McGill Rocket Team Project Blanche

Team 47 Project Technical Report for the 2018 IREC

Jonathan Lesage , Sandro Papais† , Charles Cossette‡ , Liem Dam-Quang§ , Daniil Lisus¶ , Ksenia Kolosova , Julien
Otis-Laperriere
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 0E9, Canada

This document presents McGill University’s 10,000 ft COTS Motor Category rocket,
Blanche. It is the spiritual successor to an earlier project, which had a flight in IREC 2017.
Blanche features a radically improved airframe, simplified recovery system, triple-redundant
tracking systems, and significantly more student-made components - all of which have been
validated by rigorous testing.

I. Introduction
The 2018 IREC marks McGill’s 4th year participating in the competition. The McGill Rocket Team has grown
substantially in the past year, owing to the increased interest in aerospace engineering and space exploration at McGill,
and now has over 120 members divided amongst Propulsion, Payload, Aerostructures, Recovery and Management
divisions. Blanche is the successor to Aeris, the team’s 10,000 ft COTS category entry. Following the difficulty
recovering Aeris, the team has fundamentally reworked the recovery system design and airframe manufacturing process
to prevent the same issues from reoccurring. To further validate the changes, the team has built a secondary rocket,
Bertrand, which will fly on a test launch on June 2nd , 2018. However, manufacturing an entirely separate rocket to test
critical recovery and avionic systems increased financial costs. In order to help offset the additional costs, the group
expanded the number of student-made components, replacing off-the-shelf pieces. Only 3 of the 53 major components
in Blanche were off-the-shelf - being the motor itself, the avionic redundancy, and a motor retaining ring. Student made
components such as parachutes, shock cords, CO2 ejectors, tender-descenders, and the airframe lead to cost savings of
several thousand dollars.

Figure 1 Blanche’s external geometry and appearance.

Team Captain, McGill Rocket Team.

† Team Captain, McGill Rocket Team.
‡ Been here for way too long, McGill Rocket Team.
§ Propulsion Division Lead, McGill Rocket Team.
¶ Payload Division Lead, McGill Rocket Team.

Payload Division Lead, McGill Rocket Team.

Propulsion Division Member, McGill Rocket Team.

1
 II. System Architecture Overview
Blanche is divided into four main subsystems: propulsion, aero-structures, recovery and payload. The propulsion
unit is an M-class Cesaroni motor. The aero-structure subsystem features a composite airframe manufactured in-house
using a refined resin infusion process. This method was perfected over the course of the year and allows for high quality,
tight dimensional tolerance composite structures as well as reduced lead times.

Figure 2 Blanche’s internal configuration.

The avionics are centralized in a radio-transparent fiberglass airframe section, as well as telemetry module in
the nose cone. The telemetry systems are triply-redundant, and the parachute deployment is doubly-redundant. The
centralized avionic section allows for rapid, convenient assembly, and easy access to the ejection charges located in the
forward parachute chamber. A single separation point is located at the nose cone, where a deployable payload will eject,
intended to measure micro-organism density in the atmosphere.

Table 1 Key Technical Specifications

Specification Value Target Units

Airframe Length 11 - feet
Airframe Diameter 5.00 5.00±0.01 inches
Liftoff Mass 53.3 <55 lbm
Peak Thrust 663.8 - lbf
Max Mach Number 0.83 <0.8 -
Motor Cesaroni M2045 - -
Predicted Apogee 10,138 10,000 feet
Thrust/Weight Ratio 8.8 >5 -
Rail Departure Speed 103 >100 feet/second
Minimum Static Margin 1.92 >1.5 calibers
Maximum Static Margin 4.88 <6 calibers

A. Propulsion subsystems

1. Motor specifications
Blanche employs a Cesaroni Pro75 M2045, with a total impulse of 7,388 Ns over 3.61s. This motor provides
sufficient force to reach the required off-the-rod velocity, and the impulse to reach the target altitude of 10,000 ft.

2. Simulations
Blanche’s flight behavior was simulated using OpenRocket, an open-source rocketry simulation tool [1]. The
simulation parameters attempt to match the Spaceport America conditions as closely as possible given available
information. Simulation wind speed was 7.18 mph, the average of morning (9am) wind speeds over the last 14 days of
June 2017 measured in Truth or Consequences, NM [2]. Ground level altitude was set to 4600 ft, and the launch rail
was set to a length of 17 ft at an angle of 6° from vertical.

Other flight metrics of interest were three dimensionless coefficients: the stability margin, Mach number, and
thrust-to-weight ratio, which are plotted in Figure 5.The position of the center of pressure on the rocket varies during

2
 Blanche altitude and total velocity during flight
12000 1000
Apogee
Altitude above ground level
Total Velocity 900
10000
Motor 800
Altitude above ground level [ft]

Burnout Main
8000 & Deployment 700
Max Q

Total Velocity [ft/s]

600
6000
500
4000
400

2000 300

200
0
100

-2000 0
0 20 24 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s]

Figure 3 Blanche above ground altitude and total velocity during flight, with key flight events marked.

Figure 4 Thrust curve of COTS M2045 motor.

because of variations in the orientation of the rocket, as well as variations in the pressure field around the rocket. The
Mach number of a moving aircraft is the ratio between its speed and the speed of sound in the surrounding atmosphere,
while the thrust to weight ratio is the ratio between instantaneous motor thrust and the weight of the rocket. The latter
decreases as the motor burns.

During flight, the air around the rocket also exerts pressure and drag on the airframe. To compute the dynamic air
pressure on the rocket, the compressibility of air has to be taken into account. Assuming an isentropic flow (where skin
friction does not significantly heat up the flow), the ratio of total pressure to static pressure is given by
✓ ◆
Pt 1 1
= 1+ M2
P 2
where Pt is the total pressure, P is static pressure, is the specific heat ratio and M is the Mach number [3].
Assuming that = 1.400, and given that Pt = P + qc , the compressive dynamic pressure, qc , is given by

3
 Blanche Mach number, thrust to weight ratio, and stability during flight
12
Stability
Mach number
10 Max Q Thrust to weight ratio

Motor Drogue
8 Burnout deployment

Laucnh Rail
Clearance
6

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time[s]

Figure 5 Blanche dimensionless metrics during flight.

⇣ ⌘ 72
qc = P 1 + 0.2M 2 1 .

