0.1 1.
OpenRocket System Architecture
Figure 1: Static Stability Analysis (OpenRocket): This 2D blueprint confirms a stability margin of
2.4 cal (14.1%). By positioning the Center of Gravity (CG) at 26 cm and the Center of Pressure
(CP) at 32 cm, we ensure the vehicle remains stable during launch rail exit while maintaining
enough damping to prevent excessive weather-cocking in high-altitude crosswinds.
1
0.2 2. Hypersonic Aerodynamic Coefficients (RASAero II)
Figure 2: Lift Coefficient (CL ) vs. Mach Number: Performance validation across a broad flight
envelope up to Mach 25. The simulation tracks CL variance at alpha angles of 0, 2, and 4 degrees,
confirming that the fin geometry generates sufficient restorative force to maintain alignment during
high-velocity ascent.
2
Figure 3: Drag Profile (CD ) vs. Mach Number: This plot identifies the characteristic transonic
drag hump peaking at Mach 1.0. Identifying this surge in wave drag is critical for validating the
structural integrity of the airframe and ensuring the motor thrust curve is sufficient to propel the
vehicle into the supersonic region.
3
Figure 4: Center of Pressure (CP) Migration: A longitudinal study of the CP shift relative to the
nose tip (measured in inches). Maintaining a predictable CP location across varying Mach numbers
is essential to prevent the rocket from becoming over-stable or unstable as fluid flow transitions at
hypersonic speeds.
4
0.3 3. Running Computational Fluid Dynamics (Autodesk fusion+Simscale)
Figure 5: The plot illustrates the convergence of the non-dimensional force coefficients over time.
Initial oscillations in the first 70 seconds represent the development of the flow field, followed by
a stable asymptotic trend. The final steady-state value of of the coefficients are utilized as the
primary input for the Rocketpy ballistic flight trajectory model.
Figure 6: Turbulent Kinematic Viscosity Distribution (νt ). νt represents the eddy viscosity gen-
erated by turbulent fluctuations within the flow field. The visualization highlights regions of high
energy dissipation. The ”halo” effect around the rocket body indicates the growth of the turbulent
boundary layer.A reduction in the volume of the high-νt wake directly correlates to an improved
Aerospike and fin efficiency for long-range stability.
5
Figure 7: Velocity Magnitude Contour Map (U ⃗ ). This cutting plane visualization depicts the ve-
locity magnitude distribution around the hollow rocket cavity. High-velocity gradients are observed
at the nose cone interface, while a distinct velocity deficit (wake) is visible downstream of the aft
fins. Used to identify flow separation points that contribute to pressure drag.
0.4 4. Flight Dynamics & Recovery (RocketPy)
Figure 8: Landing Impact Heatmap & 95% Confidence Interval (CI): Stochastic landing dispersion
analysis showing the calculated impact points under variable wind conditions. The green dashed
ellipse represents the 95% CI, providing the recovery
6 team with a statistically sound search radius.
Figure 9: Monte Carlo 3D Trajectory Analysis: High-fidelity 6-DOF simulation showing a repre-
sentative flight path reaching an apogee of 3000m to 3500m. The light-blue cloud represents the
variance in trajectory, validating that the rocket maintains a safe parabolic arc under environmental
deviations.