
Altitude Estimation
Initial Velocity 520.8m/s
Final Velocity 1468.8m/s
Burnout Height 60696m
Final Height 170661.3m
Cruise time 149.73s
Table 3.3: Stage 2 Parameters

Liftoff T=0 H = 0m
First stage burnout T + 80.51s H= 36.186km
First stage separation within T + 81.51s H = 36.1865km
Second stage ignition T+ 81.51s H = 36.187km
Second stage burnout T + 118.48s H = 60.696km
Karman line T + 177.88s H = 100,000km
Apogee T + 268.21s H = 170.661km

Table 3.4: Time stamps

10
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

3.2 | Propulsion System

Propulsion is achieved by applying a force to a vehicle, that is, accelerating the vehicle
or alternatively maintaining a given velocity against a resisting force. This propulsive
force is obtained by ejecting propellant at high velocity.
In solid propellant rocket motors, the propellant to be burnt is contained within
the combustion chamber or case. The solid propellant charge is called the grain and it
contains all the chemical elements for complete burning. Once ignited, it usually burns
smoothly at a pre-determined rate on all the exposed internal surfaces of the grain.
Each stage of a multistage launch vehicle is essentially a complete vehicle in itself
and carries its own propellant, its own rocket propulsion system, and its own control
system. Once the propellant of a given stage is expended, the dead mass of that stage
is no longer useful in providing additional kinetic energy to the succeeding stages. By
dropping off this useless mass it is possible to accelerate the final stage with its useful
payload to a higher terminal velocity than would be attained if multiple staging were
not used.[8]

3.2.1 | Propellant
Before moving forward, a right solid propellant that contents the requirements has to be
chosen. After a literature survey and analyses, Cherry Limeade which is a specific com-
bination of Ammonium Perchlorate and Aluminium having properties as mentioned
below was selected as it had all the useful parameters readily available, required for
further calculations, comparatively.
Performance and combustion properties:

 Density: 1688 kg/m3

 a: 4.404x10-5

 n: 0.327

 ISP: 227 secs

 Ratio of specific heats: k = 1.21

 Molar product mass: M = 23.67g/mol

 Universal gas constant: R = R’/M = 351.077 N-m/kg-K

 Burn temperature: 3500 K

11
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

Formula:

INGREDIENT PERCENTAGE
Binder 17.10
Castor oil 0.30
PDMS 0.05
Triton X100 0.05
Al 7.50
200 AP 65.50
90 AP 9.50
Table 3.5: Propellant mixture and their mass fractions

Total 100%
Solids 82.50%
Metals 7.50%
AP 75.00%
Table 3.6: Metal and non-metal fractions

INGREDIENTS PERCENTAGE
HTPB 10.884
IDP 4.275
MDI 1.942
Castor oil 0.30
PDMS 0.05
Triton X100 0.05
Al 7.50
200 AP 65.50
90 AP 9.50
Table 3.7: Sample formula (assuming a binder percentage of 25, EW of 1250 for HTPB,
185 for MDI, and 164 for castor oil)

Procedure:
1. Add HTPB, IDP, and Castor Oil
2. Mix for 5 minutes

12
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

3. Add AL
4. Hand mix until wetted out, machine mix for 10 minutes
5. Add PDMS and Triton X-100
6. Mix for 30 minutes
7. Vacuum for 45 minutes
8. Repeat until all 200 AP is in:
a. Add a third of the original mass of AP
b. Mix for 1 minute
c. Scrape down
d. Mix for 10 minutes
9. Add the 90 AP
10. Mix for 1 minute
11. Scrape down
12. Mix for 45 minutes
13. Add curative
14. Mix for 20 minutes
15. Vacuum for 45 minutes