Note that the static pressure is determined by OpenRocket using an International Standard Atmosphere model, and
values from this model are used in calculations. The drag force shown in Figure 6 is also calculated directly by OpenRocket.

Blanche compressible dynamic pressure and drag force during flight

7 70
Compressible Dynamic Pressure
Drag Force
6 60
Compressible Dynamic Pressure [psi]

5 50
Drag Force [lbf]

4 40
Max Q
3 30

Motor Drogue
2 burnout deployment 20

1 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s]

Figure 6 Blanche dynamic pressure and drag force during flight.

4
Engine Blocks
The large force applied to the airframe from the motor called for the use of a carefully designed set of engine blocks.
These prevent the motor from ripping through the rocket during peak thrust. Blanche’s engine block system consists of a
top and bottom piece. The bottom piece acts as a mounting point for the motor, while the top acts to prevent failure of
the COTS retaining ring and is a mounting point for the avionics.

These components are manufactured from 6061-T6 Aluminum. This provides a lightweight solution to the engine
block, while also maintaining a reasonable level of strength. A finite element analysis shown in Figure 7 was completed
on both components with realistic loading scenarios. Using the ANSYS static structural module, the bottom engine
block had a safety factor of just 1.0, with some local yielding in locations but no failure, while the top had one of
2.0. As the top block is entirely capable of withstanding the load, the minor yielding of the bottom retainer is not of concern.

(a) Top engine block under a greater (b) Bottom engine block under a
than expected load. worst case scenario.

Figure 7 Blanches engine blocks.

B. Aero-structures subsystems
Blanche features an entirely composite SRAD airframe. This airframe consists of primarily carbon fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRP), with some glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) components. The airframe built upon many of
the lessons learned from Aeris, leading to the expansion and refinement of the vacuum assisted resin infusion (VARI)
process. This approach led to significant weight savings, improved tolerances, reduced production times, and increased
member involvement.

The new design seeks to address many of the issues identified in the airframe of the team’s previous 10,000 ft rocket,
Aeris. While Aeris appeared to fly normally, and appeared to deploy the main parachute, significant issues still appeared.
These included a de-laminated fin, an off-nominal take-off from the rail, poor tolerances in the body tubes, and part
integration. Blanche addresses many of these issues, including a new solid carbon fin design to avoid de-lamination,
improved stability during flight, and tighter tolerances to improve part quality and systems integration.

1. Overview of VARI Processes

All composite components of the airframe were manufactured using a VARI process. VARI processes function
by using atmospheric pressure to push the resin through a dry pre-form. This process is displayed at three stages for
a flat plate in Figure 8. The first stage shows the compacted pre-form with consumables on tool. The second stage
shows a snapshot of the resin traveling through the part, impregnating it. Finally, in the third stage the composite cures
under vacuum pressure. The process greatly limits the manufacturing time compared to wet lay-up techniques, and also
eliminates the need for high cost equipment such as ovens or autoclaves required with pre-impregnated materials. At the
same time, it provides a reasonable fiber volume fraction, suitable for the purposes of the team.

This process was introduced in Aeris, where it was employed to create the body tubes. Blanche sees an expansion
and significant refinement of the process. This led to improved tolerances, eliminated de-lamination issues, and provided
an excellent surface finish. With the exception of the motor tube, no composite component in Blanche is COTS.

5
 Figure 8 Overview of the VARI process employed on a flat plate.

2. Nose Cone
Blanche’s nose cone is a von Karman type cone, manufactured with GFRP. The shape was selected in order to
minimize pressure drag during the subsonic regime of the flight. Additionally, simulations in OpenRocket showed that
such a geometry was acceptable for travel to the target altitude.

Figure 9 Renshape nose cone molds after finishing.

The GFRP consists of a simple plain weave fabric. This selection was driven by the materials available to the team,
but also for the purposes of the avionics. Blanche features a black box system in the nose cone, which would be unable
to communicate if a CFRP were employed. Hence, the selection was driven by the requirements of other subsystems.

The nose cone also has an aluminum tip at the front. This permits better system integration with the payload, which
is housed in the nose cone, and presents a simple solution to creating the sharp tip.

For the first time, this component was manufactured using VARI. Its mold, pictured in Figure 9, was machined out
of a modeling board called Renshape on a CNC router. This ensured a high degree of precision during manufacturing.
Afterwards, a polyester mold coating was applied to the surface, followed by sanding and buffing to a mirror-like finish.
This ensured an excellent surface finish on the final component.

Several test components were manufactured using the same layup before the actual nose cone was made. The final
component displayed good tolerances, and effectively integrated with the body tubes.

3. Body Tubes and Couplers

Blanche’s body tubes and couplers feature a mix of CFRP and GFRP parts. GFRP was placed in areas where radio
frequency transparency is required. Outside of these areas, CFRPs were used exclusively. This maximized strength in
local areas, and provided increased weight savings compared to its GFRP counterparts. As an example, a CFRP coupler
weighed 0.6 lbs less than a GFRP coupler of equivalent length.
The selection of fiber angle was based on considerations of compressive loads, buckling limits, and bending moments in
flight. In some scenarios, fiber angle was chosen based on available material. However, orthotropic analysis based

6
on Hashin, quadratic, and maximum stress failure criteria showed excessive safety factors in all components, giving
significant confidence in the design of the structure.

CFRP body tubes and couplers feature a [±28, 0, 0]s layup. These angles have an equivalent stiffness of 12.8 MSI,
and bending stiffness of 90.8 Glb-in. This displays an increase of 88% in equivalent stiffness and an increase of 90% in
bending stiffness compared to the previous quasi-isotropic layup employed in Aeris.

GFRP body tubes feature a cross-ply, [0,90], layup. This selection was dictated by the material available to the team,
and appeared to be the best compromise available. Similarly, the GFRP coupler of the avionics bay is of [±45 ] degree
layup due to available material. These layups show some reduction in properties compared to the layup of the CFRP com-
ponents, however, these too show excessive safety factors, and as such do not pose concerns for the integrity of the airframe.

When available, as in the case with all CFRP components and the avionics bay, braided or stitched tubular preforms
were employed. This minimized layup time, permitting layup times of 45 minutes for full length body tubes. This is a
significant reduction in layup time compared to 90 minutes with sheet fabrics. However, the sheet and spray adhesive
approach was still employed for the GFRP body tube.

