Biomimetic Experimental Rocket
This project was a self-directed, full-cycle experimental rocket program focused on optimizing design, manufacturing, and assembly workflows under extreme time constraints. I independently conceived, designed, analyzed, manufactured, assembled, and nearly flew the vehicle to validate process-level engineering decisions while experimentally evaluating a biomimetic fin and modular fin can architecture.
Project Type
Personal Project
Date
July 2025 - Nov. 2025
Progress
Active
This project originated as a deliberate test of process optimization rather than performance optimization. Prior to assuming the position of chief engineer and co-president on the Orbital Launch Vehicle team, I identified a personal knowledge gap: while I had extensive experience building rockets, I had not rigorously examined how the end-to-end process itself could be compressed, simplified, and scaled. To address this, I set a strict constraint—design, manufacture, assemble, and fly a complete rocket in under 24 hours—forcing every engineering decision to be first-principles driven and results-focused. The objective was not altitude or efficiency, but understanding which design choices meaningfully impacted time.
Material and manufacturing decisions were evaluated explicitly against this constraint. With no commercially available body tubes in the required diameter, I evaluated whether a 3D-printed airframe could be structurally viable for flight. Through research, basic validation testing, and load-path reasoning, I determined that additive manufacturing was acceptable for this limited-scope application. While I do not view full 3D-printed rockets as optimal for long-term or production-scale systems, the approach was justified here due to its geometric freedom and rapid iteration potential. A simplified CAD model was created in Fusion 360, intentionally omitting non-critical details such as fastener hole placement to reduce upfront design time; these features were instead added post-print via drilling, trading geometric precision for schedule efficiency.
Thermal and structural risks were mitigated through subsystem-level redesign. The original fin can was designed for a higher-impulse motor whose thermal environment exceeded the limits of the prototype material. Rather than redesigning the fin can entirely, I engineered a stepped motor adapter and lower thermal conductivity motor tube, introducing both thermal isolation and an air gap to control heat transfer. One of the most influential design lessons emerged from the nose cone and avionics bay architecture. The nose cone was segmented into threaded modules with captured hardware, enabling parallel printing, simplified assembly, and functional segmentation. Anticipating significant aft mass from the fin can and downsized motor, I designed an adjustable nose ballast system using scrap fiberglass bulkheads on a central threaded rod, allowing center-of-gravity tuning on launch day without redesign.
The avionics bay itself was treated as a process optimization problem rather than a standalone electronics enclosure. It was designed as an indexed module that slid into keyed features, ensuring correct orientation and eliminating assembly ambiguity. Component registration features constrained the placement of the flight computer, batteries, and dual-facing camera system so that each could only be installed in one valid configuration, reducing integration error and inspection time. By embedding alignment, retention, and routing decisions directly into the geometry, the avionics bay significantly reduced confusion during assembly and made the system faster to understand, assemble, and verify. This philosophy—using geometry and mechanical constraints to enforce correctness—directly influenced later design and leadership decisions in more complex launch vehicle systems.
The vehicle was fully assembled for the first time on the day of launch at the flight site, reaching a flight-ready configuration precisely at the conclusion of the 24-hour design and manufacturing window. After technical review with the launch site coordinator and receiving approval to proceed, I made the decision to delay the flight. At that point, the primary objective—validating an optimized end-to-end rocket development process—had already been achieved. Rather than treating launch authorization as the final criterion, I exercised engineering judgment and ownership by prioritizing additional ground validation to further reduce risk and ensure flight safety before committing the vehicle to launch.
The fin design was inspired by biological research on harbor seal whiskers, whose geometry suppresses vortex-induced vibration, allowing seals to detect hydrodynamic disturbances from prey with high sensitivity. Multiple peer-reviewed studies, including NASA-affiliated work, indicate that analogous geometries can reduce drag and unsteady loading when applied to engineered structures, with documented efficiency gains in static applications. Motivated by these findings, I undertook an independent effort to reconstruct the whisker’s non-uniform, elliptical geometry and adapt it to a rocket fin form factor suitable for manufacturing and flight testing.
After several unsuccessful geometric abstractions, I converged on a fin profile that preserved the whisker’s variation while remaining structurally manufacturable. Preliminary aerodynamic analysis was attempted in ANSYS; however, the complex geometry introduced meshing and convergence challenges that limited the fidelity of early results. This analysis effort is ongoing. Structurally, the fin incorporates multiple internal tabs that slide through the airframe wall and engage with the fin can while simultaneously distributing most loads across a large contact area between the fin's fillet and the outer airframe. From a mechanics standpoint, the dominant failure mode is outward pull-through rather than bending fracture, which was mitigated by increasing tab engagement length and leveraging the material’s elastic deformation prior to failure. For the intended low-power flight regime and controlled recovery, this architecture provided sufficient margin while enabling rapid assembly.
A key secondary objective of the fin design was modularity. The tab-based interface allows fins to be hot-swapped without destructive disassembly, enabling comparative testing of different fin geometries on the same airframe. In a damage scenario, a fin can be replaced in minutes rather than requiring airframe repair. This feature directly supports iterative experimentation and reflects a results-driven approach to design validation rather than single-use optimization.
Photo & Diagram Credits (Excluding Fusion 360 seal whisker model) to Creating underwater vision through wavy whiskers: a review of the flow-sensing mechanisms and biomimetic potential of seal whiskers by
Xingwen Zheng1,†, Amar M. Kamat1,†, Ming Cao1 and Ajay Giri
Prakash Kottapalli1,2
The modular fin can was designed to address recurring inefficiencies I observed in traditional rocket manufacturing and integration workflows. The primary design requirement was adaptability: the internal diameter was standardized around a 54 mm motor casing due to its prevalence and availability across multiple lengths. The fin can architecture allows the assembly to be extended indefinitely by stacking additional centering-ring modules, making the system compatible with a wide range of motor configurations without redesign. This approach emphasizes reuse, scalability, and reduced design overhead for future vehicles.
Structurally, the fin can consists of waterjet-cut fiberglass centering rings separated by precision spacer modules. These modules serve dual purposes: maintaining axial spacing and capturing the internal fin tabs. During manufacturing, the intact assembly can be inserted into an uncut airframe, and a light source can be passed through the core to project precise fin slot locations onto the body tube—eliminating measurement uncertainty and reducing rework. During final assembly, the central fin can section is installed with the motor casing temporarily in place to constrain the modules, after which the fins are inserted through the airframe and slid into their locked position. Once the fins are engaged, the motor can be removed and a custom thrust block with an axial standoff can be installed.
The thrust block geometry is critical to load retention. Aerodynamic drag on the fins generates an axial force that would otherwise tend to push them toward an unlocked state. The thrust block standoff mechanically prevents this motion, ensuring positive fin retention under flight loads. From an assembly perspective, the sequence is intentionally linear and tool-minimal, reducing both cognitive and procedural complexity. The resulting system is a modular, serviceable fin can that prioritizes integration speed, configurability, and robustness—aligning directly with first-principles engineering and full-cycle project execution from concept through final product and reflection.