Method of preparation:
1. Arrived at a formula that performed drastically better than XB (+32% ISP) and
slightly better than OW (+6.5% ISP) while also improving density over OW (+6%).
2. An 80.7% solids propellant was significantly more pourable. Slight tweaks to the
OW procedures were used for CL at 82.5% solids and the resulting propellant was still
easily pourable.
3. 400 AP was originally included for this goal, but we believe that it contributed to
the erosivity.
4. Though higher burn rates are typically associated with higher ISP, we were able to
design our high aspect ratio motor to have tighter cores and thus higher volume loading
because it featured lower burn rate propellant and didn’t suffer from erosive burning as
much.
5. Test mix was done using HTPB on a single 98mm grain.
6. The lack of HX-752 did not require recharacterization as the formula did not have
large (400u+) AP.
7. After the P motor static fire, an experimental mix was made using only the liquid
ingredients of CL to see how they behaved and found that the curative interacted very
quickly with some ingredient to form clumps that the mixer broke up within a few
minutes of mixing. The mixture poured well and took about 2 days to harden fully to a

13
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

springy rubber.[9]

3.2.2 | Grain Design

Neutral Thrust was selected for the sake of simplicity. For this, Cigarette burning con-
figuration of the grain was chosen.

From the Vieille’s equation [10] ,

r = ro + aPcn

where r is the burn rate, ro is a constant (usually taken as zero), a is the burn rate coeffi-
cient, and n is the pressure exponent. The values of a and n are determined empirically
for a particular propellant formulation, and cannot be theoretically predicted.
The burn rate of the propellant was determined to be as 7.82mm/s.The following are
the grain properties and dimensions were obtained from formulas.[8] An iterative calcu-
lations were done in order to design right configuration for selected thrust.

Figure 3.1: Propellant grain configuration[8]

Type of Thrust Neutral

Grain burning configuration End burning (Cigarette configuration)

Burn rate coefficient, a 4.4035E-5

Burn rate exponent, n 0.327

Chamber pressure 6.89 MPa

Rate of burning 7.82x10-3 m/s

Table 3.8: Grain Parameters

14
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

Figure 3.2: Effect of propellant temperature on burning time and chamber pressure for
a particular motor. The integrated areas under the curves are proportional to the total
impulse, which is the same for the three curves [8]

Stage 1 Stage 2
Burn Area 0.143m2 0.092m2
Grain Radius 0.214m 0.17m
Grain Length 0.628m 0.288m

Table 3.9: Grain dimensions for both stages

3.2.3 | Nozzle Design

Aircraft exhaust nozzles serve two primary functions. First, they must control the en-
gine backpressure to provide the correct, and optimum, engine performance, which is
accomplished through jet area variations. Second, they must efficiently convert the po-
tential energy of the exhausting gas to kinetic energy by increasing the exhaust velocity,
which is accomplished through efficiently expanding the exhausting gases to the ambi-
ent pressure.

Designing Procedure:
1. Firstly, we have fixed to use the convergent-divergent nozzle. The CD nozzle is very
efficient, as it gives high expansion rates.
2. Considering the nozzle as over expanded condition at the initial stage1, assumed that
Pe=Pa/3 (Pe=exit pressure, Pa= ambient pressure) by using the relation between area

15
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

ratio (Ae/A*) and chamber pressure (Pc=6.9MPa), exit pressure(Pe) we got area ratio
Ae/A* as 20.0287 for first stage.
Expansion Rate (Area Ratio): 3. As gain in the altitude, there is laps in ambient pressure

so stage 2 operation is carried out as under expansion condition because ambient pres-
sure is very less that even a nozzle is expanding at lower expansion rate the exit pressure
is much higher than ambient pressure ,so we considered Pa=100 Pa and Pe=50000Pa and
with same chamber condition (Pc=6.9MPa),calculated the nozzle area ratio i.e 14.8314.
4. Using 1dimensional flow isentropic relations and chocked condition , calculated the
Throat parameters and effective velocity (C*), and mass flow rate. and then calculated
Isp value using Thrust equation. the Isp value(230s) which is near to mission require-
ment Isp (227s).In this all process we considered the nozzle half divergence angle(alpha)
15 degrees with this divergence angle loss due to divergence is just about 1.7% , and fi-
nally we got 98.3% nozzle efficiency.

5. we have fixed nozzle half divergence angle(alpha) using trigonometric relations cal-
culated the divergence and convergence lengths of nozzles for both stage 1 and stage 2.