As the body tubes of Aeris were manufactured using VARI, the process was only improved for Blanche, and expanded
to the couplers. Rather than employing a GFRP mold, Renshape molds were machined on a CNC router and then coated
with polyester, as completed with the nose cone mold. This produced similar results to the nose cone in final part quality,
as seen in Figure 10.

(b) Body tube after removal from the

mold.

(a) Renshape molds after machining

(c) Coupler fit with no sanding.
and coating.

Figure 10 Body tube mold and manufacturing results.

In an attempt to better understand the manufacturing process, VARI was simulated within PAM-RTM. After
characterizing the fiber volume fraction at one atmosphere of pressure, and the permeability of the CFRP body tube
preform, a simple simulation was created as in Figure 11. This showed the fill time to be 16 minutes, well below the 60
minute gel time of the resin system.

This approach, when applied properly, displayed excellent results. The body tubes were within 0.01" of their target
dimension, and showed a very consistent mass. Of all the body tubes produced, a mass of 4.40lbs ±0.06 lbs was
observed when at a length of 48". This demonstrates a consistent manufacturing quality amongst the parts. Simi-
lar dimensional results were obtained with the couplers, allowing for a tight fit directly out of the mould into the body tubes.

7
 Figure 11 Infusion simulation results at 6, 239, and 899 seconds.

Some testing took place on the CFRP tubes. An attempt was made to cause failure in the tube under compres-
sive loading. The final part failed after 21,264 lbs, well above the maximum expected loads. However, this only
induced failure on part of the tube, likely due to a non-square end of the tube. The part is shown in Figure 12 during the test.

Figure 12 Body tube sample under compressive testing with failure load over 21,000 lbs.

4. Fins
The fins of Blanche are made exclusively of the same non-crimp fabric as the nose cone. However, these are oriented
in a [(0/90)2 ,(±45 )2 ,(0/90)]s layup. This attempts to achieve a quasi-isotropic layup, one where the stiffness is equal in
all directions, to better resist normal and torsional bending moments experienced in flight.

The primary failure mode of the fins for this component is flutter, or divergence. As such, care was taken in order to
ensure the fin was of the proper thickness. The most critical moment for the fin occurs at maximum dynamic pressure,
coincident with peak velocity. Using the predicted atmospheric conditions at this point from OpenRocket, the flutter and
divergence Mach numbers were calculated in AeroFinSim using the U-G method. This showed that with the actual fin

8
thickness of 0.235", the flutter Mach number was 2.49 while the divergence Mach number was 4.41. This is beyond the
maximum velocity of flight, Mach 0.83, giving a fair margin for the fins.

As the fins have the largest influence on the centre of pressure, they have significant influence on the stability in
flight. The geometry of a trapezoidal fin was chosen to ensure greater resistance to flutter, but refined to maintain
stability within the required range. Simulations from OpenRocket, displayed in Figure 13, show that the stability off the
rod is near 2 calibers, and never exceeds 5.0 calibers.

Stability During Flight

5

4.5

4
Stability Margin Calibers

3.5

2.5

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s]

Figure 13 Stability evolution during flight.

These fins are attached with a through-the-wall design. Unlike previous years, the fins are mounted by gluing
them into a slot. Afterwards, the fins were given a fillet at the root chord and reinforced with additional CFRP in
the region. This ensured that the most likely location of failure would be given sufficient reinforcement for in-flight loading.

The fins feature a double knife edge cross section. After having completed a study using computational fluid
dynamics in the subsonic and transonic regime, it was shown that minimal performance losses would be incurred by
using this shape over that of an airfoil. Additionally, this study showed that in the transonic regime, the double knife
edge greatly outperformed the airfoil, as seen in Figure 14. As such, due to its manufacturing simplicity and acceptable
performance, the shape was chosen.
The fins displayed a different manufacturing challenge compared to the other components. The primary goal was to
successfully make a component with two tool sides. That is, to create two smooth flat surfaces. As the fin was relatively
small, a pseudo-RTM process was applied as seen in Figure 15. This forced the resin directly through the preform,
which resulted in a flat plate of consistent thickness, which could later be machined. The consequence of this, however,
was a large increase in fill time compared to other parts.

Machining the fins, and placing them in the body tubes accurately, was of the utmost importance. To achieve the
required tolerance, several jigs were manufactured on the CNC router from medium-density fiberboard (MDF). This
included a fin cutting jig, a body tube slotting jig, and a fin alignment jig, displayed in Figure 16. A hand-held router
with a carbon fiber mill would follow these guides, accurately making the cuts in the CFRP part.

The final step of the fin manufacturing was to attach them to the body tube. This consisted of a three-step process,
depicted in Figure 17. First, the fins were attached using epoxy, followed by the addition of an epoxy clay fillet.
Afterwards, the root chord was reinforced with additional CFRP using wet layup techniques. Additional finishing work,
including sanding and filler, was required afterwards.

9
(a) Shockwave formation over a NACA0012 airfoil
at M=0.9, a consideration against its use in the (b) Drag coefficients of various cross sections
transonic range. found using CFD.

Figure 14 Fin CFD results.

(a) Compressed fin preform under aluminum caul plate.

(b) Fin plate stock after de-molding.

Figure 15 Fin manufacturing methodology.

C. Recovery subsystems
Reliability was the principal consideration during the design of the recovery system. The team deemed a simple,
traditional recovery deployment method to be the approach that would maximize the probability of successful parachute
inflation. The recovery mechanism features a single-separation, dual-deployment sequence which can be seen in Figure 18.

1. Parachute Deployment System

The traditional black powder-based separation mechanism is implemented to create an opening in the airframe.
Five grams of FFFFg black powder are used to reliably eject the nose cone, which is retained by 4 nylon shear pins,
with a safety factor of 1.6 and a second redundant charge. Ground tests of the ejection were repeatedly performed until
consistent ejection was achieved; the results of which can be viewed in Table 2.

10
 (b) Hand-held Router Cutting template for the fins.

(a) Student made fin-slotting jig. Small human for

scale.

Figure 16 Three jigs used in the machining and installation of the fins.

(a) Attached fin with epoxy. (b) Epoxy clay fillet ap-
plied. (c) Reinforcement cures under vacuum pressure.

Figure 17 Fin reinforcement procedure.

