Tripoli L2 Rocket
This project involved the design and fabrication of a high-power experimental rocket intended for Tripoli Level 2 certification, while simultaneously serving as a technology development platform for future active-control vehicles. The rocket integrates advanced composite manufacturing, avionics architecture development, and subsystem-level problem solving informed by prior work on collegiate launch vehicles.
Project Type
Personal Project
Date
Oct. 2025 - Present
Progress
In Progress
This rocket was conceived as a dual-deployment, dual-separation vehicle, closely informed by flight-proven architectures used in the Orbital Launch Vehicle Team’s Skipper program. From the outset, the objective was not only certification compliance, but also the creation of a reusable testbed that could support future ambitions in active control, avionics experimentation, and higher impulse flights. The airframe diameter and nose cone geometry were intentionally matched to the sustainer stage of OLVT’s Space Shot vehicle to allow parallel internal design work and shared subsystem development.
The avionics bay was relocated to the nose cone to enable modular separation of flight-critical electronics from experimental control systems. A dedicated avionics subsystem was planned to support future fin-tab actuation using RC servos, allowing for controlled experimentation without jeopardizing primary recovery systems. The rocket was also deliberately sized to support both Level 2 and a future Level 3 certification, ensuring long-term utility beyond a single flight. Additional system-level features included a dual-facing external camera system integrated into the switch band and thin, servo-driven fin tabs designed for later active-control testing.
62.5 inches long, weighs 1.25 kg in a heavier state, 3.75 in OD 3.52 in ID
To meet stiffness, mass, and dimensional accuracy requirements, the airframe body tubes were manufactured in-house using carbon fiber on an automated filament winding system (X-winder). This decision allowed precise control over fiber orientation, laminate thickness, and final geometry—capabilities not achievable with off-the-shelf tubing. Each tube began with an aluminum mandrel prepared using mold release and a Mylar interface layer to ensure surface finish quality and repeatable demolding.
The winding process required programming multiple fiber angle passes, with carbon fiber tow continuously impregnated in mixed epoxy prior to placement. After achieving the desired laminate schedule, the tube was overwrapped with shrink tape to consolidate the layup and minimize void formation during cure. The part was allowed to cure while rotating, after which the shrink tape was removed using appropriate PPE due to the risk of epoxy and fiber shard ejection.
Following cure, an assembly of ratchet straps was used to extract the composite tube from the aluminum mandrel after thermal contraction in a freezer, a process that required careful force placement to avoid structural damage. Each tube then underwent an extensive post-processing cycle involving iterative sanding and epoxy fill applications. Particular care was taken to preserve outer diameter tolerances, as excessive material removal would compromise both aerodynamic performance and component fit.
This cycle of sanding, epoxy application, and re-sanding was repeated multiple times until a structurally sound and cosmetically consistent surface finish was achieved. Although labor-intensive, this process produced both a full-diameter airframe tube and a precision-matched carbon fiber coupler, demonstrating an end-to-end understanding of composite manufacturing, quality control, and the trade-offs inherent in custom structural fabrication.
While organizing the Orbital Launch Vehicle Team’s bay in the Aerospace Engineering Design Lab, I identified a damaged flight computer that had previously been deemed unrepairable. The primary failure involved a torn antenna mount that had ripped a solder pad from the circuit board, and earlier repair attempts had been abandoned. After confirming with team leadership that the hardware was no longer in use, I took ownership of the repair effort both as a learning opportunity and as a potential avionics solution for my L2 rocket.
Initial attempts to desolder the antenna mount failed due to it clamping across multiple pads, requiring simultaneous heating that was impractical with standard tools. I resolved this by sectioning the mount into four pieces using a Dremel, allowing controlled removal of each pad interface. Upon exposing the damaged trace, I sourced the circuit schematic and rerouted the antenna signal to an alternate contact point on the board, restoring electrical continuity. After installing a replacement antenna mount and validating signal integrity, the flight computer was fully functional and flight-ready, directly demonstrating ability to perform circuit-level troubleshooting, and a willingness to take responsibility for complex repairs rather than defaulting to replacement.
