My 2156 Project Drawings
Need statement: A way to make testing rockets amongst new engineers safer!
Rocketry is difficult and dangerous. It is literally
rocket science ! One of the best ways to get better at something is to try it out. Some major changes have been made to this project which will be displayed below.
Specifications:
We will be focusing on
Level 2 Rocket. With this change our maximum mass is around
3.5 kg. We will also assume that the user does not has special permission from N.A.S.A. for individual movement of the wings, therefore all brakes must go off at once, if mid propulsion. A work around that will be assumed is that the brakes have some freedom on the way down, so the motorless is still feasable. In addition the brakes will need to be small form factor to interfere as little with the rockets path on the way up as possible. It is also important to note that Module 3, will most likely need NAR special permission to fly. One small design specification for the follow modules is that I want these air brakes to not be a physical stage of the rocket, therefore they will need to protrude off of the base of the rocket.
Decision Matrix
Before creating part drawings I needed to decide which component(s) would be most critical to the design. The single most important criteria was the complexity of the geometry. The brake by far has the most complex geometry, from first glance there are 18 tear-drop holes and 3 holes with chamfers on the face, in addition there is a chamfer on both sides of the brake, and non uniform shape on the back surface, thus I gave the brake a 5/5. The hinge subassembly has relatively basic geometry, which is why it has a 2/5. The motor-subassembly has fairly complex geometry but only on the gear which is uniform throughout, therefore a 3/5. Another important criteria is the tightness of tolerances required for each part. The brake only recieved a 3/5, and while it has complex geometry only the the three holes have tight tolerances. The hinge subassembly has the tightest tolerances in the screw holes, and on both sides where rod attaches, which the rod itself has tolerances, giving the hinge subassembly a 5/5. The motor subassembly has a 4/5 because the gears need to be made correctly although they do not require the same tolerances as the hinge. There is a category for possible danger and this is simply the worst case that could happen if something broke. The brake and hinge recieve a 5/5 and 4/5 respectively due to those parts being critical to keeping any large parts from falling, while the motor subassembly gets a 1/5 because if a connector snaps the hinge and brake will still be attached. Cost is the least important category although if the part has to be reproduced due to issues in tolerances the cost will be brake, hinge, and motor from most expensive to least expensive respectively.
From these criteria, it was decided that brake would be the most critical component. Thus the brake requires the most attention to detail during manufacturing.
Poster
Click here to download
Drawings
Click here to download
Bill of materials
Lessons Learned During This Assignment
This assignment taught me least amount of project based lessons, although it did give me a well needed refresher on some technical skills. I was able to brush up on many things within Creo, such as how to make a drawing from a part file and the title block and such. One thing I noticed was that at the end I felt genuinely proud of the work I produced, and I kind of never felt that way about an engineering assignment. I was big into the arts before university and I knew the feeling of a good musical performance, but I feel as if I learned what it feels like to be proud of something I made with engineering, which is nice considering the $50,000.00 price tag of college at this point in time of my career.
Gantt Chart (Updates Automatically):
Assignment Timeline
The Gantt chart is correct for the past assignments, although here are some finished dates for past assignments:
12/01-12/03: Decided which component was the most critical. In addition I wrote the reasoning behind my choice.
12/3: Finished deciding which drawings I was going to make, in addition to some exact dimensions.
12/03-12/10: Made drawings for the components.
12/07-12/12: Worked on the poster.
12/10-12/11: Finished Gannt Chart.
12/14: Write comments for my peers.
12/14: Finish up everything and make sure its uploaded.
**Everyday that I work on this project it is usually 8:00pm-11:00pm**
Comments to my Advisees
For Conner Frederes:
-Easy To Read CAD Drawings.
-Good decision matrix decription.
-Good execution on the project, well done.
-Poster covers content well.
For Josh Schnepf:
-Great CAD Drawings.
-Well thought out decision matrix.
-Good presentation of all requirements for this project.
-Fantastic job on the project, I really liked the core idea and the execution was well done.