The ejection momentum of the nose cone pulls open the nomex-protected drogue chute, and the drogue descent
phase begins. The main parachute is restrained within the tube by a student-designed version of a tender descender,
which is a breakable link broken by a separate black powder charge at the desired main parachute deployment altitude of
1000 ft. A SRAD tender descender may be viewed in Figure 20.

The tender descenders were experimentally verified to require 35 lbs of force for separation, which 0.08 grams of
black powder can achieve with a safety factor of 3.4. Both parachutes of Blanche were designed and manufactured by
students on the team. To prevent tangling during main parachute deployment, the drogue parachute lines are protected
by a permeable mesh, as seen in Figure 21. This mesh is capable of allowing sufficient air flow to inflate the drogue
parachute, yet prevent any parachute lines from tangling.

11
 Figure 18 High-level recovery sequencing; including ascent, drogue descent, and main descent phases.

The drogue and the main parachutes share the same design, only at different scales. Respectively, the drogue and
main consist of 8 and 12 gores, measure 24 inches and 108 inches in open area diameter, and allow for a terminal
descent speed of 95 ft/s and 21 ft/s. The coefficient of drag of the design is estimated to be approximately 1.5. Their
cross-section resembles a semi-ellipsoid with a flattened-top. This allows for a smaller amount of canopy fabric to be
used for a given diameter, therefore reducing packing volume and mass compared to the traditional half-dome shape.
Fabric savings from using this shape gives rise to a trade-off with the coefficient of drag but it is minimal when compared
to that of diameter reduction. Additionally, a vent hole at the top of the canopy, occupying 3% of the open area of the
parachute, is integrated for better stability.

Both the drogue and the main parachutes are manufactured using the same technique, but the drogue is further
affixed with a mesh overlay to prevent line tangling. All gores are stitched together using a flat-felled seam, chosen for

Table 2 Results of ejection trials.

Test # Description BP Quantity [g] # of Shear Pins Result

1 Empty parachute chamber 2.0 2 Success
2 Full parachute chamber 2.0 2 Failed
3 Relocated charge wells 2.0 2 Failed
4 Added spacing bulkhead 2.0 2 Success
5 Increased Shear pins 3.0 4 Success
6 Full deployment sequencing 3.0 4 Success
7 Full deployment sequencing 3.0 4 Success

12
its strength and neatness. Shroud lines are triple-stitched to the canopy with grograin ribbon. The parts of the parachute
which undergo the largest amount of stress, the vent hole and the shroud line attachment points, are further reinforced
using bias tape and bartacks respectively. The shroud lines measure 1.15 times the diameter of the parachute, while
the attachment point lengths measure 10% of it. All stitching is done using coated nylon thread. The canopy fabric
is composed of 1.1oz calendered nylon, where its surface is specially treated for very low porosity. The shroud lines
consist of #400 nylon (rated at 400 lbs strength) which are made of 8 inner strands contained within an outer sheath.
The base of the shroud lines is looped around a small piece of shock cord attached to a 2000 lbs rated M8 swivel.

The deployment bags and blankets are made using a fabric composed of a nomex and kevlar blend, which are
both fire-retardants. The drogue parachute is folded and wrapped with a flat piece of that fabric so that it can freely
deploy, while the main parachute is contained within a deployment bag. The bag is in a cylindrical shape with a
diameter slightly smaller than that of the body tube so that it can slide out smoothly. Rows of sectioned elastic bands
are integrated into the bag, so that shroud lines may be packed and secured for a controlled deployment. Furthermore,
cylindrical protective sheaths for tender descenders are also made using the same material. Finally, shock cords are
created using 1 inch wide stock tubular nylon webbing cut to size with 1-inch loops with 5-inch folds are sewn at both ends.

13
 (a) Ejection test setup.

(b) Successful ejection.

Figure 19 Sample successful nose cone separation test.

14
 (b) Black powder separation test.

(a) Separation force test.

Figure 20 Student-designed tender descender.

(b) Inflated main parachute.

(a) Inflated drogue parachute with mesh.

Figure 21 Student-fabricated parachutes

15
2. Avionics
Blanche’s avionic modules are organized into four separate modules, outlined in Table 3. All of these modules are
independent, and are powered off separate batteries. This independence was implemented to ensure other modules
would continue functioning if one were to fail due to power issues. Furthermore, independent systems allowed more
member involvement.

Table 3 Summary of Avionic Modules

Module Name Description Type Expected Life Transmission Frequency

Ejection Barometer-based parachute deployment SRAD 16 hours N/A
Telemetry Flight data and diagnostic transmission SRAD 15 hours 902 MHz
RF Beacon Direction finding beacon SRAD 46 hours 145 MHz
AIM XTRA Ejection and Telemetry redundancy COTS 12 hours 433 MHz

The principle SRAD ejection circuit is kept simple; barometer measurements are filtered by a 1st-order low-pass
filter, to give an altitude estimate. The altitude estimate allows apogee detection, which in-turn triggers electromechanical
relays. Two relays are inserted in series to prevent accidental e-match firing if one of the relays is accidentally activated
(through high accelerations, software bugs, etc). The above is implemented on the ATMEGA328P, and can be viewed in
Figure 22

(a) Ejection Circuit (b) Telemetry, diagnostics, and datalogging

circuit

Figure 22 SRAD Circuits

A SRAD telemetry module was also designed. Transmitting using a pair of XBEE Radios on 900 MHz, this module
is capable of sending GPS Coordinates, altitude, battery voltages, internal temperatures, and velocity in real time. The
student-designed ground station is designed to be easily portable, and outfitted with a high-gain antenna for enhanced
signal reception. Even more data, such as inertial and magnetic measurements, are recorded on an SD Card.

As a second redundancy for recovering the rocket, the team implemented a simple Radio Beacon. An amateur radio
license was obtained in order to access the transmission frequencies, and the callsign is included in the Morse-Code

16
message that the beacon emits, “VE2COR MCGILL”. This module was intended to have an outstanding battery life,
in the event that the recovery team fails to find a landed rocket on the launch day. Given the 46-hour battery life, the
team may still have a chance of locating the rocket using the direction-finding method on a subsequent day. By using a
7-element yagi antenna and a software defined radio, the team can seek the direction of strongest signal.

