Está en la página 1de 16

Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology

Aerodynamics and Trajectory design of Sounding Rocket


Preliminary Design Report

Vijith Mukundan, Pulkit Goyal, Jyothish R Pillai 5/24/2010

1. Objectives
1. To design a sounding rocket that is stable throughout its flight. 2. To minimize drag and maximize the performance of the sounding rocket. 3. To predict the trajectory and various parameters related to trajectory based on the Thrust-time profile and the Aerodynamic design.

2. Progress achieved till now


1) A trajectory (and trajectory parameters) has been generated using drag data of RH200 sounding rocket. 2) Heat flux on the nose cone has been roughly estimated using an empirical relation. 3) Methodology for design of fins and nose cone (and their analysis for obtaining refined trajectories) has been worked out.

3. Parts to be designed and their design methodology


3.1. Nose cone The nose cone design is of great significance for any flying vehicle. As for a rocket, the nose cone is the part that first interacts with the flow. It diverts the flow coming at the rocket and thus determines the drag forces on the rocket. It protects the payload and dissipates the heat produced by drag, efficiently. Generally, a nose cone of a particular profile is efficient only at some range of velocities. Thus, knowledge of velocity variation during flight is essential for designing a good nose cone. Various nose cone profiles are used in sounding rockets. Some of them are: Conical, Tangent Ogive, Secant Ogive, Von-Karman nose, Elliptical, Parabolic. In our project we have chosen to have conical nose due to its ease of analysis and fabrication. 3.1.1. Design methodology for nose cone Design of an optimum nose is a trade off between nose tip heat flux and drag coefficient. Bluntness is provided at the tip to reduce heat flux. Bluntness, on the other hand, increases drag coefficient of the nose. Similarly, nose cone angle is decided to minimize nose tip heat flux, drag coefficient and normal force. A large nose cone angle will give low heat flux but will have large drag coefficient. On the other hand, a small cone angle will decrease drag but will have high heat flux. As the rocket diameter has been fixed, a small nose cone angle means a long nose and hence larger normal force.

Considering the above conditions, a nose cone has to be designed based on the constraints given by the Thermal Protection and Trajectory. 3.2. Fins Fins are essential to keep the Center of pressure X cp of the rocket behind the Center of gravity X cg and thus maintaining a positive Static margin. Static Margin= (Xcp Xcg )/ D . This plays a key role in stabilizing the rocket during its flight. The fins of the rocket are meant to produce a negative, or stabilizing, pitching moment if the rocket encounters a positive angle of attack.This has to be achieved keeping its Cd low. There are many fin configurations like rectangular, delta, clipped delta, trapezoidal, elliptical. We have chosen rectangular fins because of ease of analysis. 3.2.1. Design methodology for fins Based on the variation of CG of the rocket during the flight and the moment on the rocket, a fin has to be designed to generate sufficient force to balance the moment on the rocket. The fin dimensions then has to be optimized to minimize drag and vortex f ormation. 3.3. Body The body of the rocket has been finalized to be a cylinder of 200mm diameter and a specified length owing to manufacturing considerations, and hence no change can be made to this. 3.4 Overall design process On every design of nose and fins, the drag coefficient of the entire rocket changes and this affects the trajectory of the rocket. With this, some trajectory parameters which have been used to design nose and fins also change. Thus we have to perform a few iterations until we reach an optimum and stable design. The design calculations related to the nose cone and fins will initially be done using empirical relations and will then be validated using CFD simulation.

4. Trajectory calculation methodology


4.1. Assumptions 1. The Flat earth gravity model is used. 2. It is assumed that the angle of attack is always zero. 3. For drag, the fore body drag data of RH200 has been used because of its similarity to the dimensions of our rocket. 4. The exponential model of density variation and standard atmospheric model of temperature variation in atmosphere has been used. 5. It is assumed that the initial velocity as 0.1 m/s in x direction and 1.14 m/s in y direction, due to difficulty in giving initial condition owing to the zero angle of attack scenario. 6. Reference area is cross-sectional area of cylinder. 7. An empirical relation is used for heat flux calculation around nose (Drag variation with nose radius not considered) q=1.83 X 10 -4 X X (V) 3 X

q=heat flux; Rn=Nose radius; V= velocity; hw= enthalpy at wall; hw is taken corresponding to constant 300K surface temperature. 4.2. Formulation

The governing equations are:


Splitting these equations by the substitution,

We have,

, obtained as input from the propulsion team

, where Re=6378km

, where R=287 m/sK and =1.4

Drag data of RH200 is given below: Mach no. M 0 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.94 1.05 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.8 CD 0 0.2609 0.2842 0.2861 0.3289 0.3787 0.5159 0.5122 0.5011 0.4179 0.3738 0.3315 0.2908 0.2627 0.2429

These values have been fitted using parabolic interpolation. After mach no. 3.8, a constant CD =0.2429 has been used. The atmospheric temperature model used in the calculations is given below:

4.3. Solution of the governing equations The governing equations are then numerically solved with the following initial conditions:

The initial conditions of velocities in x and y directions give the launch angle of 87 o. We have obtained the trajectories for different initial masses corresponding to different options of materials used. The thrust-time data is provided by the propulsion team, which completes the requirements for generating the solution. This is given below:

Burn time=14.87s

4.4. Trajectory results 4.4.1. Variation of trajectory with mass Initial mass Max. (kg) Altitude (km) 54 48.9665 56 55.1672 58 58.0289 60 58.6206 62 57.7601 64 55.9914 66 53.6669 Max. Acceleration (in gs) 96.66 71.08 56.14 50.21 45.55 41.78 38.67 Max. no. 8.5329 7.9 7.3731 6.923 6.5315 6.1859 5.8774 Mach Max. Velocity (km/s) 2.5474 2.3756 2.2317 2.1079 1.9996 1.9033 1.8169 Dynamic pressure (kPa) 930.659 860.016 810.163 767.635 730.4296 697.2402 667.2285

4.4.2. Trajectory parameters for two specific initial masses Initial mass Max. altitude(km) Max. mach number Max. acceleration (in g s) Max. dynamic pressure (kPa) 54kg 48.9665 8.5329 96.66 920.659 66kg 53.6669 5.8774 38.67 667.2285

4.4.3. Trajectory plots for initial mass of 54kg

4.4.4. Plots for initial mass of 66kg