16
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.2. Propulsion System

Length of divergent Part :

Ld = 0.5( De − Dt )cotα

6. For finding out the total mass of the nozzle for both stages we have considered mate-
rial as Titanium alloy,that is Ti-6Al-4V.The thickness was considered to be 0.05 meters.
The total weight to for the nozzle for stage 1 is 2.4365 Kg and stage 2 is 1.1141 Kg.

PARAMETER STAGE 1 STAGE 2

Chamber Pressure 6900000 Pa 6900000 Pa
Chamber Temperature 3477.7 K 3477.7 K
Inlet Radius 0.213 m 0.17 m
Ambient Pressure 101325 Pa 100 Pa
Exit Pressure 33775 Pa 50000 Pa
Mass Flow Rate 1.89 Kg/S 1.21 Kg/S
Gamma 1.21 1.21
R 326 326
Area Ratio 20.028 14.831
Throat Pressure 3881501.6 Pa 3881501.6 Pa
Throat Temperature 3147.239 K 3147.239 K
Density 3.783 Kg/m3 3.783 Kg/m3
Velocity at Throat 1114.2083 m/s 1114.2083 m/s
Throat Area 0.000448m2 0.000287m2
Table 3.10: Nozzle parameters

Figure 3.3: CD nozzle

17
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.3. Structural Design

PARAMETER STAGE 1 STAGE 2

Exit Area 0.0089 m2 0.0042 m2
Exit Diameter 0.1069 m 0.0736 m
Throat Diameter 0.0238m 0.0190 m
Length of Divergent Part 0.1549 m 0.1017 m
Length of Convergent Part 0.0834 m 0.0664 m
Total Length 0.2383 m 0.1681m
Mach Number 3.801 3.587
Exit Temperature 1381.462 K 1478.795 K
Exit Velocity 2806.2548 m/s 2740.3299 m/s
Coefficient of Nozzle 1.357 1.363
Nozzle Divergence Angle 15 degrees 15 degrees
Loss due to Divergence 1.7% 1.7%
Nozzle Efficiency 98.3% 98.3%
Total Mass 2.436 Kg 1.114 Kg
Table 3.11: Nozzle Dimensions

3.3 | Structural Design

3.3.1 | Propellant tank design
The design process for the solid propellant tank was fairly simple - it began with assum-
ing the tank to be a thin-walled cylindrical pressure vessel. The deciding factor in the
thickness of the tank was the relation between hoop stress on the tank and the chamber
pressure inside the tank, also known as Barlow’s formula (11) .
The material chosen for the tank was Ti-6Al-4V, owing to its high strength-to-weight
ratio (12) , i.e., it can hold up well in the harsh operating conditions that the tank is sub-
jected to, while still being light. The thickness of a heat shielding liner (13) was also ac-
counted for in the dimensioning of the tank, but further considerations of its properties
are beyond the scope of this paper. For the chosen tank wall material and propellant,
the properties we considered are in in table 3.12.
The formula used to calculate the thickness t of the propellant tank, is a rearrange-
ment of Barlow’s formula, as
PD
t=
2ρ
Factors of safety of 1.33 and 3 were respectively accounted for in the values of the yield
stress and chamber pressure P. The thickness thus calculated was for the material at

18
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.3. Structural Design

Figure 3.4: Thin walled pressure vessel stresses[14]

STAGE 1 STAGE 2
MATERIAL DENSITY (kg/m3) 4430 4430
CHAMBER PRESSURE (MPa) 6.890 6.890
YIELD STRENGTH (MPa) 880 880
GRAIN DIAMETER (m) 0.427 0.340
LINER THICKNESS (m) 2.5E-03 2.5E-03
GRAIN HEIGHT (m) 0.628 0.288

Table 3.12: Material and propellant properties

yield point, operating at its chamber burst pressure. This estimation, along with the
factor of safety, gave the structure a wide enough margin against failure (15) .