Finally, the COTS module aboard the rocket serves as a second redundancy for parachute deployment, and a third
redundancy for recovery. The AIM XTRA 2.0, by Entacore Electronics, is capable of datalogging, firing e-matches, and
broadcasting flight data on 433 MHz. All avionic modules are located in a central fiberglass section of the airframe,
with the exception of the SRAD Telemetry module, which is housed in the nose-cone. These sections of the airframe
are intentionally fiberglass for radio-transparency. The panel cut-outs, as viewed in Figure 23, allows easy accessibility
and ease of assembly. The avionics are safed with “pull-pins” until arming on the launch pad, at which point these pins
are removed, and power is sent to the avionic modules.

Figure 23 Avionics Bay integration with rocket.

3. Test Rocket
McGill University successfully constructed an entirely separate rocket with identical recovery and avionic systems.
The rocket, named Bertrand after the team’s fish, was meant to fly on May 19th , 2018 but was postponed to June 2nd ,
2018 due to unfavorable weather. Given that all identical systems were duplicated, the team can still afford to go to
competition even if a catastrophe is experienced on this launch. However, only having a mere two weeks of pivoting
time limits the possible improvements that can be made to Blanche. Manufacturing all recovery parts in-house, along
with successful sponsorship acquisition lead to massive cost savings, in-turn funding the manufacturing of the team’s
third high-power rocket of the year.

17
 (b) Friday night activities.

(a) Bertrand assembled on stand.

Figure 24 Test Rocket, Bertrand

18
D. Payload subsystems
The payload on board Blanche is called SPORE, which stands for Subatmospheric Probe Organic Research
Exploration. SPORE is functional and deployable. It will be in the form of a non-standard 0.8U CubeSat, deployed
at apogee, and will descend with the rest of the rocket attached under the drogue chute. The full CubeSat structure
is shown in Figure 25. The structure will contain atmospheric data sensors connected to an Arduino device, and
a sampler and vacuum pump setup designed to collect microorganisms in the atmosphere. An 11.1V, 1200mAh
battery is used to ensure longevity of the subsystem in case of unforeseen launch time pushbacks. The sensor data
will be stored offline in a 32G microSD card and analyzed upon retrieval. Retrieved microorganism samples will
be transported and tested at our home university, in addition to simple tests conducted on-site with potential for
next day results. Information about temperature, humidity, and light exposure is gathered alongside the search for
signs of microbial life with the intent of progressing interplanetary exploration methods. The microbial air sampling
will be done using a vacuum pump to pump air through a gelatin filter. The filter will then be analyzed on the
ground and dissolved on a sampling plate to allow any bacteria cultures to grow. The vacuum pump will ensure a
consistent flow of 4 L/min through the filter during a period of 5 minutes following deployment from the rocket. A
simplified assembly of the vacuum pump and button sampler, the device containing the gelatin filter, is shown in Figure 26.

Preliminary testing of sampling was conducted inside a 2ft x 3ft subsonic wind tunnel to simulate conditions
during descent. The wind tunnel was run at 25m/s, which approximates the expected descent speed under the drogue
parachute. A sampling control was also taken in the same room, but outside the wind tunnel. The results of the control
sample and the wind tunnel test can be respectively seen in Figure 27a and Figure 27b. As can be seen, the sample
gathered from the control sample resulted in a larger culture than the wind tunnel sample. It should be noted that
only one culture grew in both samples, however this may be explained by the indoor testing conditions during cold weather.

Figure 26 Bacterial Sampler System

Figure 25 CubeSat Structure

19
 (a) Wind Tunnel Sample (b) Control Sample

Figure 27 Bacterial Collection Testing

III. Mission Concept of Operations Overview

Blanche’s mission profile follows a typical sounding rocket trajectory, with a single-stage burn, drogue deployment
at apogee, and main chute deployment at a lower altitude. The payload is intended to deploy with the drogue parachute,
under the drag force of the drogue.

Blanche flight operations

12000
Altitude
Lift-off and launch rail clearance
10000
Maximum dynamic pressure
Altitude above ground level [ft]

Motor Burnout
Apogee and drogue deployment
8000
Main chute deployment

6000

4000

2000

-2000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time [s]

Figure 28 Blanche Concept of Operations

1) Phase 1: Pre-arming launch pad installation.

The rocket is fully assembled, with energetics circuits deactivated. Telemetry is active and transmitting to a
ground station.
2) Phase 2: Arming.
Transition – Removing the pull pins, activating all energetics circuitry. An auditory cue is emitted by on-board

20
 buzzers. Motor igniters are inserted into the motor, secured with electrical tape and connected to the competition
power supply. The ignition circuit is tested for continuity before evacuating all personnel.
3) Phase 3: Ignition (t = 0.00s).
Transition – Authorization is given to launch. Motor is ignited by sending a current through the igniter. The fuel
grains are lit and smoke from the bottom of the rocket is visible.
4) Phase 4: Lift-off (t = 0.04s).
Transition – At first motion of rocket. Vertical motion should be observable within a few seconds of pressing of
launch button. Launch rail should be cleared at t = 0.36 s and at a velocity of 103 ft/s.
5) Phase 5: Powered ascent (t = 0.36s).
Transition – Upon clearing launch rail. Rocket is accelerated through thrust provided by the motor. This phase is
expected to last for 3.61 seconds after takeoff. The point of maximum dynamic pressure and maximum velocity
also occur in this phase, 3.28 seconds after ignition, slightly before motor burnout. No alteration to the flight
path or airframe should be visible during this phase.
6) Phase 6: Coasting (t = 3.61s).
Begins at the end of motor burn. Rocket continues its ascent to a predicted apogee of 10,138 ft.
Transition – Within moments of the rocket reaching apogee, pressure sensors detect the beginning of the descent,
igniting the black powder charge well mounted on the nosecone.
7) Phase 7: Drogue deployment and controlled descent (t = 25.08s).
The black powder combustion pressurizes the small body tube body tube section between the nosecone and the
parachutes. The nosecone seperates, dragging the attached drogue chute out. Moments after removal from the
body tube, the drogue inflates and slows down the descent of the rocket to 90.1 ft/s. The descent speed decreases
with altitude, as air density and drag increase.
Transition – When pressure sensors detect that altitude is down to 1000 ft, the charge wells in the tender
descenders are ignited.
8) Phase 8: Main deployment and controlled descent (t = 153.25s).
Once ignited, the tender descenders separate, and the drag on the drogue chute pulls the main chute out of its bag
and out of the rocket. The main inflates, and further slows the descent, to 20.29 ft/s.
Transition – The rocket eventually hits the ground, and a recovery team is dispatched with a GPS-tracking device.
9) Phase 9: Ground Recovery.
The rocket is transported back for evaluation by the judges.

IV. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

2018 was a year of refinement for the team. Blanche’s design draws heavily from lessons learned during last
year’s competition. The team re-examined its design practices after both of its rockets failed to obtain a nomi-
nal flight. The team has thus prioritized improving the fundamental, basic elements of the rocket, such as the
recovery system, rather than trying to experiment with new, more advanced and riskier technologies and designs.
Components and subsystems were simplified wherever possible. Given the simpler design, the opportunity was
taken to largely expand the inventory of SRAD components, which hugely benefited the team in many. A big lesson
learned was that “simpler” does not always mean “easier;” and complacency is an issue not to be taken likely. For example;

• An overcrowded parachute chamber can muffle an ejection charge, and prevent ejection;
• A parachute-chamber which is prone to air leaks can easily lose pressure from a CO2 ejection system, again
failing ejection;
• Making square cuts on tube sections is of paramount importance, as imprecisions can cause bending moments due
to non-uniform loading.

These are but a few of the oversights that the team learned (the hard way) this year. Fortunately, they were quickly
addressed through experiments, but the designs of the 2018-2019 academic year will surely feature even more refined
systems.

From a team management standpoint, the McGill Rocket Team experienced record-breaking member involvement
and retention. This year, the team took advantage of the summer after competition to acquire as many material sponsors
as possible, and get hardware delivered before the beginning of the academic year. When new recruits arrived, they were

21
immediately thrown into a regime of heavy hands-on work. Practicing composite lay-ups, Arduino training kits, mini-
launch events, and regular beers are excellent ways of maintaining a substantial, knowledgeable team that is very cohesive.

Many hours were spent in meetings coming up with the final designs presented here. Despite these simplifications,
the team believes that this year’s iteration is a stronger contender within the framework of the competition, and hopes to
bring an enthusiasm to be reckoned with. The team is more excited for competition than ever, as McGill University
brings a fantastic 29 students to the Spaceport America Cup.

References
[1] Niskanen, S., “Development of an Open Source model rocket simulation software,” Helsinki University of Technology, 2009.

[2] Online, W. W., “Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico, United States of America Historical Weather Almanac,” , May 2018. URL
https://www.worldweatheronline.com/truth-or-consequences-weather-history/new-mexico/us.aspx.

[3] Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Halsted Press, 1975.

Acknowledgments
The team would like to acknowledge the endless support it has received from members, friends, family, donors and
sponsors.
Specifically, the team would like to thank Michel Wander from the Canadian Space Agency for his advice, Yves
Dufour from the Quebec Rocketry Club for lending parts and expertise, and finally all the judges and volunteers of
ESRA for the countless hours spent on organizing the most exciting rocket engineering competition in the world today.

22
 V. Appendix A - System Weights, Measures, AND Performance Data
Table 4 outlines a comprehensive list of various critical numbers that govern the design given in the 3rd progress
report.

Table 4 Data from 3rd progress report.

23
24
25
26
 VI. Appendix B - Project Test Reports
A summary and list of tests performed in the 2017-2018 academic year is outlined in Table 5. Accompanying
descriptions and figures can be viewed in Section II.C of this report.

Table 5 Outline of Tests 2017-2018

Subsystem Description Result

Recovery Tender-Descender functionality test. Attach weights to 35lbs required for sepa-
device until separation is achieved. ration.
Recovery Tender-Descender functionality test. Simply close device Success
and force separation with black powder charge.
Avionics Ejection Circuit functionality test. Board is inserted into a Success
vacuum chamber. Pressure is controlled to simulate flight.
Avionics Ejection Circuit functionality test. Test-launch of rocket Pending Launch - June
with ejection circuit 2nd 2018
Avionics Battery-life tests. Boards are activated with a full battery, Success - Premature ter-
and left idle till deactivation. mination of test after 8
hours.
Avionics Telemetry Test. Establish functioning telemetry within Success
airframe enclosure.
Avionics Telemetry range test. Create distance between transmitter Failed - Insufficient
and receiver to test range. range, requires a small
hardware modification.
Avionics Radio Interference test. Simultaneous transmission of 3 Success
on-board frequencies, test for data integrity
Recovery Parachute functionality test. Drop test, check for inflation Success - with sensor is-
and examine descent rate with altimeter sues
Recovery Ejection test. Eject the nose cone with empty parachute Success
chamber.
Recovery Ejection test. Eject the nose cone with full parachute Success
chamber
Recovery Full deployment sequence test. Verify nose cone ejection, Success
successful drogue deployment, successful main parachute
retention, successful main parachute deployment w/ tender
descenders
Aero-structure Material strength test. Compressive strength of body tube Success - over 21,000
sample lbs of force before fail-
ure.

As can be seen in Table 2, obtaining successful deployment required even more trials, along with minor modifications
to the charge well locations. An over-packed parachute chamber was found to muffle ejection charges, and hence a
spacer was added to create a small distance between parachute contents and the charge wells.

27
 VII. Appendix C - Hazard Analysis

Table 6 Hazard Identification and Treatment

28
 VIII. Appendix D - Risk Assessment

Table 7 Risk assessment of potential dangers and failures

29
 IX. Appendix E - Assembly, Pre-flight, Launch Checklists
The current version of the operations checklist is appended in Table 8.

Table 8

30
31
32
X. Appendix F - Engineering Drawings

33
 Voltage Regulation
RFGND
RFGND
IN OUT 5V 9 1
2 9V 8 2 RFOUT
GND ANT RFOUT
1 7 3
X1
U2 6 4 RFGND2
RFGND2
0V 5 TX 5
4 5V 6
3 7
GND 2 8
1 GND1 9

RX

5V EN
D4 EN
RESET

GND VCC
VCC
VCC
U1 0V
0V
1 23 A0
PC6(/RESET) PC0(ADC0)
24 A1 TXD
PC1(ADC1) D3 TXD
GND 20 25 A2
AVCC PC2(ADC2)
5V 7 26 A3
VCC PC3(ADC3)
27 SDI/SDA_5V
PC4(ADC4/SDA)
28 SCK/SCL_5V
PC5(ADC5/SCL)
21
AREF