Figure 3.5: Tank dimensions (cm)

19
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.3. Structural Design

STAGE 1 STAGE 2

TANK INNER DIAMETER (m) 0.432 0.345

TANK HEIGHT (m) 0.633 0.293
TANK MATERIAL VOLUME (m3 ) 3.32E-03 1.00E-03
MASS(kg) 14.643 4.326

Table 3.13: Tank dimensions

3.3.2 | Outer shell design

The main consideration while designing the shell was the total force acting on the rocket.
The forces acting on a thin walled cylinder such as the rocket’s shell or propellant tank
are the internal pressure and the longitudinal force. The internal pressure load caused
due to combustion in the propellant tank would be withstood by the tank wall, so the
remainder of the forces acting on the shell of the rocket were assumed to be axial forces
[16] . These axial forces are the drag force and the inertial force.
Before analyzing the acting forces on the rocket, a preliminary calculation [17] was
done for the shell to determine its applied compressive stress. To compute this value,
a basic axial stress formula [18] relating the applied axial compressive force F and cross
sectional area A was used,

F F
σc = =
A πDt

where D and t are respectively the cylinder’s average diameter and thickness. At com-
pressive yielding, the axial stress for Ti-6Al-4V is 970MPa [19] . The ratio R/t between the
average radius of the cylinder R, and its thickness was taken as 300 [20] , for which the
maximum allowable load Fmax from the above formula was 841.49kN.
From the R/t taken for the Fmax calculation, the thickness of the shell was com-
puted. The total length of the shell was taken as the total length of the space occupied
by the components inside it, i.e., the lengths of the propellant tank, nozzle and pack-
aged length of the parachute. The inner diameter of the shell was taken as the outer
diameter of the widest component inside it, in this case, the propellant tank. The same
methodology was followed to get the dimensions of the shell for both the stages.
Once the maximum allowable load on the structure and the structure’s dimensions
were calculated, the task was to ensure that the aforementioned axial loads due to drag
and gravity, would take a value less than Fmax for this structure. To calculate drag

20
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.3. Structural Design

STAGE 1 STAGE 2

INNER DIAMETER (m) 0.439 0.351

R/t 300 300
t (m) 8.56E-04 7.85E-04
OUTER DIAMETER (m) 0.441 0.353
LENGTH(m) 1.051 0.641
VOLUME(m3) 1.24E-03 5.56E-04
MASS (kg) 5.514 2.465

Table 3.14: Outer shell dimensions

Figure 3.6: Outer shell dimensions (cm)

force, the standard formula [21] relating drag force FD, density , velocity v, reference area
A and drag coefficient CD was used,

1 2
FD = ρv CD A
2

For this rocket, for the value of density was chosen conservatively as the density at
sea level, which is 1.225 kg/m3, v was taken as the maximum velocity of our rocket,
which was Mach 3.8, for which the Drag coefficient is 0.9, and the A was taken as the
cross sectional area of the widest part, in this case, the first stage. For these conser-
vative estimates, the drag force was 308.137kN. To calculate inertial force, a simple
application of Newton’s second law of motion on the rocket’s dry mass m at maximum
acceleration a was done, for a m value of 60kg and a value of approx. 500m/s. This
gave the inertial force value of 30kN. The total force acting on the rocket, calculated

21
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.4. Aerodynamic optimization and stability

using conservative estimates, was hence

F = FD + FG = 308.137 + 30 = 338.137kN

This value is much less than the value of Fmax, which implies that the structure is safe
for the calculated dimensions.

LOAD TYPE LOAD (N)

Max. permissible load

Axial compressive 841490.3
Actual load
Drag force 308137.2
Inertial force 30000
Total force 338137.2

Table 3.15: Loads acting on the rocket

3.4 | Aerodynamic optimization and stability

3.4.1 | Nose cone design
For the design of the nose cone, the main factor to consider was minimizing drag for our
specific mission. Since we were operating in the transonic to supersonic flow regime, the
shape of the nose cone had to be chosen in such a way as to be efficient in minimizing
drag for this regime. Keeping this mind, the Von Karman ogive was selected as the
shape of the nose cone.[22]
The profile of the Von Karman nose cone, derived from the LD-Haack series nose
cone, has a profile described by the equation [23]

2x
θ = arcos(1 − )
L

22
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.4. Aerodynamic optimization and stability

BASE DIAMETER (m) 0.351

L/D 2
LENGTH (m) 0.706
MASS (kg) 2.045

Table 3.16: Nose cone dimensions

The equations for the Von Karman ogive profile were applied, using the previously
derived dimensions and a fineness ratio, i.e., ratio between length and base diameter
of the nose cone, of 2. This fineness ratio was decided based on a trade-off analysis
between how much mass the nose cone would add to the rocket, and how much stability
it would give. For this analysis, the rocket simulation tool OpenRocket v15.03 was used
extensively, which helped come to a compromise between the two factors. OpenRocket
was also used to determine the mass of the nose cone.

Figure 3.7: Nose cone profile

Figure 3.8: Nose cone dimensions (cm)

23
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.4. Aerodynamic optimization and stability

3.4.2 | Fin design

Fins on a rocket play a crucial role in its stability. Just like the other components, how-
ever, the fin dimensions and shape and to be chosen in such a way so as not to add
too much to the overall dry mass of the rocket. More importantly, it had to suit the
mission of the rocket. Again, since the flow regime this rocket would be operating in
is transonic to supersonic, a suitable planform shape and dimensions would have to be
chosen. For all the above considerations, a clipped-delta fin planform was chosen, [24[25]
with a double wedge cross section [26] .
For the dimensions of the fin, a general thumb rule [27] is followed,

Croot = 2D

Ctip = D

S = 2D

t = 0.1Cav

Where C(root) is the root chord, C(tip) is the top chord, S is the span, C(av) is the average
chord, Dis the stage outer diameter and ti s the thickness of the fin. However, with these
dimensions, despite the rocket being stable (0.6 caliber), the fins were unusually large
and added much more mass than was necessary. In order to bring the rockets down to
a reasonable size while maintaining at least 0.5 caliber of stability, the dimensions were
scaled down to 0.375 times the original C(root), C(tip), S and t. This scaling down was
done with the help of OpenRocket, where a number of different scaling factors were
tried out until a reasonable mass and size was achieved for both stages.

STAGE 1 STAGE 2
ROOT CHORD(m) 0.330 0.265
TIP CHORD(m) 0.165 0.13
SPAN(m) 0.330 0.265
THICKNESS(m) 0.004 0.004
MASS PER FIN(kg) 0.494 0.352
TOTAL FIN MASS(kg) 1.977 1.407

Table 3.17: Fin dimensions

24
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.4. Aerodynamic optimization and stability

Figure 3.9: Fin dimensions (cm)

Figure 3.10: CD vs Mach number plot for rocket

Fig 3.10 illustrates the variation of drag coefficient acting on this rocket as a function
of its Mach number. As shown, the maximum value of drag coefficient occurs at Mach
1.2, with a value of 0.68, and then declines steadily. At the rocket’s peak Mach number,
3.8, the corresponding value of drag coefficient is 0.35.

25
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.4. Aerodynamic optimization and stability

After all the above calculations and distribution of components in the rocket, the
stability attained is 0.539 caliber.

Figure 3.11: OpenRocket model of rocket with all components

Figure 3.12: Simplified 3D model

26
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.5. Interstage Separation

3.4.3 | Mass Budget

The tables below present an overview of all the components besides the propellants,
and how much of the dry mass each will constitute.
The total dry mass of the rocket is hence 45.814kg. Since the assumed dry mass of the

Stage 1 Mass(kg) % Stage 2 Mass(kg) %

Propellant tank 14.643 24.405 Propellant tank 4.326 7.210
Nozzle 2.658 4.430 Nozzle 1.270 2.117
Outer shell 5.514 9.190 Outer shell 2.465 4.108
Transition Shroud 0.241 0.402 Nose cone 2.045 3.408
Fins 1.977 3.295 Fins 1.407 2.345
Separation system 1.300 2.167 Payload 1.000
Total Stage I 30.317 50.529 Total Stage II 15.497 25.828

Table 3.18: Mass budget

rocket was 60kg initially, 14.186kg of mass remains unused for the rocket that has been
designed. The mass of the electronic equipment other than the payload, however, has
not been taken into consideration in this project. Any additional mass savings beyond
this can be used in increasing the scope of the mission, such as apogee or flight time; or
in carrying heavier or more sophisticated payloads.

3.5 | Interstage Separation

Generally, Interstage Separation is the process of separating the spent stage after its
burnout which helps in reduction in mass of rocket and further improving the perfor-
mance and efficiency of rocket in its further flight.
So as the name suggests above there are two main mechanisms in the interstage sep-
aration of our case,They are:
1. Hold and Release Mechanism(Devices that hold the two stages together and release
whenever separation is needed.)
2. Separation Mechanism(Mechanism/Method by which Separation of stages occur.)

27
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.5. Interstage Separation

3.5.1 | Hold and Release mechanism

The basics of Flight separation mechanisms were known[28] .When the research pro-
gressed on stage separation, the first and basic requirement or approach on which the
further research started was the method or mechanism to hold the stages together and
how to release them when needed. Considering the mass and power constraints in our
mission, Mechanical Latches (with catch plates) are opted to hold two stages together.
To be more specific, toggle latches are the choice.
The stages of rocket being of different diameter ,a small interstage sector in the form
of a truncated cone is opted as the connector to compensate difference in diameters. A
Carbon Fibre Shroud is placed over the interstage sector to reduce the effects of Form
Drag.[29]
The bigger diameter end of this interstage sector is to be welded to the stage 1 and
the smaller end will be attached to stage 2 with the help of Latches and catch plate.
Latches are supposed to be fixed in the interstage sector and catch plates in stage 2. As
Latches and catch plates are connected, both stage 2 and interstage sector are connected
to each other. As the interstage sector is welded to stage 1 that implies stage 1 and stage
2 are connected too. Interstage sector is in the form of truncated cone. But, when this

Figure 3.13: Interstage Sector

sector is to be joined to stage 2 by latches, It is like joining a linear part (stage 2 is linear-
cylinder) and an angular part(sector is angular as it is a truncated cone). So, latch and
catch plate has to be joined in an angular position which might be difficult. To compen-
sate that, A small tube of height 6/7th of interstage sector’s height is inserted into sector
from upper end of sector and the upper end of tube is welded to upper end of sector.
Now latch is in this tube inside the sector and is in line with stage 2 and catch plate is
in stage 2.So we can have joining in a linear position. Stage 2 is inserted into this tube
inside the interstage sector by a distance of just 1 or 2 mm for more grip and stability

28
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.5. Interstage Separation

between stage2 and interstages sector.

Figure 3.14: example sketch of Latch and catch plate

3.5.2 | Separation mechanism

To separate stages, Release mechanism of latches and Drag separation(Separation of
stages by the Differential drag between the stages) subsequently is opted.Generally
when a body is moving in a fluid, it will experience drag force. So similarly rocket
experiences drag force too in its flight.
Drag Force is given by the formula[30] as,

1
FD = CD ρV 2 A
2

where, CD is drag coefficient.Taking into consideration the parameters in this equation,

design of the rocket is done in such a way that the difference in drag between stage
1(including interstage) and stage 2(including nosecone) is optimum without any con-
siderable effect on efficiency and performance of the rocket.
At the time of separation, an electric signal is sent to the surroundings of the latches
that creates magnetic field at the end of the latches. This magnetic field pulls or pushes
the ends of the latches which lead to release of latch from catch plate. Due to this, the
bond between the 2 stages is released. Then, as there is excessive drag force on stage
1 relative to stage 2, this force pushes the stage 1 away from the stage 2. It acts like a
jettison mechanism. As soon as there is considerably good separation (this happens in

29
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.6. Recovery system

a small time differential) ignition of stage 2 engine is done and it will shoot up by the
thrust generation.
Drag force calculation:

Stage 1 Stage 2
Drag Coefficient 0.346 0.272
Velocity at separation(m/s) 520.8 520.8
Area of stage in contact with air(m2 ) 2.202 1.5212
Drag force(N) 711.15 386.24
Estimated Excessive Drag force on Stage 1 over Stage 2 324.91 N

Table 3.19: Drag force calculation

3.6 | Recovery system

Recovery is the deployment of a primary recovery device that actively changes the phys-
ical configuration and it will also reduce the vertical descent rate of the rocket model
dramatically whenever deployed. This device must be of sufficient size according to its
weight of the model, so that the device will be capable of safely recovering the rocket.
The active recovery device can include parachutes.

Figure 3.15: type of recovery system

the time of dual deployment, secondary recovery devices are used, the deployment of a
secondary recovery device must actively change the configuration of the model in order

30
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.6. Recovery system

to inhibit ballistic recovery and slow the decent rate. Hence, this will allow safe deploy-
ment of the primary recovery device. There is different type of recovery system like
No Drogue parachute, Drogue parachute, drag augmentation system etc. which can be
used as per the application, type of payload and weight of the outer shell or structure.
Figure 3.15 shows the type of recovery system. Here drogue parachute is used due
to weight of payload and outer shell of structure, weight of system will be around 32-
34 kgs so for tat drogue parachute will be used. With the help of drogue parachute, it
will decrease the velocity of payload during free fall from apogee, after some time main
chutes will be deployed so it will decrease the velocity of payload drastically and re-
cover is safely. For drogue chutes its decent velocity will be 30m/s and for main chutes
it will be 9.8m/s. if chutes reach these velocities, they can recover the payload safely.
Need of recovery system in any rocket mission is to get experimental result which was
done in the space or apogee. If there is no recovery system in rocket then payload will
strike to earth and it will be damage.

Design consideration:
Area of chute canopy will be as follows,
2W
A=
ρCD V 2
By using these formulas diameter of small drogue chute canopy will be around 1 meter
and diameter of main chute canopy will be around 3.5 meter. Here decent velocity for
drogue chutes will be 30m/s and 9.8m/s for main chutes.

Height selection criteria:

For the mission hemispherical shape of canopy was chosen for both due to an easy
fabrication process. here decent velocity for both the stages is assumed, and based on
that chute canopy area is calculated, for height of deployment expected height is around
at 5km and 1km from Sea level for both parachutes respectively. If recovery system
will be deployed and start working from height of 5km, at that height small drogue
parachutes will be deploy so, that drogue parachute will be decreased the velocity of
payload and structure also at time of free falling from apogee. After some time, main
chutes will be deployed and recovery will be done. If main chutes deploy in range of
height 5000 to 6000 meters it will achieve the decent velocity 9.8m/s and safely payload
and structure will be recovered. It is calculated by motion equation and get approxima-
tion value of height range.
Approximately mass of whole recovery system for each stage is around 4 kg. total
mass whole recovery system for rocket is 8kg dimension of parachute deployment sys-

31
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.6. Recovery system

Chute Air Decent Drag Diameter Weight [N] Recovery

type Density velocity[m/s] coefficient of canopy[m] mass [kg]
S1 drogue 1.225 30 0.6 1.063 294 3.968
main 1.225 9.8 0.6 3.256 294 3.968
S2 drogue 1.225 30 0.6 1.156 346.92 3.968
main 1.225 9.8 0.6 3.537 346.92 3.968

Table 3.20: parachute recovery system calculated data

Component Material Approximately mass

3 ring system Steel and nylon webbing 200g
Wire cutter NA 80g
Main chute canister Glass fiber 150g
Cart insert Polylactide 24g
Spring Steel 55g
Lid Polylactide 21g
Cover lid Cork 26g
Wire clamp Aluminum 13g
wire Twaron 2g
Table 3.21: Caption

tem packaging is height 180mm, width 100mm and length 70mm.the chute system will
be placed at top of the stages, so it can deploy easily. In second stages it will be at top of
stage upper to payload. Because nosecone will not be separate so that place is feasible
for recovery system.

Launch and Recovery site selection:

For launching the rocket some criteria will be there, like what is the effect of magnetic
field at the launching site and what will be average environment condition. If average
speed of wind is high that site is not beneficial for launching because it will affect the
trajectory of rocket and change the direction of the same. At time of selection of launch-
ing site there will also be consider the recovery site criteria. If recovery will be done in
water then launching site should be near coastal area. Because it will be easy to recovery
them in coastal area. Recovery site should be in the range of 15 to 20 km area. Thumba
Equatorial Rocket Launching Station is currently used for launching sounding rockets.

32
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.6. Recovery system

Component Material Approximately mass

Canopy Twaron 200g
Bag Paratex 50g
Suspension lines Technora 84 g
Riser Technora 250 g
Swivel NA 73 g
Ring Aluminum 7g

Table 3.22: overview of drogue parachute system

Component Material Approximately mass

Canopy Ripstop nylon 400g
Bag Paratex 80g
Suspension lines Spectra 32g
Riser Nylon 40g
Swivel NA 73g
Link Aluminum 32g
Pilot chute Nylon 80g
Soft link NA 10g
Bridle line Spectra 1g
H line Spectra 1g
Table 3.23: detailed overview of main chute recovery system

The presence of a strong ‘equatorial electrojet’ current over Thumba, which was also
very close to the geomagnetic equator, made it an idea site for the launch of sounding
rockets.

33
 4

Conclusion

The expected result of reaching the Karman line and sustaining above it for more than
3 minutes to aid micro-gravity scientific experiments is achieved with full confidence.
The paper has not dealt with guidance systems, electronics, and battery technology and
flight computers. With present advancements, it is safe to assume that these are readily
available to be equipped and installed at a short amount of time.
It is to be noted that the rocket is practically feasible and with improved design-
ing techniques and analysis, the design can be perfected. Future developments can be
based on improving fuel efficiency, stability and correcting trajectories. The design gives
a large flexibility to change parameters and thus making it advantageous to carry heav-
ier payloads to higher altitudes for longer experimentation periods.
The design will aid upcoming rocketry projects to build their own and thus achiev-
ing favourable conditions to make space affordable and available to everyone.

35
 5

Reference

[1] http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641
[2] http://www.matweb.com/errorUser.aspx?msgid=2ckck=nocheck
[3] http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA2024T
[4] Adam Okninski, ‘Multidisciplinary optimisation of single-staged rockets using solid
propellants’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.09.039
[5]Diogo Marques Gaspar, ‘A Tool for Preliminary Design of Rockets’
[6]https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktth1.html
[7]https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node103.html
[8]George Paul Sutton and Oscar Biblarz, ‘Rocket Propulsion Elements’
[9] https://wikis.mit.edu/confluence/display/RocketTeam/Cherry+Limeade
[10] Kazuo Hasue ‘A Burning Rate Equation as a Function of Pressure and Temperature
for a BTA NH3/PSAN Mixture‘ https://doi.org/10.1080/07370652.2013.817490
[11] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291639404/
[12] http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641
[13] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cjce.5450420609
[14] https://waterwelljournal.com/engineering-of-water-systems-9/
[15] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-factor-of-safety-against-yieldingtbl131
4166624
[16] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19760071127
[17] https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fusestru.html
[18] https://books.google.co.in/books/about/AnIntroductiontotheMechanicsofSoli.
html?id=EkIMMwEACAAJrediresc=y
[19] http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP642
[20] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020768305000570
[21] www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/rocket/dragco.html

37
Chapter 5. Reference

[22] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/594607e1be65940bfedfa4e7/
[23] www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noseconedesign
[24] Design, Manufacturing, and Integration of Fins for 2017-2018 OSU ESRA 30k Rocket
by Emma Renee Fraley
[25] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334631989
[26] Asif Kabir; Aerodynamic Analysis on Double Wedge Airfoil at Different Mach
Numbers with Varying Angle of Attacks Using Computational Fluid Dynamics;
10.1109/IC4ME247184.2019.9036555
[27] https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fins.html
[28] Flight Separation Mechanisms,NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, Monograph:NASA
SP-8056
[29] Princeton Spaceshot:Design and Construction of a High performance Composite
Two stage sounding Rocket.
[30] https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/drageq.html
[31] Systematic Design of a Parachute Recovery System for the Stratos III Student Built
Sounding Rocket
[32] Team 105 Project Technical Report for the 2018 IREC 1 AGH Space Systems Tur-
bulence Rocket Team AGH Space Systems AGH University of Science and Technology
30-059, Kraków Poland

38