2 RX
PD0(RXD)
GNDGND

9 3 TX
PB6(XTAL1/TOSC1) PD1(TXD)
4 D2
PD2(INT0)
10 5 D3
PB7(XTAL2/TOSC2) PD3(INT1)
6 D4
PD4(XCK/T0)
11 D5
PD5(T1)
12 D6
PD6(AIN0)
13 D7
PD7(AIN1)
14 D8 GND
PB0(ICP)
15 D9
PB1(OC1A)
16 D10
PB2(SS/OC1B)
8 17 D11
GND PB3(MOSI/OC2)
GND

22 18 D12
GND PB4(MISO) 220

GND
19
PB5(SCK)
R11
328P

Released under the Creative Commons

Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Design by: Charles Cossette 1

514-668-2195
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D

80±0.25
69.84 X4
3.18 X 8

C C

80±0.25

B B
R1.59 X12

R1.59 X8 47.82 X6

NOTES: DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 GAUGE

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Wide Face
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-01
A
845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS .X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION

5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS

.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 1 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

70.58±0.25 X4
D D

9.42±0.25 X4
17.68 X6
6.67 X4
0
C C
34.60

27.30±0.25 X2

26.98

19.36

B 14.60±0.25 X2
11.74
B
4.13±0.25
0

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Wide Face
UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-01
A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON: 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
.X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D
3.18 X6
57.35 X4 R1.59 X2

52.27 X2

R1.59 X4

C R1.59 X4
C
80±0.25

B B

61.16 X4

74.49±0.25
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:
INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Narrow Face
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO.
McGill Rocket Team
1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 GAUGE
A A-02 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC .X DECIMALS
.X DECIMALS
±0.5
±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT .XX DECIMALS ±0.15
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS ANGLE
INSPECTION DIM
±0.2°
SHEET 1 OF 2
5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

67.83±0.25 X3
6.67±0.25 X3
D D

10.16 X4

12.70 X2
6.67 X4
0

C C

40±0.25 X2
34.60
26.51
19.36

B B
11.74
6.98±0.25 X2
4.12±0.25
0

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Narrow Face
UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-02 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4

A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
.X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D
74.17

62.54

C C
74.17

B R1.59 X7
B
R1.59 X2
53.98

NOTES: DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 18 GAUGE

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Divider Plate
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-03
A
845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
.X DECIMALS ±0.5
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS .XX DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION

5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS

.XXX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 1 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

12.07
15.88
4.23
8.51
D D

0
UP 90° R 1

C C

UP 90° R 1
UP 90° R 1
33.91 39.24 X4 43.69 X4
26.29
18.67
15.88
12.07
11.05
3.29
B 0 UP 90° R 1
B
5.90 X2

8.76 X2

NOTES: DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 18 GAUGE

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Divider Plate
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-03
A
845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS .X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION

5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS

.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D

80±0.25
C C

B B
12.81±0.25

12.81±0.25
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:
INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat L-Bracket
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO.
McGill Rocket Team
1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 GAUGE
A A-04 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC .X DECIMALS
.X DECIMALS
±0.5
±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT .XX DECIMALS ±0.15
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS ANGLE
INSPECTION DIM
±0.2°
SHEET 1 OF 2
5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

D D

C C
73.65

62.98

52.07
44.45

31.75

19.05

6.35
R2.54 X4

0
15.70
21.84±0.25 UP 90° R 1
6.14
B 0 B

R1.59 X4 80±0.25 3.18 X10

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat L-Bracket
UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-04 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4

A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
.X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D

55.25±0.25
C C

12.81±0.25
B B
12.81±0.25

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Short L-Bracket
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO.
McGill Rocket Team
1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 GAUGE
A A-05 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC .X DECIMALS
.X DECIMALS
±0.5
±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT .XX DECIMALS ±0.15
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS ANGLE
INSPECTION DIM
±0.2°
SHEET 1 OF 2
5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

D D

C C
3.18 X10 55.25±0.25

15.70
21.84±0.25 UP 90° R 1 10.92
6.14
0

B R2.54 X4
B
0
52.07
44.45

31.75

19.05

6.35

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Short L-Bracket
UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-05 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4

A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
.X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:1

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISIONS
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
-01 PROTOTYPE RELEASE 21/01/2018

D D

82.96

C C
82.96

241.29

B B

NOTES: DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 AND 18 GAUGE

INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Assembly
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team

A A-08
A
845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON:
X. DECIMALS ±0.5
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS .X DECIMALS ±0.25 DRAWN BY DATE REVISION

5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS

.XX DECIMALS
ANGLE
±0.15
±0.2°
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
INSPECTION DIM SHEET 1 OF 2
SCALE:1:10

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION SUPPLIER QTY.

1 A02 Narrow Face Metal CN 6

D Inc.
Metal CN
D
2 A01 Wide Face 6
Inc.

3 A04 L brackets Metal CN 8

Inc.

4 A03 Divider Plate Metal CN 4

Inc.
3
5 A05 short-L-brackets Metal
Inc.
CN 4

6 A06 92314A108 McMaster 64

C C
7 6 7 A07 90480A005 McMaster 64

B B
1

2
4

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING TITLE:

NOTES: INTERPRET DRAWING PER ASME 14.5M 1994 McGill Rocket Team CubeSat Assembly
1. MATERIAL SHOULD BE GALVANIZED 12 AND 18 GAUGE UNLESS OTHERWISED SPECIFIED DWG NO. McGill Rocket Team
2. ALL PARTS MUST BE CLEAN. REMOVE DIRT, OIL DEBRIS ETC
A A-08
A
DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm TOLERANCE ON: 845 Rue Sherbrooke O, Montréal, QC H3A 0G4
3. ALL PARTS MUST BE ROHS AND REACH COMPLIANT X. DECIMALS ±0.5
DRAWN BY DATE REVISION
4. DIMENSIONS ARE FOR UNPAINTED PARTS
.X DECIMALS ±0.25
.XX DECIMALS ±0.15
GROUP 34 2018/01/21 -01
5. PARTS MUST BE FREE OF SHARP EDGES AND BURRS ANGLE
INSPECTION DIM
±0.2°
SHEET 2 OF 2
SCALE:1:10

6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1
.625
3.625 A 4.985±.005
.15
D D

C 4.70
C
#6-32 x 12 Tapped Hole
A
R 3/32 3.00
SECTION A-A
#8-32 x 8 Tapped Hole

1.00
B B
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION

McGill University
NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN Siddharth Raghavan 02/04/18

APPV'D Jonathan Lesage

QUANTITY:
11/04/18 Blanche Bottom Retainer
2
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

A A
SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES: MATERIAL: DWG NO.
LINEAR: +/- 0.010 A4
Aluminium 6061 T6 2
WEIGHT: 0.36 lbs SCALE: 1:2 SHEET 1 OF 1

6 5
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 4 3 2 1
 FTDI Programmer
3.3V 3.3V
Voltage Regulation
9 1 Level Shifting
IN OUT 5V 8 2
2 9V 7 3
1 GND 6 4
U2 5 TX 5 5V 5V
0V 4 5V 6
3 7
2 8
GND 1 GND1 9

1
SCK_3V 2 3 SCK/SCL_5V
RX

BSS138
Q3

1
5V IN OUT 3.3V SDI_3V 2 3 SDI/SDA_5V
5V

BSS138
Q4
GND
U3
U1
3.3V U5
1 23 A0
PC6(/RESET) PC0(ADC0)
GND 24 A1 BME280 Digital
PC1(ADC1) Environ. Sensor
GND 20 25 A2
AVCC PC2(ADC2)
5V 7 26 A3 8 5 SDO/ADR_3V
VCC PC3(ADC3) VDD SDO
JP1 JP2 JP3 JP4 JP5 27 SDI/SDA_5V 6 2 3.3V
PC4(ADC4/SDA) VDDIO CSB
D7 1 1 1 1 1 28 SCK/SCL_5V
PC5(ADC5/SCL)
D8 2 2 2 2 2 21 4 SCK_3V
AREF SCK
D9 3 3 3 3 3 1*2 3 SDI_3V
GND SDI
D10 4 4 4 4 4
D11 5 5 5 5 5 2 RX VDD: 1.8-3.6V
PD0(RXD)
GNDGND

Temp: -40~85°C
D12 6 6 6 6 6 9 3 TX GND
PB6(XTAL1/TOSC1) PD1(TXD)
A0 7 7 7 7 7 4 D2 BME280
PD2(INT0)
A1 8 8 8 8 8 10 5 D3
PB7(XTAL2/TOSC2) PD3(INT1)
A2 9 9 9 9 9 6 D4 For SPI set CSB low at startup
PD4(XCK/T0)
A3 10 10 10 10 10 11 D5 SDO=MISO, SDI=MOSI, SCK=SCK, CSB=CS/SSEL
PD5(T1)
A4 11 11 11 11 11 12 D6
PD6(AIN0)
SDI/SDA_5V 12 12 12 12 12 13 D7
PD7(AIN1)
SCK/SCL_5V 13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14 14 GND 3.3V
TX PB0(ICP) D8
RX 15 15 15 15 15 15 D9
PB1(OC1A)
GND 16 16 16 16 16 16 D10
PB2(SS/OC1B)
3.3V 17 17 17 17 17 8 17 D11
GND PB3(MOSI/OC2)
GND

5V 18 18 18 18 18 22 18 D12
GND PB4(MISO) 220

GND
19
PB5(SCK)
Prototyping area R11
For emergencies 328P SDO/ADR_3V SDO/ADR_3V

D2
GND GND GND GND CS_3V CS_5V
D2 D3 D4 D5 1N4148
R10
220

220

220

220
R6

R5

R9
G5L

G5L

G5L

G5L
K3

K1

K2

K4

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Released under the Creative Commons

Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
P

K3 K1 K2 K4
O S O S O S O S

Design by: Charles C. Cossette

2
1

2
1

E-Match Firing
514-668-2195 3
 6 5 4 3 2 1
.375±.010
4.780±.005 3 X 3/8-16 UNC THRU ALL
.125±.010 A
D D
4.04
60.00°

60.00°
3.50

C C
A
R 3/32 4.48 2.00
SECTION A-A 8 X#6-32 Tapped Hole

.75

B B
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION

McGill Rocket Team

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:
Siddharth Raghavan

Engine Top Retainer

DRAWN 02/04/18

APPV'D Jonathan Lesage 11/04/18

QUANTITY:
2
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

A A
SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES: MATERIAL: DWG NO.

1 A4
LINEAR: +/- 0.01
Aluminium 6061 T6
WEIGHT: 0.31 lbs SCALE: 1:2 SHEET 1 OF 1

6 5
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only. 4 3 2 1
 XBEE PRO 900
Adafruit Ultimate GPS Power
3.3V 1 10
9 PPS RX1 2 9 9V 1
8 3.3V TX1 3 8 2
7 GND 4 7 IN OUT 5V
6 TX2 5 6
5 RX2 6 5 GND
4 FIX 7 4 U1
3 VBAT 8 3 GND
2 EN 9 2
1 3.3V_GPS GND 10 1
GND

GND
R3
Adafruit 10 DOF IMU
TEENSY 3.6 External Connections

GND
10 LRDY GND 2 25 5V 5V 1
9 LIN2 RX1 3 24 AGND 3.3V 2
8 LIN1 TX1 4 23 A3.3V GND 3
7 GRDY D2 5 22 A9 SCL1 4
6 GINT D3 6 21 A8 SDA1 5
5 SDA0 D4 7 20 A7
4
R2 8 19
SCL0 D5 A6
3 GND D6 9 18 SCL0
2 3V GND D7 10 17 SDA0 GND 1
1 5V GND D8 11 16 A3 A0 2 - Light Sensor
RX2 12 15 A2 A1 3 - Fin Sensor 1
TX2 13 14 A1 A2 4 - Fin Sensor 2
D11 14 13 A0 A3 5 - Fin Sensor 3
15 12
R1
D12 D13
Sparkfun 9 DOF IMU (back-up) 3.3V 16 11 GND
D24 17 10 A22 GND
4 SCL0 D25 18 9 A21 D2 1
3 SDA0 D26 19 8 A20 D3 2
2 3.3V D27 20 7 SDA1 D4 3
1 GND D28 21 6 SCL1 D7 4
D29 22 5 A17 D8 5
D30 23 4 A16
Adafruit Barometer and Temp (back-up) D31 24 3 A15
D32 25 2
7 SDA1 GND 1
6 SCL1 A7 2
5 INT1 A8 3
4 INT2 A9 4
3 3V A10 5
2 GND
1 5V

Released under the Creative Commons

Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Design by: