Høringssvar og høringsnotat, fra uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
EUROPEAN ROCKETRY CHALLENGE
DESIGN, TEST & EVALUATION GUIDE
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 2 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide
INTERNAL APPROVAL
PREPARED BY:
Álvaro Lopes, Portuguese Space Agency
Inês d’Ávila, Portuguese Space Agency
Manuel Wilhelm, Portuguese Space Agency
Paulo Quental, Portuguese Space Agency
Jacob Larsen, Copenhagen Suborbitals
Signature:
Date:
07/02/2022
VERIFIED BY:
Marta Gonçalves, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 07/02/2022
APPROVED BY:
Ricardo Conde, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 07/02/2022
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 3 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF REVISIONS....................................................................................................................... 7
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 8
1.2. PURPOSE................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3. DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................................... 10
2. PROPULSION SYSTEMS........................................................................................................... 10
2.1. NON-TOXIC PROPELLANTS ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2. SOLID MOTORS....................................................................................................................... 11
2.3. IGNITION SYSTEMS FOR SOLID MOTORS........................................................................................ 11
2.4. PROPULSION SYSTEM SAFING AND ARMING................................................................................... 11
2.4.1. GROUND-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ARMING .........................................................................................11
2.4.2. AIR-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ARMING.................................................................................................12
2.4.3. CLUSTERED PROPULSION...................................................................................................................12
2.5. AIR-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ELECTRONICS.................................................................................... 13
2.6. SRAD PROPULSION SYSTEMS..................................................................................................... 13
2.6.1. COMBUSTION CHAMBER PRESSURE TESTING ........................................................................................13
2.6.2. HYBRID AND LIQUID PROPULSION FILLING SYSTEMS...............................................................................13
2.6.3. HYBRID AND LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM TANKING TESTING..................................................................14
2.6.4. HYBRID/LIQUID VENTING ..................................................................................................................14
2.6.5. PROPELLANT OFFLOADING AFTER LAUNCH ABORT.................................................................................15
2.6.6. STATIC HOT-FIRE TESTING .................................................................................................................15
3. RECOVERY SYSTEMS AND AVIONICS ....................................................................................... 15
3.1. DUAL-EVENT PARACHUTE AND PARAFOIL RECOVERY........................................................................ 15
3.1.1. INITIAL DEPLOYMENT EVENT..............................................................................................................16
3.1.2. MAIN DEPLOYMENT EVENT ...............................................................................................................16
3.1.3. EJECTION GAS PROTECTION ...............................................................................................................16
3.1.4. PARACHUTE SWIVEL LINKS.................................................................................................................16
3.1.5. PARACHUTE COLORATION AND MARKINGS...........................................................................................16
3.2. NON-PARACHUTE/PARAFOIL RECOVERY SYSTEMS........................................................................... 17
3.3. REDUNDANT ELECTRONICS......................................................................................................... 17
3.4. ON-BOARD POWER SYSTEMS AND RAIL STANDBY TIME...................................................................... 17
3.4.1. REDUNDANT COTS RECOVERY ELECTRONICS........................................................................................18
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 4 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
3.4.2. DISSIMILAR REDUNDANT RECOVERY ELECTRONICS.................................................................................19
3.4.3. RECOVERY ELECTRONICS ACCESS ........................................................................................................19
3.5. OFFICIAL ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM ...................................................................... 19
3.5.1. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER AS COTS FLIGHT COMPUTER FOR RECOVERY.......................................................20
3.5.2. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FREQUENCIES.................................................................................................20
3.5.3. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER OPERATING FREQUENCY ALLOCATION.................................................................21
3.5.4. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FIRMWARE UPDATE.........................................................................................21
3.5.5. TRS COMPATIBLE RECEIVER(S)............................................................................................................21
3.5.6. TRS ELECTRONICS ACCESS.................................................................................................................21
3.6. SAFETY CRITICAL WIRING .......................................................................................................... 22
3.6.1. CABLE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................................22
3.6.2. SECURE CONNECTIONS......................................................................................................................22
3.6.3. CRYO-COMPATIBLE WIRE INSULATION.................................................................................................22
3.7. RECOVERY SYSTEM ENERGETIC DEVICES........................................................................................ 22
3.8. RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING....................................................................................................... 22
3.8.1. GROUND TEST DEMONSTRATION........................................................................................................23
3.8.2. OPTIONAL FLIGHT TEST DEMONSTRATION............................................................................................23
3.8.3. OPTIONAL FLIGHT ELECTRONICS DEMONSTRATION................................................................................24
4. STORED-ENERGY DEVICES ...................................................................................................... 24
4.1. ENERGETIC DEVICE SAFING AND ARMING ...................................................................................... 24
4.1.1. ARMING DEVICE ACCESS ...................................................................................................................25
4.1.2. ARMING DEVICE LOCATION................................................................................................................25
4.2. SRAD PRESSURE VESSELS.......................................................................................................... 25
4.2.1. RELIEF DEVICE .................................................................................................................................26
4.2.2. DESIGNED BURST PRESSURE FOR METALLIC PRESSURE VESSELS...............................................................26
4.2.3. DESIGNED BURST PRESSURE FOR COMPOSITE PRESSURE VESSELS ............................................................26
4.2.4. SRAD PRESSURE VESSEL TESTING.......................................................................................................26
5. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS......................................................................................... 27
5.1. RESTRICTED CONTROL FUNCTIONALITY ......................................................................................... 27
5.2. UNNECESSARY FOR STABLE FLIGHT............................................................................................... 27
5.3. DESIGNED TO FAIL SAFE ............................................................................................................ 28
5.4. BOOST PHASE DORMANCY ........................................................................................................ 28
5.5. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM ELECTRONICS.............................................................................. 28
5.6. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM ENERGETICS................................................................................ 29
6. AIRFRAME STRUCTURES......................................................................................................... 29
6.1. ADEQUATE VENTING ................................................................................................................ 29
6.2. OVERALL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY................................................................................................ 29
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 5 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
6.2.1. MATERIAL SELECTION .......................................................................................................................29
6.2.2. LOAD BEARING EYEBOLTS AND U-BOLTS ..............................................................................................30
6.2.3. IMPLEMENTING COUPLING TUBES.......................................................................................................30
6.2.4. LAUNCH LUG MECHANICAL ATTACHMENT............................................................................................30
6.3. RF TRANSPARENCY .................................................................................................................. 31
6.4. IDENTIFYING MARKINGS............................................................................................................ 31
6.5. OTHER MARKINGS................................................................................................................... 32
7. PAYLOAD............................................................................................................................... 32
7.1. PAYLOAD RECOVERY ................................................................................................................ 32
7.1.1. PAYLOAD RECOVERY SYSTEM ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY CRITICAL WIRING................................................32
7.1.2. PAYLOAD RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING.................................................................................................32
7.1.3. DEPLOYABLE PAYLOAD GPS TRACKING REQUIRED .................................................................................33
7.2. PAYLOAD ENERGETIC DEVICES .................................................................................................... 33
8. LAUNCH AND ASCENT TRAJECTORY REQUIREMENTS............................................................... 33
8.1. LAUNCH AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION.............................................................................................. 33
8.2. LAUNCH STABILITY................................................................................................................... 33
8.3. ASCENT STABILITY ................................................................................................................... 34
8.4. OVER-STABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 34
9. EUROC LAUNCH SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 34
9.1. LAUNCH RAILS ........................................................................................................................ 34
9.1.1. LAUNCH RAIL FIT CHECK....................................................................................................................35
9.2. EUROC- PROVIDED LAUNCH CONTROL SYSTEM............................................................................... 36
10. TEAM-PROVIDED LAUNCH SUPPORT EQUIPMENT................................................................. 36
10.1. EQUIPMENT PORTABILITY ........................................................................................................ 36
10.2. LAUNCH RAIL ELEVATION......................................................................................................... 36
10.3. OPERATIONAL RANGE............................................................................................................. 36
10.4. FAULT TOLERANCE AND ARMING............................................................................................... 36
10.5. SAFETY CRITICAL SWITCHES...................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS ................................................................. 38
APPENDIX B: FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES .......................................................... 39
APPENDIX C: OFFICIAL ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM ........................................... 44
APPENDIX D: FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW CHECKLIST .................................................................. 68
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 6 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 7 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
LIST OF REVISIONS
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION
Version 01 20/07/2020 Original edition.
Version 02 03/03/2021 Second version, major revisions for EuRoC 2021.
Version 03 04/02/2022 Third version, major revision for EuRoC 2022.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 8 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The Portuguese Space Agency – Portugal Space promotes the EuRoC – European Rocketry Challenge,
hosted in the Municipality of Ponte de Sor, a competition that seeks to stimulate university level
students to fly sounding rockets, by designing and building the rockets themselves. It is widely
recognized that such competitions foster innovation and motivate students to extend themselves
beyond the classroom, while learning to work as a team, solving real world problems under the same
pressures they will experience in their future careers.
EuRoC is fully aligned with the strategic goals of Portugal Space, namely the development and
evolution of the cultural/educational internationalization frameworks capable of boosting the
development of the Space sector in Portugal.
Since EuRoC’s first edition, in 2020, where 100 students were present to 2021, with 400 students
participating, the growth of the competition within Europe is visible, and especially within Portugal,
with an increasing number of interested teams applying to the competition. For the future, it is
Portugal Space’s goal to continue to foster the exchange of knowledge and international interaction
inherent to the event, allowing more students to gain from the Challenge and, at the same time,
contribute to it.
This document defines the rules and requirements governing participation in EuRoC. Major revisions
of this document will be accomplished by complete document reissue. Smaller revisions will be
reflected in updates to the document’s effective date and marked by the revision number. The
authority to approve and issue revised versions of this document rests with Portugal Space.
1.2. PURPOSE
This document defines the minimum design, test and evaluation criteria that teams must meet before
launching at the competition. These criteria main goal is to promote flight safety. Departures from
the guidance this document provides may negatively impact a team’s score and flight status,
depending on the degree of severity. The foundational, qualifying criteria for EuRoC are contained in
the EuRoC Rules & Requirements document.
The following definitions differentiate between requirements and other statements. The degree to
which a team satisfies the spirit and intent of these statements will guide the competition officials’
decisions on a project’s overall score in EuRoC and flight status at the competition.
Shall
Denotes mandatory requirements.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 9 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Failure to satisfy the spirit and intent of a mandatory requirement will always affect a project’s score
and flight status negatively.
Should
Denotes non-mandatory goals.
Failure to satisfy the spirit and intent of a non-mandatory goal may affect a project’s score and flight
status, depending on design implementation and the team’s ability to provide thorough documentary
evidence of their due diligence on-demand.
Compliance to recommended goals and requirements may impact a team’s score and flight status in
a positive way, as demonstrating additional commitment and diligence to implement (often safety
and reliability related guidelines) is commendable.
Will
States facts and declarations of purpose.
These statements are used to clarify the spirit and intent of requirements and goals.
Flight status
Refers to the granting of permission to attempt a launch and the provisions under which that
permission remains valid.
A project’s flight status may be either nominal, provisional, or denied. The default flight status of any
team is from the project onset “denied”, until project deliverables, and ultimately a successful Flight
Readiness Review and Flight Safety Review, convinces the technical jury to upgrade the flight status
of teams.
1) Nominal:
o A project assigned nominal flight status meets or exceeds the minimum expectations of this
document and reveals no obvious flight safety concerns during flight safety review at the
competition.
2) Provisional:
o A project assigned provisional flight status generally meets the minimum expectations of
this document but reveals flight safety concerns during flight safety review at the
competition which may be mitigated by field modification or by adjusting launch
environment constraints. Launch may occur only when the prescribed provisions are met.
3) Denied:
o Competition officials reserve the right to deny flight status to any project which fails to
meet the minimum expectations of this document or reveals un-mitigatable flight safety
concerns during flight safety review at the competition.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 10 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
An effort is made throughout this document to differentiate between launch vehicle and payload
associated systems. Unless otherwise stated, requirements referring only to the launch vehicle do not
apply to payloads and vice versa.
1.3. DOCUMENTATION
The following documents include standards, guidelines, schedules, or required standard forms. The
documents listed in this section (Table 1) are either applicable to the extent specified herein or contain
reference information useful in the application of this document.
Table 1: Documents file location.
DOCUMENT FILE LOCATION
EuRoC Rules & Requirements http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Design, Test & Evaluation Guide http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Launch Operations http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Entry Form http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Academic Institution Letter Template http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Motors List http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Technical Questionnaire http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Temporary Admission Guide http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Waiver and Release of Liability Form http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Flight Card and Postflight Record http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Master Schedule http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
2. PROPULSION SYSTEMS
2.1. NON-TOXIC PROPELLANTS
Launch vehicles entering EuRoC shall use non-toxic propellants. Ammonium perchlorate composite
propellant (APCP), potassium nitrate and sugar (also known as "rocket candy"), nitrous oxide, liquid
oxygen (LOX), hydrogen peroxide, kerosene, propane, alcohol, and similar substances, are all
considered non-toxic. Toxic propellants are defined as those requiring breathing apparatus, unique
storage and transport infrastructure, extensive personal protective equipment (PPE), etc. Homemade
propellant mixtures containing any fraction of toxic propellants are also prohibited.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 11 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
2.2. SOLID MOTORS
Only COTS solid motors from the official EuRoC motor list (issued separately) are permitted at EuRoC.
The motors must be ordered via the official EuRoC pyrotechnics. Teams should refrain from contacting
any other pyrotechnics suppliers on their own.
2.3. IGNITION SYSTEMS FOR SOLID MOTORS
For all solid motors (COTS and SRAD), the use of the electronic ignition system provided by the EuRoC
organisers is mandatory.
2.4. PROPULSION SYSTEM SAFING AND ARMING
A propulsion system is considered armed if only one action (e.g., an ignition signal) must occur for the
propellant(s) to ignite. The "arming action" is usually something (i.e., a switch in series) that enables
an ignition signal to ignite the propellant(s). For example, a software-based control circuit that
automatically cycles through an "arm function" and an "ignition function" does not, in fact, implement
arming. In this case, the software's arm function does not prevent a single action (e.g., starting the
launch software) from causing unauthorized ignition. This problem may be avoided by including a
manual interrupt in the software program.
These requirements generally concern more complex propulsion systems (i.e., hybrid, liquid, and
multistage systems) and all team provided launch control systems. Additional requirements for team
provided launch control systems are defined in Section 10. of this document.
2.4.1. GROUND-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ARMING
All ground-started propulsion system ignition circuits/sequences shall not be "armed" until all
personnel are at least 15 m away from the launch vehicle. The provided launch control system satisfies
this requirement by implementing a removable "safety jumper" in series with the pad relay box's
power supply. The removal of this single jumper prevents firing current from being sent to any of the
launch rails associated with that pad relay box. Furthermore, access to the socket allowing insertion
of the jumper is controlled via multiple physical locks to ensure that all parties have positive control
of their own safety.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 12 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
2.4.2. AIR-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ARMING
All upper stage (i.e., air-start) propulsion systems shall be armed by launch detection (e.g.,
accelerometers, zero separation force [ZSF] electrical shunt connections, break-wires, or other similar
methods). Regardless of implementation, this arming function will prevent the upper stage from
arming in the event of a misfire.
2.4.3. CLUSTERED PROPULSION
Partial ignition may occur in clustered propulsion systems, leading to an increased probability of
incident occurrence, mainly by three potential consequences:
1. The thrust force is lower than expected, thus acceleration on the launch rail and resulting
launch rail take-off velocity too low, leading to an unstable flight.
2. The thrust force asymmetric, leading to a sideways momentum on the rocket off the launch
rail, thus to an unstable flight, and potentially a structural failure.
3. Incompletely ignited propulsions systems separate from the vehicle, ignite in the air, or ignite
from the top, and burning parts impact the ground.
To ensure stable flight, all clustered vehicles shall have a launch release system ensuring lift-off only
occurs if a minimum threshold force is met. This can be done for example by implementing a
breakaway coupling, a structural fuse, or a rope with defined breaking force.
An electromechanical alternative to a structural fuse is to measure the thrust of the restrained flight
vehicle and then open a quick release mechanism if certain conditions are fulfilled. For example, as
the vehicle throttles up, a squib/pyro actuated quick release latch can be electrically fired (i.e., Sweeny
quick release latch) when the thrust has continuously exceeded a minimum threshold for perhaps 200
milliseconds (jerk and noise suppression).
Figure 1: Example of a Sweeny quick release latch.
(Source: Matt Sweeney SPFX Inc.)
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 13 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
To measure the thrust, a strain gauge could be used, or alternatively piezo-electric pressure sensors
can be applied to measure the combustion pressure inside a thrust chamber, verifying that nominal
thrust has been achieved before the quick release squib is fired. If the latter method with pressure
sensors is used, the sensor/transducer shall be of stainless-steel and mounted in a way so that it
remains protected from hot combustion gases by means of an oil trap.
Furthermore, all clustered vehicles shall provide an engineering proof (e.g., analysis and/or simulation)
that stable flight is ensured for a lift-off force above the threshold force, even if the propulsion system
fires asymmetrically (if applicable).
For vehicles with a “main” and several “secondary” propulsion systems, the arming function of the
secondary propulsion systems shall be armed by launch detection (i.e., air-start), preventing ground
arming of the clustered propulsion in event of misfire.
2.5. AIR-START IGNITION CIRCUIT ELECTRONICS
All upper stage ignition systems shall comply with same requirements and goals for "redundant
electronics" and "safety critical wiring" as recovery systems — understanding that in this case
"initiation" refers to upper stage ignition rather than a recovery event. These requirements and goals
are defined in Sections 3.3. and 3.4. respectively.
2.6. SRAD PROPULSION SYSTEMS
Teams shall comply with all rules, regulations, and best practices imposed by the authorities at their
chosen test location(s). The following requirements concern verification testing of student researched
and developed (SRAD) and modified commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) propulsion systems.
2.6.1. COMBUSTION CHAMBER PRESSURE TESTING
SRAD and modified COTS propulsion system combustion chambers shall be designed and tested
according to the SRAD pressure vessel requirements defined in Section 4.2.. Note that combustion
chambers are exempted from the requirement for a relief device.
2.6.2. HYBRID AND LIQUID PROPULSION FILLING SYSTEMS
Team shall demonstrate that the filling/loading/unloading of the liquid fuels can be done to be ready
for the launch window (maximum 90 minutes for liquid propellant loading, including pressurization).
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 14 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Teams utilising liquid propellants with low boiling point are also strongly encouraged to consider
abandoning the use of “passive” or “self-pressurization” of propellants and adopt active external or
internal pressurization (nitrogen or helium). Besides removing the significant propellant density
uncertainties of two-phase flows (a volatile and somewhat arbitrary mixture of gas bubbles and liquid)
in injectors, the flight vehicle can be pressurized in typically less than 15 seconds, at any point in time
after having been loaded on the launch rail.
If teams utilise any kind of remote-controlled loading mechanism for gases or liquid propellants, the
loading mechanism shall feature a clearly marked and labelled, single action, hand actuated,
“Emergency Release Mechanism”, just in case a remote-controlled release mechanism jams and
requires manual LCO assistance.
It is strongly recommended that the flight vehicle is designed such that any filling/loading/unloading
connections for fluid propellants are readily accessible from the ground. No propellant loading
procedure should necessitate ladders or other elevation devices. Furthermore, teams should account
for a “failed” launch and subsequent unloading in launch preparation, thus teams should ensure the
availability of additional propellants, igniters, and any other parts that might need replacement or
adjustment in case a second launch attempt would be possible.
2.6.3. HYBRID AND LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM TANKING TESTING
SRAD and modified COTS propulsion systems using liquid propellant(s) shall successfully (without
significant anomalies) have completed a propellant loading and off-loading test in
"launchconfiguration", prior to the rocket being brought to the competition. This test may be
conducted using either actual propellant(s) or suitable proxy fluids, with the test results to be
considered a mandatory deliverable and an annex to the Technical Report, in the form of a loading
and off-loading checklist, complete with dates, signatures (at least three) and a statement of a
successful test. Referring to Section 2.4.3., it is highly recommended to perform this test multiple times
as a part of the “all-up static engine test” configuration, described in that section.
The described annex may be amended to the Technical Report, as results become available, up to the
day final deadline for delivery of the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will automatically
result in a “denied” flight status.
Loading and unloading of liquid propellants must be a well-drilled, safe and efficient operation at the
competition launch rails.
2.6.4. HYBRID/LIQUID VENTING
For hybrid and liquid motors, it is imperative that teams can facilitate oxidizer tank venting to prevent
over-pressure situations. Teams will only be able to launch in specific time slots, so pressure relief
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 15 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
measures must be implemented to account for rockets potentially sitting a long time in waiting on the
launch rail. At no time oxidizer tanks must become safety liabilities.
2.6.5. PROPELLANT OFFLOADING AFTER LAUNCH ABORT
Hybrid and liquid propulsion systems shall implement a means for remotely controlled venting or
offloading of all liquid and gaseous propellants in the event of a launch abort.
2.6.6. STATIC HOT-FIRE TESTING
SRAD propulsion systems shall successfully (without significant anomalies) complete an instrumented
(chamber pressure and/or thrust), full scale (including system working time) static hot-fire test prior
to EuRoC. In the case of solid rocket motors, this test needs not to be performed with the same motor
casing and/or nozzle components intended for use at the EuRoC (i.e., teams must verify their casing
design, but are not forced to design reloadable/reusable motor cases).
The test shall, to the extent possible, be conducted as an “all-up static engine test”, which means that
the completed flight vehicle, rigidly fastened to a suitable test stand in an upright position, should be
tested for a full duration burn under the most realistic settings possible. Test results from horizontal
tests, using flight components is less optimum, whereas test results from test benches (not using flight
components) do not qualify.
The test results and a statement of a successful test, complete with dates and signatures (at least
three) are considered a mandatory deliverable and an annex to the Technical Report.
The described annex may be amended to the Technical Report, as results become available, up to the
day final deadline for delivery of the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will automatically
result in a “denied” flight status.
“Test as you fly – Fly as you test”. This test-mentality significantly increases the chances of a lift-off
and a nominal flight.
3. RECOVERY SYSTEMS AND AVIONICS
3.1. DUAL-EVENT PARACHUTE AND PARAFOIL RECOVERY
Each independently recovered launch vehicle body, anticipated to reach an apogee above 450 m
above ground level (AGL), shall follow a "dual-event" recovery operations concept, including an initial
deployment event (e.g., a drogue parachute deployment; reefed main parachute deployment or
similar) and a main deployment event (e.g., a main parachute deployment; main parachute un-reefing
or similar). Independently recovered bodies, whose apogee is not anticipated to exceed 450 m AGL,
are exempt and may feature only a single/main deployment event.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 16 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
3.1.1. INITIAL DEPLOYMENT EVENT
The initial deployment event shall occur at or near apogee, stabilize the vehicle's attitude (i.e., prevent
or eliminate tumbling), and reduce its descent rate sufficiently to permit the main deployment event,
yet not so much as to exacerbate wind drift. Any part, assembly or device, featuring an initial
deployment event, shall result in a descent velocity of said item of 23-46 m/s.
3.1.2. MAIN DEPLOYMENT EVENT
The main deployment event shall occur at an altitude no higher than 450 m AGL and reduce the
vehicle's descent rate sufficiently to prevent excessive damage upon impact with ground. Any part,
assembly or device, featuring a main deployment event, shall result in a descent velocity of said item
of less than 9 m/s.
3.1.3. EJECTION GAS PROTECTION
The recovery system shall implement adequate protection (e.g., fire-resistant material, pistons, baffles
etc.) to prevent hot ejection gases (if implemented) from causing burn damage to retaining chords,
parachutes, and other vital components as the specific design demands.
3.1.4. PARACHUTE SWIVEL LINKS
The recovery system rigging (e.g., parachute lines, risers, shock chords, etc.) shall implement swivel
links at connections to relieve torsion, as the specific design demands. This will mitigate the risk of
torque loads unthreading bolted connections during recovery as well as parachute lines twisting up.
3.1.5. PARACHUTE COLORATION AND MARKINGS
When separate parachutes are used for the initial and main deployment events, these parachutes
should be visually highly dissimilar from one another. This is typically achieved by using parachutes
whose primary colours contrast those of the other chute. This will enable ground-based observers to
characterize deployment events more easily with high-power optics.
Utilised parachutes should use colours providing a clear contrast to a blue sky and a grey/white cloud
cover.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 17 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
3.2. NON-PARACHUTE/PARAFOIL RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Teams exploring other recovery methods (i.e., non-parachute or parafoil based) shall mention them
in the dedicated field of the Technical Questionnaire (see Section 9.1. of the EuRoC Rules &
Requirements document). The organisers may make additional requests for information and draft
unique requirements depending on the team's specific design implementation.
3.3. REDUNDANT ELECTRONICS
Launch vehicles shall implement redundant recovery system electronics, including sensors/flight
computers and "electric initiators" — assuring initiation by a backup system, with a separate power
supply (i.e., battery), if the primary system fails. In this context, electric initiators are the devices
energized by the sensor electronics, which then initiates some other mechanical or chemical energy
release, to deploy its portion of the recovery system (i.e., electric matches, nichrome wire, flash bulbs,
etc.).
3.4. ON-BOARD POWER SYSTEMS AND RAIL STANDBY TIME
Loss of launch slots have been experienced on multiple occasions as onboard batteries are typically
located in inaccessible positions. Despite the requirement of at least six hours of battery life on the
launch rail, an unsuccessful launch attempt typically results in the teams deciding to:
• Disarm any energetic pyrotechnics;
• Take the flight vehicle off the launch rail;
• Haul the rocket back to the team’s preparation area;
• Use tools to perform medium to extensive disassembly of the flight vehicle to extract
batteries;
• Spend one to several hours recharging the batteries, if charged spares are not readily
available;
• Perform the whole operation in reverse and return to the launch rail many hours later, to
perform an additional launch attempt, if the possibility is given.
This is a critically inefficient use of valuable and limited launch campaign time.
Teams should adopt one of the following two strategies:
• Implement an on-board charging and charge level maintenance system using an umbilical
connection and cable;
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 18 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• Place all rechargeable or replaceable batteries conveniently under service panels accessible
from ground level, without resorting to ladders or lowering the launch rail, having several
spare sets of charged batteries ready at any time.
The implementation of an on-board charging and charge level maintenance system, based on a
vehicle-wide charging bus and an umbilical cable (featuring friction-based pull-release), connected to
a ground-based power supply, should be designed/implemented as follows:
• A “charging bus” should run along the entire length of the flight vehicle, interfacing to all
batteries to facilitate charging and continuous charging and subsequent maintenance
tricklecharging; o Use mating connectors at every structural joint;
o Largely all benefits of the system are lost if even a single battery is left out of the
umbilical charging bus system.
• Each tap-off from the on-board charging bus to individual battery subsystems shall be reverse
current flow protected by a suitably rated diode;
• All on-board batteries should feature the same nominal voltage, as far as possible; o If bus
voltage step-down is required for batteries with lower nominal voltage, adequately heat-
dissipated linear regulators are strongly recommended and placed upstream of the
mandatory cell balancing circuits;
o Switch-mode regulation or onboard battery chargers are strongly discouraged due to
generated EMI and electrical noise;
o LiPo battery cell balancing circuits shall protect each individual battery pack; o LiPo
battery cell balancing circuits of up to 12S cell count are widely available as
preassembled PCBs for a low price, complete with built-in undervoltage-cut-off,
overcurrent-protection and overcharging cut-off;
o Flight vehicle batteries could all be considered “permanently” installed, not requiring
removal past initial installation during on-site preparation. The ground-based power
supply should simply be outputting the battery trickle charge voltage, plus a diode
drop, for easiest implementation.
The advantages of implementing such a system are in most cases worth the efforts. Most significantly,
the launch vehicle rail standby time changes to “infinite” and the launch vehicle is always launched
with 100% peak charged batteries.
3.4.1. REDUNDANT COTS RECOVERY ELECTRONICS
At least one redundant recovery system electronics subsystem shall implement a COTS flight computer
(e.g., StratoLogger, G-Wiz, Raven, Parrot, Eggtimer, AIM, EasyMini, TeleMetrum, RRC3, etc.).
To be considered COTS, the flight computer (including flight software) must have been developed and
validated by a commercial third party. While commercially designed flight computer “kits” (e.g., the
Eggtimer) are permitted and considered COTS, any student developed flight computer assembled from
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 19 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
separate COTS components will not be considered a COTS system. Similarly, any COTS microcontroller
running student developed flight software will not be considered a COTS system.
The interconnection redundancy of the nominal and redundant recovery electronics and recovery
systems should be implemented as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Interconnection redundancy implementation. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
3.4.2. DISSIMILAR REDUNDANT RECOVERY ELECTRONICS
There is no requirement that the redundant/backup system be dissimilar to the primary; however,
there are advantages to using dissimilar primary and backup systems. Such configurations are less
vulnerable to any inherent environmental sensitivities, design, or production flaws affecting a
particular component.
3.4.3. RECOVERY ELECTRONICS ACCESS
As for all electronics, it is highly recommended to ensure easy and quick access to switches/connectors
via an access panel on the airframe. Access panels should be positioned so they are reachable from
ground level, ideally without ladders. Access panels shall be secured for flight.
3.5. OFFICIAL ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM
Single-stage flight vehicles and upper-most stages of flight vehicles shall feature a mandatory
operational Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer for official altitude logging and GPS tracking. For more
details see http://eggtimerrocketry.com/.
The competition achieved apogee will be determined from this device.
Note: Deployable payloads and lower stages also require a mandatory Eggfinder GPS tracking device,
but this need not be the TRS Flight Computer.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 20 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
More technical details on the Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer along with recommendations and lessons
learned can be found in Appendix C.
The Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer system serves two purposes:
• Providing the EuRoC evaluation board with the means to easily determine and record the
apogee altitude in a fast, efficient, and consistent way. Since the flight vehicle apogee is a
fundamental part of the competition, the method of determining it must be equally fair (hence
identical) for all teams;
• Provide the student/recovery teams an efficient means of quickly tracking down the location
of all landed flight vehicles (and any other tracked payload/components), to quickly clear the
launch range.
The Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer System was chosen to impose the least amount of inconvenience
to the teams:
• Low weight and volume transmitter, to not impede flight vehicle design or performance;
• Being cheap and imposing the smallest financial burden possible.
3.5.1. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER AS COTS FLIGHT COMPUTER FOR RECOVERY
The Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer may be used as the COTS flight computers to comply with the
requirements for redundant COTS Recovery Electronics according to section 3.3., or it may be used as
an additional, independent standalone system.
The Eggtimer system was NOT chosen because it provides the best overall performance or versatility.
It is however the cheapest system which fulfil the EuRoC organisation minimum functional
requirements with regards to apogee logging and GPS tracking. It is therefore recommended that
teams evaluate the specifications and functionality of the system before they decide between
implementing it as their main flight computer or leaving it as a stand-alone “payload”.
3.5.2. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FREQUENCIES
EuRoC will make specific frequencies available for tracking system use, without the need for specific
radio amateur licenses. Eggtimer Ham-frequency equipment can thus legally be used during EuRoC
without a license. This means that all mandatory TRS Flight Computers must be purchased in the US
“Ham” frequency range.
While the “EU” license free version of the TRS sounds like a compelling option, there is a major
drawback in the fact, that the EU license free band contains only three separate channels/frequencies,
and TRS systems cannot share the same frequency.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 21 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
This is a major problem since multiple flight vehicles might be on the launch rails at the opening of a
launch window. These vehicles will (when propulsive technology permits) be launched successively,
as soon as the previous flight vehicle is believed landed, with no time for additional pre-flight
preparations in between launches.
Therefore, purchasing the “EU” version of the TRS Flight Computer is highly discouraged, despite being
legal to use.
3.5.3. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER OPERATING FREQUENCY ALLOCATION
The EuRoC organisation intends to allocate unique TRS Flight Computer operating frequencies to
teams, at the latest shortly after the FRR. This includes the frequency for the upper-most stage of the
flight vehicle, as well as any other frequencies for lower stages and/or deployable payloads.
Teams shall however be capable of (and prepared to) re-program their operating frequencies of
Eggtimer/finder equipment at short notice in case launch schedule reshuffling requires it so.
3.5.4. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FIRMWARE UPDATE
Teams must ensure that the TRS Flight Computer is running a custom version of the firmware for the
70 cm Ham frequency band, having a channel selection resolution of 25 kHz. This is necessary in order
to be able to select the frequencies allotted to EuRoC.
Please note that firmware updates can be done at any time by participating teams, as long as the
hardware has been procured.
3.5.5. TRS COMPATIBLE RECEIVER(S)
While teams are not required to procure one or more receivers for the Eggfinder “Ham-version” TRS
Flight Computer, according to the EuRoC Rules and Requirements, teams shall procure the “full kit
package”, as it includes the LCD GPS receiver.
3.5.6. TRS ELECTRONICS ACCESS
As for all electronics, it is highly recommended to ensure easy and quick access to switches/connectors
via an access panel on the airframe. Access panels should be positioned so they are reachable from
ground level, ideally without ladders. Access panels shall be secured for flight.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 22 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
3.6. SAFETY CRITICAL WIRING
For the purposes of this document, safety critical wiring is defined as electrical wiring associated with
recovery system deployment events and any "air started" rocket motors.
3.6.1. CABLE MANAGEMENT
All safety critical wiring shall implement a cable management solution (e.g., wire ties, wiring,
harnesses, cable raceways) which will prevent tangling and excessive free movement of significant
wiring/cable lengths due to expected launch loads. This requirement is not intended to negate the
small amount of slack necessary at all connections/terminals to prevent unintentional de-mating due
to expected launch loads transferred into wiring/cables at physical interfaces.
3.6.2. SECURE CONNECTIONS
All safety critical wiring/cable connections shall be sufficiently secure as to prevent de-mating due to
expected launch loads. This will be evaluated by a "tug test", in which the connection is gently but
firmly "tugged" by hand to verify it is unlikely to break free in flight.
3.6.3. CRYO-COMPATIBLE WIRE INSULATION
In case of propellants with a boiling point of less than -50°C any wiring or harness passing within close
proximity of a cryogenic device (e.g., valve, piping, etc.) or a cryogenic tank (e.g., a cable tunnel next
to a LOX tank) shall utilize safety critical wiring with cryo-compatible insulation (i.e., Teflon, PTFE, etc.).
3.7. RECOVERY SYSTEM ENERGETIC DEVICES
All stored-energy devices (i.e., energetics) used in recovery systems shall comply with the energetic
device requirements defined in Section 4. of this document.
3.8. RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING
Recovery system testing has proven to be one of the most critical and at the same time
underestimated tasks. Teams are strongly encouraged to test the system back-to-back as good as they
can and implement standard procedures that they can fall back onto even during the most stressful of
launch days.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 23 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Teams shall comply with all rules, regulations, and best practices imposed by the authorities at their
chosen test location(s). The following requirements concern verification testing of all recovery
systems.
3.8.1. GROUND TEST DEMONSTRATION
All recovery system mechanisms shall be successfully (without significant anomalies) tested prior to
EuRoC, either by flight testing, or through one or more ground tests of key subsystems. In the case of
such ground tests, sensor electronics will be functionally included in the demonstration by simulating
the environmental conditions under which their deployment function is triggered.
The test results and a statement of a successful test, complete with dates and signatures (at least
three) are considered a mandatory deliverable and annex to the Technical Report.
The described annex may be amended to the Technical Report, as results become available, up to the
day final deadline for delivery of the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will automatically
result in a “denied” flight status.
Correct, reliable and repeatable recovery system performance is absolute top priority from a safety
point of view. Statistical data also concludes that namely recovery system failures are the major cause
of abnormal “landings”.
3.8.2. OPTIONAL FLIGHT TEST DEMONSTRATION
All recovery system mechanisms shall be successfully (without significant anomalies) tested prior to
EuRoC, either by flight testing, or through one or more ground tests of key subsystems. While not
required, a flight test demonstration may be used in place of ground testing. In the case of such a flight
test, the recovery system flown will verify the intended design by implementing the same major
subsystem components (e.g., flight computers and parachutes) as will be integrated into the launch
vehicle intended for EuRoC (i.e., a surrogate booster may be used).
The test results and a statement of a successful test, complete with dates and signatures (at least
three) are considered a mandatory deliverable and annex to the Technical Report.
The described annex may be amended to the Technical Report, as results become available, up to the
day final deadline for delivery of the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will automatically
result in a “denied” flight status.
Correct, reliable and repeatable recovery system performance is absolute top priority from a safety
point of view. Statistical data also concludes that namely recovery system failures are the major cause
of abnormal “landings”.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 24 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
3.8.3. OPTIONAL FLIGHT ELECTRONICS DEMONSTRATION
Teams are encouraged to have a setup to demonstrate the electronics and recovery system working
routine in the FRR, either by a software routine that actuates the outputs of the flight computer and
using LED indicators or buzzers or by a self-developed setup. This step is not mandatory, it is instead
a recommendation for teams to detect some possible bugs and defects in their system.
4. STORED-ENERGY DEVICES
4.1. ENERGETIC DEVICE SAFING AND ARMING
All energetics shall be “safed” until the rocket is in the launch position, at which point they may be
"armed". An energetic device is considered safed when two separate events are necessary to release
the energy of the system. An energetic device is considered armed when only one event is necessary
to release the energy. For the purpose of this document, energetics are defined as all stored-energy
devices – other than propulsion systems – that have reasonable potential to cause bodily injury upon
energy release. The following table lists some common types of stored-energy devices and overviews
and in which configurations they are considered non-energetic, safed, or armed.
Table 2: Overviews and configurations of stored-energy devices.
DEVICE CLASS NON-ENERGETIC SAFED ARMED
Igniters/Squibs
Small igniters/squibs,
nichrome, wire or
similar
Large igniters with leads
shunted
Large igniters with
no- shunted leads
Pyrogens (e.g.,
black powder)
Very small quantities
contained in non-
shrapnel producing
devices (e.g., pyrocutters
or pyro-valves)
Large quantities with no
igniter, shunted igniter
leads, or igniter(s)
connected to unpowered
avionics
Large quantities with
non-shunted igniter
or igniter(s)
connected to
powered avionics
Mechanical Devices
(e.g., powerful
springs)
De-energized/relaxed
state, small devices, or
captured devices (i.e.,
no jettisoned parts)
Mechanically locked and
not releasable by a single
event
Unlocked and
releasable by a single
event
Pressure Vessels
Non-charged pressure
vessels
Charged vessels with two
events required to open
main valve
Charged vessels with
one event required
to open main valve
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 25 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Although these definitions are consistent with the propulsion system arming definition provided in
Section 2. of this document, this requirement is directed mainly at the energetics used by recovery
systems and extends to all other energetics used in experiments, control systems, etc. Note that while
Section 2.4.1. requires propulsion systems to be armed only after the launch rail area is evacuated to
a specified distance, this requirement permits personnel to arm other stored-energy devices at the
launch rail.
4.1.1. ARMING DEVICE ACCESS
All energetic device arming features shall be externally accessible/controllable. This does not preclude
the limited use of access panels which may be secured for flight while the vehicle is in the launch
position.
4.1.2. ARMING DEVICE LOCATION
All energetic device arming features shall be located on the airframe such that any inadvertent energy
release by these devices will not impact personnel arming them. For example, the arming key switch
for an energetic device used to deploy a hatch panel shall not be located at the same airframe clocking
position as the hatch panel deployed by that charge.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the arming mechanism is accessible from ground level,
without the use of ladders or other elevation devices, when the rocket is at a vertical orientation on
the launch rail. If this requirement is considered early in the design process, implementing the arming
devices in the lower section of the rocket is easy, while also mitigating the need for risky or hazardous
arming procedures at a height.
4.2. SRAD PRESSURE VESSELS
The following requirements concern design and verification testing of SRAD and modified COTS
pressure vessels. Unmodified COTS pressure vessels utilized for other than their advertised
specifications will be considered modified, and subject to these requirements. SRAD (including
modified COTS) rocket motor propulsion system combustion chambers are included as well but are
exempted from the relief device requirement.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 26 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
4.2.1. RELIEF DEVICE
SRAD pressure vessels shall implement a relief device, set to open at no greater than the proof
pressure specified in the following requirements. SRAD (including modified COTS) rocket motor
propulsion system combustion chambers are exempted from this requirement.
4.2.2. DESIGNED BURST PRESSURE FOR METALLIC PRESSURE VESSELS
SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels constructed entirely from isotropic materials (e.g., metals)
shall be designed to a burst pressure no less than 2 times the maximum expected operating pressure,
where the maximum operating pressure is the maximum pressure expected during pre-launch, flight,
and recovery operations.
4.2.3. DESIGNED BURST PRESSURE FOR COMPOSITE PRESSURE VESSELS
All SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels either constructed entirely from non-isotropic materials
(e.g., fibre reinforced plastics; FRP; composites) or implementing composite overwrap of a metallic
vessel (i.e., composite overwrapped pressure vessels; COPV), shall be designed to a burst pressure no
less than 3 times the maximum expected operating pressure, where the maximum operating pressure
is the maximum pressure expected during pre-launch, flight, and recovery operations.
4.2.4. SRAD PRESSURE VESSEL TESTING
Teams shall comply with all rules, regulations, and best practices imposed by the authorities at their
chosen test location(s). The following requirements concern design and verification testing of SRAD
and modified COTS pressure vessels. Unmodified COTS pressure vessels utilized for other than their
advertised specifications will be considered modified, and subject to these requirements. SRAD
(including modified COTS) rocket motor propulsion system combustion chambers are included as well.
4.2.4.1. PROOF PRESSURE TESTING
SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels shall be proof pressure tested successfully (without
significant anomalies) to 1.5 times the maximum expected operating pressure for no less than twice
the maximum expected system working time, using the intended flight article(s) (e.g., the pressure
vessel(s) used in proof testing must be the same one(s) flown at EuRoC). The maximum system working
time is defined as the maximum uninterrupted time duration the vessel will remain pressurized during
pre-launch, flight, and recovery operations.
The test results and a statement of a successful test, complete with dates and signatures (at least
three) are considered mandatory deliverable and annexed to the Technical Report.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 27 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
The described annex may be amended to the Technical Report, as results become available, up to the
day final deadline for delivery of the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will automatically
result in a “denied” flight status.
The pressure testing is an important factor in instilling confidence in the structural strength and
integrity of the flown pressure vessels. Since liquid propellant loading onto hybrid or bi-liquid
propelled flight vehicles will in the majority of cases involve manual loading, there will be times where
ground personnel will be in close proximity with pressurized systems. It is crucial that ground
personnel safety is heightened by the use of proof pressure tested pressure vessels.
4.2.4.2. OPTIONAL BURST PRESSURE TESTING
Although there is no requirement for burst pressure testing, a rigorous verification & validation test
plan typically includes a series of both non-destructive (i.e., proof pressure) and destructive (i.e., burst
pressure) tests. A series of burst pressure tests performed on the intended design will be viewed
favourably; however, this will not be considered an alternative to proof pressure testing of the
intended flight article.
5. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS
5.1. RESTRICTED CONTROL FUNCTIONALITY
Launch vehicle active flight control systems shall be optionally implemented strictly for pitch and/or
roll stability augmentation, or for aerodynamic "braking". Under no circumstances will a launch vehicle
entered in EuRoC be actively guided towards a designated spatial target. The organisers may make
additional requests for information and draft unique requirements depending on the team's specific
design implementation.
5.2. UNNECESSARY FOR STABLE FLIGHT
Launch vehicles implementing active flight controls shall be naturally stable without these controls
being implemented (e.g., the launch vehicle may be flown with the control actuator system [CAS] —
including any control surfaces — either removed or rendered inert and mechanically locked, without
becoming unstable during ascent).
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 28 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Attitude Control Systems (ACS) will serve only to mitigate the small perturbations which affect the
trajectory of a stable rocket that implements only fixed aerodynamic surfaces for stability. Stability is
defined in Section 8.3. of this document. The organisers may make additional requests for information
and draft unique requirements depending on the team's specific design implementation.
5.3. DESIGNED TO FAIL SAFE
Control Actuator Systems (CAS) shall mechanically lock in a neutral state whenever either an abort
signal is received for any reason, primary system power is lost, or the launch vehicle's attitude exceeds
30° from its launch elevation. Any one of these conditions being met will trigger the fail-safe, neutral
system state. A neutral state is defined as one which does not apply any moments to the launch vehicle
(e.g., aerodynamic surfaces trimmed or retracted, gas jets off, etc.).
5.4. BOOST PHASE DORMANCY
CAS shall mechanically lock in a neutral state until either the mission’s boost phase has ended (i.e., all
propulsive stages have ceased producing thrust), the launch vehicle has crossed the point of maximum
aerodynamic pressure (i.e., max Q) in its trajectory, or the launch vehicle has reached an altitude of
6000 m AGL. Any one of these conditions being met will permit the active system state. A neutral state
is defined as one which does not apply any moments to the launch vehicle (e.g., aerodynamic surfaces
trimmed or retracted, gas jets off, etc.).
Since all flight vehicles with Control Actuator Systems (guidance systems) are to be designed inherently
passively stable at lift-off, CAS are not needed until somewhat into the flight, performing minor course
corrections thereafter. In enforcing a boost dormancy phase, any unexpected, erratic, or faulty CAS
system behaviour will take place far from the launch rail, minimizing the chances of putting EuRoC
participants at risk near the launch rail.
5.5. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM ELECTRONICS
Wherever possible, all active control systems should comply with requirements and goals for
"redundant electronics" and "safety critical wiring" as recovery systems — understanding that in this
case "initiation" refers CAS commanding rather than a recovery event. These requirements and goals
are defined in Sections 3.3. and Section 3.4. respectively of this document. Flight control systems are
exempt from the requirement for COTS redundancy, given that such components are generally
unavailable as COTS to the amateur high-power rocketry community.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 29 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
As for all electronics, it is highly recommended to ensure easy and quick access to switches/connectors
via an access panel on the airframe. Access panels should be positioned so they are reachable from
ground level, ideally without ladders. Access panels shall be secured for flight.
5.6. ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM ENERGETICS
All stored-energy devices used in an active flight control system (i.e., energetics) shall comply with the
energetic device requirements defined in Section 4. of this document.
6. AIRFRAME STRUCTURES
6.1. ADEQUATE VENTING
Launch vehicles shall be adequately vented to prevent unintended internal pressures developed
during flight from causing either damage to the airframe or any other unplanned configuration
changes. Typically, a 3 mm to 5 mm hole is drilled in the booster section just behind the nosecone or
payload shoulder area, and through the hull or bulkhead of any similarly isolated compartment/bay.
6.2. OVERALL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
Launch vehicles will be constructed to withstand the operating stress and retain structural integrity
under the conditions encountered during handling as well as rocket flight. The following requirements
address some key points applicable to almost all amateur high-power rockets but are not exhaustive
of the conditions affecting each unique design. Student teams are ultimately responsible for
thoroughly understanding, analysing and mitigating their design’s unique load set.
6.2.1. MATERIAL SELECTION
PVC (and similar low-temperature polymers), Public Missiles Ltd. (PML) Quantum Tube components
shall not be used in any structural (i.e., load bearing) capacity, most notably as load bearing eyebolts,
launch vehicle airframes, or propulsion system combustion chambers.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 30 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
6.2.2. LOAD BEARING EYEBOLTS AND U-BOLTS
All load bearing eyebolts shall be of the closed-eye, forged type — NOT of the open eye, bent wire
type. Furthermore, all load bearing eyebolts and U-Bolts shall be steel or stainless steel. This
requirement extends to any bolt and eye-nut assembly used in place of an eyebolt.
6.2.3. IMPLEMENTING COUPLING TUBES
Airframe joints which implement "coupling tubes" should be designed such that the coupling tube
extends no less than one body calibre (1D) on either side of the joint — measured from the separation
plane. This rule applies both for “half” couplings (e.g., nosecone – body tube/coupling tube) as well as
for “full” couplings (e.g., body tube – coupling tube – body tube). See example in Figure 3 for clarity.
Regardless of implementation (e.g., RADAX or other join types) airframe joints need to be "stiff" (i.e.,
prevent bending).
Figure 3: Examples for coupling tubes.
6.2.4. LAUNCH LUG MECHANICAL ATTACHMENT
Launch lugs (i.e., rail guides) should implement "hard points" for mechanical attachment to the launch
vehicle airframe. These hardened/reinforced areas on the vehicle airframe, such as a block of wood
installed on the airframe interior surface where each launch lug attaches, will assist in mitigating lug
"tear outs" during operations.
The aft most launch lug shall support the launch vehicle's fully loaded launch weight while vertical.
At EuRoC, competition officials will require teams to lift their launch vehicles by the rail guides and/or
demonstrate that the bottom guide can hold the vehicle's weight when vertical. This test needs to be
completed successfully before the admittance of the team to Launch Readiness Review.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 31 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
6.3. RF TRANSPARENCY
Any internally mounted RF transmitter, receiver or transceiver, not having the applicable antenna or
antennas mounted externally on the airframe, shall employ “RF windows" in the airframe shell plating
(typically glass fibre panels), enabling RF devices with antennas mounted inside the airframe, to
transmit the signal though the airframe shell.
RF windows in the flight vehicle shell shall be a 360° circumference and be at least two body diameters
in length. The internally mounted RF antenna(s) shall be placed at the midpoint of the RF window
section, facilitating maximizing the azimuth radiation pattern.
RF transmitter, receivers or transceivers are not allowed to be mounted externally.
Please note, that even though a single downward facing antenna mounted on a stabilization fin near
the engine seems like a good way to provide nearly a 360° radiation pattern from a single antenna
without significant dead-zones. This is true at any point in time, except when the rocket engine is
active. The ionized exhaust gas from the engine is highly disruptive to RF signals, so degradation or
loss of link is to be expected.
As popular as carbon fibre is for the construction of strong and lightweight airframes, it is also
conductive and will significantly shield and/or degrade RF signals, which is unacceptable. Externally
mounted antennas often provide a more powerful and uniform radiation pattern but finds the flight
vehicle body providing RF dead zones, meaning that at least two antennas on opposite sides of the
airframe are advisable.
RF antennas shall be kept as far away as possible from wiring and metallic structural elements.
Numerous examples of poor installation practice have at a great extent ruined telemetry and link
performances. Teams are highly advised to follow best RF-practices.
6.4. IDENTIFYING MARKINGS
The team's Team ID (a number assigned by EuRoC prior to the competition event), project name, and
academic affiliation(s) shall be clearly identified on the launch vehicle airframe. The Team ID
especially, will be prominently displayed (preferably visible on all four quadrants of the vehicle, as well
as fore and aft), assisting competition officials to positively identify the project hardware with its
respective team throughout EuRoC.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 32 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
6.5. OTHER MARKINGS
There are no requirements for airframe coloration or markings beyond those specified in Section 6.4.
of this document. However, EuRoC offers the following recommendations to student teams: mostly
white or lighter tinted colour (e.g., yellow, red, orange, etc.) airframes are especially conducive to
mitigating some of the solar heating experienced in the EuRoC launch environment. Furthermore,
high-visibility schemes (e.g., high-contrast black, orange, red, etc.) and roll patterns (e.g., contrasting
stripes, “V” or “Z” marks, etc.) may allow ground-based observers to track and record the launch
vehicle’s trajectory with high-power optics more easily.
7. PAYLOAD
7.1. PAYLOAD RECOVERY
Payloads may be deployable or remain attached to the launch vehicle throughout the flight.
Deployable payloads shall incorporate an independent recovery system, reducing the payload's
descent velocity to less than 9 m/s before it descends through an altitude of 450 m AGL.
All types of deployable payloads must be authorized by the EuRoC Technical Evaluation Board prior to
the EuRoC. Deployable payloads without two-stage recovery systems (drogue and main chute, like the
rockets) will be subjective to considerable drift during descent.
Note that deployable payloads implementing a parachute or parafoil based recovery system are not
required to comply with the dual-event requirements described in Section 3.1. of this document, being
allowed to utilize a single-stage 8-9m/s descent rate from apogee recovery system, subject to case-
by-case EuRoC approval (the intent being to accommodate certain science/engineering packages
requiring extended airborne mission time).
7.1.1. PAYLOAD RECOVERY SYSTEM ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY CRITICAL WIRING
Payloads implementing independent recovery systems shall comply with the same requirements and
goals as the launch vehicle for "redundant electronics" and "safety critical wiring". These requirements
and goals are defined in Sections 3.3. and 3.4. respectively.
7.1.2. PAYLOAD RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING
Payloads implementing independent recovery systems shall comply with the same requirements and
goals as the launch vehicle for "recovery system testing". These requirements and goals are defined
in Section 3.8..
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 33 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
7.1.3. DEPLOYABLE PAYLOAD GPS TRACKING REQUIRED
It must be noted that deployable payloads are equivalent to flight vehicle bodies and sections, in that
they can be difficult to locate after landing. All deployable payloads shall feature the same mandatory
GPS tracking system as all rockets and rocket stages as specified in Section 3.5. of this document.
The GPS locator ID must differ from the ID of the launch vehicle.
7.2. PAYLOAD ENERGETIC DEVICES
All stored-energy devices (i.e., energetics) used in payload systems shall comply with the energetic
device requirements defined in Section 4. of this document.
8. LAUNCH AND ASCENT TRAJECTORY REQUIREMENTS
8.1. LAUNCH AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION
Launch vehicles shall nominally launch at an elevation angle of 84° ±1° and a launch azimuth defined
by competition officials at EuRoC. Competition officials reserve the right to require certain vehicles'
launch elevation be as low as 70° if flight safety issues are identified during pre-launch activities.
The tolerance expressed within the nominal launch azimuth is intended as nothing more than an
expression of acceptable human error by the operator setting the launch rail elevation prior to launch.
8.2. LAUNCH STABILITY
Launch vehicles shall have sufficient velocity upon "departing the launch rail" to ensure they will follow
predictable flight paths. In lieu of detailed analysis, a rail departure velocity of at least 30 m/s is
generally acceptable. Alternatively, the team may use detailed analysis to prove stability is achieved
at a lower rail departure velocity 20 m/s either theoretically (e.g., computer simulation) or empirically
(e.g., flight testing).
Teams shall comply with all rules, regulations, and best practices imposed by the authorities at their
chosen test location(s). Departing the launch rail is defined as the first instant in which the launch
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 34 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
vehicle becomes free to move about the pitch, yaw, or roll axis. This generally occurs at the instant
the last rail guide forward of the vehicle's centre of gravity (CG) separates from the launch rail.
The requirements for team provided launch rails are defined in Section 10. of this document.
8.3. ASCENT STABILITY
Launch vehicles shall remain "stable" for the entire ascent. Stable is defined as maintaining a static
stability margin of at least 1.5 calibres throughout the whole flight phase (upon leaving the launch
rail), regardless of CG movement due to depleting consumables and shifting centre of pressure (CP)
location due to wave drag effects (which may become significant as low as 0.5 Mach).
8.4. OVER-STABILITY
All launch vehicles should avoid becoming "over-stable" during their ascent. A launch vehicle may be
considered over-stable with a static margin significantly greater than 2 body calibres (e.g., greater than
6 body calibres).
9. EUROC LAUNCH SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
9.1. LAUNCH RAILS
EuRoC will provide standardised launch rails for the teams that do not intend to bring their own launch
rail. One of the EuRoC Launch rails which will generally be near the paddock during Flight Readiness
Reviews for the Launch Rail Fit Check, while three will be at the Launch Site. The vehicle is guided by
a 50 mm x 50 mm cross-section aluminium rail by Kanya (see Figure 4 for details) The launch rail length
is 12 m and the launch rail inclination usually 84±1° to vertical, which may be lowered on a case-by-
case basis if the EuRoC officials deem it necessary. For details on the launch lugs, please see Section
6.2.4..
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 35 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 4: EuRoC launch rail profile.
9.1.1. LAUNCH RAIL FIT CHECK
All teams shall perform a “launch rail fit check” as a part of the flight preparations (the Flight Readiness
Review), before going to the launch range. This requirement is particularly important if a team is not
bringing their own launch rail, but instead relying on EuRoC provided launch rails. Teams shall provide
their own bottom “spacer” to define their vehicles’ vertical position on the rail.
Arriving at the launch rails, only then discovering that a team's launch lugs does not fit the launch rail,
will be considered gross negligence by Mission Control and the EuRoC evaluation board. The launch
rail fit check will ensure that such surprises are not encountered on the launch rails, causing delays
and loss of launch opportunities.
Note: The launch rail fit check can only be done in the presence of EuRoC officials. Teams cannot use
the EuRoC launch rails without permission, any launch rail related activity shall be duly authorised by
EuRoC officials.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 36 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
9.2. EUROC- PROVIDED LAUNCH CONTROL SYSTEM
EuRoC will provide a Launch Control System. The system will be a Wilson F/X Wireless Launch Control
System or equivalent.
The Wilson F/X wireless Launch Control System with one LCU-64x launch control unit and two PBU-8w
encrypted pad relay boxes (more details on Wilson F/X Digital Launch Control Systems may be found
on the Wilson F/X website: www.wilsonfx.com).
10. TEAM-PROVIDED LAUNCH SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
10.1. EQUIPMENT PORTABILITY
If possible/practicable, teams should make their launch support equipment man-portable over a short
distance (a few hundred metres). Environmental considerations at the launch site permit only limited
vehicle use beyond designated roadways, campgrounds, and basecamp areas.
10.2. LAUNCH RAIL ELEVATION
Team provided launch rails shall implement the nominal launch elevation specified in Section 8.1. of
this document and, if adjustable, not permit launch at angles either greater than the nominal elevation
or lower than 70°.
10.3. OPERATIONAL RANGE
All team provided launch control systems shall be electronically operated and have a maximum
operational range of no less than 650 metres from the launch rail. The maximum operational range is
defined as the range at which launch may be commanded reliably.
10.4. FAULT TOLERANCE AND ARMING
All team provided launch control systems shall be at least single fault tolerant by implementing a
removable safety interlock (i.e., a jumper or key to be kept in possession of the arming crew during
arming) in series with the launch switch. Appendix B: Fire Control System Design Guidelines of this
document provides general guidance on assuring fault tolerance in amateur high-power rocketry
launch control systems.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 37 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
10.5. SAFETY CRITICAL SWITCHES
All team provided launch control systems shall implement ignition switches of the momentary,
normally open (also known as "dead man") type so that they will remove the signal when released.
Mercury or "pressure roller" switches are not permitted anywhere in team provided launch control
systems.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 38 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
AA Actual Apogee
AGL Above Ground Level
APCP Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant
APRS Automatic Packet Reporting System
ANAC Portugal’s National Civil Aviation Authority
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial of-the-shelf
DTEG Design, Test and Evaluation Guide
EuRoC European Rocketry Challenge
ESRA Experimental Sounding Rocket Association
FRR Flight Readiness Review
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System
H Hybrid
HPR High Power Rocket
IREC Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition
L Liquid
LRR Launch Readiness Review
LOX Liquid Oxygen
P Points
RF Radio Frequency
S Solid
SAC Spaceport America Cup
SRAD Student Researched & Developed
TA Target Apogee
TBD To be determined or defined
TBR
TBC
To be resolved
To be confirmed
TEB Technical Evaluation Board
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 39 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
U Unit, as in Cube-Sat unit
ACS Attitude Control Systems
AGL Above Ground Level
APCP Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant
APRS Automatic Packet Reporting System
ANAC Portugal´s National Civil Aviation Authority
CAS Control Actuator System
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COPV Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels
COTS Commercial of-the-shelf
DTEG Design, Test and Evaluation Guide
EuRoC European Rocketry Challenge
ESRA Experimental Sounding Rocket Association
FRP Fibre Reinforced Plastics
GPS Global Positioning System
HPR High Power Rocket
IREC Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition
LOX Liquid Oxygen
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
SRAD Student Researched & Developed
TBD To be determined or defined
TBR To be resolved
APPENDIX B: FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES
B.1. INTRODUCTION
The following white paper is written to illustrate safe fire control system design best practices and
philosophy to student teams participating in the IREC. When it comes to firing (launch) systems for
large amateur rockets, safety is paramount. This is a concept that everyone agrees with, but it is
apparent that few truly appreciate what constitutes a “safe” firing system. Whether they have ever
seen it codified or not, most rocketeers understand the basics:
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 40 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The control console should be designed such that two deliberate actions are required to fire
the system;
• The system should include a power interrupt such that firing current cannot be sent to the
firing leads while personnel are at the pad and this interrupt should be under the control of
personnel at the pad.
These are good design concepts and if everything is working as it should they result in a perfectly safe
firing system. But “everything is working as it should” is a dangerous assumption to make. Control
consoles bounce around in the backs of trucks during transport. Cables get stepped on, tripped over,
and run over. Switches get sand and grit in them. In other words, components fail. As such there is
one more concept that should be incorporated into the design of a firing system:
The failure of any single component should not compromise the safety of the firing system.
B.2. PROPER FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Let us examine a firing system that may at first glance appear to be simple, well designed, and safe
(Figure 1). If everything is functioning as designed, this is a perfectly safe firing system, but let’s
examine the system for compliance with proper safe design practices.
The control console should be designed such that two deliberate actions are required to launch the
rocket. Check! There are actually three deliberate actions required at the control console: (1) insert
the key, (2) turn the key to arm the system, (3) press the fire button.
The system should include a power interrupt such that ignition current cannot be sent to the firing
leads while personnel are at the pad and this interrupt should be under control of personnel at the
pad. Check and check! The Firing relay effectively isolates the electric match from the firing power
supply (battery) and as the operator at the pad should have the key in his pocket, there is no way that
a person at the control console can accidentally fire the rocket.
But all of this assumes that everything in the firing system is working as it should. Are there any single
component failures that can cause a compromise in the safety of this system? Yes. In a system that
only has five components beyond the firing lines and e-match, three of those components can fail with
potentially lethal results.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 41 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 5: A simple high current fire control system.
Firing Relay: If the firing relay was stuck in the ON position: The rocket would fire the moment it was
hooked to the firing lines. This is a serious safety failure with potentially lethal consequences as the
rocket would be igniting with pad personnel in immediate proximity.
Arming Switch: If the arm key switch failed in the ON position simply pushing the fire button would
result in a fired rocket whether intentional or not. This is particularly concerning as the launch key –
intended as a safety measure controlled by pad personnel – becomes utterly meaningless. Assuming
all procedures were followed, the launch would go off without a hitch. Regardless, this is a safety
failure as only one action (pressing the fire button) would be required at the control console to launch
the rocket. Such a button press could easily happen by accident. If personnel at the pad were near the
rocket at the time we are again dealing with a potentially lethal outcome
CAT5 Cable: If the CAT5 cable was damaged and had a short in it the firing relay would be closed and
the rocket would fire the moment it was hooked to the firing lines. This too is a potentially lethal safety
failure.
Notice that all three of these failures could result in the rocket being fired while there are still
personnel in immediate proximity to the rocket. A properly designed firing system does not allow
single component failures to have such drastic consequences. Fortunately, the system can be fixed
with relative ease.
Consider the revised system (Figure 6). It has four additional features built into it:
(1) a separate battery to power the relay (as opposed to relying on the primary battery at the pad),
(2) a flip cover over the fire button,
(3) a lamp/buzzer in parallel with the firing leads (to provide a visual/auditory warning in the event
that voltage is present at the firing lines), and
(4) a switch to short-out the firing leads during hook up (pad personnel should turn the shunt switch
ON anytime they approach the rocket).
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 42 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 6: An improved high current fire control system.
In theory, these simple modifications to the previous firing circuit have addressed all identified single
point failures in the system. The system has 8 components excluding the firing lines and e-match (part
of the rocket itself). Can the failure of any of these components cause an inadvertent firing? That is
the question. Let us examine the consequences of the failure of each of these components.
Fire Button: If the fire button fails in the ON position, there are still two deliberate actions at the
control console required to fire the rocket. (1) The key must be inserted into the arming switch, and
(2) the key must be rotated. The firing will be a bit of a surprise, but it will not result in a safety failure
as all personnel should have been cleared by the time possession of the key is transferred to the Firing
Officer.
Arm Switch: If the arm switch were to fail in the ON position, there are still two deliberate actions at
the control console required to fire the rocket. (1) The cover over the fire button would have to be
removed, and (2) the fire button would have to be pushed. This is not an ideal situation as the system
would appear to function flawlessly even though it is malfunctioning and the key in the possession of
personnel at the launch pad adds nothing to the safety of the overall system. It is for this reason that
the shunting switch should be used. Use of the shunting switch means that any firing current would
be dumped through the shunting switch rather than the e-match until the pad personnel are clear of
the rocket. Thus, personnel at the pad retain a measure of control even in the presence of a
malfunctioning arming switch and grossly negligent use of the control console.
Batteries: If either battery (control console or pad box) fails, firing current cannot get to the e-match
either because the firing relay does not close or because no firing current is available. No fire means
no safety violation.
CAT5 Cable: If the CAT5 cable were to be damaged and shorted, the system would simply not work as
current intended to pull in the firing relay would simply travel through the short. No fire means no
safety violation.
Firing Relay: If the firing relay fails in the ON position the light/buzzer should alert the pad operator of
the failure before he even approaches the pad to hook up the e-match.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 43 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Shunt switch, Lamp/Buzzer: These are all supplementary safety devices. They are intended as added
layers of safety to protect and/or warn of failures of other system components. Their correct (or
incorrect) function cannot cause an inadvertent firing.
Is this a perfect firing system? No. There is always room for improvement. Lighted switches or similar
features could be added to provide feedback on the health of all components. Support for firings at
multiple launch pads could be included. Support for the fuelling of hybrids and/or liquids could be
required. A wireless data link could provide convenient and easy to set up communications at greater
ranges. The list of desired features is going to be heavily situation dependent and is more likely to be
limited by money than good ideas.
Hopefully the reader is getting the gist: The circuit should be designed such that no single equipment
failure can result in the inadvertent firing of the e-match and thus, the rocket motor. Whether or not
a particular circuit is applicable to any given scenario is beside the larger point that in the event of any
single failure a firing system should always fail safe and never fail in a dangerous manner. No matter
how complicated the system may be, it should be analysed in depth and the failure of any single
component should never result in the firing of a rocket during an unsafe range condition. Note that
this is the bare minimum requirement; ideally, a firing system can handle multiple failures in a safe
manner.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 44 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX C: OFFICIAL ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM
C.1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains mandatory provisions for flight vehicles partaking in the EuRoC competition.
C.1.1. SCOPE
EuRoC calls for a specific system for rocket (flight vehicle) apogee tracking and subsequent
location/recovery of landed vehicles, which this appendix focuses on.
The specific system tested and approved for these tasks is described in further detail in the technical
sections, along with recommendations and lessons learned from the test campaign at the end.
C.1.2. BACKGROUND
The fast growth in number of teams attending the EuRoC competition calls for some careful
considerations on how to complete the following two tasks in the most efficient and expedient way:
• Providing the EuRoC jury with the means to easily determine and record the apogee altitude
in a fast, efficient, and consistent way. Since the flight vehicle apogee is a fundamental part of
the competition, the method of determining it must be equally fair (hence identical) for all
teams;
• Provide the student/recovery teams an efficient means of quickly tracking down the location
of all landed flight vehicles (and any other tracked payload/components), to quickly clear the
launch range.
After careful consideration of what a future-proof solution to the above could look like, EuRoC requires
students to fly a mandatory system for altitude logging and recovery tracking.
C.1.3. RATIONALE
While the prime intentions behind instigating a specific mandatory altitude and logging system are
clear, the EuRoC organisation has also put some emphasis on trying to find a solution which will impose
the least amount of inconvenience (in general) on teams.
An example of trying to impose a least amount of inconvenience, for requiring the installation of a
distinct mandatory altitude logging and tracking system is, for example:
• Low weight and volume transmitter, to not impede flight vehicle design or performance;
• Being cheap and imposing the smallest financial burden possible.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 45 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
It is the EuRoC organisation main objective to seek out a universally fair and transparent method of
determining apogee, where teams may be separated by only a few meters at apogee.
Furthermore, the EuRoC organisation also focuses on finding a field-rated solution for tracking and
recovering the flight vehicles in the most efficient and expedient manner, minimising at the most the
efforts of, and time spent in the field, trying to locate and recover landed rockets.
C.2. ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
C.2.1. ALTITUDE AND APOGEE REQUIREMENTS
1) The system shall be able to log and store the flight apogee in a non-volatile memory.
• Apogee and flight data may still be recoverable after various “unforeseen events”,
such as power-outs or even crashes.
2) The system shall be able to allow the EuRoC Jury to extract the apogee and flight data, using
one fast, efficient, and standardized way, without necessarily requiring student team
assistance.
• This means one common system across all flight vehicles, to which the Jury can
extract the needed flight data with one single tool.
3) The system should be able to provide real-time altitude read-outs during flight.
• If this data or data stream is captured and logged, it should be possible to reconstruct
the altitude curve and the apogee, in case of a total loss of flight vehicle/data.
4) The system should be able to provide the teams and Jury with a preliminary apogee figure for
quick measure, later to be backed up by detailed recorded flight data.
C.2.2. TRACKING AND RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS
1) The system shall consist of a transmitter and a receiver, and the transmitter shall record it’s
position by means of GPS and transmit its location to the receiver.
• Both the transmitter and receiver can be transceivers;
• More than one transmitter can be employed when the Rules and Regulations call for
it, as required for each stage of multi-stage flight vehicles, as well as for deployable
payloads;
• More than one receiver can be employed for various purposes.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 46 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
2) The system shall as efficiently and directly as possible direct the operator of the receiver to
the landing coordinates of the flight vehicle. This is achieved by the receiver being aware of
the transmitters position (or last known position), as well as the receiver’s own current
position, through GPS receivers in both devices.
• The receiver shall be mobile and transportable (in the operational state) by a single
person, without support.
C.2.3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The transmitter shall be as small and light as possible, facilitating easy integration into the
flight vehicle and exhibit the least possible mass penalty for flight vehicle mass budgets.
2. The system shall be a commercially available solution, with a history of adequate and reliable
operation, to which EuRoC can acquire and use the organisation’s own receivers.
• Teams can fly additional high-end tracking solutions as they please, but EuRoC recovery
crews shall be able to utilize one single type of standardized and fieldprogrammable
system receiver to track and recover all flight vehicles launched.
3. The system shall be field-programmable with regards to RF operating frequency.
• Unexpected launch slot re-shuffling may suddenly necessitate a likewise re-shuffling
of GPS tracking system operating frequencies;
• “Field-programmable” may include the use of additional equipment, such as a laptop,
to accomplish the task of changing frequencies.
4. The transmitter shall be mounted internally in the flight vehicle, at the location of an
“RFtransparent” section, unless the transmitter features an externally mounted antenna.
• No external mounting allowed.
5. The system should be capable of performing its function without the support of other services,
such as mobile cell networks, online web-services, or online apps.
• A self-reliant, enclosed, stand-alone system is well suited for field operations, with
intermittent or lacking mobile services (where delicate laptops, wired breakout
boards, and web-based apps are not).
6. The receiver display should be clearly readable in bright sunlight.
• Backlit screens and displays can be difficult to read under clear skies and full sun
conditions.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 47 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
7. The receiver should, to the extent possible, be ruggedized for extended periods of field use.
• The receiver and its operator may likely experience a bumpy and dusty cross-country
excursion, while conducting the recovery effort;
• The receiver should be able to operate continuously throughout a day.
8. The system should be cheap and affordable to the extent possible, where it does not impact
reliability or function.
• Affordable and adequate performance is favoured over fancy and expensive
alternatives.
C.3. MANDATORY ALTITUDE LOGGING AND TRACKING SYSTEM
C.3.1. EGGTIMER TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER
Figure 7: Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer (assembled). (Source: Eggtimer)
Single-stage flight vehicles and upper-most stages of flight vehicles shall feature an operational
Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer for official altitude logging and GPS tracking.
The competition achieved apogee will be determined from this device.
Note: Deployable payloads and lower stages also require a mandatory Eggfinder GPS tracking device,
but this need not be the TRS Flight Computer. See section C.4.5. for details.
The Eggtimer TRS (Total Recovery System) Flight Computer combines several useful systems in one
device, fulfilling the requirements outlined in section C.2.:
• A COTS dual-channel deployment computer;
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 48 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• Barometric pressure sensor for apogee determination and recovery systems deployment;
• A non-volatile memory for recording flight data (including altitude) over the full flight
duration.
GPS tracking functionality and a tracking transmitter.
The TRS Flight Computer comes as a kit (PCB, components and some sub-assemblies) and requires
component mounting and testing.
C.3.1.1. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FIRMWARE UPDATE
Teams must ensure that the TRS Flight Computer is running a custom version of the firmware for the
70 cm Ham frequency band, having a channel selection resolution of 25 kHz. This is necessary in order
to be able to select the frequencies allotted to EuRoC.
Please note that firmware updates can be done at any time by participating teams, as long as the
hardware has been procured.
See section C.4. for further details on firmware.
C.3.1.2. THE TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER IS ELIGIBLE AS THE REDUNDANT COTS DEPLOYMENT ELECTRONICS
As per the “Redundant COTS Recovery Electronics” section in the EuRoC Design Guide, the TRS Flight
Computer fulfils this requirement and can be used as the redundant recovery system electronics
subsystem.
C.3.1.3. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER OPERATING FREQUENCY ALLOCATION
The EuRoC organisation will allocate TRS Flight Computer operating frequencies to teams no less than
24 hours prior to the Flight Readiness Review. This includes the frequency for the upper-most stage of
the flight vehicle, as well as any other frequencies for lower stages and/or deployable payloads.
Teams must however be capable of (and prepared to) re-program their operating frequencies of
Eggtimer/finder equipment at short notice in case launch schedule reshuffling requires it so.
C.3.1.4. EUROC MISSION CONTROL EGGFINDER LCD HANDHELD RECEIVERS
The EuRoC organisation will field a selection of fully upgraded Eggfinder LCD handheld receivers, to be
placed at Mission Control for the duration of the launch campaign:
• Four units of Ham-version LCD handheld receivers with LCD-GPS and custom field-use
enclosure upgrade;
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 49 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• One unit of EU license free version LCD handheld receiver with LCD-GPS and custom field-use
enclosure upgrade.
Up to five of these LCD handheld receivers will be tuned to the individual TRS Flight Computer
transmission frequencies of the flight vehicles scheduled for launch, at each launch slot.
As each rocket launches, each of the EuRoC operated tuned LCD receivers may be connected to a
tripod with high gain directional antennas at mission control. The aim is to receive live telemetry and
altitude data even at 9 km altitude and track the flight vehicle until loss of line-of-sight at very low
altitude. The procedure is predicted to be as follows:
• Mission Control will know the flight vehicle assigned operating frequency (or frequencies) and
program the EuRoC operated LCD receivers during launch preparations;
• The reception of valid TRS Flight Computer telemetry will be verified prior to (or during) the
Launch Readiness Review, performed at the launch rail;
• Mission Control will track the TRS Flight Computer of each flight vehicle during the entire
flight, using high gain antennas at Mission Control, until potential loss of signal, due to loss of
line-of-sight at very low altitude;
• Mission control will record the last known GPS coordinates at mission control for reference;
• All EuRoC LCD handheld receivers will stay powered while recovery operations are running;
• Teams shall each have at least one tracking receiver. Several can be advantageous for more
efficient tracking and recovery;
• Recovery teams will change LCD handheld receiver operating frequencies in the field, as
necessary to recover all jettisoned stages and/or deployable payloads;
• Teams may leave their TRS Flight Computer powered during recovery and transportation back
to Mission Control, provided that any recovery systems are brought back into a safe state,
where actuation of recovery systems (regardless of status) is prevented;
• A representative of the EuRoC organisation will inspect the recovered flight vehicles at Mission
Control and extract flight data and apogee from the TRS Flight Computer, as possible.
C.3.1.5. OTHER ALTITUDE LOGGING AND GPS TRACKING SYSTEMS
Teams are welcome to operate and fly one or more of their own altitude logging and/or GPS tracking
solutions, in addition to the mandatory systems, described in this addendum.
Such systems may have superior performance or range compared to the selected mandatory Eggtimer
systems, but this does not exempt teams from implementing the mandatory systems.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 50 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Again, the EuRoC organisation is firm on testing and validating a system and procedures for the fair,
equal and transparent recording of apogees, and the implementation of efficient tracking and
recovery operations.
C.3.2. EUROC TESTING OF THE EGGTIMER TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER
The EuRoC organisation conducted both GPS tracking field tests as well as simulated flight tests, using
a vacuum chamber. A short summary of the tests used to evaluate and approve the Eggtimer TRS Flight
Computer (and other Eggfinder products) is outlined as follows.
Note: The testing was performed using the EU license free frequency version of the Eggtimer product
line (869 MHz range), hence the expected range of the 433 MHz range Ham-version products is
expected to be roughly double of what is described below.
The entire Eggfinder range of GPS tracking solutions, as well as the TRS Flight Computer, utilizes the
same half-duplex RF module for telemetry. As expected, range performance has been found to be
similar for all products.
C.3.2.1. ON-GROUND GPS TRACKING TESTS
Two cases of worst-case scenario testing were carried out:
• An Eggfinder TX was placed in a wet crop field, 10 cm off the ground (line of sight), with the
aim of having the wet vegetation attenuating the RF link as much as possible;
• An Eggfinder TX was placed at a tree stub in a rugged and heavily forested area.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 51 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 8: Eggfinder TX placed in wet crop field at a distance of 530 meters (heavy digital zoom; red arrow marks TX
location).
(Source: Jacob Larsen)
Figure 9: Another worst-case scenario: A rugged and heavily forested test area. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 52 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
While the crop field test illustrated in Figure 8 did feature line-of-sight between TX transmitter and
LCD handheld receiver, ground effects and wet vegetation should provide a challenging test setup.
Test results indicated that the RF-link range was about 500 meters with a wire antenna on the TX and
an Eggtimer supplied 3 dB stub antenna, as illustrated in Figure 10.
The forest test range limitation was primarily governed by loss of line-of-sight, due to bumpy terrain,
while wet tree trunks were also identified as efficient signal attenuators.
Circling the transmitter in the forest revealed a consistent RF-link range of about 300 meters,
regardless of terrain and foliage.
It can thus be concluded, that at the absolute worst-case scenario of an 869 MHz EU licence free
version in a forest, an LCD handheld receiver will pick up the RF-link signal at a minimum distance of
300 meters, regardless of conditions.
If getting within 300 meters of a GPS transmitter, the LCD handheld receiver will pick up the tracking
signal, no matter what terrain it is in.
433 MHz “Ham” versions are expected to exhibit about twice the range of the above.
Figure 10: LCD handheld receiver detects GPS transmitter at a distance of 530 meters.
(custom enclosure, 3dB stub antenna, SMA board connector options) (Source: Jacob Larsen)
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 53 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
C.3.2.2. AIR-TO-GROUND GPS TRACKING TESTS
No air-to-ground GPS tracking tests have been conducted as of time of writing. The manufacturer
indicates about 15 km of line-of-sight aerial range with the Ham-version and a stub antenna. About
half that with the EU license free 869 MHz version.
Based on the above, lack of range of the Eggfinder equipment is not currently a concern.
C.3.2.3. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER SIMULATED FLIGHT TEST
In the interest of testing and validating the performance of the TRS Flight Computer, a simulated flight
test case was devised, using a vacuum chamber to simulate the ambient pressure drop experienced
during ascent.
The test objectives were as follows:
• To simulate a trajectory the TRS Flight Computer would interpret as a real launch;
• To record flight and altitude data onboard the TRS non-volatile memory;
• To rehearse and gain experience with the TRS Flight Computer arming sequence;
• To rehearse the interpretation of downlink telemetry and flight events displayed at the LCD
handheld receiver;
• To rehearse downloading and visualizing the flight data stored in the TRS Flight Computer non-
volatile memory.
The test consisted of quickly drawing a vacuum to simulate ascent and then gradually opening a
manual bleed valve to simulate apogee and descent.
The flight data is easily downloaded from the TRS Flight Computer, using a laptop and the USB/TTL
UART data cable. The data is downloaded and saved into a log file as comma separated ascii values,
using a terminal program.
Figure 11 illustrates the flight data imported into an excel spreadsheet and displayed in a suitable
graph format.
There are two things to note in Figure 11:
• All altitudes and velocity data from the TRS Flight Computer are displayed and logged in units
of feet and feet/sec. The TRS Flight Computer is not capable of transmitting and/or recording
flight data in metric units.
o This is in stark contrast to the GPS and tracking data downrange displayed on the LCD
handheld receiver, which can be switched between feet and meters.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 54 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The drogue deployment is delayed, contrary to supposed to happen at “nose-over”, due to an
artifact of the test setup. The apogee is a discontinuous kink in the pressure profile, in contrast
to the continuous inverted parabola expected. The flight computer waits for one second of
vertical velocity below 100 ft/sec, before it arms and fires the drogue pyro channel. This is why
the drogue deployment event does not happen at nose-over in the below test.
o The TRS Flight Computer deployment channels work as advertised. It is the test setup
which is not capable of generating a smooth simulated apogee.
Figure 11: TRS downloaded flight data visualization from vacuum chamber test #4, 1500 feet main deployment set
(delayed drogue deployment event is an artifact of having too sharp a kink at apogee). (Source: Jacob Larsen)
C.4. MANDATORY SYSTEM KEYPOINTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
C.4.1. MANDATORY ALTITUDE LOGGING AND GPS TRACKING SYSTEM
For single-stage flight vehicles (and upper-most stage vehicles), the mandatory Official Altitude
Logging and Tracking device to be installed is the Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer.
• The TRS (Total Recovery System) device combines:
o A COTS dual-channel deployment computer;
14400, 11410
21950, 10656
60950, 1496
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Time [ms]
TRS Flight Computer simulated flight test using vacuum
chamber: Test 4
Filtered_Alt Apogee Nose-over
Drogue deploy Main deploy Filtered:Veloc
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 55 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
o Barometric pressure sensor for apogee determination and recovery systems
deployment;
o A non-volatile memory for recording flight data over the full flight duration; o GPS
tracking and recovery transmitter.
C.4.2. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER FREQUENCY RANGE
EuRoC will make specific frequencies available for tracking system use, without the need for specific
radio amateur licenses. Eggtimer Ham-frequency equipment can thus legally be used during EuRoC
without a license. This means that all mandatory TRS Flight Computers MUST be purchased in the US
“Ham” frequency range.
• The recommended package to buy is (approximately $200):
o The “Eggtimer TRS/LCD Starter set, 70cm Ham versions” (includes data cable +
terminal blocks + external antennas) at $168 (2021 price).
o The “Eggfinder LCD-GPS module kit” at $40 (2021 price).
C.4.3. “EU” TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER VERSIONS
While the “EU” license free version of the TRS sounds like a compelling option, there is a major
drawback in the fact, that the EU license free band contains only three separate channels/frequencies
(and TRS systems cannot share the same frequency).
This is a major problem since multiple flight vehicles will be sitting on the launch rails at the opening
of a launch window. These vehicles will (when engine technology permits) be launched successively,
as soon as the previous flight vehicle is believed landed, with no time for additional pre-flight
preparations in between launches.
• Therefore purchasing the “EU” version of the TRS Flight Computer is highly discouraged,
despite being legal to use;
• However, for teams or flight vehicles already having an “EU”-frequency versions of Eggtimer
products, these “EU” frequency systems can be flown at EuRoC as a replacement for the
“HAM” frequency version. The EuRoC organization only has one “EU” compatible receiver,
limiting its use.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 56 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
C.4.4. PROCUREMENT OF TRS COMPATIBLE RECEIVER(S)
While teams are not required to procure one or more receivers for the Eggfinder “Ham-version” TRS
Flight Computer, according to the EuRoC Rules and Requirements, teams are strongly encouraged to
procure the above “full kit package”.
• The TRS Flight Computer is best programmed wirelessly from the LCD receiver while firmware
updating, and flight data download happens via the USB-serial adaptor data cable (included
in package).
• The LCD receiver has several test functions (including deployment channel testing) which are
very useful.
• Having an LCD receiver allows teams to train both programming of the TRS Flight Computer
as well as GPS tracking.
• It is difficult to underscore how much easier the GPS tracking and location becomes with the
LCD-GPS module kit addition to the LCD receiver. Don’t forget to order it.
• It is not encouraged to add the Bluetooth option, as the LCD-GPS programming port is much
more useful in the wired configuration. An openlogger module can alternatively be installed
to capture and store all received telemetry. This is very useful for post-flight analysis,
especially of the vehicle is lost.
C.4.5. MANDATORY GPS TRACKING SYSTEMS FOR DEPLOYABLE PAYLOADS OR STAGES
While the upper-most stage of any multi-stage flight vehicle, as well as any single-stage flight vehicle,
must feature the mandatory Eggfinder TRS Flight Computer for official altitude recording and GPS
tracking, this is not the case for deployable payloads or stages.
It is still mandatory to implement a Eggfinder GPS tracking device for lower stages and deployable
payloads, as the EuRoC operated LCD handheld receivers (or student operated LCD receivers) can be
reprogrammed in the field to track each flight vehicle component.
While the Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer can be utilized in all stages and deployable payloads, there
are some simpler, smaller and cheaper compatible alternatives for lower stages and deployable
payloads:
• The Eggfinder TX and TX-mini GPS tracking transmitters are fully eligible for tracking and
location any lower stages or deployable payloads.
• The Eggfinder TX and TX-mini transmitters enable EuRoC recovery teams to track and locate
lower stages and deployable payloads, using already available LCD handheld receivers, while
the flight data and apogee of such stages and payloads are not relevant to team scoring.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 57 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The Eggfinder LCD receivers are fully compatible with the TX and TX-mini and can be used to
easily program the RF frequency of these transmitters.
C.4.6. UP-TIME REQUIREMENTS OF TRANSMITTERS
The following requirements pertain to the mandatory Eggtimer TRS Flight Computer, TX, TX-mini and
LCD receivers:
• The battery capacity of the various Eggtimer/finder transmitters must be sufficient to keep the
GPS tracking systems running continually for at least 12 hours.
C.4.7. UPDATING FIRMWARE TO THE CUSTOM 25 KHZ CHANNEL STEP VERSION
Due to the differences of EU and the US, the frequencies allotted by the Portuguese authorities,
channel centre frequencies may lie at frequencies “odd” to the US Ham system. Consequently,
students will have to update the firmware of the TRS Flight Computer (and any LCD-GPS receivers)
with a special firmware version capable of 25 kHz channel selection.
The TRS firmware update is described in the “How to update the Eggtimer TRS firmware” document
at the Eggtimer support web page.
Direct link: http://eggtimerrocketry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Eggtimer_TRS_Flash_
Update_Instructions1.pdf
Likewise, there is a document for updating the LCD-GPS firmware:
http://eggtimerrocketry.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/Eggfinder-LCD-Flash-Update-
Instructions-1.pdf
Both firmware updates were performed as a part of testing the system, since both devices were
delivered with outdated firmware. The flashing procedure uses the USB data cable and should not
present a challenge to student teams.
C.4.8. TRS FLIGHT COMPUTER SAMPLE FILE
A sample file captured from a TRS Flight Computer illustrates the recorded data (GPS location and
some NMEA sentences deleted or redacted for clarity). Worthwhile noting, besides the standard
NMEA sentences:
• {DM} is deployment status o D for
undeployed drogue chute
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 58 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
o d for deployed drogue chute o
M for undeployed main chute o
m for deployed main chute
• <2>,<-6> (or other varying number) is the barometric altitude in feet at any time.
• <1015>, <1015> (repeated) is the achieved apogee
• This achieved apogee term is however not broadcasted before the TLS Flight Computer has
determined that the rocket has landed. A landing event is determined as an altitude of less
than 30 feet above ground level for 5 seconds, or alternately when the TRS runs out of flight
memory.
@JSL EggTimer@
$GPGGA,211127.000,XXXX.7710,N,0XXXX.4560,E,1,05,3.7,23.1,M,41.8,M,,0000*6C
$GPGSA,A,3,13,15,05,23,18,,,,,,,,4.8,3.7,3.1*33
$GPRMC,211127.000,A,XXXX.7710,N,0XXXX.4560,E,0.42,222.64,140821,,,A*6A
{DM}
<2>
@JSL EggTimer@
$GPGGA,211128.000,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4569,E,1,05,3.7,23.1,M,41.8,M,,0000*62
$GPGSA,A,3,13,15,05,23,18,,,,,,,,4.8,3.7,3.1*33
$GPRMC,211128.000,A,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4569,E,0.30,222.64,140821,,,A*61
{dm}
<-6>
@JSL EggTimer@
$GPGGA,211131.000,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4571,E,1,05,3.7,23.0,M,41.8,M,,0000*62
$GPGSA,A,3,13,15,05,23,18,,,,,,,,4.8,3.7,3.1*33
$GPRMC,211131.000,A,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4571,E,0.00,222.64,140821,,,A*63
{dm}
<1015>
@JSL EggTimer@
$GPGGA,211134.000,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4571,E,1,05,3.7,23.0,M,41.8,M,,0000*67
$GPGSA,A,3,13,15,05,23,18,,,,,,,,4.8,3.7,3.1*33
$GPRMC,211134.000,A,XXXX.7709,N,0XXXX.4571,E,0.00,222.64,140821,,,A*66
{dm}
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 59 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
<1015>
C.4.9. LCD HANDHELD RECEIVER
Figure 12: LCD handheld receiver with backlight and custom 3D printed enclosure. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
The LCD handheld receiver is well described in this document, thus this section focuses only on
observations and specific characteristics of the device.
• It is necessary to wipe the EEPROM flight memory before use, according to the LCD receiver
user guide.
• As illustrated in Figure 12, the backlight option in the LCD handheld receiver is very useful
after dark, if it is not excessively bright. An 86 Ohm series resistor had to be fitted on the leads
going to the backlight, which also brings the back light current consumption down to about 20
mA.
Without this series resistor, the backlight acts like a blinding flood light, gulping up about 200
mA in the process.
• The programming port on the rear face of the LCD handheld receiver PCB can be used to log
downlink telemetry data from the TRS Flight Computer, using a USB/TTL UART data cable,
although less elegant than the RX receiver solution outlined in section C.7.. Another
recommended solution is to install an openlog breakout board for telemetry capture.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 60 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 13: A USB/TTL UART data cable can be used to record TRS Flight Computer downlink data to a laptop.
(Source: Jacob Larsen)
C.5. EGGTIMER TRS ALTITUDE LOGGING AND GPS TRACKING SYSTEM LESSONS LEARNED
Based on previous editions of EuRoC a number of findings, advantages, disadvantages, and risks for
the mandatory (Eggtimer TRS based) altitude logging and GPS tracking system have been compiled
below (in no particular order):
• When properly implemented, the GPS tracing performance is excellent. A rocket which
unintentionally deployed its main chute at an altitude of 9593 meters was continuously
tracked until horizon dependent loss of line-of-sight, at a downrange of 27 kilometers, using a
cheap type 5-element Yagi antenna.
• The biggest drawback of the Eggtimer system is that the quality control is left up to the
students assembling and testing the correct performance and tracking range of the system.
This responsibility of inspecting own work and validating performance cannot be overstated.
• In some of the worst cases seen, GPS tracking telemetry was lost a little over 100 meters past
the Mission Control tent, which corresponds to the RF-module output not being electrically
connected to the transmitter antenna trace (or very bad installation and RF practices). Such
serious issues will be discovered with rudimentary range testing and performance assessment;
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 61 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The Eggtimer TRS documentation quality is lacking. The EuRoC organization will require a
significant improvement of the documentation from the manufacturer, or as a minimum
interact with the manufacturer until all functionality is understood, such that it can be clearly
communicated to teams;
• The Eggtimer TRS system requires training and accumulation of experience to realize its full
potential, which is considerable, once full system understanding is achieved. It is a cheap field-
programmable, 2-channel deployment computer, with position and altitude downlink,
deployment test features, e-match continuity checking, stand-alone GPS tracking receiver and
flight data recorder;
• Print a rugged case for the LCD tracking receiver and let that one have the experience of
constant exposure to fine flying dust and rattling around in the bottom of an army truck going
off-road in the attempts of recovering a stray rocket, instead of your mint condition Macbook.
Link to free printable LCD tracking receiver enclosure:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i1p1tfhbfjeivvw/AAD5kwoKUdgcNXBqD6kyJ7W4a?dl=0
• Appoint a dedicated GPS tracking and recovery responsible team member along with 3-4
recovery team members. Field-train and drill the recovery team in quickly and efficiently
tracking down the rocket, by having team members (not part of the recovery team) place the
rocket in unknown locations and have the recovery team do a series of increasingly
challenging tracking challenges;
• Re-acquiring a GPS tracking signal given only an approximate heading and a 3-5 kilometer
downrange is quite challenging. Finding a rocket in thick vegetation without a functional GPS
tracking signal and a handheld tracking receiver is close to impossible. Both scenarios have
proved to be surprisingly common at EuRoC;
• It is highly recommended to integrate an openlogger breakout board in the back of the
Eggtimer LCD receiver. This means that the human readable ASCII telemetry downlink data
stream can be captured for post-flight analysis, even in the event of an in-flight failure leading
to a total loss of the vehicle. Besides GPS NMEA sentences, the TRS data downlink barometric
altitude and recovery system deployment events.
• A cheap and widely available directional 5-element Yagi antenna with UHF-SMA adaptor cable
does wonders for the tracking range.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 62 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 14: Yagi 5-element high gain antenna.
C.6. CUSTOM 3D PRINTED LCD RECEIVER ENCLOSURE
A convenient custom enclosure was developed and refined as a part of the Eggtimer/Eggfinder test
campaign, in order to ruggedize the LCD handheld receiver for field use.
The manufacturer’s plastic enclosure and installation of the LCD receiver in an odd-sized rectangular
box called for something more refined.
The stl-files are for free printing and use, as well as a step-file model of the enclosure design being
available for reference. The latest version files can also be retrieved from the following Dropbox link,
until further notice:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i1p1tfhbfjeivvw/AAD5kwoKUdgcNXBqD6kyJ7W4a?dl=0.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 63 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 15: Updated ruggedized custom enclosure for the LCD handheld receiver. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
Relevant details, in no particular order:
• This enclosure design is free for printing and use;
• The “CS” is a reference to Copenhagen Suborbitals (www.copsub.com);
• The red pushbutton is included in the Eggfinder LCD handheld receiver kit;
• A double pole, double throw switch, switches power and backlight on and off simultaneously;
• The design consists of three parts:
o Front section; o Rear section; o
Battery cap (snaps into place).
• The rear section contains an opening, providing access to the programming port, which is used
to program TX, Mini or RX operating frequencies;
• Put a piece of tape over the opening when not in use. It keeps the dirt out of the unit.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 64 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 1: Blue recess and dark grey notch mating scheme. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
• The front and rear enclosure mates accurately using a notch-and-recess fit. Put a few drops of
glue in there, if you want to assemble the enclosure permanently;
• The GPS-LCD module add-on is conveniently soldered to the LCD receiver PCB using a 3-pin
header.
Figure 18: Crude CAD model of LCD receiver PCBs, with LCD-GPS module add-on soldered in place.
(Source: Jacob Larsen and Eggtimer)
• Eight PCB mounting points are integrated into the front and rear enclosures. Tap M3 threading
in all eight and fit each of the two LCD receiver PCBs in their respective enclosure segments,
using countersunk M3x6mm countersunk screws with reduced head.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 65 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 19: Rear section illustrating the programming port opening and where to tap M3 threading. (Source: Jacob Larsen)
• The battery compartment fits a 2S 1900 mAh LiPo battery with measures 115 x 34 x 18 mm,
which should provide about 18 hours of operation per charge. The printed battery
compartment cap clicks nicely into position.
Do not print this enclosure using carbon fibre reinforced plastics, since the conductivity of the carbon
fibre may negatively impact the internal GPS receiver sensitivity.
C.7. NOTES ON ADDITIONAL TESTED EGGFINDER DEVICES
This section lists some findings on tested Eggfinder equipments, other than the TRS Flight Computer.
C.7.1. EGGFINDER TX TRANSMITTER
Figure 20: Eggfinder TX transmitter. (Source: Eggtimer)
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 66 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
The Eggfinder TX transmitter is a simple and useful GPS tracking transmitter. Some observations made
during assembly and testing:
• The device is quite simple and just transmits the onboard GPS NMEA sentences at 9600 baud,
to any receiver listening.
• It has the added advantage that it features PCB space for an Openlogger device, if one wants
to log whatever is transmitted onboard. (Eggtimer stock Openloggers)
• The TX transmitter will accommodate a SMA PCB edge-connector, required for external
antennas, contrary to the Mini transmitter. (Eggtimer stocks SMA PCB edge connectors).
• The RF module of the tested device would not transmit anything, until the RF module
frequency was reprogrammed, using the LCD handheld receiver and the included 3-wire
programming cable. It worked flawlessly since then.
• The TX transmitter has an included jumper for setting it into programming mode. This is
contrary to the Mini transmitter, which utilizes inconvenient solder jumpers.
C.7.2. EGGFINDER TX-MINI TRANSMITTER
Figure 21: Eggfinder Mini transmitter. (Source: Eggtimer)
The Eggfinder Mini transmitter is a smaller version of the TX transmitter, intended for very small
rockets. Some observations made during assembly and testing:
• The Mini transmitter uses solder jumpers for putting the device either in programming or
running mode. This is inconvenient in the event of having to change the RF-link frequency in
the field.
• This device cannot accommodate an SMA PCB edge connector. It is stuck with the little stub
antenna.
• Some issues were encountered as difficulties with getting good solder joints between the PCB
and the GPS module.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 67 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The Mini transmitter, with its short stub antenna, had a very similar RF-link range, compared
to the TX transmitter with a wire antenna.
C.7.3. EGGFINDER RX “DONGLE” RECEIVER
Figure 22: Eggfinder RX "dongle" receiver. (Source: Eggtimer)
The RX receiver is potentially a useful device, considering how inexpensive it is. Some observations
made during assembly and testing:
• The RX receiver is very inexpensive due to the lack of a GPS receiver.
• The RX receiver is available in both a Bluetooth and a USB cable option, of which the latter
seems more useful.
• The RX receiver frequency is easily programmed with an LCD handheld receiver and the
included 3-wire programming cable.
• The “USB version” of the RX receiver can be powered directly from a laptop, if using a USB/TTL
UART data cable (included). No other accessories required.
The RX receiver (USB cable version) and a laptop makes for an excellent TRS Flight Computer
standalone telemetry backup data logger. While the TRS Flight Computer logs high-speed flight data
to onboard non-volatile EEPROM, said EEPROM may in some unfortunate incidents disintegrate upon
“landing”, taking the recorded flight data with it into oblivion.
If an RX receiver has logged the telemetry, which also includes the altitude reading from the TRS Flight
Computer barometric pressure sensor, the trajectory and apogee may be reconstructed from these
data, enabling the EuRoC Jury to award points for achieved apogee.
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 68 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX D: FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW CHECKLIST
Table 3: Flight Readiness Review checklist.
SECTION DESCRIPTION ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
PROPULSION SYSTEMS
Checklist
Upon request, the flier should provide the inspector
with hardcopy checklist procedures for the
propulsion system's safe handling, assembly,
disassembly, and operation (both nominal and
offnominal/contingency flows) – including
selfinspection/verification steps which make
individual team members accountable to one
another for having completed the preceding
process(es).
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Non-toxic Propellants
Launch vehicles entering EuRoC shall use non-toxic
propellants. Ammonium perchlorate composite
propellant (APCP), potassium nitrate and sugar (also
known as "rocket candy"), nitrous oxide, liquid
oxygen (LOX), hydrogen peroxide, kerosene,
propane, alcohol, and similar substances, are all
considered non-toxic. Toxic propellants are defined
as those requiring breathing apparatus, unique
storage and transport infrastructure, extensive
personal protective equipment (PPE), etc.
Homemade propellant mixtures containing any
fraction of toxic propellants are also prohibited.
Simple confirmation
Total Impulse
The sum of all rocket stages' impulse must either
not exceed 40,960 newton-seconds, or the Flier
must have previously consulted with EuRoC on
provisions for launching a larger rocket.
Simple confirmation
Motor Retention
The design must provide for positive retention of
the propulsion system within the airframe - leaving
no possibility for the propulsion system to shift from
its retaining device(s) and jettison itself.
Inspection on site
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Thrust Structure
A "structural chain" that transfers the propulsion
system thrust to various points on the rocket
structure must exist and it must be capable of
withstand these loads.
Inspection on site
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 69 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Thrust Curve
Upon request, the flier must provide the inspector
with hardcopy thrust curve data for each individual
rocket motor or engine implemented.
Proof by calculation
PROPULSION SYSTEM SAFING AND ARMING
Pre-flight and
Countdown
Procedure
Upon request, the flier should provide the inspector
with hardcopy checklist procedures for any of the
propulsion system's unique final on-pad
preparations, pre-flight, and launch (both nominal
and off-nominal/abort/mishap flows) - including
self-inspection/verification steps which make
individual team members accountable to one
another for having completed the preceding
process(es).
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Ground-start Ignition
Circuit Arming
All ground-started propulsion system ignition
circuits/sequences shall not be "armed" until all
personnel are at least 15 m away from the launch
vehicle. The provided launch control system
satisfies this requirement by implementing a
removable "safety jumper" in series with the pad
relay box's power supply. The removal of this single
jumper prevents firing current from being sent to
any of the launch rails associated with that pad relay
box. Furthermore, access to the socket allowing
insertion of the jumper is controlled via multiple
physical locks to ensure that all parties have positive
control of their own safety.
Simple check
Air-start Ignition
Circuit Arming
All upper stage (i.e., air-start) propulsion systems
shall be armed by launch detection (e.g.,
accelerometers, zero separation force [ZSF]
electrical shunt connections, break-wires, or other
similar methods). Regardless of implementation,
this arming function will prevent the upper stage
from arming in the event of a misfire.
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Inspection on site
Propellant Offloading
After Launch Abort
Hybrid and liquid propulsion systems shall
implement a means for remotely controlled venting
or offloading of all liquid and gaseous propellants in
the event of a launch abort.
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 70 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Air-start Ignition
Circuit Electronics
All upper stage ignition systems shall comply with
same requirements and goals for "redundant
electronics" and "safety critical wiring" as recovery
systems — understanding that in this case
"initiation" refers to upper stage ignition rather
than a recovery event.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Staging Ignition
Commit Criteria
The electronics controlling the various staging
events must inhibit staging if the rockets' flight
profile deviates from predicted nominal behaviour.
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Positive State
Indication
Each independent set of electronics controlling
staging events must provide sensory (i.e., visual or
auditory) indication of its activation.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Special Consideration
for "Drag Separation"
The electronics controlling stage ignition in design's
implementing "drag-separation" must not be
located in the separating stage - where premature
separation could prevent ignition of the following
stage.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
SRAD PROPULSION SYSTEM TESTING
Combustion
Chamber Pressure
testing
SRAD and modified COTS propulsion system
combustion chambers shall be designed and tested
according to the SRAD pressure vessel requirements
defined in Section 4.2. Note that combustion
chambers are exempted from the requirement for a
relief device.
Proof by previous
testing
Hybrid and Liquid
Propulsion System
Tanking Testing
SRAD and modified COTS propulsion systems using
liquid propellant(s) shall successfully (without
significant anomalies) have completed a propellant
loading and off-loading test in "launch-
configuration", prior to the rocket being brought to
the competition. This test may be conducted using
either actual propellant(s) or suitable proxy fluids,
with the test results to be considered a mandatory
deliverable and an annex to the Technical Report, in
the form of a loading and off-loading checklist,
complete with dates, signatures (at least three) and
a statement of a successful test. Failure to deliver
this annex will automatically result in a “denied”
flight status. Loading and unloading of liquid
propellants must be a well-drilled, safe and efficient
operation at the competition launch rails.
Proof by previous
testing
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 71 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Static Hot-fire testing
SRAD propulsion systems shall successfully (without
significant anomalies) complete an instrumented
(chamber pressure and/or thrust), full scale
(including system working time) static hot-fire test
prior to EuRoC. In the case of solid rocket motors,
this test needs not to be performed with the same
motor casing and/or nozzle components intended
for use at the EuRoC (i.e., teams must verify their
casing design, but are not forced to design
reloadable/reusable motor cases). The test results
and a statement of a successful test, complete with
dates and signatures (at least three) are considered
a mandatory deliverable and an annex to the
Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex will
automatically result in a “denied” flight status. See
Section 2.6.6. for more information.
Proof by previous
testing
RECOVERY SYSTEMS AND AVIONICS
Checklist
Upon request, the flier must provide the inspector
with hardcopy checklist procedures for the recovery
system's safe handling, assembly, disassembly, and
operation (both nominal and
offnominal/contingency flows) - including
selfinspection/verification steps which make
individual team members accountable to one
another for having completed the preceding
process(es).
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Pre-flight and
Countdown
Procedure
Upon request, the flier must provide the inspector
with hardcopy checklist procedures for any of the
recovery system's unique final on-pad preparations,
pre-flight, and launch (both nominal and
offnominal/abort/mishap flows) - including
selfinspection/verification steps which make
individual team members accountable to one
another for having completed the preceding
process(es).
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 72 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Dual-event
Parachute and
Parafoil Recovery
Each independently recovered launch vehicle body,
anticipated to reach an apogee above 450 m above
ground level (AGL), shall follow a "dual-event"
recovery operations concept, including an initial
deployment event (e.g., a drogue parachute
deployment; reefed main parachute deployment or
similar) and a main deployment event (e.g., a main
parachute deployment; main parachute un-reefing
or similar). Independently recovered bodies, whose
apogee is not anticipated to exceed 450 m AGL, are
exempt and may feature only a single/main
deployment event.
Proof by calculation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Inspect for Damage
If previously flown, any used parachutes, shock
chords, and suspension lines must not exhibit signs
of damage which threatens the safe recovery of the
rocket.
Simple Confirmation
Inspection on site
Initial Deployment
Event
The initial deployment event shall occur at or near
apogee, stabilize the vehicle's attitude (i.e., prevent
or eliminate tumbling), and reduce its descent rate
sufficiently to permit the main deployment event,
yet not so much as to exacerbate wind drift. Any
part, assembly or device, featuring an initial
deployment event, shall result in a descent velocity
of said item of 23-46 m/s.
Proof by reasoned
argument
(Deployment event)
Proof by calculation
(Descent rate)
Proof by previous
testing (Descent
rate)
Main Deployment
Event
The main deployment event shall occur at an
altitude no higher than 450 m AGL and reduce the
vehicle's descent rate sufficiently to prevent
excessive damage upon impact with ground. Any
part, assembly or device, featuring a main
deployment event, shall result in a descent velocity
of said item of less than 9 m/s.
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
(Deployment event)
Proof by calculation
(Descent rate)
Proof by previous
testing (Descent
rate)
Parachutes and
Parafoils
Any parachutes or parafoils used must be rated for
the weight of the vehicle and the expected
conditions at deployment.
Proof by calculation
Safe Descent rate
Parachutes or parafoils intended for the final
descent phase to the ground must not allow a
descent rate that would represent a safety hazard.
Proof by calculation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Proof by previous
testing
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 73 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Personal Safety
The arming/disarming process must not place the
operator in the predicted path of hot gases, ejecta,
or deployable devices which might result from an
unintentional triggering event
Simple check
Activation Devices
The electronics controlling recovery events must be
activated by externally accessible switches, and do
not require any disassembly of the rocket to either
activate or de-activate.
Simple confirmation
Positive State
Indication
Each independent set of electronics controlling
recovering events must provide sensory (i.e., visual
or auditory) indication of its activation.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Acceleration Effects
on Electronics
Heavy items - most notably batteries - must be
adequately supported to prevent them becoming
dislodged under anticipated flight loads.
Simple confirmation
Ejection Gas
Protection
The recovery system shall implement adequate
protection (e.g., fire-resistant material, pistons,
baffles etc.) to prevent hot ejection gases (if
implemented) from causing burn damage to
retaining chords, parachutes, and other vital
components as the specific design demands.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Parachute Swivel
Links
The recovery system rigging (e.g., parachute lines,
risers, shock chords, etc.) shall implement swivel
links at connections to relieve torsion, as the specific
design demands. This will mitigate the risk of torque
loads unthreading bolted connections during
recovery as well as parachute lines twisting up.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Parachute Coloration
and Markings
When separate parachutes are used for the initial
and main deployment events, these parachutes
should be visually highly dissimilar from one
another. This is typically achieved by using
parachutes whose primary colours contrast those of
the other chute. This will enable ground-based
observers to characterize deployment events more
easily with high-power optics. Utilised parachutes
should use colours providing a clear contrast to a
blue sky and a grey/white cloud cover.
Simple confirmation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 74 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Non-
parachute/Parafoil
Recovery Systems
Teams exploring other recovery methods (i.e.,
nonparachute or parafoil based) shall mention them
in the dedicated field of the Technical
Questionnaire. The organisers may make additional
requests for information and draft unique
requirements depending on the team's specific
design implementation.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
In-depth proofing
needed
REDUNDANT ELECTRONICS
Redundant COTS
Recovery Electronics
At least one redundant recovery system electronics
subsystem shall implement a COTS flight computer.
To be considered COTS, the flight computer
(including flight software) must have been
developed and validated by a commercial third
party.
Simple confirmation
Mandatory Official
GPS Tracking and
Tracking Systems
EuRoC will require teams to implement a common
mandatory GPS tracking and locating device in all
rocket systems featuring a dual-event deployment
and recovery system, specified in more detail in
Appendix C.
Simple confirmation
Dissimilar Redundant
Recovery Electronics
There is no requirement that the redundant/backup
system be dissimilar to the primary; however, there
are advantages to using dissimilar primary and
backup systems. Such configurations are less
vulnerable to any inherent environmental
sensitivities, design, or production flaws affecting a
particular component.
No action necessary
SAFETY CRITICAL WIRING
Cable Management
All safety critical wiring shall implement a cable
management solution (e.g., wire ties, wiring,
harnesses, cable raceways) which will prevent
tangling and excessive free movement of significant
wiring/cable lengths due to expected launch loads.
This requirement is not intended to negate the
small amount of slack necessary at all
connections/terminals to prevent unintentional
demating due to expected launch loads transferred
into wiring/cables at physical interfaces.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 75 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Secure Connections
All safety critical wiring/cable connections shall be
sufficiently secure as to prevent de-mating due to
expected launch loads. This will be evaluated by a
"tug test", in which the connection is gently but
firmly "tugged" by hand to verify it is unlikely to
break free in flight.
Inspection on site
Cryo-compatible
Wire Insulation
In case of propellants with a boiling point of less
than -50°C any wiring or harness passing within the
close proximity of a cryogenic device (e.g., valve,
piping, etc.) or a cryogenic tank (e.g., a cable tunnel
next to a LOX tank) shall utilize safety critical wiring
with cryo-compatible insulation (i.e., Teflon, PTFE,
etc.).
Inspection on site
Recovery System
Energetic Devices
All stored-energy devices (aka energetics) used in
recovery systems shall comply with the energetic
device requirements defined in Section 4. of this
document.
Simple confirmation
RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING
Ground Test
Demonstration
All recovery system mechanisms shall be
successfully (without significant anomalies) tested
prior to EuRoC, either by flight testing, or through
one or more ground tests of key subsystems. In the
case of such ground tests, sensor electronics will be
functionally included in the demonstration by
simulating the environmental conditions under
which their deployment function is triggered. The
test results and a statement of a successful test,
complete with dates and signatures (at least three)
are considered a mandatory deliverable and annex
to the Technical Report. Failure to deliver this annex
will automatically result in a “denied” flight status.
Proof by previous
testing
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 76 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Optional Flight Test
Demonstration
All recovery system mechanisms shall be
successfully (without significant anomalies) tested
prior to EuRoC, either by flight testing, or through
one or more ground tests of key subsystems. While
not required, a flight test demonstration may be
used in place of ground testing. In the case of such
a flight test, the recovery system flown will verify
the intended design by implementing the same
major subsystem components (e.g., flight
computers and parachutes) as will be integrated
into the launch vehicle intended for EuRoC (i.e., a
surrogate booster may be used). The test results
and a statement of a successful test, complete with
dates and signatures (at least three) are considered
a mandatory deliverable and annex to the Technical
Report. Failure to deliver this annex will
automatically result in a “denied” flight status.
No action necessary
STORED-ENERGY DEVICES
Energetic Device
Safing and Arming
All energetics shall be “safed” until the rocket is in
the launch position, at which point they may be
"armed". An energetic device is considered safed
when two separate events are necessary to release
the energy of the system. An energetic device is
considered armed when only one event is necessary
to release the energy. For the purpose of this
document, energetics are defined as all
storedenergy devices – other than propulsion
systems – that have reasonable potential to cause
bodily injury upon energy release. See Section 4.1.
for more information.
Simple check
Arming Device
Access
All energetic device arming features shall be
externally accessible/controllable. This does not
preclude the limited use of access panels which may
be secured for flight while the vehicle is in the
launch position.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 77 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Arming Device
Location
All energetic device arming features shall be located
on the airframe such that any inadvertent energy
release by these devices will not impact personnel
arming them. For example, the arming key switch
for an energetic device used to deploy a hatch panel
shall not be located at the same airframe clocking
position as the hatch panel deployed by that charge.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the
arming mechanism is accessible from ground level,
without the use of ladders or other elevation
Simple confirmation
devices, when the rocket is at a vertical orientation
on the launch rail.
SRAD PRESSURE VESSELS
Relief Device
SRAD pressure vessels shall implement a relief
device, set to open at no greater than the proof
pressure specified in the following requirements.
SRAD (including modified COTS) rocket motor
propulsion system combustion chambers are
exempted from this requirement.
Proof by previous
testing
Designed Burst
Pressure for Metallic
Pressure Vessels
SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels
constructed entirely from isentropic materials (e.g.,
metals) shall be designed to a burst pressure no less
than 2 times the maximum expected operating
pressure, where the maximum operating pressure is
the maximum pressure expected during prelaunch,
flight, and recovery operations.
Proof by calculation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
In-depth proofing
needed
Designed Burst
Pressure for
Composite Pressure
Vessels
All SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels either
constructed entirely from non-isentropic materials
(e.g., fibre reinforced plastics; FRP; composites) or
implementing composite overwrap of a metallic
vessel (i.e., composite overwrapped pressure
vessels; COPV), shall be designed to a burst pressure
no less than 3 times the maximum expected
operating pressure, where the maximum operating
pressure is the maximum pressure expected during
pre-launch, flight, and recovery operations.
Proof by calculation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
In-depth proofing
needed
SRAD PRESSURE VESSEL TESTING
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 78 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Proof Pressure
Testing
SRAD and modified COTS pressure vessels shall be
proof pressure tested successfully (without
significant anomalies) to 1.5 times the maximum
expected operating pressure for no less than twice
the maximum expected system working time, using
the intended flight article(s) (e.g., the pressure
vessel(s) used in proof testing must be the same
one(s) flown at EuRoC). The maximum system
working time is defined as the maximum
uninterrupted time duration the vessel will remain
pressurized during pre-launch, flight, and recovery
operations.
The test results and a statement of a successful test,
complete with dates and signatures (at least three)
are considered mandatory deliverable and annexed
to the Technical Report. Failure to deliver
Proof by previous
testing
this annex will automatically result in a “denied”
flight status.
Optional Burst
Pressure Testing
Although there is no requirement for burst pressure
testing, a rigorous verification & validation test plan
typically includes a series of both non-destructive
(i.e., proof pressure) and destructive (i.e., burst
pressure) tests. A series of burst pressure tests
performed on the intended design will be viewed
favourably; however, this will not be considered an
alternative to proof pressure testing of the intended
flight article.
No action necessary
ACTIVE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Restricted Control
Functionality
Launch vehicle active flight control systems shall be
optionally implemented strictly for pitch and/or roll
stability augmentation, or for aerodynamic
"braking". Under no circumstances will a launch
vehicle entered in EuRoC be actively guided towards
a designated spatial target. The organisers may
make additional requests for information and draft
unique requirements depending on the team's
specific design implementation.
Simple confirmation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 79 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Unnecessary for
Stable Flight
Launch vehicles implementing active flight controls
shall be naturally stable without these controls
being implemented (e.g., the launch vehicle may be
flown with the control actuator system [CAS] —
including any control surfaces — either removed or
rendered inert and mechanically locked, without
becoming unstable during ascent). Attitude Control
Systems (ACS) will serve only to mitigate the small
perturbations which affect the trajectory of a stable
rocket that implements only fixed aerodynamic
surfaces for stability. The organisers may make
additional requests for information and draft
unique requirements depending on the team's
specific design implementation.
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Inspection on site
Designed to Fail Safe
Control Actuator Systems (CAS) shall mechanically
lock in a neutral state whenever either an abort
signal is received for any reason, primary system
power is lost, or the launch vehicle's attitude
exceeds 30° from its launch elevation. Any one of
these conditions being met will trigger the fail-safe,
neutral system state. A neutral state is defined as
one which does not apply any moments to the
launch vehicle (e.g., aerodynamic surfaces trimmed
or retracted, gas jets off, etc.).
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Inspection on site
Boost Phase
Dormancy
CAS shall mechanically lock in a neutral state until
either the mission’s boost phase has ended (i.e., all
propulsive stages have ceased producing thrust),
the launch vehicle has crossed the point of
maximum aerodynamic pressure (i.e., max Q) in its
trajectory, or the launch vehicle has reached an
altitude of 6.000 m AGL. Any one of these conditions
being met will permit the active system state. A
neutral state is defined as one which does not apply
any moments to the launch vehicle (e.g.,
aerodynamic surfaces trimmed or retracted, gas jets
off, etc.).
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Inspection on site
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 80 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Active Flight Control
System Electronics
Wherever possible, all active control systems should
comply with requirements and goals for "redundant
electronics" and "safety critical wiring" as recovery
systems — understanding that in this case
"initiation" refers CAS commanding rather than a
recovery event. Flight control systems are exempt
from the requirement for COTS redundancy, given
that such components are generally unavailable as
COTS to the amateur highpower rocketry
community.
Simple confirmation
Active Flight Control
System Energetics
All stored-energy devices used in an active flight
control system (i.e., energetics) shall comply with
the energetic device requirements defined in
Section 4. of this document.
Simple confirmation
AIRFRAME STRUCTURES
Adequate Venting
Launch vehicles shall be adequately vented to
prevent unintended internal pressures developed
during flight from causing either damage to the
airframe or any other unplanned configuration
changes. Typically, a 3 mm to 5 mm hole is drilled in
the booster section just behind the nosecone or
payload shoulder area, and through the hull or
bulkhead of any similarly isolated
compartment/bay.
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
OVERALL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
Checklist
Upon request, the flier should provide the inspector
with hardcopy checklist procedures for the rocket's
assembly and integration for flight - including
selfinspection/verification steps which make
individual team members accountable to one
another for having completed the preceding
process(es).
Simple confirmation
Inspection on site
Material Selection
PVC (and similar low-temperature polymers), Public
Missiles Ltd. (PML) Quantum Tube components
shall not be used in any structural (i.e., load bearing)
capacity, most notably as load bearing eyebolts,
launch vehicle airframes, or propulsion system
combustion chambers.
No action necessary
(for stainless steel
components)
Simple confirmation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 81 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Load Bearing
Eyebolts and U-bolts
All load bearing eyebolts shall be of the closed-eye,
forged type — NOT of the open eye, bent wire type.
Furthermore, all load bearing eyebolts and U-Bolts
shall be steel or stainless steel. This requirement
extends to any bolt and eye-nut assembly used in
place of an eyebolt.
No action necessary
(for stainless steel)
Inspection on site
Implementing
Coupling Tubes
Airframe joints which implement "coupling tubes"
should be designed such that the coupling tube
extends no less than one body calibre on either side
of the joint — measured from the separation plane.
Regardless of implementation (e.g., RADAX or other
join types) airframe joints will be "stiff" (i.e., prevent
bending).
Simple confirmation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Launch Lug
Mechanical
Attachment
Launch lugs (i.e., rail guides) should implement
"hard points" for mechanical attachment to the
launch vehicle airframe. These hardened/reinforced
areas on the vehicle airframe, such as a block of
wood installed on the airframe interior surface
where each launch lug attaches, will assist in
mitigating lug "tear outs" during operations. The aft
most launch lug shall support the launch vehicle's
fully loaded launch weight while vertical. At EuRoC,
competition officials will require teams to lift their
launch vehicles by the rail guides and/or
demonstrate that the bottom guide can hold the
vehicle's weight when vertical. This test needs to be
completed successfully before the admittance of
the team to Launch Readiness Review.
Inspection on site
Proof by previous
testing
Launch Rail Fit Check
All teams shall perform a “launch rail fit check” as a
part of the flight preparations (the Launch
Readiness Review), before going to the launch
range. This requirement is particularly important if
a team is not bringing their own launch rail, but
instead relying on EuRoC provided launch rails.
Inspection on site
Rail Guide
Attachment
The rail guides must be firmly attached to the rocket
without evidence of cracking in the joints, and the
aft most guide attachment must be sufficient to
bear the rocket's entire mass when erected.
Inspection on site
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 82 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Slip-fit Joints
Joints intended to separate in flight cannot become
separated when loaded by their own weight alone,
and the Flier should demonstrate cognizance of
shear pin design (if implemented).
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Joint Stiffness
All joints - both separating and non-separating in
flight - must be "stiff", so as to eliminate any visible
airframe bending.
Inspection on site
Fin Attachment
The fins must be firmly attached to the rocket
without evidence of cracking in the joints.
("Hairline" cracks may be acceptable if the fins are
not loose or, if the fins are mounted using the
"through-the-wall" [TTW] construction technique.
Inspection on site
Fin Stiffness
The fins must exhibit no shifting and minimal
deflection (i.e., bending) when handled. Inspection on site
Fin "Warpage"
The fins must exhibit little-to-no indication of
damage due to moisture penetration or excessive
thermal cycling during storage or transport - leading
to out of tolerance dimensional changes in the part.
Inspection on site
RF TRANSPARENCY
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 83 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
RF Window Location
Any internally mounted RF transmitter, receiver or
transceiver, not having the applicable antenna or
antennas mounted externally on the airframe, shall
employ “RF windows" in the airframe shell plating
(typically glass fibre panels), enabling RF devices
with antennas mounted inside the airframe, to
transmit the signal though the airframe shell. RF
windows in the flight vehicle shell shall be a 360°
circumference and be at least two body diameters
in length. The internally mounted RF antenna(s)
shall be placed at the midpoint of the RF window
section, facilitating maximizing the azimuth
radiation pattern.
RF transmitter, receivers or transceivers are not
allowed to be mounted externally. Externally
mounted antennas are allowed, but only if at least
two antennas are mounted on opposite sides of the
airframe, thus retaining circumferential symmetry
and covering sufficient transmission area,
transmitting or receiving identical signals. As
popular as carbon fibre is for the construction of
strong and lightweight airframes, it is also
conductive and will significantly shield and/or
degrade RF signals, which is unacceptable.
Simple confirmation
Identifying Markings
The team's Team ID (a number assigned by EuRoC
prior to the competition event), project name, and
academic affiliation(s) shall be clearly identified on
the launch vehicle airframe. The Team ID especially,
will be prominently displayed (preferably visible on
all four quadrants of the vehicle, as well as fore and
aft), assisting competition officials to positively
identify the project hardware with its respective
team throughout EuRoC.
No action necessary
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 84 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Other Markings
There are no requirements for airframe coloration
or markings beyond those specified in Section 6.4.
of this document. However, EuRoC offers the
following recommendations to student teams:
mostly white or lighter tinted colour (e.g., yellow,
red, orange, etc.) airframes are especially conducive
to mitigating some of the solar heating experienced
in the EuRoC launch environment. Furthermore,
high-visibility schemes (e.g., highcontrast black,
orange, red, etc.) and roll patterns (e.g., contrasting
stripes, “V” or “Z” marks, etc.) may allow ground-
based observers to more easily track and record the
launch vehicle’s trajectory with high-power optics.
No action necessary
PAYLOAD
Payload recovery
Payloads may be deployable or remain attached to
the launch vehicle throughout the flight. Deployable
payloads shall incorporate an independent recovery
system, reducing the payload's descent velocity to
less than 9 m/s before it descends through an
altitude of 450 m AGL. Deployable payloads without
two-stage recovery systems (drogue and main
chute, like the rockets) will be subjective to
considerable drift during descent.
Proof by calculation
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
Proof by previous
testing
Payload Recovery
System
Electronics and
Safety Critical
Wiring
Payloads implementing independent recovery
systems shall comply with the same requirements
and goals as the launch vehicle for "redundant
electronics" and "safety critical wiring".
Inspection on site
Payload Recovery
System Testing
Payloads implementing independent recovery
systems shall comply with the same requirements
and goals as the launch vehicle for "recovery system
testing".
Simple confirmation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 85 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Deployable Payload
GPS Tracking
Required
It must be noted that deployable payloads are
equivalent to flight vehicle bodies and sections, in
that they can be difficult to locate after landing. All
deployable payloads shall feature the same
mandatory GPS tracking system as all rockets and
rocket stages as specified in the Appendix C: Official
Altitude Logging and Tracking System. The GPS
locator ID must differ from the ID of the launch
vehicle.
Simple confirmation
Payload Energetic
Devices
All stored-energy devices (i.e., energetics) used in
payload systems shall comply with the energetic
device requirements defined in Section 4. of this
document.
Simple confirmation
LAUNCH AND ASCENT TRAJECTORY REQUIREMENTS
Launch Azimuth and
Elevation
Launch vehicles shall nominally launch at an
elevation angle of 84° ±1° and a launch azimuth
defined by competition officials at EuRoC.
Competition officials reserve the right to require
certain vehicles' launch elevation be as low a 70°, if
flight safety issues are identified during pre-launch
activities.
Simple check
Launch Stability
Launch vehicles shall have sufficient velocity upon
"departing the launch rail" to ensure they will follow
predictable flight paths. In lieu of detailed analysis,
a rail departure velocity of at least 30 m/s is
generally acceptable. Alternatively, the team may
use detailed analysis to prove stability is achieved at
a lower rail departure velocity 20 m/s either
theoretically (e.g., computer simulation) or
empirically (e.g., flight testing).
Proof by calculation
Ascent Stability
Launch vehicles shall remain "stable" for the entire
ascent. Stable is defined as maintaining a static
margin of at least 1.5 to 2 body calibres, regardless
of CG movement due to depleting consumables and
shifting centre of pressure (CP) location due to wave
drag effects (which may become significant as low
as 0.5 Mach). Not falling below 2 body calibres will
be considered nominal, while falling below 1.5 body
calibres will be considered a loss of stability.
Proof by calculation
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 86 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Over-stability
All launch vehicles should avoid becoming
"overstable" during their ascent. A launch vehicle
may be considered over-stable with a static margin
significantly greater than 2 body calibres (e.g.,
greater than 6 body calibres).
Proof by calculation
Flight Simulation
Upon request, the flier should either provide a hard
copy, or demonstrate on a portable computer, a
3degreee-of-freedom (3DoF) simulation (or better)
of the rocket's nominal trajectory.
In-depth proofing
needed
Fin Alignment
The fins should be mounted parallel to the roll axis
of the rocket, or (if canted or otherwise roll
inducing) the Flier must demonstrate cognizance of
the predicted roll behaviour and its effects.
Inspection on site
Staging Event
Sequence and Timing
Any delays implemented between staging events
must not be so long as to significantly risk the rocket
having "arced-over" into an unsafe orientation -
typically by "gravity turn".
Proof by calculation
TEAM-PROVIDED LAUNCH SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Portability
If possible/practicable, teams should make their
launch support equipment man-portable over a
short distance (a few hundred metres).
Environmental considerations at the launch site
permit only limited vehicle use beyond designated
roadways, campgrounds, and basecamp areas.
Simple confirmation
Launch Rail Elevation
Team provided launch rails shall implement the
nominal launch elevation specified in Section 8.1. of
this document and, if adjustable, not permit launch
at angles either greater than the nominal elevation
or lower than 70°.
Inspection on site
Operational Range
All team provided launch control systems shall be
electronically operated and have a maximum
operational range of no less than 650 metres from
the launch rail. The maximum operational range is
defined as the range at which launch may be
commanded reliably.
No action necessary
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 87 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Fault Tolerance and
Arming
All team provided launch control systems shall be at
least single fault tolerant by implementing a
removable safety interlock (i.e., a jumper or key to
be kept in possession of the arming crew during
arming) in series with the launch switch.
Inspection on site
Safety Critical
Switches
All team provided launch control systems shall
implement ignition switches of the momentary,
normally open (also known as "dead man") type so
that they will remove the signal when released.
Mercury or "pressure roller" switches are not
permitted anywhere in team provided launch
control systems.
Simple confirmation
EQUIPMENT
Communication
Equipment
All teams must bring any Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) required for all preparation- and
launch activities. EuRoC does not have a supply of
spare PPE. PPE includes, but is not limited to, safety
goggles, gloves, safety shoes, hardhats, ear
protection, cryo-protection, etc.
No action necessary
Personal Protection
Equipment
All teams must bring any Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) required for all preparation- and
launch activities. EuRoC does not have a supply of
spare PPE. PPE includes, but is not limited to, safety
goggles, gloves, safety shoes, hardhats, ear
protection, cryo-protection, etc.
Simple confirmation
Field Equipment
All teams are encouraged to provide each
participating team member with a suitable
“field/day pack”, which is kept close at hand (or
worn) during launch days. Due to the possibility of
strong sunlight and high temperatures even in
October, some of these provisions are intended to
get students through a hot and dry day in the field,
while other provisions are intended to enable
student teams to continue efficient operation after
loss of daylight after a quick sun-down and a
resulting sudden and significant drop in ambient
temperature.
No action necessary
Table 4: Legend for de-scoping FRR checklist.
LEGEND FOR DE-SCOPING FEEDBACK
European Rocketry Challenge – Design, Test & Evaluation Guide Page 88 of 88
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000455
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
This requirement is very important
This requirement is important
This requirement is of lesser importance
Table 5: Legend for actions to be taken on the FRR checklist.
ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
No action necessary “I see you used stainless steel here. Okay, fine”
Simple confirmation “Are you using non-toxic propellants?” – “Yes, we are”
Simple check
“Is everybody at least 15 m away when the ground-start ignition
circuit is arming?” – “Okay now, yes”
Inspection on site
“Are all the critical wiring/cable connections sufficiently secured?” –
“I will have a look, ah I see, yes”
Proof by reasoned
argumentation
“Can you tell me about your process of offloading propellant in case
of a launch abort?” – “Okay, sounds reasonable, this should work.”
Proof by previous testing
“Have you tested the pressure vessels to 1.5 the maximum expected
operating pressure?” – “Okay, I will have a look at the results and
understand if everything has been tested appropriately.”
Proof by calculation
“Regarding the launch stability, have you calculated the lower rail
departure velocity? How did you do it? What is the result?” – “Okay,
I see and understand the calculation, this will work then.”
In-depth proofing needed
“How does this design feature work?” – “Okay, so you are not
certain, and I do not understand on site, so let us go to the CAD
model and check.”


Notat
Side 1/7
Modtager(e) > Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget
Kommenteret høringsnotat vedrørende forslag til lov om ændring af
lov om aktiviteter i det ydre rum (Begrænsning af ikke-statslige større
raketopsendelser og ikke-statslige opsendelser af rumgenstande)
Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet har den 25. august 2022 udsendt oven-
nævnte udkast til lovforslag i høring blandt relevante institutioner og organisationer.
Høringen har også været offentliggjort på Høringsportalen.
Ved høringsfristens udløb den 22. september 2022 var der indkommet 14 hørings-
svar, hvoraf 8 indeholder bemærkninger til lovforslaget.
I dette notat gives et kort resumé af de væsentligste bemærkninger.
1. Generelle bemærkninger
Dansk Industri (DI) udtrykker forståelse for, at begrænsede aktiviteter, som kan
have store sikkerhedsmæssige konsekvenser og ikke mindst betydelige administra-
tive og praktiske omkostninger for staten, nøje må overvejes og afvejes.
EuroSpaceport anerkender behovet for at skabe bedre lovgivningsmæssige ram-
mer for raketopsendelser i Danmark, men finder at forslaget er for vidtgående og
reelt vil forhindre private virksomheder og organisationer i at gennemføre raketakti-
viteter i Danmark og fra danske skibe og platforme.
Jens Woeste har afgivet høringssvar på vegne af DTU DanSTAR, DARK (Dansk
Amatør Raket Klub) og Copenhagen Suborbitals (herefter DanSTAR, DARK og Co-
penhagen Suborbitals). DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals hilser gene-
relt en ændring af loven velkommen, som vil medføre en ønsket simplificering af de
af regler og love, der danner grundlag for arbejdet med ikke-statslige raketopsen-
delser i Danmark, men finder at det også fremadrettet skal være muligt for ikke-
statslige operatører at foretage opsendelser af større raketter fra Danmark.
Ministeriet bemærker indledningsvist, at lovforslaget er udarbejdet på baggrund af
rapporten fra den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe om regulering og myndighedsor-
ganisering af civile raketaktiviteter fra april 2019.
Arbejdsgruppen bestod af repræsentanter for Beskæftigelsesministeriet, Erhvervs-
ministeriet, Finansministeriet, Forsvarsministeriet, Justitsministeriet, Miljø- og Fø-
devareministeriet, Transport- og Boligministeriet, Udenrigsministeriet samt Uddan-
nelses- og Forskningsministeriet, som havde ansvaret for forskellige områder af be-
tydning for raketopsendelser.
Baggrunden herfor var, at de relevante ministerier havde konstateret, at regulerin-
gen af civil raketaktivitet var utilstrækkelig, at myndighedsorganiseringen var spredt
og usammenhængende, og at raketaktiviteter i Danmark ikke fandt sted på et sik-
kerhedsmæssigt forsvarligt grundlag.
9. februar 2023
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
Jura
Børsgade 4
Postboks 2135
1015 København K
Tel. 3392 9700
www.ufm.dk
CVR-nr. 1680 5408
Sagsbehandler
Marianne Madsen
Tel. 72 31 79 73
MAM@ufm.dk
Ref.-nr.
$dossier_documentnumber$
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
Side 2/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
Ministeriet har noteret sig, at der i høringssvarene generelt er en forståelse for be-
hovet for regulering, herunder af hensyn til sikkerheden.
2. Begrænsning af ikke-statslige større raketopsendelser og ikke-statslige op-
sendelser af rumgenstande
Det er generelt DI’s opfattelse, at et forbud vil hæmme erhvervslivets muligheder for
at drive innovation og udvikling på et område, som er og bliver stadigt mere betyd-
ningsfuldt i fremtiden. Dog bemærkes, at såfremt det påviseligt er sikkerhedsmæs-
sige overvejelser, der ligger til grund for forslaget, må dette accepteres i Industrien.
Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (DTU) er grundlæggende imod et generelt forbud.
DTU har dog supplerende til høringssvaret oplyst, at lovforslaget efter deres vurde-
ring ikke har indvirkning på DTU’s forskningsaktiviteter, men at det er en prioritet, at
studenterforeningen DanSTAR kan fortsætte med at deltage i konkurrencer/opsen-
delser på lokationer i udlandet, som eksempelvis EuRoC i Portugal, ligesom at det
bør være en prioritering i forhold til henvisningsmodellen at sikre finansiering af rej-
ser til godkendte sites.
Aalborg Universitet (AAU) har ingen kommentarer eller indvendinger til de foreslå-
ede ændringer.
Hjalte Osborn Frandsen (ph.d.-stipendiat inden for rumlovgivning ved Juridisk Fa-
kultet, Københavns Universitet) finder, at målsætningen om at begrænse sikker-
hedsmæssige risici og gener fra ikke-statslige raketopsendelser fra den danske stat
er legitim, men finder dog at et totalt forbud ikke forekommer proportionelt, når målet
om sikkerhed kan opfyldes med en fornuftig godkendelsesproces som i andre lande.
EuroSpaceport bemærker, at såfremt lovforslaget vedtages i sin nuværende form,
vil planer om konkrete opsendelser fra Nordsøen i de kommende år blive aflyst, og
EuroSpaceport’s langsigtede planer i Danmark, herunder om opbygning af perma-
nente services til raketopsendelser for europæiske fabrikanter fra Nordsøen, ud-
skudt på ubestemt tid. EuroSpaceport vurderer, at Danmark dermed potentielt går
glip af en forretningsmulighed i et område i stor vækst.
Projektet Space Campus Esbjerg (et samarbejde mellem virksomheder, forskere og
institutioner i Esbjerg, der sigter mod at gøre Esbjerg til centrum for raket- og rum-
fartsaktiviteter, og som tager afsæt i raketopsendelser fra Nordsøen ud for Esbjerg)
bemærker, at et forbud vil stoppe projektet, da muligheden for opsendelse af raket-
ter er en fundamental del af brandingen af Esbjerg som centrum for rumfartsuddan-
nelser- og aktiviteter.
I høringssvaret adresserer DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals de be-
grundelser for et forbud, der fremgår af rapporten fra den tværministerielle arbejds-
gruppe, det vil sige fraværet af egnede opsendelsessteder, risici i forhold til fly- og
skibstrafik samt manglende kompetencer til faglig evaluering af opsendelsesaktivi-
teter, som de dog ikke finder kan begrunde et forbud.
Side 3/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals finder i øvrigt, at den tværministeri-
elle rapport indeholder en række fejlkonklusioner, som adresseres i et bilag til hø-
ringssvaret (bilag 1). Bilaget vedlægges høringssvarene.
Space Inventor ApS bemærker, at lovændringen vil gælde for dansk territorium,
hvorfor de ikke har yderligere bemærkninger, idet de primært sender op via autori-
serede faciliteter i udlandet.
DI noterer sig, at lovforslaget lægger op til en revurdering af forbuddet, hvis udvik-
lingen i området tilsiger det, og foreslår en årlig proces omkring dette.
Ministeriet bemærker, at de mulige skadevirkninger ved fejlslagne raketaktiviteter
er betydelige, og at baggrunden for lovforslaget er konstateringen af, at der ikke i
dag er den tilstrækkelige regulering eller myndighedsorganisering til, at større ra-
ketopsendelser kan gennemføres fra Danmark på et sikkerhedsmæssigt forsvarligt
grundlag.
I forhold til en fremtidig regulering af større raketopsendelser anbefalede den tvær-
ministerielle arbejdsgruppe en henvisningsmodel som den sikkerhedsmæssigt mest
forsvarlige, bl.a. fordi befolkningstætheden i Danmark generelt taler imod at udføre
sådanne større raketopsendelser i Danmark. Modellen indebærer, at opsendelse af
alle større civile raketter og rumgenstande henvises til autoriserede opsendelsesfa-
ciliteter, som p.t. kun findes i udlandet, hvilket i praksis indebærer et forbud mod
sådanne opsendelser i Danmark. Det fremgår således af rapporten, at arbejdsgrup-
pen ikke kunne pege på noget sted i Danmark, hvor større opsendelsesaktiviteter
kan ske uden at være til gene og indebære en potentiel fare, herunder for søtrafik-
ken og trafikken i luftrummet over Danmark. Det bemærkes i forlængelse heraf, at
den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe ikke forholdte sig til specifikke områder.
Der lægges med lovforslaget op til at følge arbejdsgruppens anbefaling om en hen-
visningsmodel, og forbuddet i lovforslaget er rettet mod opsendelser af større raket-
ter og rumgenstande i den danske stat samt uden for et myndighedsområde, når
opsendelsen foretages på dansk fartøj eller indretning eller af danske operatører.
Opsendelser af større raketter eller rumgenstande fra andre lande vil, som det er
tilfældet i dag, kunne ske i overensstemmelse med de gældende regler i de pågæl-
dende lande.
Ministeriet bemærker dog samtidig – som det også fremgår af høringssvarene – at
der er tale om et område i udvikling, og at der i lyset af udviklingen kan være grund
til at overveje nærmere, hvordan retsstillingen skal se ud på længere sigt. På den
baggrund er lovforslaget justeret i forhold til høringsudgaven, sådan at der lægges
op til at indsætte en solnedgangsklausul i lovforslaget, hvorefter reglerne skal gælde
for en afgrænset periode på 3 år.
Ved at indføre et midlertidigt forbud skabes en klar retstilstand, hvor det sikres, at
der ikke gennemføres potentielt farlige raketopsendelser uden den nødvendige re-
gulering og myndighedsorganisering. Samtidig vil der være tid til – med inddragelse
af relevante myndigheder m.v. – at undersøge nærmere, om der også fremadrettet
skal være et forbud mod større raketopsendelser, eller om der er grundlag for en
mulig fremtidig model for godkendelse af visse opsendelser, og hvilke konsekvenser
Side 4/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
det i givet fald vil have. I perioden vil udviklingen på området samtidig blive fulgt
nærmere, herunder den teknologiske udvikling, udviklingen på det internationale
område samt i forhold til aktørerne på området.
For så vidt angår konsekvenser ved i en afgrænset periode at indføre et forbud mod
opsendelser af større raketter og rumgenstande fra Danmark bemærkes i forhold til
dansk rumforskning, at danske forskningsinstitutioner deltager aktivt i udvikling af
satellit- og rumteknologi, men at raketudvikling ikke hidtil har været højt prioriteret.
DTU har i overensstemmelse hermed tilkendegivet, at forslaget ikke vil påvirke
DTU’s forskningsaktiviteter. Ligeledes har AAU tilkendegivet ikke at have indven-
dinger mod de foreslåede ændringer.
Ministeriet bemærker i forhold til studenteraktiviteter, at muligheden for at yde støtte
til studenteraktiviteter, der gennemføres i udlandet, vil blive undersøgt nærmere.
Forbuddet vurderes endvidere ikke at ville påvirke hovedparten af de kommercielle
rumaktiviteter, herunder opsendelse af satellitter, som i dag alene foregår fra udlan-
det, samt aktiviteter i forbindelse med downstream (brug af data fra satellitter). I den
forbindelse bemærkes, at det fremgår af årsrapporten for 2022 fra det tværministe-
rielle rumudvalg, at 82 pct. af omsætningen i det danske rumerhverv er placeret i
udnyttelse af rumdata, f.eks. ved udvikling af applikationer (downstream-aktiviteter).
Denne del af rumerhvervet er ikke afhængig af, hvorfra satellitterne opsendes, og
berøres dermed ikke af lovforslaget.
Derudover har flere danske virksomheder med succes opbygget forretninger for
produktion og salg og i mindre grad operation af små satellitter og vurderes at være
blandt nogle af de førende virksomheder på området. Disse aktiviteter forventes
ikke påvirket af et forbud mod opsendelser af større raketter og rumgenstande fra
Danmark.
Det bemærkes også, at danske virksomheder og forskere deltager i det europæiske
rumsamarbejde (ESA) i kraft af Danmarks medlemskab samt i andre internationale
forskningsinfrastrukturer i tilfælde, hvor det er hensigtsmæssigt, at ikke alle lande
opbygger specialiserede faciliteter. Hermed fremmes danske kompetencer gennem
udvikling af nye rumteknologier og ved deltagelse i internationale forskergrupper.
Denne deltagelse forudsætter ikke opsendelser fra Danmark og vil efter et forbud
mod raketopsendelser fortsætte uændret.
Et midlertidigt forbud mod større raketopsendelser kan dog påvirke virksomheder,
som baserer en forretningsmodel på opsendelse af raketter fra Danmark. Der er i
dag kendskab til én kommerciel aktør, som har tilkendegivet at planlægge kommer-
cielle opsendelser fra Danmark. Derudover kan et midlertidigt forbud påvirke for-
eninger m.v., som ønsker at gennemføre større raketopsendelser fra Danmark.
3. Godkendelsesmodel
EuroSpaceport bemærker, at raketaktiviteter efter deres opfattelse vil kunne gen-
nemføres både sikkert og økonomisk forsvarligt fra dansk farvand ved anvendelse
af en godkendelsesmodel.
Side 5/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
EuroSpaceport giver dog udtryk for, at raketopsendelser fra landområder ikke er
hensigtsmæssige i Danmark på grund af befolkningstætheden, men finder at det i
farvandene omkring Danmark er muligt at finde lokationer, der har væsentlig større
afstand til beboelse og infrastruktur end eksisterende godkendte opsendelsesfacili-
teter i vores nabolande og i USA, idet EuroSpaceport planlægger opsendelser fra
en lokation i Nordsøen, hvorfra afstanden til almindelige boliger er mere end 100
km, og afstanden til nærmeste olieboreplatform eller vindmølle mere end 50 km.
EuroSpaceport bemærker, at selve flyvningen i forbindelse med en raketopsendelse
varer mindre end 20 minutter, og at lukningen af luftrummet i et afgrænset område
typisk ikke vil vare mere end nogle få timer, hvor fly følger en alternativ rute. Euro-
Spaceport bemærker endvidere, at det område, som EuroSpaceport’s opsendelser
planlægges i, ligger i en del af Nordsøen med forholdsvis begrænset skibstrafik, og
at sikkerheden for skibs- og flytrafikken vil kunne opnås ved formaliserede proce-
durer for koordinering af aktiviteter på havet og i luftrummet.
For så vidt angår statslige udgifter til en godkendelsesmodel mener EuroSpaceport,
at det ikke er nødvendigt for staten at råde over fastansatte med disse kompetencer.
En godkendelsesmodel i Danmark kunne administreres af f.eks. Trafikstyrelsen el-
ler Sikkerhedsstyrelsen og trække på faglige kompetencer hos DTU, ESA eller hos
Danmarks nabolande. Udgifterne til godkendelsesprocessen kunne helt eller delvist
opkræves hos ansøger.
Projektet Space Campus Esbjerg anbefaler at ændre lovforslaget, så det bliver mu-
ligt at gennemføre raketopsendelser fra Nordsøen efter godkendelse hos danske
myndigheder.
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals anfører, at hvis et dansk forbud (og
en dansk henvisningsmodel) alene bunder i et argument om sikkerhed ved opsen-
delser, så forekommer det pragmatisk at lave en tilføjelse til lovforslaget, hvor de
sikkerhedsmæssige aspekter kan evalueres og adresseres sagligt.
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals finder, at det militære øvelsesom-
råde i farvandet øst for Bornholm er særdeles velegnet til opsendelse af ”større”
raketter, og det forhold, at forsvaret ikke benytter området som skydeområde, æn-
drer ikke ved dets karakteristika.
For så vidt angår risici forbundet med fly- og skibstrafik vurderer DanSTAR, DARK
og Copenhagen Suborbitals, at det vil være muligt at have fuldt forsvarlige opsen-
delsesvinduer på 30-60 minutter.
Endelig bemærker DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals vedrørende
manglende kompetencer til faglig evaluering af opsendelsesaktiviteter og omkost-
ningerne forbundet med en godkendelsesmodel, at man efter deres vurdering har
udeladt at afsøge muligheden for at udnytte den veludviklede kompetencebase, der
eksisterer ved en række af landets førende uddannelsesinstitutioner, og som vil
kunne aktiveres ved myndighedsbetjening i relation til en fremtidig godkendelses-
model.
Side 6/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals foreslår derfor, at ministeren får
hjemmel til at meddele tilladelse til opsendelse på baggrund af en proces, hvor ra-
ketoperatøren udarbejder teknisk dokumentation, risikoanalyse samt operativ doku-
mentation, der i mål og omfang svarer til projektets størrelse og ambition, og som
muliggør en grundig evaluering af den ønskede opsendelsesaktivitet.
Ministeriet noterer sig, at ovennævnte høringsparter ønsker en godkendelsesmo-
del ved større raketopsendelser fra Danmark i stedet for en henvisningsmodel, som
lovforslaget lægger op til at indføre for en afgrænset periode. Ministeriet bemærker,
at en godkendelsesmodel vil forudsætte, at en lang række forhold, herunder regler,
administration og økonomi, skal overvejes og på den baggrund vurderes.
Det fremgår således af den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes rapport, at en godken-
delsesmodel med regulering og godkendelse af større opsendelsesaktiviteter for-
udsætter, at der hos en myndighed opbygges helt nye kompetencer og højt speci-
aliseret viden om relevante risici og sikkerhedsforhold, og at denne model bygger
på, at der tilvejebringes et regelgrundlag og en myndighedsstruktur, som gør det
muligt at foretage en samlet og solid og konkret vurdering af opsendelsesaktiviteter,
hvilket indebærer vurdering af raketten, opsendelsesplatformen og den nærmere
indretning af forholdene på opsendelsesstedet.
Vurderingen skal ske på baggrund af såvel tekniske beskrivelser af selve konstruk-
tionen, herunder rakettens styre- og telemetrisystemer, systemer til afbrydelse af
flyvninger m.v., beskrevne sikkerhedsprocedurer og regler, beregninger af fornø-
dent sikkerhedsområde m.v. Det skal endvidere påses, at der er foretaget fornøden
notifikation og koordination med øvrige relevante myndigheder, f.eks. luft- og sø-
fartsmyndighederne ift., at opsendelsen ikke påvirker eller er til gene for en sikker
afvikling af sø- og lufttrafikken i området, og at der er foretaget nødvendige kontak-
ter til andre landes myndigheder.
Arbejdsgruppen vurderede i sin rapport, at den nødvendige kapacitetsopbygning af
en central myndighed ville stå i åbenbart misforhold til omfanget af aktiviteter, som
tænkes underlagt myndighedsgodkendelse
Ministeriet bemærker i forlængelse heraf, at skulle der etableres en godkendelses-
model, så ville det kræve afklaring af en lang række forhold samt overvejelser i for-
hold til omkostningerne ved en sådan model sammenholdt med aktivitetsniveauet.
Ministeriet kan i den forbindelse henvise til det anførte under pkt. 2 om, at der med
lovforslaget lægges op til, at reglerne i lovforslaget skal gælde i en afgrænset peri-
ode, og at den fremtidige retsstilling skal afklares i den mellemliggende periode.
4. Øvrige bemærkninger til lovforslaget
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals bemærker, at den tværministerielle
rapport kun kortfattet beskriver ulemperne ved henvisningsmodellen. DanSTAR,
DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals oplyser i høringssvaret, at en prisforespørgsel
hos et af de i rapporten anbefalede opsendelsessteder (Andøya) giver et overslag
på omkostninger i størrelsesordenen 4-6 millioner norske kroner for en opsendelse
af en suborbital raket i stand til at nå kanten af rummet i en højde af 100 km over
havoverfladen. Dertil skal medregnes omkostninger til logistik, transport af materiale
og personel.
Side 7/7
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals oplyser, at Copenhagen Suborbitals
siden sidste fremsættelse har stillet faglig og operationel ekspertise til rådighed over
for det Portugisiske Rumagentur i forbindelse med den årlige EuRoC konkurrence
(opsendelse af 20 større ikke statslige raketter i 2021, planlagt opsendelse af 25
større ikke statslige raketter i 2022) fra et militært øvelsesområde ca. 100 km fra
Lissabon. DanSTAR, DARK og Copenhagen Suborbitals har til inspiration vedlagt
høringssvaret bilag om operationel manual for opsendelsesfaciliteter, dokumentati-
onskrav, risikoanalyser og sikkerhedsvurderinger (bilag 2-4), som vedlægges hø-
ringssvarene.
DI bemærker, at rumområdet er stærkt voksende både i forskningssammenhæng,
erhvervsmæssigt og ikke mindst sikkerhedspolitisk, og lægger derfor vægt på, at
staten forsøger at støtte initiativer til at udvikle danske teknologier og kompetencer
på området og teste disse, hvilket bør fremgå af lovforslaget. Hvis fremtidige test
henvises til udlandet, bør staten efter DI’s opfattelse støtte disse aktiviteter i videst
mulige omfang. Det kan eksempelvis være gennem bilaterale aftaler med de på-
gældende lande om anvendelse af testfaciliteter, økonomisk støtte til at fremme
muligheden for praktisk at kunne gennemføre disse tests og/eller at støtte aktørerne
med at søge støttemidler i EU eller ved andre finansieringskilder til at afvikle tests.
Ministeriet bemærker, at omkostningerne ved opsendelse af større raketter fra op-
sendelsesfaciliteter i udlandet forventeligt vil være væsentligt større end opsendelse
fra eksempelvis aktørernes egne havbaserede opsendelsesplatforme, som har væ-
ret anvendt i forbindelse med tidligere opsendelser. Det bemærkes dog, at en god-
kendelsesmodel – som ovenfor beskrevet – også må forventes at ville være forbun-
det med betydelige omkostninger for aktørerne, da en godkendelsesmodel bl.a. vil
indebære en sikkerhedsvurdering på baggrund af nærmere dokumentation af ek-
sempelvis ikke afprøvede teknologier, krav om forsikring og indførelse af risikosæn-
kende tiltag.
Ministeriet bemærker i øvrigt, at staten gennem deltagelse i bl.a. ESA og EU-pro-
grammer støtter udvikling af danske teknologier og kompetencer på rumområdet.


Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
EUROPEAN ROCKETRY CHALLENGE
RULES & REQUIREMENTS
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 2 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements
INTERNAL APPROVAL
PREPARED BY:
Álvaro Lopes, Portuguese Space Agency
Inês d’Ávila, Portuguese Space Agency
Manuel Wilhelm, Portuguese Space Agency
Paulo Quental, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 07/02/2022
VERIFIED BY:
Marta Gonçalves, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 07/02/2022
APPROVED BY:
Ricardo Conde, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 07/02/2022
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 3 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF REVISIONS....................................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 6
1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2. DOCUMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 7
2. FLIGHT CATEGORIES................................................................................................................. 7
3. TEAM COMPOSITION AND ELIGIBILITY...................................................................................... 8
3.1. TEAM MEMBERS....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2. SUBMISSION LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................... 9
4. APPLICATION AND REGISTRATION PROCESSES.......................................................................... 9
4.1. ENTRY FORM.......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2. TEAM ID ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.3. ACADEMIC INSTITUTION PARTICIPATION LETTER.............................................................................. 10
4.4. STUDENT UNIVERSITY IDENTIFICATION.......................................................................................... 10
4.5. DEPOSIT FEE........................................................................................................................... 11
5. MILESTONES .......................................................................................................................... 11
5.1. MANDATORY MILESTONES ........................................................................................................ 12
5.1.1. CHECK-IN........................................................................................................................................12
5.1.2. WELCOME BRIEFING.........................................................................................................................12
5.1.3. SAFETY BRIEFINGS ............................................................................................................................12
5.1.4. JURY PITCH .....................................................................................................................................12
5.1.5. POSTFLIGHT DEBRIEFING ...................................................................................................................13
5.1.6. AWARD CEREMONY..........................................................................................................................13
5.2. OPTIONAL MILESTONES ............................................................................................................ 13
5.2.1. POSTFLIGHT HIGHLIGHTS...................................................................................................................13
6. MOTORS AND PROPELLANTS.................................................................................................. 13
6.1. AMATEUR ROCKET LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 13
6.2. COTS SOLID/HYBRID MOTORS................................................................................................... 13
6.3. SRAD MOTORS ...................................................................................................................... 14
6.4. PROPELLANTS FOR SRAD MOTORS ............................................................................................. 14
7. PAYLOAD............................................................................................................................... 15
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 4 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
7.1. GOAL ................................................................................................................................... 15
7.2. PAYLOAD DEFINITION............................................................................................................... 15
7.3. DEPLOYABLE PAYLOADS ............................................................................................................ 15
7.4. PAYLOAD REQUIRED FORM FACTOR ............................................................................................. 16
7.5. PAYLOAD REQUIRED MASS ........................................................................................................ 16
7.6. MINIMUM PAYLOAD EXAMPLES.................................................................................................. 17
7.7. INDEPENDENT PAYLOAD FUNCTIONALITY....................................................................................... 17
7.8. LOCATION AND INTERFACE......................................................................................................... 18
7.9. RESTRICTED MATERIALS............................................................................................................ 18
8. TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................. 18
8.1. GENERAL COMMENTS............................................................................................................... 18
8.2. CONCEPT REVIEW (CR)............................................................................................................. 19
8.3. FOCUSED DESIGN REVIEW (FDR) ................................................................................................ 19
8.4. FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW (FRR) ............................................................................................... 20
8.5. LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW (LRR).............................................................................................. 21
8.6. POSTFLIGHT DEBRIEFING ........................................................................................................... 22
9. TECHNICAL DELIVERABLES...................................................................................................... 22
9.1. TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................... 22
9.2. CONCEPT REPORT.................................................................................................................... 22
9.3. DESIGN REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 23
9.4. TECHNICAL REPORT.................................................................................................................. 24
9.5. FLIGHT SIMULATION................................................................................................................. 25
9.6. FLIGHT CARD.......................................................................................................................... 25
9.7. POSTFLIGHT RECORD................................................................................................................ 26
9.7.1. POSTFLIGHT REPORTING OF APOGEE AND RECOVERY .............................................................................26
10. NON-TECHNICAL DELIVERABLES............................................................................................ 27
10.1. VIDEO PRESENTATION ............................................................................................................ 27
10.2. PROOF OF INSURANCE ............................................................................................................ 27
10.3. WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM ................................................................................... 28
11. SCORING AND AWARDS ....................................................................................................... 29
11.1. SCORING CATEGORIES............................................................................................................. 29
11.2. COMPETITION CATEGORIES ...................................................................................................... 29
11.3. AWARDS ............................................................................................................................. 29
11.3.1. TECHNICAL AWARD ........................................................................................................................31
11.3.2. NEW SPACE AWARD.......................................................................................................................31
11.3.3. TEAM AWARD ...............................................................................................................................31
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 5 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
11.3.4. FLIGHT AWARDS ............................................................................................................................31
11.3.5. EUROC AWARD.............................................................................................................................31
11.3.6. PAYLOAD AWARD...........................................................................................................................32
11.4. GRADING CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 32
11.5. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERS ................................................................................................ 32
11.6. HANDLING OF QUESTIONS AND COMPLAINTS REGARDING SCORING ................................................... 33
12. UNRULY BEHAVIOR, DISQUALIFICATION, WITHDRAWAL ....................................................... 33
12.1. PENALTIES FOR UNSAFE OR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT.............................................................. 33
12.2. DISQUALIFICATION................................................................................................................. 34
12.3. WITHDRAWAL FROM COMPETITION ........................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 35
APPENDIX B: EVENT SESSIONS AND AREAS................................................................................. 37
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY ............................................................................... 39
APPENDIX D: DETAILS FOR THE TECHNICAL REPORT.................................................................... 42
LIST OF REVISIONS
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION
Version 01 19/06/2020 Original edition.
Version 02 03/03/2021 Second version, major revisions for EuRoC 2021.
Version 03 04/02/2022 Third version, major revisions for EuRoC 2022.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 6 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The Portuguese Space Agency – Portugal Space promotes the EuRoC – European Rocketry Challenge,
hosted in the Municipality of Ponte de Sor, a competition that seeks to stimulate university level
students to fly sounding rockets, by designing and building the rockets themselves. It is widely
recognized that such competitions foster innovation and motivate students to extend themselves
beyond the classroom, while learning to work as a team, solving real world problems under the same
pressures they will experience in their future careers.
EuRoC is fully aligned with the strategic goals of Portugal Space, namely the development and
evolution of the cultural/educational internationalization frameworks capable of boosting the
development of the Space sector in Portugal.
Since EuRoC’s first edition, in 2020, where 100 students were present to 2021, with 400 students
participating, the growth of the competition within Europe is visible, and especially within Portugal,
with an increasing number of interested teams applying to the competition. For the future, it is
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 7 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Portugal Space’s goal to continue to foster the exchange of knowledge and international interaction
inherent to the event, allowing more students to gain from the Challenge and, at the same time,
contribute to it.
This document defines the rules and requirements governing participation in EuRoC. Revisions of this
document will be accomplished by document reissue, marked by the version number. The authority
to approve and issue revised versions of this document rests with Portugal Space.
1.2. DOCUMENTATION
The following documents include standards, guidelines or required standard forms. The documents
listed in this section (Table 1) are either applicable to the extent specified herein or contain reference
information useful in the application of this document.
Table 1: Documents file location
DOCUMENT FILE LOCATION
EuRoC Rules & Requirements http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Design, Test & Evaluation Guide http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Launch Operations http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Entry Form http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Academic Institution Letter Template http://www.euroc.pt
EuRoC Motors List http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Technical Questionnaire http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Temporary Admission Guide http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Waiver and Release of Liability Form http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Flight Card and Postflight Record http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
EuRoC Master Schedule http://www.euroc.pt (Teams’ Reserved Area)
2. FLIGHT CATEGORIES
Teams competing in EuRoC must design, build and launch a rocket carrying no less than 1 kg of payload
to a target apogee either 3000 m or 9000 m above ground level (AGL). Teams can use either
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or student researched and developed (SRAD) propulsion systems,
with SRAD propulsion systems being defined as those designed by students – regardless of whether
fabrication is performed by students directly, or by a third party working to student supplied
specifications – and can include student designed modifications of COTS systems.
Note: Multistage and clustered launch vehicles are allowed.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 8 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Projects will be divided into categories based on the propulsion system (solid [S], hybrid [H], or liquid
[L]) and target apogee (3000 m [3] or 9000 m [9]). Thus, the six flight categories are S3, H3, L3, S9, H9,
and L9. To distinguish COTS from SRAD systems, the origin of the propulsion will be noted in the COTS
case by addition of the suffix [-c], while SRAD systems will not have a suffix. Propulsion systems of a
similar type will compete in the same category, no matter their origin. A summary is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Flight categories
TARGET APOGEE 3000 M 9000 M
Origin COTS SRAD COTS SRAD
Propulsion
System
Solid S3-c S3 S9-c S9
Hybrid H3-c H3 H9-c H9
Liquid L3 L9
Teams are permitted to switch categories as necessary prior to submitting their final Technical Report,
e.g., they may switch from the 9000 m to the 3000 m or vice-versa. EuRoC reserves the right to change
the category in which a project is initially entered based on the design presented (from COTS to SRAD,
or between S/H/L).
3. TEAM COMPOSITION AND ELIGIBILITY
3.1. TEAM MEMBERS
EuRoC teams shall consist of members who are currently enrolled in a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree
or were matriculated undergraduate or graduate students (i.e., Masters) during the previous
academic year (e.g., former students who graduated shortly before the competition remain eligible),
from one or more academic European institutions (e.g., "joint teams" are eligible). Each student team
is limited to 30 members. Teams may integrate advisory members (e.g., doctorate students,
professors), as long as the number of advisors does not surpass 20% of the total number of team
members. Please note that advisors are considered team members and will count for the 30 members
limit.
The limitation in the number of team members only applies to the number of team members to be
present at the event, and not to the constitution of the team itself. The same applies to the number
of team advisors, the 20% limitation only applies to the number of advisors to be present at the event,
and not the constitution of the team itself (i.e., the number of advisors to be present at the event
cannot surpass 20% of the total number of team members to be present at the event).
Each team shall assign a team leader when applying to EuRoC. The team leader must be the point of
contact with EuRoC for all matters, meaning that EuRoC organisation will always and only directly
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 9 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
contact the team leader, and that the team leader must be the only one contacting the EuRoC
organisation. Furthermore, the team leader should be responsible for disclosing and sharing all the
information provided by EuRoC to the remaining team (e.g., by having access to the teams’ reserved
area in the EuRoC website).
The number of teams at EuRoC 2022 edition will be limited. Even though it is a declared goal of the
EuRoC organisers to include teams from outside Europe, due to the current limitations only European
teams will be admitted in the 2022 edition. National rules regarding Covid-19 in place at the time of
the event will apply.
3.2. SUBMISSION LIMITATIONS
Each student organisation/association/team may enter one project into EuRoC. No project may be
entered in more than one category. Deviation from this principle will require case-by-case
negotiations with the event officials. To foster the diversity and spirit of the competition, under no
circumstances will more than two teams be accepted from any single student organisation.
4. APPLICATION AND REGISTRATION PROCESSES
Although the organisers wish to admit all applicants, it is necessary to have a process in place to down
select participating teams from all applicants. Thus, teams that will be selected under a process aiming
to enlist a broad pallet of young European rocket teams. This will not be a first-come-first-served
process and applications throughout the whole of the application period will be considered. All teams
will be contacted by e-mail about the outcome of the selection process.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 10 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
4.1. ENTRY FORM
Each team shall inform EuRoC of their desire to compete by applying on the EuRoC website. Total
completeness of the entry form is required.
Submission of the Academic Institution Participation Letter (see Section 4.3. ) and Student University
Identification (see Section 4.4. ) will be required.
4.2. TEAM ID
The Team ID is the competition officials' primary means of identifying and tracking the teams. Once
assigned, any correspondence between a team and the organisers must contain the respective team's
ID number to enable a timely and accurate response. In the entry form, teams can indicate a short
name or acronym for easier identification.
4.3. ACADEMIC INSTITUTION PARTICIPATION LETTER
Each team is required to ask the academic institution(s), in which its members are enrolled, to provide
a signed letter to EuRoC, acknowledging the team as the institution’s representative and its intention
to participate in the event. The signatory shall be a senior faculty member or senior staff
representative (e.g., professor). Academic institutions sending more than one team to the EuRoC need
only to write one participation letter, covering all their teams, but each included team must submit an
individual copy of that letter. In the case of a joint team, comprised of students from multiple academic
institutions, each affiliated institution must provide its own signed letter to the team. The Academic
Institution Letter template is available for download on the EuRoC website. When submitting the Entry
Form, teams shall submit digital, PDF copy(s) of their signed participation letter(s) on the EuRoC
website, on the respective field.
4.4. STUDENT UNIVERSITY IDENTIFICATION
Each team shall submit copies of documents proving that all team members are eligible – i.e., team
members are either currently enrolled in a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or were matriculated
undergraduate or graduate students during the previous academic year.
The accepted documents as student identification proof are:
• Student card, with valid expiration date or;
• Certificate of enrolment issued by the academic institution or;
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 11 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• A print screen of the student personal area from the academic institution website that clearly
shows that the team member is enrolled or was enrolled during the previous academic year.
Each team member must choose one, and only one, of the above documents. The documents should
preferably be written in English. The documents from all team members must be submitted in a
package format (e.g., zip/rar file), on the designated area of the EuRoC website, with the Entry Form
submission.
4.5. DEPOSIT FEE
Once a team is accepted to take part in the competition, to complete the registration process and for
commitment purposes, a deposit fee of 100€ per team member will be charged. For teams attending
the event, the deposit fee will be refunded after the event. The refund will be carried out as a single
money transfer.
The refundable deposit will be due shortly after the completion of the registration process.
All teams admitted to the event will receive an info email, containing all necessary payment
information.
Proof of the transfer (e.g., scan/photo/PDF of the transfer receipt) must be submitted in the EuRoC
website through the reserved area with clear identification of the team making the deposit and the
bank account necessary info (i.e., IBAN and swift code) for refund purposes.
The latest date for withdrawal from the competition will be the date the Technical Questionnaire is
due, as will be announced on the EuRoC website.
After this date, if a team (accepted, registered, and confirmed as a participating team at EuRoC)
withdraws, gets disqualified, arrives late, or does not attend the event at all, the deposit fee will not
be refunded.
This deposit fee is intended to guarantee the teams participation in the event, to ensure the correct
use of the EuRoC material, as well as to cover any possible expenses due to inadequate use and
operation (or other related matters that teams may impose).
5. MILESTONES
There are several events, briefings, and reviews, mandatory or optional, that form the EuRoC
milestones. A more detailed overview of other building blocks of EuRoC that the teams can expect is
given in 12.3. Appendix B:.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 12 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
5.1. MANDATORY MILESTONES
The mandatory milestones in the sections below shall be completed in order to qualify for flight and
to enter competition scoring.
5.1.1. CHECK-IN
Teams are expected to arrive in time so they can register, receive their event badges, and be assigned
their respective areas. It is expected of every team to attend with all team members from day one. If
individual team members cannot attend from the start due to reasons related to travel restrictions or
similar, event officials should be notified, via e-mail, before the event, at the latest two weeks in
advance before the first event day. This should however only be an exception to the rule.
5.1.2. WELCOME BRIEFING
During the morning of the first event day, a welcome briefing will be given to the teams to introduce
the event officials, announce on-site details, and kick-off all activities. Attendance is expected.
5.1.3. SAFETY BRIEFINGS
During the event, safety briefings will be given by range safety officials to all team members.
Attendance is mandatory for all team members and advisors, without exception.
5.1.4. JURY PITCH
As part of the overall scoring and associated to the “New Space Award” (see Section 11.3.2. for details),
teams will be required to give a pitch to the jury at their booth in the paddock. Teams can think of this
pitch as a scenario where the jury would represent a customer looking for a student team to hire to
supply a fictional launch service with their rocket. Teams should showcase the team itself, the vehicle,
the design implementation, the mission, and their long-term vision, among others. The jury will
positively take note of the “New Space” spirit teams exhibit, for example their innovation, their
resourcefulness, and their agility. Teams may also focus on the most important and distinguishing
features, achievements, or experience that the jury might find convincing and would tilt a hiring
decision in their favour. Teams can support their pitch by any suitable resources (hardware,
multimedia, poster), within a frame of maximum 30 minutes (15 min pitch + 15 min Q&A).
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 13 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
5.1.5. POSTFLIGHT DEBRIEFING
Debriefing session after recovery of the vehicle for the officials to assess the condition of the vehicle.
This debriefing will serve as baseline for the evaluation team to score the success of the recovery
operation (see Section 8.6. for details).
5.1.6. AWARD CEREMONY
The Award Ceremony, to be held on the last day of the event, will be the final milestone of EuRoC
where winners will be announced.
5.2. OPTIONAL MILESTONES
5.2.1. POSTFLIGHT HIGHLIGHTS
During the event, teams are invited to present their postflight highlights.
This moment is meant to provide an opportunity to showcase some interesting stories, both of success
and failure and all the ups and downs that make for a great event and a memorable experience for all.
Teams wishing to share their experiences should inform the event officials after all launch activity has
ceased, most likely the evening before the last day. No “high-gloss polished” slideshow is expected,
but an interesting and engaging talk (5-10 min). Teams are encouraged to be creative and use any
aides they like.
Note: The Postflight Highlights will be dependent on time availability.
6. MOTORS AND PROPELLANTS
6.1. AMATEUR ROCKET LIMITATIONS
Launch vehicles entered in EuRoC shall not exceed an installed total impulse of 40,960 Newton-
seconds. Teams intending on launching vehicles, which exceed the official impulse limit, require prior
case-bycase review and EuRoC approval.
6.2. COTS SOLID/HYBRID MOTORS
In due time, before the event, officials will provide a list of motors that will be available for the
competing teams through the reserved teams’ area of the EuRoC website. It is compiled in conjunction
with the official EuRoC pyrotechnics supplier and will contain a range of motors from known
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 14 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
manufacturers available on the market. Teams will be asked on the Technical Questionnaire (see
Section 9.1. ) to indicate their needed motor. Only COTS motors from the motors list and ordered via
the official pyrotechnics’ supplier are permitted.
6.3. SRAD MOTORS
SRAD motors are subject to the detailed requirements listed in the EuRoC – Design, Test & Evaluation
Guide. SRAD motors should satisfy the highest requirements regarding safety, thus the teams are
required to take all necessary precautions during their design, adhering to sound engineering
principles and supporting their design with simulations and tests. The event officials will evaluate the
designs during the Technical Review Process, based on the submitted technical reports, and during
the Flight Readiness Review. Only if event officials are fully convinced that the design is sufficiently
sound, mature, and tested, will teams be allowed to fly.
Teams are welcome and encouraged to approach the officials during the Technical Review Process,
before and during the event to discuss their specific design questions. Officials encourage a culture of
open discussion about ANY doubts that might arise regarding design feasibility and safety.
6.4. PROPELLANTS FOR SRAD MOTORS
All chemical propulsion types (solid, liquid, and hybrid) are allowed. Note that all propellants used
must be non-toxic. Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP), potassium nitrate and sugar
(aka "rocket candy"), nitrous oxide, liquid oxygen (LOX), hydrogen peroxide, kerosene, propane, and
similar substances, are all considered non-toxic. Toxic propellants are defined as those requiring
breathing apparatus, special storage and transport infrastructure, extensive personal protective
equipment, etc. (e.g., Hydrazine and N2O4). Home-made propellant mixtures containing any fraction
of toxic propellants are also prohibited.
Teams competing with solid SRAD motors, after the delivery of the Technical Questionnaire, should as
soon as possible contact the EuRoC pyrotechnics supplier to discuss and be informed about
appropriate measures for participation preparation.
Liquid/gas propellants must be acquired through EuRoC, under no circumstances will a team be
allowed to bring their own propellants. Teams must be aware that the bottle fittings might be different
from the ones normally used by the team and shall take all necessary precautions to ensure the
compliance with the EuRoC supplier products. Information on the EuRoC bottle fittings will be made
available on the reserved teams’ area of the EuRoC website in due time.
Teams are responsible by having all the necessary equipment on site (e.g., cooling chamber, thermal
protection).
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 15 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
High-level design and acceptance testing requirements are contained in the EuRoC – Design, Test &
Evaluation Guide in order to promote flight safety.
7. PAYLOAD
7.1. GOAL
Event officials encourage the teams to launch functional payloads in the form of creative scientific
experiments and technology demonstrations. It is also encouraged that this is done in a collaborative
fashion, so that rocket launching teams may reach out to other universities and/or student groups
which develop CanSats/CubeSats/PocketSats that could provide payloads to be flown onboard the
EuRoC rockets. Nevertheless, non-functional "dummy-mass” payloads are also permitted, if these
comply with the Payload Required Form Factor and Mass.
7.2. PAYLOAD DEFINITION
A payload is defined as an independent component that is replaceable by a ballast of the same mass,
with no change to the launch vehicle’s functionality and trajectory in reaching the target apogee, or
its’ successful recovery. Participants are required to carry payload(s) on their vehicle, which can be of
the following type:
• Non-functional (i.e., dummy mass) OR functional payload (i.e., a purposeful device, e.g., an
experiment or technology demonstrator);
• Non-deployable OR deployable payload (e.g., deploying a CanSat to the ambient).
If a functional payload is chosen, it can either be:
• Passive (i.e., non-powered/non-energetic) OR active (i.e., powered/energetic).
This payload may be assumed present when calculating the launch vehicle's stability. In other words,
launch vehicles entered in EuRoC need not to be stable without the required payload mass on-board.
The payload must comply with the Payload Required Form Factor and with the Payload Required Mass,
presented in the next sections.
7.3. DEPLOYABLE PAYLOADS
Deployable payloads are characterized by the payload being ejected or separated from the main
vehicle during flight. Therefore, deployable payloads require their own recovery system.
A special case exists for deployable (lightweight) payloads, in that they may be allowed to utilize a
single-stage 8-9m/s descent velocity recovery system from apogee, on a case-by-case approval from
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 16 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
the EuRoC organisation, since elaborate active deployable payloads will generally benefit from as
much airborne time as possible.
If teams plan to develop a deployable payload that requires a specific unique recovery system, they
shall contact the event officials prior to the event to clarify if the payload satisfies all requirements.
7.4. PAYLOAD REQUIRED FORM FACTOR
All payloads, whether they are non-functional or functional, non-deployable or deployable, must fulfil
the requirements for the form factor as detailed below, which are generally based on common CanSat,
CubeSat and PocketSat form factors.
The basic form factors are defined as follows:
• CanSat: Cylindrical shape with 115 mm height and 66 mm diameter;
• CubeSat: Cubic shape with one CubeSat Unit (1U) being defined as a 100 mm x 100 mm x 100
mm cubic structure;
• PocketSat: Cubic shape with 50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm.
The form factors are given not including a parachute, if applicable as in the case of deployable
payloads. "Point masses" with odd form factors are not allowed.
The volume of the payload may be a multiple/stack of the basic payload form-factors, e.g., 3 CanSats
(345 mm height x 66 mm diameter), 2U (200 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm), 5 PocketSats (250 mm x 50
mm x 50 mm) or likewise.
Teams intending on carrying payloads, which do not fulfil the payload required form factor, require
prior case-by-case review and EuRoC approval.
7.5. PAYLOAD REQUIRED MASS
The launch vehicle shall carry no less than 1000 g of payload – Payload Required Mass. There is no
upper limit on payload mass. Teams are responsible for conducting a “weigh-in” on site in the presence
of the competition officials. The weigh-in can be done prior to, or during the Flight Readiness Review.
Competition officials will accept payload weigh-ins as much as 5% (50 g) less than the specified
minimum. If this requirement is not met, “nominal” flight status for the payload may be denied by the
officials during FRR, resulting in an action item to increase payload mass. Any payload unit weight
greater than the specified minimum is acceptable.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 17 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
All payloads, whether they are non-functional or functional, non-deployable or deployable, must fulfil
either the CanSat, CubeSat or PocketSat mass requirements. The basic mass increments are defined
as follows:
• A single CanSat-type payload has a mass between 300 g and 350 g; • A single
CubeSat-type payload has a mass between 1000 g and 1330 g;
• A single PocketSat-type payload has a mass between 200 g and 250 g.
If a functional payload is chosen, with the functional part itself not providing enough mass to reach
the minimum requirements, additional dummy-masses may be added to the functional payload until
the minimum mass requirement is reached.
Teams intending on using payloads, which do not fulfil the payload required mass, require prior
caseby-case review and EuRoC approval.
7.6. MINIMUM PAYLOAD EXAMPLES
Some examples of payloads to fulfil the minimum mass requirements could be:
• A stack of three single CanSat-type payloads (115 mm height and 66 mm diameter each) with
a mass between 300 g and 350 g each, amounting to a total mass of at least 1000 g;
• A 3-unit size CanSat-type payload (345 mm height x 66 mm diameter) with a mass of at least
1000 g;
• A CubeSat-type payload with a minimum form factor of 1U with a mass of at least 1000 g, but
not exceeding 1330 g;
• A 4U CubeSat-type payload with a mass of 4000-5320 g;
• A 5-unit size PocketSat payload (250 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm) with a mass of at least 1000 g;
• A stack of five single PocketSat-type payloads (50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm each) with a mass
between 200 g and 250 g each, amounting to a total mass of at least 1000 g.
7.7. INDEPENDENT PAYLOAD FUNCTIONALITY
Launch vehicle recovery systems shall be able to bring the vehicle down in a safe and controlled
manner, as per the recovery system requirements, independently of whether the payload is active,
passive, deployable or fixed inside the launch vehicle.
An independent payload cannot be a part of the launch vehicle functionality (such as a guidance and
control system). The functionality must be completely independent of the launch vehicles’ ability to
bring the payload to the designated apogee.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 18 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
7.8. LOCATION AND INTERFACE
Neither the payload's location in the launch vehicle nor its method of integration and removal is
specified. Therefore, teams must ensure that the payloads shall not be inextricably connected to other
launch vehicle associated components (e.g., the launch vehicle's recovery system, internal structure,
or airframe) while being weighed. If the payload cannot be removed for weigh-in, the teams will not
get points for an on-board payload.
7.9. RESTRICTED MATERIALS
Payloads shall not contain significant quantities of lead or any other hazardous materials. The use of
radioactive materials shall not be permitted.
8. TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS
8.1. GENERAL COMMENTS
The Technical Review Process (see Figure 1) at EuRoC has the goals to ensure vehicle safety, maximize
the chances of a successful launch and recovery, and to improve the learning experience for the teams.
The process includes five steps:
1. Concept Review;
2. Focused Design Review (for selected teams only);
3. Flight Readiness Review; 4. Launch Readiness Review;
5. Postflight Review.
Furthermore, several technical documents and deliverables are required to be prepared or filled-in by
the teams (further details in Section 9):
1. Technical Questionnaire (including Orders for COTS Solid Motors and Liquid/Gas Propellants);
2. Concept Review Report;
3. Design Review Report;
4. Technical Report;
5. Flight Simulation;
6. Flight Card; 7. Postflight Record.
It should be noted that the EuRoC Technical Review Process is meant to complement and challenge
the team-internal technical design and review process, not substitute it.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 19 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Figure 1: Technical review process.
8.2. CONCEPT REVIEW (CR)
To get a first overview of the vehicle at an early point before the competition, a 30-minute Concept
Review (CR) will be held virtually. Teams are requested to provide a Concept Report in advance (see
Section 9.2. ). During this review, the following items will be discussed:
• General arrangement the system and its subsystems;
• Main system description;
• Main performance parameters;
• Planned mission concept of operations;
• Materials and manufacturing methods;
• Potential criticalities;
• Any features that might require special attention.
8.3. FOCUSED DESIGN REVIEW (FDR)
Some designs will require a more thorough review prior to and beyond the submittal of the Technical
Reports, especially for any designs that have special requirements in terms of preparation or might
have a higher risk of an unsuccessful mission. In these cases, a Focused Design Review (FDR) must
happen in the months leading up to the event. Based on the Concept Review, the EuRoC officials will
require an FDR from selected teams.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 20 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
The FDR will be held virtually, with the team captain as well as the relevant technical officers, details
will be given in due time. The EuRoC organizers will not be held responsible if negative feedback during
a FDR causes unplanned delays, potentially jeopardizing a team’s readiness for the event.
Any design feature from the following (non-exhaustive) qualifies for an FDR:
• Recovery System of vehicles in 9000 m category;
• SRAD Solid Propulsion;
• SRAD Hybrid Propulsion;
• SRAD Liquid Propulsion;
• Multistage Vehicles;
• Vehicles with clustered motors;
• Vehicles with deployable payloads;
• Vehicles with planned impulse greater than 40,960 Ns;
• Vehicles with planned aerodynamic design on the edge of the allowed aerodynamic stability
margins, with very low lift-off velocities, or very sensitive to gusts;
• Vehicles with active control features that could lead to an unstable or unsafe flight;
• Any other unconventional and possibly safety critical design features.
8.4. FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW (FRR)
A major milestone to get the clearance to transfer the vehicle to the launch site and start the dedicated
launch preparations is the Flight Readiness Review (FRR). Within this review, the technical evaluation
board (TEB) will visit the team area and go through a detailed Flight Readiness Review checklist (see
Appendix C of the Design, Test & Evaluation Guide) that all vehicles need to comply with. All criteria
can be scored “red” (Denied), “yellow” (Provisional), “green” (Nominal), or “grey” (not applicable).
If any single criterion is scored “red”, the overall Flight Status is “Denied”. This will cause the teams to
FAIL the FRR and not be allowed to launch their vehicle.
If any single criterion is “yellow”, while no criterion is “red”, the overall Flight Status is “Provisional”
(Further details in the Design Guide). Any criterion that is scored “yellow” will result in an Action Item
(= a mandatory task) that needs to be resolved by the team.
Any Action Items preventing a “Nominal” flight status can be addressed by the teams after FRR and
before the subsequent Launch Readiness Review (LRR). Providing all Action Items have been addressed
accordingly, the flight status can then be raised to “Nominal” by the jury during LRR.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 21 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
The FRR will usually take place the day before the launch at the paddock teams’ area. The teams should
ensure that the vehicle is in an FRR-ready state. This means, the vehicle will be without energetics or
propellants, will be disassembled at the joints, with the avionics system, payload, and recovery system
outside of the body tubes, so that the TEB can have a good look at all subsystems.
8.5. LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW (LRR)
For a team to be accepted to proceed to the Launch Readiness Review (meaning to start the LRR, not
to pass it), the following conditions need to be met by the teams:
• The team has completed the Flight Readiness Review with at least “Provisional” Flight Status;
• Following the FRR, the team has addressed all issues scored as “yellow”;
• The team has moved their vehicle to the launch range and is ready to begin launch activities,
the next step being loading the solid motor/energetics or moving the launch vehicle to the
launch rail for loading of liquid propellants.
During the Launch Readiness Review, the teams will be expected to explain:
• How they resolved the FRR Action Items, if applicable;
• Explain any changes on documentation/checklists they made prior to launch, if applicable;
• Why their rocket can now be considered ready to launch verification.
Furthermore, the launch officials will conduct the following steps:
• Re-inspect Action Items if necessary;
• Final visual inspection of the vehicle.
For a team to successfully pass the LRR, the officials will have to raise all criteria to “green” and the
flight status to “Nominal”. They will do so if they are convinced all Action Items have been resolved by
the teams and there are no further criteria preventing a safe and successful launch. At the end of the
LRR, the issuance of the Flight Card (See Section 9.6. ) by the officials to the team certifies that the LRR
has been passed successfully.
The LRR will usually take place in the early morning of the launch day at the launch site teams’
preparation area. The teams should ensure that the vehicle is in an LRR-ready state as early as possible
during launch day. This means that the vehicle is in a safed state and assembled as much as possible.
Teams should provide prove that Action Items given at the FRR have been closed. For most (minor)
action items pictures and videos suffice as prove, especially if otherwise an assembly of the vehicle
would be unreasonably delayed.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 22 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
8.6. POSTFLIGHT DEBRIEFING
After recovery of the vehicle, the teams will bring the vehicle into a safed state and inform the officials
about the readiness for the Postflight Debriefing.
The officials will record the condition of the vehicle on the Postflight Record (See Section 9.7. ). This is
the baseline for the evaluation team to score the success of the recovery operation. Furthermore, the
officials will review the Postflight Record, download the data recorded by the official altitude logging
system and note the touch down coordinates if available. With this, the launch activities are
concluded.
9. TECHNICAL DELIVERABLES
All technical deliverables shall be submitted through the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC website,
deliverables submitted by any other means (e.g., email) will not be considered.
9.1. TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE
On or before a specified date prior to the event each team shall fill in a Technical Questionnaire that
will be made available at the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC website. In this questionnaire, each
team shall submit the information regarding the chosen motor (from the list of available motors, see
also Section 6.), SRAD motors specifications, necessary propellants and respective quantities, special
cares to have in consideration (e.g., handling, hazards, transport needs), among other technical
information.
Teams should be aware that some of the information given in the questionnaire will be made available
in the public areas of EuRoC website and/or social media, for promotion purposes.
9.2. CONCEPT REPORT
In preparation for the Concept Review, teams will be asked to submit, through the reserved teams’
area in the EuRoC website, a Concept Report (max. 10 pages), including the following:
• Brief team intro with any relevant project context information (2 to 3 paragraphs);
• Stated project goals (1 paragraph or a list);
• Stated mission objectives (1 paragraph or a list);
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 23 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• Concept of Operations (1 diagram of the main operations stages, plus a brief text description
of the rocket's lifecycle during EuRoC);
• System concept;
• General arrangement (diagram or drawing and 1 paragraph of text);
• Dimensions and mass estimates (drawing and/or table);
• Main performance figures (table);
• Main systems description (1 to 2 paragraphs for each, with optional drawing or diagram, more
info for any complex SRAD systems, especially propulsion);
• List of materials and methods of manufacture to be employed (1 paragraph or a list);
• Differentiating and unique characteristics (if any, 1 to 2 paragraphs plus drawing – this is to
make sure teams explicitly point out any special design features that the officials should be
aware of);
• Expected difficulties, criticalities (3 to 4 paragraphs).
The Concept Report's main title is left to the team's discretion, however it shall be subtitled “Team
[Your Team ID] Concept Report to the [Year] EuRoC". For example, a team assigned the team-ID "12"
competing in the 2022 EuRoC, would subtitle their Concept Report "Team 12 Concept Report to the
2022 EuRoC".
9.3. DESIGN REPORT
The selected teams will need to participate in the Focused Design Review will be requested to submit
a Design Report (max. 10 pages) to be submitted through the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC
website. In essence, teams are allowed to reuse their Concept Report, however they should update it
to reflect the advanced status of the design close to the competition. Furthermore, they should a
specific emphasis on the respective special design feature(s) that will be in the spotlight at the Focused
Design Review.
• Brief team intro with any relevant project context information (2 to 3 paragraphs);
• Stated project goals (1 paragraph or a list);
• Stated mission objectives (1 paragraph or a list);
• Concept of Operations (1 diagram of the main operations stages, plus a brief text description
of the rocket's lifecycle during EuRoC);
• System design;
• General arrangement (diagram or drawing and 1 paragraph of text);
• Dimensions and masses (drawing and/or table);
• Main performance figures (table);
• Main systems description (1 to 2 paragraphs for each, with optional drawing or diagram);
• List of materials and methods of manufacturing (1 paragraph or a list);
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 24 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• Detailed Special Design Features Description (diagrams and drawings, 2 to 3 paragraphs of
text);
• Expected difficulties and criticalities, especially for Special Design Features (3 to 4 paragraphs,
risk assessment table);
• Main Risks Assessment (table).
The Design Report's main title is left to the team's discretion, however it shall be subtitled “Team [Your
Team ID] Design Report to the [Year] EuRoC". For example, a team assigned the team-ID "12"
competing in the 2022 EuRoC, would subtitle their Design Report "Team 12 Design Report to the 2022
EuRoC".
9.4. TECHNICAL REPORT
Each team shall submit a Technical Report which describes their project to the judges, technical
evaluation board and competition officials. The Technical Report can be formatted using any style
guide.
On or before of a specified date prior to the event, teams shall submit a single digital PDF copy of their
Technical Report through the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC website. The Technical Report shall
not exceed 20 Megabytes in size. Teams should also bring at least one hard copy to EuRoC so members
of the judging panel and other competition officials may consult the contents at will during
interactions with the team.
The Technical Report's main title is left to the team's discretion, however it shall be subtitled “Team
[Your Team ID] Technical Report to the [Year] EuRoC". For example, a team assigned the team-ID "12"
competing in the 2022 EuRoC, would subtitle their Technical Report "Team 12 Technical Report to the
2022 EuRoC".
The competition officials welcome concise reports, that should not exceed 50 pages, including figures
etc. (A4, standard font size 11 in Times New Roman or Arial, line spacing 1.0, standard page margins
2.5 cm). This does not include the Appendices. The Appendices can have additional information but
are not necessarily read in detail by the officials, thus teams are highly recommended to maintain it
concise as well. Further information is given in Details for the Technical Report, including an overview
of the required minimum Technical Report sections and appendices. Additional sections, subsections,
and appendices may be added if needed.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 25 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
9.5. FLIGHT SIMULATION
Each team shall submit an OpenRocket project file of their project with the respective propulsion
system and all stages of the flight. The submission shall be done through the reserved teams’ area on
the EuRoC website, on or before a specified date, prior to the event.
The file must include a detailed model of the rocket, containing every section or component with the
exact mass, size and relative position of the real counterparts and it shall be added to the file as an
independent object, except for electronic clusters, as it can be represented as one module even if it is
made with more than one component. Small components as screws, bolts, etc, should only be
accounted as mass.
The recovery systems must be included on the model with the parachutes function, phase of
deployment, size, drag coefficient, length and number of lines.
The OpenRocket file shall be named “Team[Your Team ID]_OpenRocketProject_v[Version
Number.Revision Number]. For example, a team assigned the team-ID “12”, would name their Open
Rocker file “Team12_Open RocketProject_v1.02”.
A revised OpenRocket file shall be submitted as it is updated, with the corresponding version number:
• If major changes to the project are made, as size and shape drastic changes, the version
number increases by 1;
• If minor changes are made, as mass or positioning adjustments, the revision number increases
by 0.01.
Note that the first version shall be numbered as v1.00.
The use of a modified version of OpenRocket is allowed and should be sent with the file project. A
description of the modification should be submitted as well. For SRAD motors, an .eng file shall be
submitted.
Teams can additionally use other software for the simulations which can be submitted as well to be
analysed.
9.6. FLIGHT CARD
The Flight Card, together with the Postflight Record, should be filled out by the teams prior to launch
(see EuRoC Launch Operations Guide for more information). A template will be made available in the
reserved teams’ area at the EuRoC website, so the teams know what to expect. However, the officials
will hand out printed copies at the event.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 26 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
9.7. POSTFLIGHT RECORD
The Postflight Record must be filled out by the teams (to the extent they are able to) after the launch
and will contain flight information data, such as flight performance and recovery (see EuRoC Launch
Operations Guide for more information).
9.7.1. POSTFLIGHT REPORTING OF APOGEE AND RECOVERY
During the Postflight Debriefing (see Section 8.6. ), teams will need to deliver the Postflight Record,
which will among other things include the following information that needs to be passed on to the
officials:
• Apogee of the official altitude logging system(s) (see EuRoC Design, Test & Evaluation Guide
for more details), to determine the actual apogee above ground level;
• Status of the systems after recovery by showing hardware to officials.
In addition, the teams are asked to upload digital images of the recovered vehicle and components to
the website team area, to document the degree of success of the recovery.
Teams shall report in person to competition officials this information after retrieval and return to the
designated basecamp area, prior to the end of eligible launch operations on the respective launch day.
Only in the special case that recovery operations cannot be concluded during the respective launch
day, teams are allowed to provide this information before the end of the respective next eligible
launch day. Further information on the official altitude logging system is given in the EuRoC Design,
Test & Evaluation Guide.
If telemetry data from the EuRoC official altitude logging system is available, teams may report the
apogee revealed in this telemetry to competition officials when a confirmation of nominal ascent and
recovery system deployment event has taken place. This apogee information, provided by the EuRoC
telemetry system (and the mandatory GPS tracking system), will be used for scoring only in the event
the launch vehicle is not recovered prior to the end of eligible launch operations on the final scheduled
launch day.
Telemetry provided apogee information recorded in flight may be utilized in case no apogee data is
retrievable from any onboard systems after “landing”. A minimum criterion is however that a GPS lock
has been maintained around apogee and that the apogee trajectory is visible in the recorded data.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 27 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
10. NON-TECHNICAL DELIVERABLES
The following sections define the deliverable materials (e.g., paperwork and presentation materials)
competition officials require from teams competing in EuRoC – including each deliverable's format
and minimum expected content. All deliverables will be submitted to EuRoC per the instructions
provided to the teams. Only correct, complete, and timely submission of deliverables will guarantee
that the maximum points possible are achieved in the overall team score (details on the scoring criteria
will be uploaded to the reserved teams’ area of the EuRoC website in due time).
The scheduled due dates of all required deliverables will be recorded on the EuRoC website.
All non-technical deliverables shall be submitted through the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC
website, deliverables submitted by any other means (e.g., email) will not be considered.
10.1. VIDEO PRESENTATION
Each team shall submit on or before a specified date prior to the event a short video presentation via
the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC website (alternatively via a link to a file sharing service, if the
file is too large), with a duration of no more than 2 minutes, with the purpose of presenting the team
and their project. The video can and should include, e.g., pictures or videos of the team history and
team members, previous flights, tests, working facilities, hardware, teamwork, successes, and failures,
etc.
The Video Presentation file to be submitted shall be named “Team[Your Team
ID]_VideoPresentation_[Year]EuRoC". For example, a team assigned the team-ID "12" competing in
the 2022 EuRoC, would name their Video Presentation file "Team12_VideoPresentation_2022EuRoC".
The video will be displayed on the EuRoC website and social media to showcase the participating
teams. The footage submitted can be used by Portugal Space for publicity and marketing purposes.
10.2. PROOF OF INSURANCE
EuRoC is in the process of implementation of a Third-Party General Liability policy to cover Third Party
Legal Liability, including property damaged and injuries directly related to the assembly and launch
phases of the event. However, in certain cases, teams may receive claims directly or be sue by Third
Parties based on their legal liability for damages to persons or properties, directly related to their
participation on the event and/or related to the trip. These type of liabilities of the team and of the
team members may NOT be covered under the organization insurance policies.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 28 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Additionally, the team members are subject to accident risks and may suffer personal accidents since
they leave from their home countries, during the trip, until their return home.
To be protected against Third Party claims and Personal Accidents, teams can benefit from coverages
from their college or university insurances, or the teams can acquire specific insurance covering the
entire trip for the purpose of participate on the event.
The Personal Accident insurance, mandatory for all teams, should cover travels and personal injuries
(for injuries occurring outside EuRoC).
The Third-Party Liability insurance is highly recommended for all teams, and should provide coverage
of potential litigation directly involving the Team or its members.
On or before a specified date prior to the event, teams must submit the Proof of Insurance (e.g.,
photo/scan/pdf of the insurance policy dated and signed), through the reserved teams’ area of the
EuRoC website. In case of multiple Proof of Insurance files (e.g., one for each member of the team)
the submission shall be done in package format (e.g., zip/rar folder) with the folder named according
with “Team[Your Team ID]_Insurance_[Year]EuRoC". For example, a team assigned the team-ID "12"
competing in the 2022 EuRoC, would name the Proof of Insurance folder "Team12_Insurance_2022
EuRoC".
10.3. WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM
It is mandatory that every individual attending EuRoC – including team members, faculty advisors, and
others – signs the Waiver and Release of Liability Form. Individuals who do not sign this form will be
unable to participate in any activities occurring at the EuRoC site.
The Waiver and Release of Liability Form can be downloaded on the teams’ reserved area of the EuRoC
website and must be signed, in handwritten form or digitally (qualified signature). On or before a
specified date prior to the event the teams should submit the totality of such documents in a package
format (e.g., zip/rar folder) through the reserved teams’ area in the EuRoC website, respecting the
following file name format “Team[Your Team ID]_Waiver_[Year]EuRoC". For example, a team assigned
the team-ID "12" competing in the 2022 EuRoC, would name the Waiver and Release of Liability Form
package file "Team12_Waiver_2022EuRoC".
Underaged team members should submit the specific underage version document of the EuRoC
Waiver and Release of Liability Form, signed by their guardian.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 29 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
11. SCORING AND AWARDS
11.1. SCORING CATEGORIES
Teams will be scored in four different scoring categories or areas, which are (1.) the Technical Report,
(2.) the Jury Pitch, (3.) the Team Effort, and (4.) the Flight Performance. These are weighted according
to the table below.
Table 3: Weight of the scoring categories.
SCORING CATEGORY POSSIBLE POINTS % OF TOTAL POINTS
(1.) Technical Report 200 20%
(2.) Jury Pitch 250 25%
(3.) Team Effort 200 20%
(4.) Flight Performance 350 35%
TOTAL: 1000 100%
11.2. COMPETITION CATEGORIES
Teams will compete against all other participating teams in scoring categories (1.), (2.), and (3.). For
scoring category (4.) Flight Performance teams will compete against other teams within their
respective flight categories (S3, H3, L3, S9, H9, L9) (as defined in Section 2). The summed point score
of each team is the sum of all four categories (1–4).
For each individual competition category (1.), (2.), (3.), and flight category (S3, H3, L3, S9, H9, L9), there
will be a dedicated winner. The respective competition category winner is the team with the most
points in the respective competition category.
Across all competition categories, the points will be added to determine the overall winner of the
EuRoC.
Points are awarded according to criteria, weighted individually in each scoring category. Each
competition category is also weighed against the other categories.
11.3. AWARDS
The following awards will be given:
• The Technical Award for the best Technical Report;
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 30 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• The New Space Award for the best Jury Pitch;
• The Team Award for the best Team Effort;
• The six Flight Awards for the winners of the categories (S3, H3, L3, S9, H9, L9) for the respective
best flight performance in each of these categories.
For a team to be eligible for any of the awards above, teams must score higher than 50% of the
maximum possible points in one respective scoring category and higher than 50% of the maximum
possible points of the overall scoring.
For example, a team competing in the S3 category with 100 out of 300 possible points (below 50%)
and 700 out of 1000 total possible points (above 50%) will not be eligible for the Flight Award – Solid
3000 metres award due to do not surpassing the necessary minimum of the Flight Performance scoring
category.
Another example would be any team competing in the Technical Report category with 250 out of 300
possible points (above 50%) but with 400 out of 1000 total possible points (below 50%) will not be
eligible for the Technical Award due to do not surpassing the necessary minimum of the total possible
points.
The EuRoC Award will be presented to the overall winner of the EuRoC.
A Payload Award independent from the EuRoC scoring will also be awarded.
A summary of all the awards is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Competition categories and respective awards.
COMPETITION CATEGORY CORRESPONDING AWARD
(1.) Technical Report Technical Award
(2.) Jury Pitch New Space Award
(3.) Team Effort Team Award
(4.) Flight Performance: S3 Flight Award – Solid 3000 m
(5.) Flight Performance: H3 Flight Award – Hybrid 3000 m
(6.) Flight Performance: L3 Flight Award – Liquid 3000 m
(7.) Flight Performance: S9 Flight Award – Solid 9000 m
(8.) Flight Performance: H9 Flight Award – Hybrid 9000 m
(9.) Flight Performance: L9 Flight Award – Liquid 9000 m
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 31 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
(10.) Overall Winner EuRoC Award
(11.) Best Payload Payload Award
The emphasis and focus of each of the awards can be found bellow.
11.3.1. TECHNICAL AWARD
Recognizes the best technical report, displaying the ability to document clearly, correctly, and without
unnecessary complication a complex technical system, aided by high quality figures, exhibiting
exceptional quality in all formal aspects, making it an enjoyable and enriching read.
11.3.2. NEW SPACE AWARD
Values a positive and dynamic interaction with the jury. Awards the team with the best pitch about
themselves, their project, respective vision and mission. It assesses the overall best design
implementation, distinguishing the display of high competency in all its characteristics, and based on
stringent strategic decisions, provided an exceptional challenge to realise. The jury will expect teams
to even go beyond pure rocketry and to be innovative, resourcefulness and agile during all phases of
project implementation. Will the teams be able to convince the jury to “hire” them?
11.3.3. TEAM AWARD
Credits the team that has displayed an outstanding effort as working as a unit towards a common goal,
by being exceptionally organized, reliable, and prepared in all aspects of the competition, be it
deliverables, communication, or operation, and goes above and beyond to display a great sense of
team spirit and sportsmanship, either between team members, other teams and organisation officials.
11.3.4. FLIGHT AWARDS
Measures the degree of merit in meters away from the target apogee, but also by the state of the
rocket after recovery, and thus honours designs that not only survive the harsh contact with reality,
but furthermore represent an incredible achievement in concept, simulation, system integration,
control, and practical realisation.
11.3.5. EUROC AWARD
Awarded to the team that has displayed excellence across the board in all aspects of the competition,
honouring an overall exceptional and well-balanced effort without cutting back on any of one of the
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 32 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
competition aspects, be it technical documentation, jury pitch, team effort, or flight performance, thus
identifying a truly remarkable effort and achievement.
11.3.6. PAYLOAD AWARD
The Payload Award seeks to recognize the team with the overall best payload of EuRoC. This award
praises innovation and reliability, focusing also on the applicability and impact of the payload on the
society, such as if it were to be launched into space. It will be awarded to the most promising payload
being only expected high expertise and singular design and implementation results.
The Payload Award is independent from the EuRoC award, meaning that the scoring for this award will
not count to the total scoring and hence to the Overall Winner. For more details on the scoring
categories please refer to Section 11.1. , Table 3.
11.4. GRADING CRITERIA
In each scoring category, a set of grading criteria is established. These criteria will be evaluated by the
evaluation team for each team individually. Each grading criterion has several, more detailed, topics
that establish what the organisation will look for during the grading process. Details on the grading
criteria will be uploaded to the reserved teams’ area of the EuRoC website in due time.
11.5. ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERS
The competition category winners will be announced at the Award Ceremony. The evaluation team
will document their judgement in individual scoring sheets for each team. These will be distributed to
the teams after the event to give them feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses in all aspects of
their performance in the competition.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 33 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
11.6. HANDLING OF QUESTIONS AND COMPLAINTS REGARDING SCORING
Teams are welcome to approach the officials to ask for specific, non-binding, oral feedback regarding
their perception of the teams’ work during all points of the competition to provide the teams with an
opportunity to learn and improve.
In the case the teams have more detailed questions or specific complaints regarding the scoring after
the scoring has been announced, such as they would like to receive elaborate feedback on a particular
aspect of the score for clarification, e.g., to improve upon for the next competition, or if they identify
an honest mistake made by the jury, the following process applies:
ONLY the team leader can submit a written feedback request once to info@euroc.pt. Submissions of
the feedback are accepted until no later than one week (7days) after official announcement of the
score. To keep the workload on the officials to a reasonable amount, teams are asked to limit their
questions PLUS complaints to three in total. Competition officials will then review these three
questions and/or complaints and provide written feedback.
If an honest mistake in scoring is apparent, competition officials will review the score provided to the
team and decide on a case-by-case basis if and how to account for this, especially and only if this would
significantly affect the overall score and placement of the team.
It should be noted that teams are expected not to abuse this possibility of questions and complaints
for bagatelle. Officials will not partake in a discussion questioning the evaluation team principal
reasoning of the score given.
12. UNRULY BEHAVIOR, DISQUALIFICATION, WITHDRAWAL
12.1. PENALTIES FOR UNSAFE OR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Teams will be penalized for every instance of unsafe or unsportsmanlike conduct recorded by
competition officials (e.g., judges, volunteers, staff members, etc.) depending on the severity of the
incident. Unsafe conduct includes, but is not limited to, violating any of the established principles
stated on EuRoC documents, failure to use checklists during operations, violating motor vehicle traffic
safety rules, and failure to use appropriate personal protective equipment. Unsportsmanlike conduct
also includes, but is not limited to, hostility shown towards any EuRoC participant and staff, intentional
misrepresentation of facts to any competition official, intentional failure to comply with any
reasonable instruction given by a competition official.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 34 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
12.2. DISQUALIFICATION
A number of criteria constitute grounds for disqualification from consideration for any award and
continuation at the competition. These can include a failure to meet the defining EuRoC mission
requirements as recorded in this document, failure to submit a Technical Report (or otherwise failing
to provide adequate project details in required deliverables), failure to submit duly recognized Waiver
and Release of Liability Forms for all team members and failure to send eligible team member
representatives to the EuRoC.
Substance abuse and intoxication (or after-effects thereof) during launch operations and purposeful
endangering behaviours severely compromising the safety of EuRoC and respective participants will
make the entire team immediately and without further warning, eligible for expulsion from the EuRoC
event in disgrace.
If one or more members of a team fails to be utterly sober and clear-headed at the beginning of their
launch day, this is regarded as outright contempt of the EuRoC spirit and safety guidelines. The
consequence is the immediate and irrevocable grounding of the rocket and removal of the team from
the EuRoC event.
EuRoC organisers reserve the right to assess any misconduct/mismanagement case by case and to take
the necessary proper actions leading to disqualification of specific team members or the entire team.
12.3. WITHDRAWAL FROM COMPETITION
Teams which decide to formally withdraw from the EuRoC at any time prior to the event must send an
e-mail entitled "TEAM [Your Team ID] FORMALLY WITHDRAWS FROM THE Competition [Year] EuRoC"
to info@euroc.pt. For example, a team assigned the Team ID 12" would withdraw from the 2022
EuRoC by sending an e-mail entitled "TEAM 42 FORMALLY WITHDRAWS FROM THE 2022 EuRoC".
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 35 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AA Actual Apogee
AGL Above Ground Level
APCP Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant
APRS Automatic Packet Reporting System
ANAC Portugal´s National Civil Aviation Authority
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial of-the-shelf
DTEG Design, Test and Evaluation Guide
EuRoC European Rocketry Challenge
ESRA Experimental Sounding Rocket Association
FDR Focused Design Review
FRR Flight Readiness Review
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System
H Hybrid
HPR High Power Rocket
IREC Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition
L Liquid
LRR Launch Readiness Review
LOX
OR
Liquid Oxygen
OpenRocket
P Points
RF Radio Frequency
S Solid
SDR Special Design Review
SAC Spaceport America Cup
SRAD Student Researched & Developed
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 36 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
TA Target Apogee
TBD To be determined or defined
TBR
TBC
To be resolved
To be confirmed
TEB Technical Evaluation Board
U Unit, as in Cube-Sat unit
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 37 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX B: EVENT SESSIONS AND AREAS
Table 5: Event sessions and areas.
EVENT SESSIONS
Welcoming Session With the main purpose of welcoming and acquaint the teams
to EuRoC, the Welcoming Session integrates the Check-in and
Welcome Briefing.
See Sections 5.1.1. and 5.1.2. for more information.
Jury Pitch The Jury Pitch is a dedicated moment where each team
performs a pitch to the jury presenting the mission, the
vehicle, the team and other relevant points.
See Section 5.1.4. for more information.
Postflight Debriefing Debriefing session after recovery of the vehicle, for the officials
to record the condition of the vehicle on the Postflight Record.
See Section 8.6. for more information.
Postflight Highlights Teams are invited to present their Postflight Highlights,
depending on time availability.
See Section 5.2.1. for more information.
Award Ceremony During the Award Ceremony the winners of the different
universal scoring and flight performance categories will be
announced.
See Section 11.5. for more information.
EVENT AREAS
Paddock Pre-flight area where teams can work/prepare/test and exhibit
their projects prior to launch, as well as get to know the other
teams better, socialize, get in touch with the public and do
some networking. Each team will have their own private area
with the team identification, designated by team’s booth.
The Welcoming Session, Safety Briefing, Jury Pitch, Flight
Readiness Review, Postflight Highlights and the Award
Ceremony will take place at the Paddock area.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 38 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Launch Range Designated area where the launches will take place.
All launches and Launch Readiness Reviews will take place in the
Launch Range area.
PyroShop The EuRoC area where teams can find all motors and
propulsion related items. It will work as a shop, where teams
can go and ask for what they need.
Note: The event overview is intended to provide the teams with roadmap of what to expect at
EuRoC. It should be noted that the specific order and timeline of the different parts of the event are
subject to change and will be announced close to the event date.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 39 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY
Table 6: Documentation summary.
DOCUMENTATION
Entry Form Online form (to be disclosed on EuRoC website) teams must
fill in to apply to EuRoC. Total completeness is required.
Details: Online form; submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 4.1. for more information.
Academic Institution Participation
Letter
Letter with all student and advisor teams members to be
signed by a senior professor from the academic institution
where the students are enrolled.
Details: Digital copy in PDF; template on EuRoC website;
submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 4.3. for more information.
Student University Identification Document proving the team members applying are either
currently enrolled in a Bachelor or Master’s degree or were
matriculated undergraduate or graduate students during the
previous year.
Details: Digital copy in PDF/PNG/JPEG; submission on EuRoC
website.
See Section 4.4. for more information.
Deposit Fee & Transfer Proof Refundable deposit fee of 100€ per team member, for teams
arriving at the event.
Transfer proof, a document proving the transfer of the deposit
fee (e.g., photo of the transfer receipt).
Details: Digital copy in PDF/PNG/JPEG; submission by email.
See Section 4.5. for more information.
Technical Questionnaire Online questionnaire (to be disclosed on EuRoC website)
where teams shall fill with technical information regarding
their project.
Details: Online form; submission on EuRoC website
See Section 9.1. for more information.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 40 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Video Presentation Video presentation with no more than 2 minutes showcasing
team and their project.
Details: MP4; submission on EuRoC website (teams can submit
a file with a link to a file sharing service, if the file is too large).
See Section 10.1. for more information.
Concept Report Short report describing the project’s concept as preparation for
the Concept Review, mandatory for all teams.
Details: A4; digital copy in PDF; submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 9.2. for more information.
Design Report Report focusing on the project’s special design features, as
preparation to the Focused Design Review, mandatory only for
selected teams.
Details: A4; digital copy in PDF; submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 9.4. for more information.
Technical Report Report describing the team’s project, to be evaluated by the
judges and competition officials. Main source of information in
what regards to the projects.
Details: A4; bring at least 1 hardcopy; digital copy in PDF;
submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 9.4. for more information.
Flight Simulation OpenRocket project file containing a highly detailed model of
the team’s rocket.
Details: .ork and .eng file (if applicable), submission on EuRoC
website.
See Section 9.5. for more information.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 41 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Proof of Insurance Document proving the team (all team members) are covered
by an insurance policy.
Details: Digital copy in PDF/PNG/JPEG; submission on EuRoC
website
See Section 10.2. for more information.
Waiver and Release of Liability
Form
Form to be signed by each individual team member (i.e.,
students and advisors) in order to participate in the event.
Individuals not signing the form will be unable to participate in
any activities.
Details: Digital copy in PDF; template on EuRoC website;
submission on EuRoC website.
See Section 10.3. for more information.
Flight Card Card to be filled out by the teams with their rocket
information. Needs to be signed by the launch pad official to
get the GO for launch. Will be handed out by the officials after
successful LRR.
To be delivered back to the officials together with the
Postflight Record.
Details: A4; paper copy handed out by EuRoC; template on
EuRoC website; submission in person at the event prior to
launch.
See EuRoC Launch Operations Guide for more information.
Postflight Record Record to be filled out by the teams with flight information (to
the extent they are able to). To be delivered to the officials at
the Postflight Debriefing.
Details: A4; paper copy; template on EuRoC website;
submission in person at the event after launch.
See EuRoC Launch Operations Guide for more information.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 42 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Postflight Highlights Presentation to showcase the highlights, stories,
achievements and struggles of the teams.
Only teams that show interest will present, depending on time
availability.
Details: Digital copy in PDF/PPT/MP4/JPG/PNG (if applicable).
See Section 5.2.1. for more information.
APPENDIX D: DETAILS FOR THE TECHNICAL REPORT
D.1. REPORT OUTLINE
For the teams’ convenience, an exemplary report outline is included below that should serve as a
minimum guideline.
0. Abstract
1. Introduction
2. System Architecture
2.1. Overview
2.2. Propulsion Subsystem
2.3. Aerostructure Subsystem
2.4. Recovery Subsystem
2.5. Payload Subsystem
2.6. Active Flight Control Subsystem (if applicable)
2.7. Special Subsystems (if applicable)
3. Mission Concept of Operations Overview
4. Conclusions and Outlook
---- maximum 50 pages until here, including figures etc. ----
5. Appendices
5.1. System Data
5.2. Detailed Test Reports
5.2.1. Ground Test Demonstration of Recovery System
5.2.2. Flight Test Demonstration of Recovery System (optional)
5.2.3. Static Hot-Fire (SRAD) (if applicable)
5.2.4. Hybrid/Liquid Propellant loading and off-loading (SRAD) (if applicable)
5.2.5. Combustion chamber pressure (SRAD) (if applicable)
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 43 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
5.2.6. Proof Pressure Testing Pressure Vessels (SRAD, Modified COTS) (if
applicable)
5.2.7. Burst Pressure Testing Pressure Vessels (SRAD, Modified COTS) (if
applicable)
5.2.8. Test of SRAD flight computers with capability of actuating the recovery
systems (if applicable)
5.3. Hazard Analysis Report
5.4. Risk Assessment
5.5. Checklists
5.6. Engineering Drawings
---- optional appendices ----
5.7. Subsystem Details (optional)
5.8. Launch Support Equipment Details (optional)
5.9. Detailed Structural and Mechanical Calculation (optional)
5.10. Detailed Logical Process Diagrams (optional)
5.11. Detailed Software Architecture (optional)
5.12. Detailed Electrical Architecture (optional)
5.13. Detailed Hydraulic/Fluid Architecture (optional)
D.2. ABSTRACT
The Technical Report shall contain an Abstract (ca. 1 page), as a stand-alone synopsis of the report. At
a minimum, the abstract shall give a brief general description of the launch vehicle, identify the launch
vehicle's mission/flight category, identify any unique/defining design characteristics of launch vehicle
(e.g., propulsion, number of stages, active control feature, innovative features, etc.), define the
payload's mission (if applicable), and provide whatever additional information may be necessary to
convey any other high-level project or program goals & objectives.
Keywords: vehicle description, mission, flight category, design characteristics, payload, special
features
D.3. INTRODUCTION
The Technical Report shall contain an Introduction. This section provides an overview of the academic
program, stakeholders, team structure, and team management strategies, the team vision, major
suppliers and partners, major technical challenges, and other characteristics and team-defining
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 44 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
information. The introduction may repeat some of the content included in the abstract, because the
abstract is intended to act as a standalone synopsis if necessary.
Keywords: academic programme, stakeholders, team, experience, vision, strategy, suppliers,
partners, technical challenges
D.4. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
The Technical Report shall contain a section on the System Architecture. This section shall begin with
a top-level overview of the integrated system, including a cutaway figure depicting the fully integrated
launch vehicle and its major subsystems – configured for the mission being flown in the competition.
These subsystems are then explained in the subsequent sections, while more extensive details should
be moved to the appendices.
• Overview
Keywords: general introduction, vehicle cutaway, cross-section, system diagram, subsystems,
interfaces, electrical and software system diagram
• Propulsion Subsystem
Keywords: engine design, propellants, total impulse, arming, ignition, overview of propulsion
tests, fluid system diagram, nominal pressures, SRAD tanks, SRAD valves
• Aerostructure Subsystem
Keywords: motor retention, thrust structure, staging separation, mechanical connections,
flanges, design assumptions, expected forces, overview of structural tests, key results
mechanical/structural analyses
• Recovery Subsystem
Keywords: initial deployment event(s), main deployment event(s), parachute, drogue,
activation devices, parachute lines, swivel links, parachute coloration, redundant electronics,
safety critical wiring, stored energy devices, SRAD pressure vessels, overview of recovery
system tests
• Payload Subsystem
The extent and detail of this section depend on the type of payload. This section can be very
brief in the case of a mere dummy payload, and more elaborate for a functional or
deployable payload.
Keywords: mass, form factor, removal, functionality, experiment, power/energy, interface,
deployment, recovery, data output, dissemination of results
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 45 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
• Active Flight Control Subsystem (if applicable)
Here, any safety, abort, control, or other systems capable of actively affecting the in-flight
trajectory shall be described.
• Special Subsystems (if applicable)
D.5. MISSION CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
The Technical Report shall contain a Mission Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Overview. This section
shall identify the mission phases and describe the nominal operation of all subsystems during each
phase (e.g., a description of what is supposed to be occurring in each phase, and what subsystems are
responsible for accomplishing this). Furthermore, this section shall define what mission events signify
a phase transition has occurred (e.g., "Ignition" may begin when a FIRE signal is sent to the igniter and
conclude when the propulsion system comes up to chamber pressure. Similarly, "Lift-off" may begin
at vehicle first motion, and conclude when the vehicle is free of the launch rail). Phases and phase
transitions are expected to vary from system to system based on specific design implementations and
mission goals & objectives. No matter how a team defines these mission phases and phase transitions,
they will be used to help organize failure modes identified in the Risk Assessment Appendix.
To describe the phases, teams should include a figure of the flight trajectory (based on 3D calculation),
expected point of descend for different expected wind situations, propulsion thrust curve, predicted
apogee, aerodynamic stability over velocity/mission time, position of centre of gravity, position of
centre of pressure over mission time, velocity, acceleration, descent rates at recovery events initiation,
and descent rates with drogue/main parachute.
Keywords: main logic for arming/ignition/stage separation/deployment events, trajectories, influence
of wind, propulsion thrust curve, predicted apogee, aerodynamic stability, centre of gravity, centre of
pressure, velocity, acceleration, descent rates
D.6. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
The main part of the Technical Report shall close with the conclusions and outlook. Here, a summary
should be given of the main achievements, reflections on the overall project outcome, lessons learned,
way forward, remaining design challenges, areas for improvement. Lessons learned can span the areas
of design, manufacturing, and testing of the project, both from a team management and technical
development perspective.
Keywords: achievements, reflections, project outcome, lessons learned, way forward, remaining
design challenges, areas for improvement
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 46 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
D.7. SYSTEM DATA
The first Technical Report appendix shall contain vehicle and system data such as System Weights,
Measures, and Performance Data in a TABULAR MANNER. Technical data for electronics systems,
standby time, telemetry system (frequencies, RF-power, range, antenna system, data rate, etc.), shall
be included too, if applicable.
Keywords: Weights, Measure, Performance Data
D.8. PROJECTS AND TEST REPORTS APPENDIX
The second Technical Report appendix shall contain applicable Test Reports from the minimum tests
prescribed in the EuRoC Design, Test & Evaluation Guide. These reports shall appear in the following
order. In the event any report is not applicable to the project in question, the team will include a page
marked "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" in its place.
• Recovery System Testing: In addition to descriptions of testing performed and the results
thereof, teams shall include in this appendix a figure and supporting text describing the dual
redundancy of recovery system electronics. Ground testing of the recovery system is
mandatory, while flight testing is optional.
• SRAD Propulsion System Testing (if applicable): Descriptions of testing performed and the
results thereof, including propellant loading and off-loading.
• SRAD Pressure Vessel Testing (if applicable).
• SRAD flight computers with the capability of actuating the recovery system(s) shall be suitably
tested and the results documented and included in the Technical Report. The entire chain of
equipment and signals, from SRAD flight computer to recovery system actuators shall be
tested under representable conditions, to the extent possible. Vacuum chambers are
recommended for barometric pressure sensors and emulated IMU data is recommended for
IMU sensors, and so forth.
D.9. HAZARD ANALYSIS APPENDIX
The third Technical Report appendix shall contain a Hazard Analysis Report. This appendix shall address
as applicable, hazardous material handling, transportation and storage procedures of propellants, and
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 47 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
any other aspects of the design which pose potential hazards to operating personnel. A mitigation
approach – by process and/or design – shall be defined for each hazard identified.
D.10. RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX
The fourth Technical Report appendix shall contain a Risk Assessment. This appendix shall summarize
risk and reliability concepts associated with the project. All identified failure modes which pose a risk
to mission success shall be recorded in a matrix, organized according to the mission phases identified
by the CONOPS. A mitigation approach – by process and/or design – shall be defined for each risk
identified.
A common description of the Risk Assessment is FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect Criticality Analysis).
A risk assessment/FMECA is often represented as a spreadsheet matrix. The input to the matrix is
listed as follows:
• A description of the identified failure mode;
• The likelihood of the failure mode occurring;
• The severity and impact of the failure mode occurring.
The likelihood of a failure mode occurrence and the severity of the occurrence is assigned values
according to the following tables:
Table 7: Likelihood of failure.
FAILURE PROBABILITY VALUE ASSESSMENT OF RISK
Remote 1 This is unlikely to happen
Occasional 2 This might happen
Probable or likely 3 This is likely to happen
Table 8: Severity of occurrence.
MISHAP SEVERITY VALUE EFFECT OF FAILURE MODE
Minor or negligible 1 Minor impact on mission
Critical 2 Deterioration of performance and mission
Catastrophic 3 Safety hazard and/or likely loss of mission
The "Criticality Ranking" is the product of the Failure Probability and the Mishap Severity. The criticality
rating is a measure of how urgent and how severe mitigation actions will have to be taken, to reduce
the Criticality Ranking.
Table 9: Criticality ranking.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 48 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
CRITICALITY RANKING
(PRODUCT)
OVERALL
IMPACT SEVERITY OF NEED FOR ATTENTION/MITIGATION
1 Minor This failure mode is not a concern
2 Minor This failure mode is of very minor concern
3 Medium Justification needed. Jury may decide to review
4 High Technical jury approval needed before launch
6 Critical Action required to reduce ranking before launch
9 Critical Action required to reduce ranking before launch
The output of the matrix is highlighting and ranking failure mode liabilities to the mission, and the
justifications and mitigations to reduce the Criticality Ranking. A typical FMECA scaled for the
complexity of launch vehicles attending EuRoC should feature no less than 25 identified, ranked,
commented, and justified failure modes – these should address at the minimum all important and
critical failure modes. An illustrating excerpt is given below:
Table 10: Risk matrix.
FAILURE MODE
MISSION PHASE FAILURE
PROBABILITY
MISHAP
SEVERITY
CRITICALITY
RANKING
TEAM'S COMMENTS AND
JUSTIFICATION
Fin flutter
causing fin
failure
Ascent phase
2 3 6
Fin-to-fuselage bonding
not convincing. Glass
fibre reinforcements will
be added before launch.
Ignition failure Ignition
phase
1 1 1
COTS solid motor with
COTS igniter is highly
reliable and
consequences of a
misfire are very minor.
Pilot parachute
ejection failure
Apogee/pilot
chute
deployment
1 3 3
Pilot chute system is
flight proven on earlier
missions. Deployment
failure is however
catastrophic. Packing
procedure developed.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 49 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
Vehicle leaves
launch ramp at
wrong angle
Ascent phase
1 3 3
Leaving the launch rail on
a wrong trajectory is a
severe safety hazard.
Calculated vehicle
velocity at top of launch
rail is confirmed very
high.
[some new
cool feature...]
[some flight
phase]
2 2 4
A mishap of this new cool
feature may lower
apogee and this feature
has not been flight tested
before.
…....... …... ….. ….... ….......
…....... …... ….. ….... ….......
All identified failure modes must be reduced to a Criticality Ranking of 4 or less in order to successfully
pass the Flight Readiness Review and obtain a flight status of Provisional or better.
D.11. ASSEMBLY, PRE-FLIGHT, AND LAUNCH CHECKLISTS APPENDIX
The fifth appendix to the Technical Report shall contain Assembly, Pre-flight, and Launch Checklists.
This appendix shall include detailed checklist procedures for final assembly, arming, and launch
operations. Furthermore, these checklists shall include alternate process flows for dis-arming/safe-ing
the system based on identified failure modes. These off-nominal checklist procedures shall not conflict
with the EuRoC Range Standard Operating Procedures. Teams developing SRAD hybrid or liquid
propulsion systems shall also include in this appendix a description of processes and procedures used
for cleaning all propellent tanks and other fluid system components.
Competition officials will verify teams are following their checklists during all operations – including
assembly, pre-flight, and launch operations. Therefore, teams shall maintain a complete, hardcopy set
of these checklist procedures with their flight hardware during all range activities.
D.12. ENGINEERING DRAWINGS APPENDIX
The sixth Technical Report appendix shall contain Engineering Drawings. This appendix shall include
any revision controlled technical drawings necessary to define significant subsystems or components
– especially SRAD subsystems or components.
European Rocketry Challenge – Rules & Requirements Page 50 of 50
Portugal Space Reference PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000454
Version 03, Date 04.02.2021
D.13. OPTIONAL APPENDICES
Other optional appendices can include, but are not limited to further Subsystem Details, Launch
Support Equipment Details, Detailed Structural and Mechanical Calculation, Detailed Logical Process
Diagrams, Detailed Software Architecture, Detailed Electrical Architecture, and Detailed
Hydraulic/Fluid Architecture. Teams are recommended to keep concise any additional appendices.


Portugal Space Reference
PTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
EUROPEAN ROCKETRY CHALLENGE
LAUNCH OPERATIONS GUIDE
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 2 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide
INTERNAL APPROVAL
PREPARED BY:
Álvaro Lopes, Portuguese Space Agency
Inês d’Ávila, Portuguese Space Agency
Manuel Wilhelm, Portuguese Space Agency
Paulo Quental, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 30/06/2022
VERIFIED BY:
Marta Gonçalves, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 30/06/2022
APPROVED BY:
Ricardo Conde, Portuguese Space Agency
Signature:
Date: 30/06/2022
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 3 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
LIST OF REVISIONS
REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION
Version 01 30/06/2022 Original edition.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 4 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5
1.1. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................5
1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................................................6
2. EVENT LOCATIONS ....................................................................................................................6
2.1. ACCESS CONTROL .......................................................................................................................7
2.2. PADDOCK .................................................................................................................................7
2.3. LAUNCH SITE.............................................................................................................................7
3. LOGISTICS & ACQUISITIONS..................................................................................................... 10
3.1. PYROTECHNICIAN LICENSE .......................................................................................................... 10
3.2. COTS SOLID MOTOR ACQUISITION............................................................................................... 10
3.3. SRAD SOLID MOTORS............................................................................................................... 10
3.4. LIQUIDS & GASES ACQUISITION ................................................................................................... 11
3.5. ENERGETICS ACQUISITION........................................................................................................... 11
3.6. IMPORT/EXPORT TO/FROM PORTUGAL ......................................................................................... 12
3.7. TRANSPORTATION TO/AT THE EVENT............................................................................................. 12
4. LAUNCH SITE ORGANIZATION.................................................................................................. 13
4.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................... 13
4.2. LAUNCH SITE OPERATION REGULATIONS ........................................................................................ 14
4.3. LAUNCH PAD LOCATION AND LAUNCH DIRECTION ............................................................................ 15
4.4. VEHICLE OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS ........................................................................................... 15
4.5. AIRSPACE ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.6. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS................................................................................................... 16
4.7. LAUNCH SITE STATUS ................................................................................................................ 16
4.8. LAUNCH RAIL PENNANT ............................................................................................................. 17
5. SCHEDULING........................................................................................................................... 18
5.1. SCHEDULING PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 18
5.2. BACKUP LAUNCH SLOTS ............................................................................................................. 18
5.3. EVENT DAYS............................................................................................................................ 18
5.4. SETUP TIME ............................................................................................................................ 19
6. PRE-LAUNCH PREPARATION.................................................................................................... 19
6.1. PREPARATION AT THE PADDOCK................................................................................................... 19
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 5 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
6.2. FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW (FRR) ................................................................................................ 20
6.3. LAUNCH RAIL FIT CHECK............................................................................................................. 20
6.4. LAUNCH RAIL SETUP.................................................................................................................. 21
6.5. COTS SOLID MOTORS PREPARATION ............................................................................................ 21
6.6. HYBRID & LIQUID ROCKETS PREPARATION...................................................................................... 21
6.7. SRAD SOLID MOTORS PREPARATION............................................................................................ 22
6.8. ON-SITE TESTING ..................................................................................................................... 22
7. LAUNCH DAY OPERATIONS...................................................................................................... 22
7.1. A SAMPLE LAUNCH DAY............................................................................................................. 22
7.2. MORNING BRIEFING.................................................................................................................. 23
7.3. LAUNCH DAY PREPARATION........................................................................................................ 23
7.4. LAUNCH PAD PREPARATION........................................................................................................ 24
7.5. ENERGETICS ............................................................................................................................ 24
7.6. MOTOR INSTALLATION............................................................................................................... 24
7.7. LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW (LRR)............................................................................................... 24
7.8. LOADING OF PROPELLANTS ......................................................................................................... 25
7.9. FLIGHT CARD........................................................................................................................... 26
7.10. WEATHER CHECK.................................................................................................................... 26
7.11. UPDATED FLIGHT SIMULATION AND TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 26
7.12. TRANSPORT OF THE ROCKET TO THE LAUNCH PAD .......................................................................... 27
7.13. MOUNTING ON THE LAUNCH RAIL .............................................................................................. 27
7.14. IGNITION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 27
7.15. ESTABLISHING LAUNCH READINESS ............................................................................................. 27
7.16. ARMING............................................................................................................................... 28
7.17. CONNECTING IGNITERS............................................................................................................. 28
7.18. GO/NO-GO CALL ................................................................................................................... 28
7.19. COUNTDOWN ........................................................................................................................ 29
7.20. LAUNCH ............................................................................................................................... 29
7.21. MISHAP ............................................................................................................................... 29
7.22. CONTINUATION OF SALVO ........................................................................................................ 30
7.23. RECOVERY ............................................................................................................................ 30
7.24. POSTFLIGHT REVIEW & POSTFLIGHT RECORD................................................................................. 30
7.25. LAUNCH SITE MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING................................................................................. 31
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The Portuguese Space Agency – Portugal Space promotes the EuRoC – European Rocketry Challenge,
hosted in the Municipality of Ponte de Sor, a competition that seeks to stimulate university level
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 6 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
students to fly sounding rockets, by designing and building the rockets themselves. It is widely
recognized that such competitions foster innovation and motivate students to extend themselves
beyond the classroom, while learning to work as a team, solving real world problems under the same
pressures they will experience in their future careers.
EuRoC is fully aligned with the strategic goals of Portugal Space, namely the development and
evolution of the cultural/educational internationalization frameworks capable of boosting the
development of the Space sector in Portugal.
Since EuRoC’s first edition, in 2020, where 100 students were present to 2021, with 400 students
participating, the growth of the competition within Europe is visible, and especially within Portugal,
with an increasing number of interested teams applying to the competition. For the future, it is
Portugal Space’s goal to continue to foster the exchange of knowledge and international interaction
inherent to the event, allowing more students to gain from the Challenge and, at the same time,
contribute to it.
This document defines all procedures for the launch operations in EuRoC. Revisions of this document
will be accomplished by document reissue, marked by the version number. The authority to approve
and issue revised versions of this document rests with Portugal Space.
1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Launch Operations Guide (LOG) aims at providing the overarching procedures for the launch
activities to take place at EuRoC. This document focuses on practical information regarding operations
and safety, among others, enabling teams to better understand what to expect and what teams should
comply with, once arriving at the event.
The EuRoC organizers reserve the right to update the document whenever necessary, including with
more detailed and precise information closer to the event, as well as adapt the document during
launch operations to real world conditions.
Please note that all the pictures and schematics provided within this guide are merely indicative being
subject to changes.
2. EVENT LOCATIONS
The EuRoC features two locations: the Paddock at Ponte de Sor Airfield and the Launch Site at Santa
Margarida Military Camp.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 7 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
2.1. ACCESS CONTROL
Teams can access the premises of the Airfield via the main gate. Teams will need to register at the
EuRoC registration desk, at the paddock, during the morning of the first event day to obtain their
EuRoC credentials to access the premises on subsequent days.
Teams can only access the launch site, via the main gate of the military camp, with the respective
EuRoC credentials.
2.2. PADDOCK
The paddock is located at the Airfield of Ponte de Sor, about 125 km North-East of Lisbon.
The paddock will have the necessary infrastructures for teams to work and assemble the projects
prior to the launch day. For loading/unloading purposes, it is expected that teams can temporarily
access an unloading area closer to the paddock, to be checked prior with the EuRoC official present
on site.
Figure 1: Paddock at Ponte de Sor Airfield
2.3. LAUNCH SITE
The launch site will be located at the Santa Margarida Military Camp, about 50 km North-West of Ponte
de Sor Airfield where the paddock is located, reachable by car in approximately 45 min from there.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 8 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Figure 2: Paddock, Launch Site, and route in between.
The launch site features the following areas:
• Public Area;
• Safety Tower;
• Teams Preparation Area;
• Pyro Preparation Area;
• Pyro Shop;
• Mission Control;
• Launch Pad;
• Liquids and Gaseous Propellants Storage Area.
In the public area, teams will find a roofed tribune, that will be open to the teams and public for leisure
but will be cleared for launch. A spectator area in front of the tribune will be where all spectators can
follow the launches. The safety tower is located near the tribune, where the range safety personnel
will be stationed, including first responders in case of emergency. Please note that the launch site
layout (see Figure 3) might be subject to changes.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 9 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Figure 3: Launch site layout.
Figure 4: View of the launch pad area and launch rails of EuRoC 2021.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 10 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
3. LOGISTICS & ACQUISITIONS
3.1. PYROTECHNICIAN LICENSE
The local regulations demand that each team shall have at least one person holding a valid
pyrotechnician license issued in Portugal to manipulate any explosives and pyrotechnics. This person
shall be responsible for the setup of the rocket on the field or the one supervising the construction
and project. This team member shall also be the EuRoC point of contact for all propulsion related
matters.
The pyrotechnician license will only be valid during EuRoC where there will be a lead pyrotechnician
on-site to overview all pyrotechnics manipulation and ease the process before the authorities.
For the EuRoC officials to fill out the pyrotechnician paperwork with the proper authorities, teams will
be requested to provide the team member personal information (i.e., name, email, phone number,
address and digital copy of the identification document). This information will be requested upon the
filling of the Technical Questionnaire.
3.2. COTS SOLID MOTOR ACQUISITION
Only COTS solid motors from the official EuRoC Motors List and specified by the teams in the Technical
Questionnaire are permitted at EuRoC. After submission of the questionnaire the EuRoC organizers
will contact the teams to provide detailed information on the acquisition process, including ordering,
transport, and payment.
When filling out the Technical Questionnaire teams should specify at least two backup choices in case
the first option is not available, in this way avoiding back and forth communication with the
organization and expediting the acquisition process.
When ordering the motors, teams shall order everything needed and verify what is included in the
order, since some components might not be found in Portugal (e.g., US bolts). Teams should be aware
that the motors have manufacturing tolerances and thus do not always fit in the casing. Thus, teams
shall come prepared to accommodate all difficulties that may arise, having into attention that there
will be no spares for the team’s motor.
Teams intending to purchase multiple motors (e.g., staging, clustering) should contact the EuRoC
organization immediately after the submission of the Technical Questionnaire.
3.3. SRAD SOLID MOTORS
Teams with SRAD solid motors are required to submit a SRAD Motor Technical Description and the
Fuels
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 11 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Material Data Sheets of their system as an appendix to the Concept Report. This must include motor
technical details, details on fuels/oxidizers/propellants, equipment and supplies needed for
preparation, and the preparation procedure.
After the submission of the Concept Report, the EuRoC officials will assess the SRAD Solid propulsion
system case by case, after which it will contact the teams individually to clarify any doubts or concerns
and discuss the best approach for each specific case. In order to have a timely and profitable
discussion the information provided in the appendix should be as detailed as possible.
3.4. LIQUIDS & GASES ACQUISITION
Teams are required to indicate their fuel/oxidizer needs on the Technical Questionnaire.
Liquid/gaseous propellants must be acquired through EuRoC, under no circumstances will a team be
allowed to bring their own propellants. This is not applicable to any specific rubber/fuel for SRAD
hybrid motors which the teams themselves supply and can be considered inert and as such non-
dangerous.
Teams should ensure to order a sufficient amount of fuel/oxidizers, to account for possible mishaps or
possible needs for additional launch attempts during the event days. No additional fuel/oxidizer will
be on stock besides the amounts ordered by the teams on the Technical Questionnaire. After
submission of the questionnaire, the EuRoC organizers will contact the teams to provide detailed
information on the acquisition process, including ordering, costs and payment.
Please note that the bottle fittings might be different from the ones normally used by the team and
shall take all necessary precautions to ensure the compliance with the EuRoC supplier products. The
product sheets of the fuel/oxidizers will be made available to the teams, after the submission of the
questionnaire.
Teams are responsible by having all the necessary equipment on site (e.g., cooling chamber, thermal
protection, etc.).
3.5. ENERGETICS ACQUISITION
Energetics (e.g., black powder, e-matches, igniters, CO2 cartridges) can be acquired directly via EuRoC.
Please note that for particular products, only CE marked products approved by the Portuguese
authorities can be legally used at EuRoC.
Teams should provide all the information regarding their energetics needs on the Technical
Questionnaire, including special requests for using SRAD systems or the possibility to manufacture it
in Portugal. Upon submission of the questionnaire, teams will be contacted by the EuRoC officials in
order not only to assess any special requests but also to provide more detailed information on the
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 12 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
products available and respective costs. Teams should not forget to account for spares. Several
products will also be available, in limited quantities, at the Pyro Shop.
While the EuRoC organization will always work to provide the best solution, teams need to be aware
that some products (e.g., black powder) might not be exactly the same as the team is used to.
Teams wishing to, will have the possibility to test their systems on the launch site in the earlier days
of the event before the launch days.
3.6. IMPORT/EXPORT TO/FROM PORTUGAL
SRAD hybrid and liquid motors can generally be imported into Portugal in a neutral, non-dangerous
state, nonetheless teams need to ensure on their own that all import requirements that might apply
are fulfilled. The same applies to the inert propellants for hybrid motors, but once again teams shall
ensure that all the import requirements are fulfilled and that they have the right documentation.
It is strictly forbidden for the teams to directly import SRAD solid motors into Portugal. Teams with
solid motors should contact the organization, via info@euroc.pt, as soon as the delivery of the Concept
Report.
When shipping via parcel teams need to ensure a timely shipping, be aware that there might be delays
or customs complications that require some time to handle, causing at the limit a team inability to
launch.
Teams shipping via parcel from outside the EU should refer to the EuRoC Temporary Admission Guide,
available at the Teams Area in the EuRoC website, that contains useful information on this matter.
When preparing the shipping to Portugal, teams should also plan ahead the return of the project to
the home country with special attention to used batteries, rocket parts, unused propellants and
motors. COTS solid motors that remain unused by the end of EuRoC will be following for destruction
unless teams find a way to ship it or another feasible alternative.
Closer to the event, the EuRoC organizers will provide a shipping address/contact to where teams
should send all the parcels.
3.7. TRANSPORTATION TO/AT THE EVENT
Teams are responsible for their own transportation getting to and from EuRoC as well as getting
around during the event. For loading/unloading purposes, it is expected that teams can temporarily
access an unloading area both at the paddock and at the launch site, to be checked prior with the
EuRoC official present on site. Nonetheless for the remaining time teams need to comply with the
designated parking areas. Entrance at the Santa Margarida Military Camp will be restricted to
authorized personnel only, so be sure to use the team’s credentials, provided during the registration,
at all times.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 13 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Transportation, from the storage site to the paddock, will be provided for the shipped parcels.
Transportation of the teams’ projects from the paddock area to the launch site will also be provided,
this transport will take place the day before a team’s launch. The specific time of this transport will be
communicated to the teams at the event.
4. LAUNCH SITE ORGANIZATION
4.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
To ensure launch operations as well as an overall successful event, the EuRoC officials are structured
in several primary areas headed by the responsible officer which counts with various deputies in order
to fulfil the respective responsibilities. At EuRoC teams will find the following officers:
• Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Head;
• Mission Control Officer (MCO);
• Launch Control Officer (LCO);
• Range Safety Officer (RSO);
• Preparation Officer (PO);
During the event, when in need to reach out to the organization, teams should streamline the contacts
according to the respective roles and responsibilities, in this way guaranteeing the most accurate and
timely response. Teams can find below more detailed information on each officer’s responsibility, to
better understand what to expect and who the team should contact in the various cases once arriving
at EuRoC.
The TEB Head, with the help of the deputies, will oversee and orchestrate the overall paddock
operations. It will coordinate with the Preparations Officer on the outcome and Action Items of the
Flight Readiness Review (FRR). The TEB Head will oversee the overall scheduling at the paddock area
as well as the FRR schedule. Teams will only be able to perform the launch rail fit check after
authorization of the TEB Head. All paddock related matters/questions shall be discussed with the TEB
Head.
The MCO, with the help of the deputies, will oversee and orchestrate the overall launch operations. It
will oversee the teams in the mission control area and teams wanting to proceed to the Launch Pad
shall do so only with the authorization of the MCO. In accordance with the various moments of the
launch operations the MCO will set the Launch Site Status. Mission Control personnel is also
responsible for assuring that the flight predictions are within the safety limits, thus, teams shall provide
the most up to date simulations and make the officials aware of any chances made to the rocket. The
MCO will orchestrate and conduct the countdown, being also responsible for managing the rocket
tracking and the coordination of the Recovery Team.
The LCO, with the help of the deputies, will oversee and orchestrate the launch pad operations. It will
manage the setup and operation of the launch rails, the handling and loading of liquids and gases, as
well as the overseeing of the installation and test of ignition systems on the launch pad. The LCO will
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 14 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
oversee and assist the teams with launch pad integration, and it will conduct a final safety inspection
on the launch rail.
The Range Safety Officer (RSO), with the help of the deputies, will ensure that the launch site
operations are in accordance with regulations and standards while also overseeing and orchestrating
operations in the public area and media area. To assure that everyone, at all times, is aware of the
safety measures put in place during EuRoC, the RSO will conduct safety briefings and drills. Launch site
inspections will be performed to ensure adequate hazard mitigation measures in all areas, if at any
moment a team identifies a potential hazard it should report it to the RSO in order to be taken
appropriate measures. The Range Safety officials manage the airspace clearance, also monitoring the
meteorological conditions. The RSO will oversee the access control to the launch site and manage the
launch site clearance according to the range status. The RSO is responsible for coordinating the
emergency response. If a team needs medical assistance, it shall request aid to the emergency
authorities available on site, to assure a timely response. If at any given moment a team feels there is
a safety breach of any kind, it shall contact immediately the RSO.
The Preparation Officer (PO), with the help of the deputies and the pyrotechnics team, will oversee
and orchestrate operations in the preparation and pyrotechnics area. It will coordinate with the TEB
Head and control and help with the resolution of Action Items issued in the FRR, while also conducting
the Launch Readiness Reviews (LRR) and issuing the Flight Card. The PO will oversee the launch
scheduling thus, questions regarding LRR, overall schedule, launch slots, scrubbed flights shall be
directly communicated to the PO. The Preparation Area officials will manage the preparation and
integration of pyrotechnics and motors. After launch and recovery teams shall be prepared for the PO
to conduct the Postflight Review (PFR) and fill the Postflight Record.
4.2. LAUNCH SITE OPERATION REGULATIONS
The launch site dimensions are oriented on NFPA 1127 for complex rockets (e.g., multi-stage, clustered
motors) with a maximum allowable altitude of 10000 m.
The EuRoC launch site (see Figure 5) has a circular diameter of 5000 m (radius of 2500 m) with the
launch pad at its centre and a minimum spectator distance of 610 m from the launch pad. Only
essential launch personnel may be allowed as close as 305 m to the launch pad with explicit permission
by the RSO. All event areas, including mission control, are set up outside of the 610 m radius.
Teams shall only be permitted to launch if a nominal flight is projected to touch down downrange well
within the launch site radius of 2500 m.
The launch corridor is in the form of a circle segment with a +/- 10° arc with a length (radius) of 11500
m downrange.
The launch site is located at Santa Margarida Military Camp, consequently EuRoC operation
regulations will be subject to and in-line with the camp regulations. During launch operations, the
access to the military camp may be restricted.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 15 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Figure 5: EuRoC launch site at Santa Margarida Military Camp.
4.3. LAUNCH PAD LOCATION AND LAUNCH DIRECTION
Nominal launch direction is 133° from North azimuth, roughly towards the South-East. The wind
direction will be monitored, and the launch direction may be adjusted accordingly.
The maximum inclination of the launch rails is 84±1°. Launch rail inclination may be lowered by the
event organizers if they see fit to further increase the safety margin.
Table 1: Launch Pad Details.
Latitude of Launch Pad 39°23'22.92"N
Longitude of Launch Pad 8°17'20.27"W
Elevation of Launch Pad 160 m above mean sea level
Nominal Launch Direction 133° from North azimuth
Nominal Launch Rail Inclination 84±1° from horizonal
4.4. VEHICLE OPERATIONAL REGULATIONS
In accordance with the EuRoC Design, Test & Evaluation Guide, the minimum rocket take-off velocity
off the launch rail is 30 m/s, the minimum static stability margin off the launch rail is 1.5 calibres, and
the maximum permitted impulse of the rockets is 40,960 Ns.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 16 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
4.5. AIRSPACE
The national airspace authorities need to clear the airspace for the event. There will be dedicated
launch windows within which the 3000 m flight category rockets may be launched. For high-flying
rockets in the 9000 m flight category, special short duration launch windows with dedicated air space
clearance are requested prior to the event (typically 10 min) which must be maintained and strictly
followed.
4.6. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The meteorological conditions are assessed via forecasts, meteorological data, and a launch site
weather station. For launch operations to commence, the maximum allowable wind speed on-ground
is 8.7 m/s.
The ascent trajectory needs to be free of clouds. In case of thunderstorm or lighting in the area, launch
operations will be suspended immediately.
4.7. LAUNCH SITE STATUS
The launch site status will be indicated visually via a coloured flag (green-yellow-red) near the mission
control, and in addition via Public Announcement. The following four statuses may be raised, each
with increasing restrictiveness.
• Green Flag Status: A green flag indicates that no direct launch operations are on-going. Only
non-hazardous preparatory work is underway. Teams and staff are free to move on the launch
site, respecting and keeping clear of teams’ and staff’s direct work areas. Visitors are free to
move on the spectator area. However, visitors may not enter the teams’ areas, except if by
explicit invitation by a team or staff and shall be accompanied at all times.
• Yellow Flag Status: A yellow flag indicates that launch preparations are on-going. Potentially
hazardous tasks are underway, such as handling of motors, pyrotechnics, and propellants in
the pyro preparation area, on route to the launch pad, and at the launch pad. Teams and staff
may remain in these areas and shall be aware of the on-going activities. Personnel not directly
involved in hazardous tasks shall stay clear of them. In addition, the team and staff areas in
their entirety are off-limits to spectators.
• Red Flag Status: A red flag indicates that launch preparations are in their final stages.
Additional, potentially hazardous tasks are underway on the launch pad, such as connecting
of igniters, arming of electronics, and removal of safety pins. Only essential personnel may be
at the launch pad (within the 610 m safety radius). The team and staff areas in their entirety
are clear of all non-essential personnel. Essential personnel may also include team members
in need to perform critical tasks on their vehicle to ensure launch readiness for their launch
slot
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 17 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
later during the launch day. All personnel must be in high alert, immediately ready at all times
to move to the spectator’s area as soon as the final launch status signal sounds.
• Final Launch Status: A final announcement together with an acoustic signal indicates that
launches are imminent. No additional flag will be raised, the red flag remains up. The team
and staff areas in their entirety are clear of all personnel, and remaining personnel is to move
to the spectator area. Only launch control personnel may be within the 610 m safety radius at
the forward mission control. All other personnel are either at the mission control or at the
spectator area. Movement to, from, and on the launch site may be restricted.
Personnel of group [Category] can be at [Area]
during …
Green
Flag
Yellow
Flag
Red Flag all
times
… but must leave once the status is raised.
Figure 6: Access rights according to Launch Site Status.
4.8. LAUNCH RAIL PENNANT
Each launch rail shall have its own red pennant to be fixed visibly on the rail to indicate any potentially
hazardous activity, for example an on-going propellant loading or arming process, or a potentially
hazardous state, for example the presence of a loaded rocket or a pressurized tank.
Category
- Spectators
1 by invitation only
2 - General Teams/Staff
3 - Essential Teams/Staff
4 - Launch Control
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 18 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
5. SCHEDULING
5.1. SCHEDULING PROCESS
The EuRoC scheduling process follows a first-come, first-served principle for the FRR, LRR, and launch
time slots. In addition, for the launch timeslots, technical considerations such as target altitude,
propulsion type, hybrid/liquid pressurization considerations are taken into account.
EuRoC provides several slots for the teams, thus the responsibility to find a suitable combination of
timeslots lies with the team.
Teams shall apply for a timeslot for the FRR during their registration at the event on the event’s first
day. After the FRR, if the status is “Nominal” or “Provisional”, teams shall apply for a LRR and Launch
timeslots with the EuRoC staff.
5.2. BACKUP LAUNCH SLOTS
Timeslots selected by the teams may be subject to changes due to unforeseen issues or force majeure
(i.e., weather). In such cases, a backup possibility for the team may be attempted, prioritizing launch
slot selection according to the table below (see Table 2).
In all cases, EuRoC is reserving the right to alter the launch slots/launch order if necessary.
Table 2: Launch Slot Prioritization.
Priority given in launch slot choice
Original Slot Was this the launch slot originally chosen by the team? 1
Backup Slot
Is there a readily available open launch slot later on the launch day,
not interferring with any other planned launches?
2
Is this the teams first (second, third, ...) launch attempt? 3
Was the team's launch attempt scrubbed due to a third party? 4
Was the team's earlier launch scrubbed due to force majeure? 5
Was the team's launch attempt scrubbed due to the team itself? 6
Despite the best efforts, events related to force majeure are out of the control of the EuRoC organizers.
Therefore, a general guarantee that teams can launch at the event or will have a backup launch slot
under all circumstances cannot be given.
5.3. EVENT DAYS
As an example, for an 8-day event, the event days will be scheduled as follows:
Day 1 and 2: Preparation Days.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 19 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Paddock and launch site open and preparations start. Teams will register and welcome and safety
briefings will be held. Teams will perform their jury pitch on the Jury Day. Registration for FRR shall be
made, afterwards registration for the LRR and Launch Slots will be open.
Day 3 to 7: Launch Days.
Beginning of launch operations, with Launch Readiness Reviews, launches, recoveries and postflight
reviews. Transportation of teams’ rockets and equipment will be performed to/from the launch site
from/to the paddock.
Day 8: Wrap up.
Postflight Highlights and Award Ceremony.
5.4. SETUP TIME
The baseline for an efficient and safe setup is a well-trained and independently acting crew. Good
training can be achieved prior to the competition via static firing tests.
Teams should train, drill, improve, and organize, focusing on becoming more efficient, for example
taking the lessons learned to design ground support equipment for efficient use. Some target setup
times are included below for reference (see Table 3).
Table 3: Example target setup times for typical launch preparation activities according to propulsion type.
Activity Solids Hybrids Bi-liquids
Mission Control setup 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes
Launch Pad equipment setup 30 minutes 45 minutes 60 minutes
Rocket on rail and rail erected to
launch angle
15 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes
Power-up, telemetry and checkouts (*) 15 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes
Propellant loading, including
pressurization (*)
N/A 30 minutes 60 minutes
Igniter loading (*) 10 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes
Pyrotechnics arming, final check (*) 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes
Total (serial vs. parallel) 115 / 60 minutes 180 / 120 minutes 210 / 165 minutes
(*) Actions that cannot be carried out in parallel.
6. PRE-LAUNCH PREPARATION
6.1. PREPARATION AT THE PADDOCK
In the paddock, teams will carry out the final preparations before the launch day. Teams can expect to
find tables, chairs, and a power outlet in the respective booths. Teams are expected to bring their own
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 20 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
tools, supplies, power extension/multi cords, desk lights, and whatever else they might need. Teams
may conduct smaller mechanical and electrical work within their booths (e.g., hand drilling, soldering)
on appropriate working pads/boards they should carry with them. Any potentially dangerous work,
especially associated with a substantial amount of heat release (e.g., angle grinder, welding) shall be
conducted outside the paddock tent in a dedicated area.
It is not permitted, under any circumstances, to conduct tests involving propellants, explosives, or
energetics in or around the paddock area. Teams wanting to conduct tests, shall do it so at the launch
site on the day prior to the first launch day with explicit approval of the Preparation Officer and with
assistance of the Preparation Officer Deputy in conjunction with the Pyrotechnics staff.
The working hours of the paddock are 08:00 to 24:00.
6.2. FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW (FRR)
The Flight Readiness Review is a complete technical review of the teams’ project performed by the
Technical Evaluation Board. It is a major milestone that gives the team the clearance to transfer the
vehicle from the paddock to the launch area to start the dedicated launch preparations.
Within the FRR, the TEB goes through a detailed FRR checklist (see Appendix C of the Design, Test &
Evaluation Guide), for which teams must be prepared. The rocket shall be disassembled at the joints
and nosecone, and access to the recovery system (including parachutes), avionics, and payload should
be granted.
All criteria can be scored “red” (Denied), “yellow” (Provisional), “green” (Nominal), or “grey” (not
applicable). If any single criterion is scored “red”, the overall flight status is “Denied”. This will cause
the team to FAIL the FRR and will not be allowed to launch their vehicle. If any single criterion is scored
“yellow”, while no criterion is “red”, the overall flight status is “Provisional” (please see further details
in DTEG). Any criterion that is scored “yellow” in the FRR will result in an Action Item which is a
mandatory task that needs to be resolved by the team. Any Action Items preventing a “Nominal” flight
status can be addressed by the teams after FRR and before the subsequent Launch Readiness Review
(LRR). Providing all Action Items have been addressed accordingly, the flight status can then be raised
to “Nominal” by the Preparation Officer or Deputy during LRR.
The Preparation Officer (PO) and Range Safety Officer (RSO) shall be informed by the TEB of the
outcome of the FRR, especially regarding any criticalities and action items that might require further
discussion.
6.3. LAUNCH RAIL FIT CHECK
The Launch Rail Fit Check is part of the FRR where teams need to demonstrate that their vehicle fits
and can be safely mounted on the respective launch rail, event-provided or team-provided, for which
teams shall coordinate with the TEB. Teams shall have the launch lugs readily available at the paddock.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 21 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
When bringing their own, teams need to ensure that the rocket fits the launch rail. On the launch site,
the LCO or Deputy will check again that the vehicle is mounted properly on the launch rail for all teams.
6.4. LAUNCH RAIL SETUP
EuRoC provided launch rails will be set up by the event organization, while team provided launch rails
shall be set up by the team. Transport of team launch rails to the launch pad shall be organized by the
team – please note that the road is very rough and uneven including some big boulders.
Teams can set up their launch rails on the launch pad on the first days, before the launch days. Teams
should bring all the tools and equipment needed to do so. Teams launch rails should be set up all the
way to the side of the launch pad, and then moved to the final position in the morning of the launch
day when they are needed. The final position of the launch rails shall be coordinated with the event
staff. Independently of what launch rail teams use, teams should have a dedicated and trained launch
rail crew. Teams using the EuRoC launch rails can train during the preparation days.
Teams are responsible to and for any damage that bad utilization of the launch rails may impose to
equipment and people.
6.5. COTS SOLID MOTORS PREPARATION
Teams that have ordered a COTS solid motor shall go to the launch site during the preparation days
and check with the EuRoC staff if everything is in order.
Some COTS solid motors need more elaborate preparation, (e.g., parts needing to be glued and to cure)
which needs to be done during the preparation days by the team in conjunction with the EuRoC staff.
EuRoC staff can provide support, teams shall communicate early if needing support.
6.6. HYBRID & LIQUID ROCKETS PREPARATION
The main points in hybrid & liquid rocket preparation are checking if all bottles are complete, if the
bottle fittings are appropriate, setting up the loading station, and testing the loading station.
During the preparation days, there is the possibility to set up the liquid loading station on the launch
pad, then move it towards the left side of the launch pad. The loading time is critical during launch day
operations (see DTEG for more details).
Please note that the bottle fittings may vary from the ones teams normally use and thus, adaptors
might be needed. On the Teams Area of the EuRoC website teams can find all the necessary
information on the bottles that will be available at EuRoC. It is the team full responsibility to come
prepared with the necessary adaptors, no adaptors will be provided at EuRoC.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 22 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
6.7. SRAD SOLID MOTORS PREPARATION
For SRAD Solid Motors, please see Sections 3.3. and 3.6.
6.8. ON-SITE TESTING
Testing should be done prior to the event. Potentially hazardous testing, especially involving black
powder and energetics for the recovery system, cannot be done at the paddock. Teams may conduct
tests at the launch site, for example tracking/telemetry, ignition system, or remote filling station.
Any tests at the launch site shall be conducted before the actual launch days. Teams shall limit the
number of people on the launch site to the necessary minimum to ensure smooth preparation.
Support will be provided by the EuRoC staff.
7. LAUNCH DAY OPERATIONS
7.1. A SAMPLE LAUNCH DAY
In the table below, a sample launch day is shown for a team (in example) in the first launch window.
Table 4: A sample launch day.
07:00 Arrive at launch site, check if everything needed is at the launch pad, start
preparations
08:00 Morning Briefing
08:30 Install Motor
09:30 LRR
10:00 Move to the Launch Rail
10:30 Install igniters
11:00 1st
Launch window opens - launch
12:00 1st
Launch window closes - recovery
12:30 LRRs other teams, rocket found and returned
13:00 Other teams moving to the launch pad
13:30 Install igniters
14:00 2nd
Launch window opens
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 23 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
15:00 2nd
Launch window closes - recovery
15:30 Postflight review commence
16:00 3rd
Launch window opens
17:00 3rd
Launch window closes - recovery
18:00 Postflight reviews completed
19:00 Launch Range Closed
Independent from the launch window the team will launch at, some ideal reference times can be found
below.
• Time from arriving at the Launch site in the morning to being ready for LRR: 1-2 h;
• Time from LRR to launch rail: 15 min;
• Time at the launch pad to get ready for launch: 15 min;
• Hybrid and liquid time for loading: max. 90 minutes including pressurization (See EuRoC Rules
& Requirements);
• Time between launch window closes and recovery: ASAP, teams shall have the recovery team
(2-3 members) ready to go;
• Time between recovery and postflight review: ASAP, but other teams’ LRR and launch
preparation have priority;
• Cleaning of the launch site and packing up: after the postflight review.
7.2. MORNING BRIEFING
The morning briefing aims at synchronizing all the involved in the launch operations, run through the
plan for the day, address criticalities and questions.
The morning briefing is mandatory for the team leader with the option of one more team member for
support (max. 2 persons per team will be allowed). Teams should take this opportunity to raise any
questions, concerns or to pro-actively address any issue or concern that might impact the team's
readiness to launch or that could be potentially relevant for safety.
7.3. LAUNCH DAY PREPARATION
Launch operations start with the collection of the launch vehicle from the transportation truck,
followed by settling into the already assigned preparation tent to do all the preparation towards the
LRR. Teams shall also start preparing all the necessary mission control equipment.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 24 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
If a team gets clearance from the LRR, they will be assigned a Team’s Mission Control tent, to where
teams shall move all the previously prepared mission control setup.
All the ground segment at Launch Pad and Mission Control must be ready and operational before the
launch windows start.
7.4. LAUNCH PAD PREPARATION
Teams must prepare the launch pad setup after being assigned a launch rail. Teams using their own
launch rail, must have the rail set during the preparation days, to move it to the designated area on
the launch day. EuRoC launch rails will be operational on their respective area.
The loading station setup can be done during the preparation days on a designated area of the launch
pad and then moved to the assigned launch rail. Teams should consider the uneven terrain and
prepare themselves with solutions to keep their setup levelled and balanced to ensure the correct
operation of all equipment.
7.5. ENERGETICS
The Pyrotechnics Team, under coordination of the PO, will supply the teams with black powder,
electrical igniters or other pyrotechnics components that cannot be brought by the teams. The EuRoC
team will supervise, review and support the teams with the application of igniters or other
pyrotechnical devices, under approval of the PO or Deputy. These materials are stored and delivered
on the launch site. Teams are permitted to install pyrotechnics and energetics only in the morning
prior to their launch.
7.6. MOTOR INSTALLATION
The PO Deputy will support the teams with solid motor installation in the vehicle. The team will need
to obtain the PO approval on the Flight Card that the solid motor (or solid part of the hybrid motor)
has been installed correctly. With this signature, the teams are then eligible to move to the Mission
Control Area, but not yet to the Launch Pad. At Mission Control, the MCO will coordinate further
operations.
7.7. LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW (LRR)
The Launch Readiness Review will be conducted at the launch site on the day of the launch. Teams will
be able to sign up for their preferred LRR time prior to their launch day on a first come, first served
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 25 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
basis. The earlier teams can schedule the LRR, the more time and less pressure they will have for final
launch preparations afterwards.
For a team to be accepted to proceed to the LRR (meaning to start the LRR, not to pass it), the following
conditions need to be met by the teams:
• The team has completed the FRR with at least “Provisional” flight status;
• Following the FRR, the team has addressed all issues scored as “yellow”;
• The team has moved their vehicle to the launch site and is ready to begin launch activities, the
next step being loading the solid motor/energetics or moving the launch vehicle to the launch
rail for loading of liquid propellants.
During the LRR, teams will be expected to explain:
• How they resolved the FRR Action Items, if applicable;
• Explain any changes on documentation/checklists they made prior to launch, if applicable; •
Why their rocket can now be considered ready to launch verification.
Furthermore, the LCO will conduct the following steps:
• Re-inspect Action Items if necessary; • Final visual inspection of the vehicle.
Teams need to be ready on time for the LRR. The rocket should be as ready as possible. To increase
efficiency, teams should have a list of action items ready. If there are action items that would require
showing “internal” parts of the rocket, teams may document the resolution of these items by pictures
and videos, like that, teams can already largely assemble their rocket for LRR.
For a team to successfully pass the Launch Readiness Review, the officials will have to raise all criteria
to “green” and the flight status to “Nominal”. They will do so if they are convinced that all Action Items
have been resolved by the teams and there are no further criteria preventing a safe and successful
launch. At the end of the LRR, the issuance of the Flight Card to the team certifies that the LRR has
been passed successfully. With the Flight Card, teams will go to mission control, where they can get
approval of the MCO to move their vehicle to the launch pad. Teams should ideally be ready to move
to the launch pad within 15 min after the LRR.
7.8. LOADING OF PROPELLANTS
In the morning of the launch day, teams will coordinate with the LCO about their need to get the liquid
propellants. These are stored in a storage container near the launch pad. With that, the LCO will initiate
preparations to load gaseous/liquid propellants on the Launch Pad. Teams will then prepare the
loading process themselves.
After the vehicle is mounted on the Launch Rail, the LCO or its Deputy will oversee and support the
loading of the gaseous/liquid Propellants onto the vehicle at the Launch Pad. Teams will carry out the
loading themselves. Teams are required to share any relevant technical information with the LCO to
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 26 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
ensure a safe and quick loading of the vehicle. Teams are required to bring any tools and equipment
necessary for loading of propellants for their specific vehicle.
The vehicle will remain in a “safed” state throughout the loading process. The LCO will inform the MCO
about the status of the loading process. The LCO or Deputy will confirm on the Flight Card the proper
and successful loading with propellants.
7.9. FLIGHT CARD
When arriving to the launch site for the launch day teams shall fill out the Flight Card with their
respective information (e.g., flight category, propulsion type, launch rail, CONOPS, frequency details,
etc.). EuRoC officials will acknowledge that the motor is installed correctly, that a team has successfully
passed the LRR and has the final inspection complete through the signature of the Flight Card, that
once fully completed and signed shall be delivered to the MCO.
7.10. WEATHER CHECK
EuRoC requires that cloud cover shall not mask the ascent, thus for cloud covered sky the launches will
be suspended. Low hanging cloud cover may allow 3 km launches, but not permit 9 km launches.
The wind speed and direction on ground will be monitored by a weather station by the EuRoC staff.
The weather information is passed on to the teams to consider for the updated flight simulation.
7.11. UPDATED FLIGHT SIMULATION AND TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
Any open questions about the flight simulation should be addressed as early as possible, at the latest
at the FRR. Teams must provide flight simulation data representing real-world launch conditions
(vehicle launch configuration, wind direction, wind speed) in an OpenRocket format to MCO after
Flight Card issuance to ensure that the stability and trajectory are compliant with the operation
regulations before the launch.
Along with the flight simulations, teams must provide a motor thrust curve for the final flight
configuration. The last version of the file must include all the physical modifications and weight
improvements made after FRR and LRR. If instructed, after LRR, teams must show and explain their
project changes to the MCO or its Deputy at mission control to explain and check their final flight
simulation setup.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 27 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
7.12. TRANSPORT OF THE ROCKET TO THE LAUNCH PAD
With the signature of the LCO or Deputy on the Flight Card, the teams are eligible to move to the
Mission Control Area, where they will inform the MCO that they are ready to move to the launch pad.
The MCO will give its oral approval once the appropriate operational conditions are given, which must
be confirmed with the RSO and LCO as well as other officials. Only then are teams permitted to move
to the Launch Pad.
Teams will move their vehicle by foot. Transport of the vehicle is only permitted with the vehicle in a
“safed” state. The vehicle should always be pointed away from any personnel towards an open area.
7.13. MOUNTING ON THE LAUNCH RAIL
Once the vehicle arrives at the Launch Pad, the LCO (or Deputy) will guide the team to their respective
Launch Rail and instruct the team about the mounting of the vehicle on the Launch Rail. The LCO will
inspect the Launch Rail prior to mounting to ensure its mechanical stability and readiness.
For team provided launch rails, the team will oversee the mounting of the vehicle, with support of the
LCO. For event-provided launch rails, the LCO (or Deputy) will oversee it.
7.14. IGNITION SYSTEM
Details on the ignition system can be found in the EuRoC DTEG – be aware that for COTS Solid motors
the use of the EuRoC provided ignition system is mandatory.
Teams can set up their own ignition systems (SRAD motors) at the team mission control. Teams may
run connecting wires to the launch pad or use wireless. For wireless systems, teams should test it again
at launch day to ensure no RF-interference with all the other teams present.
7.15. ESTABLISHING LAUNCH READINESS
Before final launch preparation, all non-essential personnel are removed from the Launch Pad and
must exit the specified Launch Site Safety distance (610 m).
Once all preparations have been concluded, excluding only those preparations that need to be
completed immediately before launch due to the specifics of the vehicle (e.g., for liquid/hybrid
vehicles), the LCO (or Deputy) will conduct a final visual inspection of the vehicle to ensure its launch
readiness. The LCO will confirm on the Flight Card the final inspection.
The LCO shall inform the MCO and the RSO about the readiness of the vehicle and wait for their
approval to continue with the “arming” process. For this, the MCO and RSO will transfer the launch
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 28 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
site into a Launch Ready state. Once the LCO has confirmed launch readiness with the MCO and the
RSO, the vehicle is ready to be “armed”.
7.16. ARMING
Once launch readiness has been established, the essential team personnel will check if the recovery
system is ready to be armed. Once this is confirmed, they will request the LCO permission to arm the
recovery system.
All ground-started propulsion system ignition circuits/sequences shall not be "armed" until all
personnel are at least 15 m away from the launch vehicle.
Personnel that are no longer required at the launch pad thereafter shall urgently leave the Launch Pad
to the spectator area.
7.17. CONNECTING IGNITERS
Once arming is completed, the LCO may authorize the essential team personnel to proceed with the
installation of the event-provided ignition system or team-provided ignition system, under supervision
of the pyrotechnics team.
With the pyrotechnics team supervision, the team will keep the LCO informed about the status of the
ignition system installation process. The LCO will inform the MCO and RSO about the ignition system
installation process.
After installation of the igniters, all remaining essential personnel is to leave the launch pad with
urgency to the forward mission control.
Note: Exceptions are made for the arming/connecting igniters sequence if igniters cannot be installed
as a last step, e.g., for upper stages.
7.18. GO/NO-GO CALL
After arming, installation of igniters and retrieval of all personnel from the launch pad the Go/No-Go
call will be managed by the MCO, which is in direct contact with the Team Mission Control and the
pyrotechnics team. Teams will adhere to this call to confirm readiness for launch.
All deputies are managed internally by the officers, namely the MCO, PO, LCO and RSO, which shall go
through the respective checklists and assure all safety conditions are undertaken. If at any moment,
any of the officers has safety concerns the call will be interrupted.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 29 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
7.19. COUNTDOWN
The MCO will rely the control to initiate countdown either to (1) pyrotechnics team, for EuRoC
provided ignition system or (2) to team lead, for team provided ignition system. Countdown will be
initiated down from 10 to 0, while 0 is “ignition”, voiced loudly and relayed via the PA system.
The RSO, MCO or pyrotechnics team/lead can interrupt the countdown at any time if necessary.
7.20. LAUNCH
The success of a mission is not defined by lifting off the launch rail but spans all the way until the
recovery. Teams shall remain focused during the whole duration of the mission and best save
celebrations for touchdown.
Once the rocket is launched, the main task for the team mission control and the EuRoC Launch
operation team is to continuously monitor the flight trajectory and status. Therefore, a high focus
should be kept at throughout the whole flight. The teams’ mission control should continuously and
openly communicate with the MCO the status of the flight, especially if it is nominal or not. If an
anomaly is detected that is potentially safety critical, this needs to be communicated immediately.
To ensure clear communication, chatter should be kept down until the mission is completed.
7.21. MISHAP
A launch mishap occurs when a flight attempt results in any potentially unsafe condition. Anybody
(especially also teams mission control) who detects such a condition is obliged to immediately
communicate to the nearest officer.
The RSO will orchestrate the immediate actions according to their assessment of the situation,
especially the observed severity of the mishap, specifically instructing the spectators in the spectator
area via PA and using the resources at their disposal to respond to the mishap, including the
emergency response services if necessary.
The LCO will monitor the condition from the forward mission control, especially monitoring the
trajectory. The LCO will communicate via radio to the RSO if there is any indication that the trajectory
might be up range towards the spectator area.
The MCO will close the loop with the team at mission control and monitor via tracking the trajectory
of the vehicle. The MCO will communicate via radio to the RSO if there is any indication that the
trajectory might be up range towards the spectator area.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 30 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
If touchdown can be confirmed visually, the RSO will monitor the point of impact for fires and
orchestrate the fire fighter response if necessary.
If a mishap results in an uncontrolled high altitude/long range drift of any part potentially leaving the
launch site, the RSO will immediately inform and coordinate with the airspace authority the
appropriate response, aided by the distributed surveillance posts. For this, all available tracking data
will be collected by the MCO and relayed to the RSO.
7.22. CONTINUATION OF SALVO
Once safe touchdown has been confirmed and no fires are spotted, the RSO will give clearance for the
continuation of the launch salvo.
7.23. RECOVERY
For the recovery phase, teams shall have a Recovery Team composed by 2-3 members to be ready
immediately after the launch window closes to join the EuRoC Recovery Team on the search for the
vehicle. After RSO’s clearance and MCO instructions, the recovery teams can start the operation.
Teams must have a recovery plan, to ensure they are prepared for this operation. GPS tracking system
should be tested exhaustively before the launch day. Range and “hide-and-seek” tests are highly
recommended.
Teams shall also prepare bags or boxes to transport the rocket fragments, in case of recovery system
failure. For possible damaged LiPo batteries, all teams are required to have a dedicated container with
the following features:
• Non-metallic inner packaging that completely encloses the cell/battery;
• Inner packaging made of a non-combustible, non-conductive, and absorbent cushioning
material;
• Outer packaging that may be made of metal, wood, or solid plastic.
7.24. POSTFLIGHT REVIEW & POSTFLIGHT RECORD
After recovery, a Postflight Review will be conducted by EuRoC officials, upon the team arrival to
mission control. If recovery is not successful, the Postflight Review will take place at the end of the day
after launch operations. This review aims at assessing the success of the flight and recovery operations.
Teams must have, at least, gloves, masks, and goggles to handle the vehicle. If needed, teams can use
working tools to open the rocket to access obstructed compartments. Any hot work with tools must
be coordinated with the EuRoC officials conducting the review.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 31 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
Before any action, the vehicle must be in a safe state: propellant tanks shall be empty, remaining, or
unburned solid propellants removed, recovery electronics shall be “safed” and energetics shall be
“safed” and removed.
During the review teams shall communicate the mission’s success, by assessing it with the EuRoC
officials, e.g., the mission progress and status, rocket integrity, data collected, touchdown coordinates,
payload mission and status, etc. Teams shall also communicate to the EuRoC officials if any rocket part
is still missing.
After the Postflight Review, teams shall download, to the possible extent, altitude logging/tracking
data, especially from the official altitude logging and tracking device and upload it to the Teams’ Area
in the EuRoC website, together with the last flight simulation, including the estimated touch down
point.
If available, at any point of the event, teams shall download any data from the payload experiment
and upload it to the Teams’ Area in the EuRoC website.
Teams must document the Postflight Review via the Postflight Record, that shall be delivered to the
EuRoC officials and where it will be recorded the success of the flight and recovery, and the data
transfer.
7.25. LAUNCH SITE MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING
If any equipment is required to be scrapped or dumped (e.g., batteries, chemicals leftovers), the
team is responsible for its correct disposal process. Avoid at all costs leaving unnecessary trash at the
launch site.
APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial off-the-shelf
SRAD Student Researched and Developed
LRR Launch Readiness Review
FRR Flight Readiness Review
RSO Range Safety Officer
MCO Mission Control Officer
LCO Launch Control Officer
PO Preparation Officer
DTEG Design, Test and Evaluation Guide
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 32 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
PA Public Address
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 33 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
APPENDIX B: LAUNCH SITE EQUIPMENT
B.1. EUROC MISSION CONTROL
In the EuRoC Mission Control teams will find the following basic support equipment:
• 1-phase 230VAC CEE 7/3 “Schuko” power outlet at each tent;
• Light tower for working after dusk.
Note: Teams must bring their own extension cables and socket rails/cable drums, etc., to be able to
use the power outlet supplied.
B.2. EUROC LAUNCH PAD
In the EuRoC Launch Pad teams will find the following basic support equipment:
• 1-phase 230 VAC CEE 7/3 “Schuko” power outlet at each launch rail;
• 3-phase 400VAC IEC 60309 (16A) power outlet at each launch rail; • Two light towers for
working after dusk, are expected to be available.
Note: Teams must bring their own extension cables and socket rails/cable drums, etc, to be able to use
the power outlet supplied.
APPENDIX C: LAUNCH DAY ESSENTIALS
C.1. PLANNING
“Plan the Flight, Fly the Plan” is what makes a successful launch day. All the launch processes must be
known in detail and proper checklists will speed up the procedures and ensure nothing is missing.
All tasks and respective responsible must be clearly defined, so everyone know what their
responsibilities are and who is doing what, when and where. Schedule a plan with (indicative) time
and locations, to guide the team throughout the day.
Table 5: Checklist example.
T-24h Procedure
Location: Paddock
To be done the day before launch day.
1.0 TASKS D ONE? RESPONSIBLE
1.1 Confirm SD cards are formatted and clear for onboard cams. Camera Deputy
1.2 Perform full balance charge on 2S LiPo. Electronics Deputy
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 34 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
1.3 Perform full balance charge on 3S LiPo. Electronics Deputy
1.4 Fully charge 1S LiPo for AIM XTRA. Electronics Deputy
1.5 Fully charge 1S LiPo for EasyMega. Electronics Deputy
1.6 Remove all upper panels. Flight Director
1.7 Remove aft cone. Flight Director
1.8 Remove bottom 3 panels. Flight Director
1.9 Verify flight software is uploaded to Stack flight computer. Software Deputy
1.10 Install flight fins. Flight Director
C.2. LAUNCH SITE INFRASTRUCTURE
In the teams’ preparation and mission control area, field tents will be provided to the teams. These
will include electricity, lighting, tables, and chairs. In the pyrotechnics preparation area, there will be
a pyrotechnics storage truck and field tents to prepare the solid motors and recovery system
energetics, including electricity, lighting, tables, and chairs.
The launch pad is rectangular with an approximate dimension of 125 m x 20 m, providing enough space
to place both EuRoC and team provided launch rails. Electricity (both 1-phase 230V and 3-phase 400V)
and lighting will be provided, however the total power at the launch pad is limited and teams should
indicate their individual power needs prior to the event.
About 60 m to the side of the Launch Pad Area, a gas bottle storage will be setup, however space is
limited, and the teams should indicate their storage needs prior to the event.
C.3. ENVIRONMENT
Santa Margarida Military Camp features an extremely dry and dusty environment. Most of the terrain
is uneven and hilly, with overgrown dry vegetation and a light forest towards the launch corridor.
The wild fauna of this dry area is composed mostly by insects and birds, with the occasionally
appearance of foxes. There are also some dangerous animals, namely ticks, scorpions and salamanders,
that despite not so common still require attention and carefulness.
Regarding the weather conditions, the launch site area offers no shade in the field, making the sun
exposure continuous while walking and working outside the tents. The sunlight during October is still
strong with high intensity UV radiation.
Typical temperatures in Santa Margarida in October are in the following range:
• Average low 12°C (min 7°C);
• Average high 21°C (max 30°C).
Details can be found on the Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere (IPMA) website.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 35 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
C.4. COMMUNICATION AND VISIBILITY
The communication between the teams and EuRoC organization should be made, preferably, through
the Team Leader or an assigned Point of Contact, who should visibly wear the identification provided.
The Point of Contact must know who needs to reach, as different people can help with different
matters. All communication regarding teams’ status is always welcome, if the team is ready earlier,
running late, needing something, or having concerns, no matter what, communicate the team status
to the organization.
Be on time at the morning briefing, as this is the most adequate moment for communication before
operations start.
Emotions are flying high during launch day, especially when the team is stressed, stay respectful and
helpful towards other teams and the organizers.
C.5. RADIO COMMUNICATION AND FREQUENCIES
All teams are encouraged to obtain a number of decent quality license-free PMR radios for internal
team communication, communication with EuRoC staff/mission control, ad-hoc coordination, etc.
A suitable supply of expendable spare batteries or battery chargers is highly recommended.
C.6. CLOTHING & BASIC NEEDS
All team members are encouraged to come prepared with a suitable “field/day pack”, which is kept
close at hand (or worn) during launch days.
Due to the unpredictability of the weather in October, teams are highly encouraged to check the
weather forecast before departing to Portugal. Despite that, teams shall come prepared for all
eventualities, being it strong sunlight and high temperatures or heavy rain and low temperatures.
Below you can find some provisions intended to get teams through a EuRoC day or to enable teams to
continue efficient operation after loss of daylight.
• Sunscreen, sunhat/umbrella and sunglasses;
• Practical footwear for both dirty and muddy conditions;
• Drinking water. Please note that there is no accessible water at the launch rails, nor mission
control;
• Snacks, biscuits and other non-perishable energy supplements;
• Headlamp/head-torch;
• Backup clothing, covering exposed arms and legs. Even during warm weather after loss of
daylight it may result in a sudden and significant drop in ambient temperature. Also, coverage
of arms and legs is recommended for the recovery operations that might take place in thorny
terrain.
European Rocketry Challenge – Launch Operations Guide Page 36 of 37
Portugal Space ReferencePTS_EDU_EuRoC_ST_000763
Version 01, Date 30.06.2022
C.7. PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
All teams must bring any Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) required for all preparation and launch
activities. EuRoC does not have a supply of spare PPE. PPE includes, but is not limited to, safety goggles,
gloves, safety shoes, hardhats, ear protection, cryo-protection, etc.
C.8. EQUIPMENT TRANSPORTABILITY
All the equipment brought to the event is under each team’s responsibility, meaning that all
equipment brought to the event must also travel back with the team.
The launch pad is located 650 m away from the other event areas and can be reached via a dirt road,
however this road is only open to teams’ vehicles prior to and after launch operations and closed to
teams' vehicles during operations. Therefore, teams should be prepared to gap this distance by foot.
All heavy equipment and transportation boxes should be designed/upgraded to be easier to transport
on the dusty and uneven terrain of Santa Margarida Military Camp.
C.9. EQUIPMENT RUGGEDIZATION
All teams are encouraged to upgrade the equipment to endure harsh environments. Dust and
shockproof electronics are highly advised to work on the launch site, as the fine powder will find its
way onto any device and to ensure the equipment can absorb any potential fall or hit.
All mechanisms as joints, hose connectors, gears, etc., are also subject to dust and their maintenance
should be adapted to this environment. Make sure everything is cleaned before connecting parts and
for parts lubrification use dry lube instead of grease if possible.
C.10. SELF-SUFFICIENCY
All teams must bring the necessary technical equipment for the respective project. This includes
everything from tools, electronic and electrical equipment to other specific solutions for their project’s
needs (e.g., a cooling chamber for gases, power strips and extensions). Every phase of the competition
requires specific tools, from preparation to recovery. Planning each phase separately will help teams
to not miss a thing.
Be prepared for the unexpected, all equipment and tools brought to the competition should be
planned in advance. Smart packing and packing lists are highly encouraged.


Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
1/42
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og
forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for
fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter.
Svar på den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes rapports
konklusioner og anbefalinger omkring regulering og
myndighedsorganisering af civile raketaktiviteter, samt
præsentation af en konkret national godkendelsesmodel.
Udarbejdet af Copenhagen Suborbitals.
Jacob Skov Larsen, Jens Woeste, Peter Vesborg
Refshalevej 183A, DK-1432 Kbh K.
Senest revideret 19-09-22
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
2/42
Sammenfatning og hovedpunkter:
• Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet en rapport1 anbefaler et forbud mod opsendelse af
større ikke-statslige raketter (tophøjde over 4km) fra:
o Den danske stat
o Danske fartøjer eller indretninger (uafhængigt af geografisk placering i verden)
o Af danske operatører (uafhængigt af geografisk placering i verden)
o Det eneste lovlige opsendelsessted vil være store kommercielle opsendelsesfaciliteter
(Esrange, Andøya, Kourou, etc.), hvilket medfører meget store udgifter
(Henvisningsmodellen).
• Denne rapport går i rette med mange af den statslige rapports konklusioner:
o Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes anbefaling af et forbud mod større ikke-
statslige raketopsendelser er ikke velbegrundet.
o Kortmaterialet præsenteret i den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes rapport er direkte
vildledende i forhold til de reelle ”trafikforhold” under CS’ opsendelser.
o Danmark har kompetencerne til risikovurdering og godkendelse, både blandt
universiteter og branche-specialister.
o En national Dansk godkendelsesmodel er absolut mulig og resulterer i den
nødvendige regulering af disse aktiviteter, samt tillader fortsat dansk vækst i viden,
STEM og kommerciel udvikling.
o Med udgangspunkt i tidligere CS-opsendelser, risikoanalyse, statistik og
beregningsmodeller underbygges det at Danmark har mindst ét område velegnet til
opsendelse af større ikke-statslige raketter.
o Portugal har med stor succes indført en national godkendelsesmodel siden 2020.
o Der opfordres til at genoverveje en national Dansk godkendelsesmodel, med afsæt
regelsættet og godkendelsesprocedurerne i den portugisiske nationale
godkendelsesmodel og NFPA 1127 standarden.
1
Civile raketaktiviteter - Rapport fra den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe om regulering og myndighedsorganisering af
civile raketaktiviteter, UFM, april 2019.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
3/42
Forord...................................................................................................................................................4
Opsummering af forslag til en godkendelsesmodel.............................................................................7
Kort om sikkerhedszoner ifølge NFPA 1127 og den nationale Portugisiske godkendelsesmodel.......9
Kommentarer til Arbejdsgruppens rapport, konklusioner og anbefalinger........................................11
Raketudvikling og statiske motortest.............................................................................................11
Større civile opsendelsesaktiviteter fra dansk territorium og danske fartøjer................................11
Kommentarer til ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Opsendelse) .............................................................12
CS’ etablering af maritimt fare-område i ESD139 i forbindelse med opsendelsesaktiviteter....16
Scenariet ”Til gene og fare for sø-trafikken”.............................................................................18
Risiko for raketnedfald – Et konkret eksempel......................................................................21
Arbejdsgruppens kritik af CS’ sikkerhedsorganisation i forbindelse med opsendelsen af
Nexø 1....................................................................................................................................24
Forsikring af raketopsendelse, samt dækning af person- og/eller materielskader. ................24
Scenariet ”Til gene og fare for lufttrafikken” ............................................................................25
Konklusion for ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Specifikt omkring opsendelser).................................31
Kommentarer til ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Specifikt omkring godkendelser) ............................33
Kommentarer til ”Henvisningsmodellen”......................................................................................35
Om foreningen Copenhagen Suborbitals ...........................................................................................38
Copenhagen Suborbitals industrielle partnere og andre relevante organisationer og virksomheder: 40
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
4/42
Forord
Denne rapport er udarbejdet af Copenhagen Suborbitals (herefter ”CS”) som en reaktion på
rapporten ”Civile raketaktiviteter - Rapport fra den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe om regulering og
myndighedsorganisering af civile raketaktiviteter”, publiceret 24. april 2019. Den tværministerielle
arbejdsgruppe finder at opsendelse af ”større civile raketter” fra dansk territorium, danske fartøjer og
danske operatører bør forbydes.
Lovforslaget omhandlende et forbud mod opsendelser af store ikke-statslige raketter fra dansk
territorium, danske fartøjer og af danske aktører er genfremsat og sendt i ny høring i september 2022
og denne rapport i denne forbindelse opdateret med blandt andet erfaringer fra den portugisiske
nationale godkendelsesmodel indført i 2020.
Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes konklusion anfægtes og påstanden om at dansk geografi
og befolkningstæthed ikke egner sig til store ikke-statslige raketopsendelser kan tilbagevises
med bare et enkelt eksempel på et allerede eksisterende velegnet dansk opsendelsesområde.
CS forstår at regeringen tager udgangspunkt i ovennævnte rapport i forbindelse med det tidligere
fremsatte lovforslag: Ændring af lov om aktiviteter i det ydre rum. (begrænsning af ikke-statslige
større raketopsendelser og opsendelser af rumgenstande), samt den i 2022 varslede genfremsættelse.
Copenhagen Suborbitals finder på baggrund af en detaljeret analyse, at der ikke er belæg for
rapportens konklusioner angående manglende geografisk sikre opsendelseslokaliteter i Danmark.
Portugal har i 2020 indført en national godkendelsesmodel af større ikke-statslige raketter. Der er i
2022 femogtyve planlagte opsendelser af store ikke-statslige raketter (i forbindelse med Europas
største raketkonkurrence), der afholdes 110 kilometer øst for Lissabon.
Portugal er på mange måder sammenlignelig med Danmark, både geografisk og befolkningsmæssigt,
så det foreslås at genoverveje muligheden for en national Dansk godkendelsesmodel, med afsæt i
regelsættet og godkendelsesprocedurerne fra Portugal.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
5/42
Figure 1: Omkring 20 store ikke-statslige raketter opsendes 110km øst for Lissabon hvert år, med
baggrund i den portugisiske nationale godkendelsesmodel. Den gule prik i den hvide cirkel er
sikkerhedszonen med en radius på 2500 meter, hvor raketter opsendes til 10.000 meter.
Copenhagen Suborbitals vil som følge deraf gerne præsentere et konkret forslag til en national
godkendelsesmodel, med baggrund i den NFPA 11272 baserede portugisiske nationale
godkendelsesmodel, der både tager højde for myndighedernes reguleringsbehov, såvel som tillader
en fortsættelse af i hvert fald en undergruppe af større civile danske raket- og opsendelsesaktiviteter
i Danmark.
CS opfordrer hermed politikerne til at genoverveje en national dansk godkendelsesmodel,
med baggrund i det veletablerede NFPA 1127 regelsæt og den nationale Portugisiske
godkendelsesmodel. Erfaringerne fra opsendelse af over tyve af disse raketter i Portugal viser
at en national godkendelsesmodel sikrer at opsendelser af store ikke-statslige raketter kan
foregå på en reguleret, sikker og forsvarlig vis. Yderligere 25 (store ikke-statslige) raketter
planlægges opsendt i oktober 2022, hvilket vil bringe det samlede antal raketter opsendt
under den nationale Portugisiske godkendelsesmodel op på omkring 45 raketter i alt.
Det underbygges også at der er mindst ét dansk maritimt opsendelsesområde der er velegnet
til ret store civile raketopsendelser.
2
Code for High Power Rocketry;
This code provides requirements for safe operation of high power rockets to protect the user and the public from
associated hazards that could cause deaths and injuries. (www.nfpa.org)
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
6/42
Det foreslås at kategorierne ”mindre” og ”større” ikke-statslige raketter fjernes og at alle
raketter med en tophøjde over 100 meter behandles under samme NFPA 1127 inspirerede
regelsæt.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
7/42
Opsummering af forslag til en
godkendelsesmodel.
Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe foreslår i sin rapport at opdele ikke-statslige
raketopsendelser i små-, mindre- og større raketopsendelser. Med baggrund i den NFPA 1127
baserede nationale portugisiske godkendelsesmodel foreslås indførelse af en lignende dansk
godkendelsesmodel.
Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe hævder at staten ikke har de kompetencer der er nødvendige i
forbindelse med evaluering og godkendelse af større ikke-statslige raketopsendelser. Det er ikke
ensbetydende med at kompetencerne ikke allerede er til stede i Danmark i anden kontekst.
Det portugisiske rumfartsagentur benytter sig af en Teknisk Evalueringsgruppe i forbindelse med en
grundig teknisk- og sikkerhedsmæssig gennemgang af både designdokumentation, sikkerheds- og
risikovurderinger, samt den fysiske raket, inden der udstedes tilladelse til opsendelse. Den Tekniske
Evalueringsgruppe er sammensat af nationale og internationale Europæisk netværk af eksperter med
branche- og opsendelseserfaring.
Dansk ekspertise indenfor området for teknisk- og sikkerhedsmæssig godkendelse af større ikke-
statslige raketter er anerkendt af det portugisiske rumfartsagentur, med tre danske medlemmer. For
en dansk national godkendelsesmodel kan der allerede trækkes på denne erfarne internationale
gruppe af eksperter, mens ambitionen er at udbygge og forstærke de allerede eksisterende
kompetencer blandt dansk erhverv, danske universiteter og danske organisationer.
Det foreslås at indføre en national dansk godkendelsesmodel, hvor et evalueringsråd (bestående af
danske og internationale eksperter) på baggrund af indsendt opsendelsesansøgning og
dokumentationspakke foretager en analyse og evaluering af den foreslåede opsendelsesaktiviet.
Rådet foreslås besat med blandt andet allerede eksisterende kompetencer fra universitetsverdenen
indenfor rumfart (DTU Space, internationale eksperter, m.fl.), der er i stand til at evaluere både de
tekniske og operationelle aspekter i en foreslået opsendelsesaktivitets dokumentationsmateriale.
Tillige besættes rådet med relevante statslige kompetencer indenfor de berørte områder
(Søfartsstyrelsen, Forsvaret, Undervisnings- og Forskningsministeriet m.fl.), der blandt andet sikrer
sig at alle relevante tilladelser er indhentet fra styrelser og at alle procedurer er overholdt.
Da rådets medlemmers kompetencer er en del af deres normale virke, så behøves rådet kun at træde
sammen ved de meget lejlighedsvise opsendelser. Derfor forventes der heller ikke at være nogen
yderligere udgifter forbundet med etablering eller vedligehold af rådets kompetencer.
På baggrund af dokumentationen for den missionsmålet, de tekniske løsninger, risikovurderinger og
sikkerhedsanalyser, fastsættes nærmere begrænsninger for hvor højt civile raketter må flyve i
øvelsesområdet, samt andre foranstaltninger eller begrænsninger.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
8/42
Ved den tekniske evaluering medtages også overvejelser af organisationers tidligere
opsendelseshistorik, samt effekten af eventuelt supplerende sikkerhedssystemer, i form af rakettens
styre- og abortsystemer, således at risiko for skader minimeres yderligere.
CS bifalder at civile rakettest og opsendelser skal underlægges en samlet reguleringsmæssig ramme.
Der skal stilles krav om at aktører, der vil opsende raketter, udarbejder den fornødne dokumentation
og ansøgning, samt overholder de af det nedsatte råd nærmere specificerede restriktioner og
sikkerhedskrav for opsendelsesområdet. Kvalitetskravene til denne dokumentation er allerede
velbeskrevet i den nationale portugisiske godkendelsesmodel og udarbejdes i 2022 af omkring 600
universitetsstuderende i forbindelse med den europæiske EuRoC raketkonkurrence for
universitetsstuderende.
Copenhagen Suborbitals søger alene en tilføjelse til den foreslåede lovgivning, hvorved det
muliggøres at undervisnings- og forskningsministeren kan meddele tilladelse til opsendelse af større
civile raketter fra dansk område. Ovenstående beskrevne godkendelsesmodel kan formaliseres via
en eller flere bekendtgørelser.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
9/42
Kort om sikkerhedszoner ifølge NFPA 1127 og
den nationale Portugisiske godkendelsesmodel.
NFPA 1127 er det amerikanske regelsæt og rammerne for en procentvis høj andel af alle suborbitale
ikke-statslige raketter i verden (både i USA og andre lande). Det er et regelsæt med omkring 40 års
aktivt virke, der har dannet præcedens for statslige og ikke-statslige opsendelser af kraftige raketter
overalt i verden.
Figure 2: NFPA 1127 - Code for High Power rocketry
NFPA 1127 beskriver sikkerhedstiltag, størrelser af sikkerhedszoner, sikkerhedsafstande for
publikum, samt mange andre foranstaltninger i forbindelse med opsendelse af raketter, der er vel
over den foreslåede grænse for ”store ikke-statslige raketter”.
Den danske stat påtænker at lave en opdeling mellem mindre og større ikke-statslige raketter ved en
skillelinje defineret ved en tophøjde på 4000 meter. Ikke mindst er en skarp adskillelse af to
forskellige klassificering (og dermed medfølgende forskellige regelsæt) ved noget så arbitrært som
forventet tophøjde, usagligt. En så skarp opdeling og de resulterende to forskellige regelsæt
risikerer endda at udgøre en sikkerhedsrisiko.
NFPA 1127 beskriver alle nødvendige sikkerhedstiltag og opsendelsesforanstaltninger i en glidende
overgang fra de mindste, til de største raketter. Standardens mentalitet er klar og den kan derfor
udvides til alle tophøjder. Den nationale danske godkendelsesmodel bør anlægge den samme
tilgang, ligeledes inspireret af den portugisiske nationale godkendelsesmodel.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
10/42
Figure 3: NFPA 1127 - Minimum Spectator and Participant Distance Table
Eksempelvis viser Figure 3 hvad sikkerhedsafstanden skal være for deltagere og publikummer ved
de forskellige størrelser raketter. Tabellen kan umiddelbart ekstrapoleres til endnu kraftigere raketter.
For lidt nærmere forklaring af Figure 3 kan det nævnes at:
• Motor type A-D er ækvivalent til ”nytårsraketter”
• ”Mindre ikke-statslige raketter” starter omkring motorstørrelse ”H”.
• ”Større ikke-statslige raketter” starter omtrent fra motorstørrelse ”M”.
• I øjeblikket flyves der kun raketter med motorer op til størrelse ”O” i Portugal, medmindre
dispensation gives. I det henseende kan tabellen umiddelbart ekstrapolere yderligere opad.
For sikkerhedszonens størrelse i forbindelse med en raketopsendelse, så defineres en cirkulær
sikkerhedszones diameter som det halvdelen af den forventede tophøjde:
Underforstået, hvis en raket forventes opsendt til en højde på 10 kilometer, så skal radius på
sikkerhedszonen mindst være 2500 meter.
Som eksempel på hvordan NFPA 1127 modsiger den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes teknisk
ikke-funderede konklusion om at der i Danmark ikke findes egnede områder til opsendelse af
store ikke-statslige raketter, så ville den beskrevne sikkerhedszone i næste kapitel, ud fra
ovenstående NFPA 1127 uddrag, umiddelbart fordre opsendelseshøjder til 56 kilometer, for
store ”komplekse” raketter, ud fra princippet om empirisk ekstrapolering.
Der er naturligvis mange andre faktorer (tekniske og ikke-tekniske) der relevante for
vurderingen af hvert enkelte opsendelsesområde – i disse dage endda geopolitiske. Det følgende
kapitel går i rette med den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes principielle beslutning om at der
ikke findes egnede opsendelsesområder for større danske ikke-statslige raketter.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
11/42
Kommentarer til Arbejdsgruppens rapport,
konklusioner og anbefalinger
Raketudvikling og statiske motortest
CS er glad for at læse arbejdsgruppens tanker og konklusioner om at eksempelvis konstruktion af
raketteknologi og statiske motortests allerede på nuværende tidspunkt er dækket af gældende
lovgivning og myndighedsansvar.
Da CS i 2008-2010 opbyggede kompetencer omkring statiske test af raketmotorer, blev relevante
myndigheder kontaktet for at finde en måde til varsling og godkendelse af motortest-aktiviteter. Det
resulterede i at politi og beredskab/brandvæsen blev varslet og inviteret med til statiske motortests.
Denne praksis blev dog skrinlagt, da meldingen fra de relevante aktører, efter nogle motortests var,
at ”det ikke var nødvendigt at ringe igen næste gang”.
CS har aldrig modtaget én eneste klage eller henvendelse i forbindelse med talrige statiske
motortests frem til i dag.
Såfremt det fra myndighedernes side ønskes, vil CS fremadrettet genoptage kontakt til, og varsling
af relevante politi-, kommunale, beredskabs- og brandbekæmpelsesmyndigheder. CS vil i en sådan
forbindelse også søge egne testplaner, risikovurderinger, sikkerhedsprocedurer og
brandbekæmpelsesprocedurer godkendt hos de relevante aktører, så der opbygges officiel tillid til
CS som organisation.
Større civile opsendelsesaktiviteter fra dansk territorium og danske
fartøjer.
Arbejdsgruppens anbefalinger om et forbud mod “opsendelse af større civile raketter fra dansk
territorium og danske fartøjer” baserer sig (simplificeret) primært på to argumenter, som
efterfølgende behandles i større detaljer:
1. Der findes ikke noget geografisk sted i Danmark, der er velegnet opsendelsesaktiviteter for
større civile raketter.
2. ”Der er ikke i dag en dansk myndighed med ansvar eller kompetencer til at foretage en
sådan samlet sikkerhedsvurdering” (i henhold til Godkendelsesmodellen).
Arbejdsgruppen lægger til grund, at opsendelse af større civile raketter i dag ikke finder sted på et
sikkerhedsmæssigt forsvarligt grundlag.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
12/42
Kommentarer til ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Opsendelse)
CS stiller sig uforstående overfor at den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe, i forbindelse med
overvejelserne omkring Godkendelsesmodellen, i to punkter i rapporten finder at:
1. ”Arbejdsgruppen kan endvidere ikke pege på noget sted i Danmark, hvor større
opsendelsesaktiviteter kan ske uden at være til gene (og/eller potentiel fare) for sø-trafikken
og trafikken i luftrummet over Danmark, jf. rapportens kortbilag. Befolkningstætheden i
Danmark taler generelt imod at udføre sådanne større raketopsendelser i Danmark.”
Og
2. ”Henvisningsmodellen vil medføre et forbud mod opsendelse af større raketter fra dansk
territorium samt fra danske fartøjer. Dette stemmer overens med de begrænsninger, som den
danske geografi og befolkningstæthed indebærer.”
CS kan med et enkelt eksempel vise at Danmark har områder eller adgang til områder, hvor der på
sikkerhedsmæssig forsvarlig vis kan foretages opsendelse af endda forholdsvis store ikke-statslige
raketter.
Det bemærkes at følgende opsendelsesområde er udeladt i den tværministerielle
arbejdsgruppes rapport og rapportens kortmateriale, til trods for at den tværministerielle
arbejdsgruppe i 2018 var blevet briefet om at CS har brugt dette område til seks opsendelser
siden 2011.
CS har siden første opsendelse af store raketter i 2011 brugt det maritime øvelsesområde
ESD138/139, øst for Bornholm. Hvis det kombinerede ESD138/139 område tages i brug, så er
arealet næsten fire gange større end hele Bornholm.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
13/42
Figure 4: Det allerede etablerede 2500 km2 maritime øvelsesområde ESD138/139 øst for
Bornholm, hvor CS har opsendt alle foreningens raketter fra. Det bemærkes at området er udeladt i
rapportens kortmateriale.
Områderne ESD 138 og ESD 139 er indtegnet på søkort som øvelsesområder. I forbindelse med
øvelser i området udsender Søfartsstyrelsen varsler i efterretning for søfarende, med advarsel om at
holde sig ude af området. Sådanne efterretninger, sammen med NOTAM varsler (behandles senere),
på CS-foranledning også blevet udsendt hver gang CS har opsendt raketter og dermed advaret
skibstrafikken om aktiviteterne i området.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
14/42
Figure 5: Efterretning for søfarende, udsendt af Søfartsstyrelsen i forbindelse med CS
raketopsendelse i 2018.
CS har også ved hver opsendelse i ESD138/139 forfattet et HCOC (Hague Code of Conduct against
Ballistic Missile Defense) varsel, som via Udenrigsministeriet og HCOC’s kontor i Wien er blevet
udsendt til landene i Østersøregionen.
Således har alle nationalstater i Østersøregionen været informeret på statsligt niveau om at der
foregik en fredelig raketopsendelse i Østersøen. CS’ HCOC fra 2017 er illustreret i Figure 6.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
15/42
Figure 6: Et eksempel på et HCOC varsel sendt til landene i Østersøregionen via det danske
Udenrigsministerium i 2017. (HCOC: Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Defense)
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
16/42
CS’ etablering af maritimt fare-område i ESD139 i forbindelse med
opsendelsesaktiviteter.
Etablering af fareområdet, varslet i Efterretninger for Søfarende, har under alle opsendelser taget
form som et cirkulært område i ESD139, med en diameter på 16 sømil (ca. 30 km). Dette er sket på
samme måde hver gang, uagtet at der er opsendt raketter med meget vidt spænd af størrelse,
flyvehøjde og tekniske systemer.
Formålet har været at etablere en genkendelighed hos myndigheder i, at det samme udlagte
fareområde er stort nok til at understøtte opsendelse af store civile raketter (i den større ende af
skalaen).
Resultatet har været at det etablerede fare-/sikkerhedsområde har været væsentligt større end
strengt nødvendigt, i forhold til de sikkerhedsafstande den konkrete risikovurdering (i forhold til
hver enkelte konkrete raket) har dikteret.
Figure 7: Det igennem årene tilbagevendende etablerede fareområde (den største cirkel der kan
etableres i ESD139, 16 sømil i diameter), uagtet at CS-risikovurderinger dikterer meget mindre
sikkerhedsafstande, for foreningens mindre raketter. Afstand til den bornholmske kystlinje: >45km
Det bemærkes at NFPA 1127 dikterede maksimalhøje ud fra en sikkerhedszone med en radius på
14km er en tophøje på 56 kilometer.
Hvis man i et tankeeksperiment tilføjer den ekstra sikkerhedsafstand ind til den bornholmske
kystlinje, så er der en radius på over 45 kilometer, så er den (med alle reservationer) ”tilladte
tophøjde” 180 kilometer over havets overflade. ”Befolkningstætheden” i Østersøen er derudover
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
17/42
nul, så længe der er vished for at alle uvedkommende skibe og fly (selvstændigt kapitel) er ude af
sikkerhedszonen.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
18/42
Scenariet ”Til gene og fare for sø-trafikken”
Dette afsnit forholder sig til hvor vidt maritime raketopsendelser fra ESD138/139 er til gene eller
fare for den maritime trafik i området.
Rapportens kortmateriale (Bilag 8, Forsvarets/Søfartsstyrelsens Navicon sø-overvågningssystem)
illustrerer ”trafiktætheden” omkring ESD139 godt en time før opsendelsen af Nexø 2 (lørdag den 4.
august 2018, 07:33 UTC).
CS bemærker, at selvom kortet er fyldt godt op med data for forskellige skibe, så finder CS det
eksempelvis unødvendigt forvirrende at anføre skibsdata for to skibe på kortet (MHV 903 Hjortø og
Poul Anker), mens deres status er ”opankrede i Rønne”. Hvis man ignorerer al teksten på kortet, så
er der kun ganske få skibe i hele området øst for Bornholm, repræsenteret ved de små trekanter med
stiplet vektor-linje.
Figure 8: Arbejdsgruppens rapport bilag 8, illustrerende "trafiktætheden" omkring Nexø 2
opsendelsen 4. august 2018 omkring en time før opsendelsen. Den røde cirkel angiver nærmeste
tredjeparts-fartøjer, hvor to CS-fartøjer er at finde i centrum (SPUTNIK og BOLETTE
MUNKHOLM).
Udover CS’ egne fartøjer (Sputnik og Bolette Munkholm), så er nærmeste fartøj (en time før
opsendelsen) over 14 kilometer fra opsendelsespunktet og en nærmere granskning af
øjebliksbilledet viser fire fartøjer indenfor en radius af 30 kilometer, svarende til 2800
kvadratkilometer.
En time senere, i opsendelsesøjeblikket for Nexø 2, illustrerer figur 5 de klasse-A og klasse-B AIS3
transpondere, der blev registret indenfor en afstand af ikke mindre end 10 sømil fra
3
Automatic Identification System (AIS) er et maritimt transponder-system til aktiv identifikations- og
positionsannoncering af skibe. Systemet er ganske sammenligneligt med et lignende transpondersystem for
flyvemaskiner, T-CAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System).
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
19/42
opsendelsespunktet. Det tilstedeværende CS-overvågningsfly, samt radarer og AIS meldte 8-sømil
sikkerhedszonen fri for skibe, inden der blev givet tilladelse til at iværksætte den endelige
nedtælling.
Figure 9: Den aktuelle sø-trafik, med udelukkende CS-fartøjer inde i sikkerhedszonen, i
opsendelsesøjeblikket for Nexø 2 opsendelsen. De maritime øvelsesområder ESD138 og ESD139 og
den cirkulære 8-sømil sikkerhedszone varslet i forbindelse med opsendelsen, er indtegnet på kortet.
Datagrundlaget i denne figur er loggede data fra CS egne AIS modtagere.
Søfartsstyrelsen har tidligere understreget overfor CS, at CS ikke har ”afvisnings-hjemmel”, men
udelukkende kan forestå ”vejledning” af andre fartøjer og henvise til meddelelsen om
fareområde/opsendelse udsendt i ”Efterretninger for Søfarende”.
Under iagttagelse af at CS ikke kan gøre andet end at vejlede andre fartøjer, der sejler ind i
fareområdet, så kan en opsendelse ikke ske, hvis udefrakommende fartøjer insisterer på at sejle ind i
det etablerede fareområde.
I forbindelse med opsendelsen af Nexø 2 i 2018, tog CS kontakt til ét enkelt polsk fiskerfartøj
(KOL-61, på Figure 8), der på anmodning velvilligt flyttede deres fiskeaktiviteter mod syd, udenfor
det varslede fareområde.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
20/42
CS fastholder derfor, specielt i betragtning af at foreningen i gennemsnit sender en raket op hvert
andet år, at et fareområde ”håndhævet” i få timer, på en enkelt dag, ikke udgør nogen reel gene for
skibstrafikken, i et allerede sparsomt besejlet område af Østersøen.
CS’ risikovurderinger af opsendelser (udført efter retningslinjer fra Wallops Island og Esrange i
Kiruna) har med margin dokumenteret, at det maritime skydeområde ESD138/139 er velegnet til
maritimt baserede opsendelser af de større civile raketter, for så vidt angår risiko for
raketnedslag, der kolliderer med CS personel, tredjemand og tredjemands ejendom.
Det bemærkes også at Søfartsstyrelsen fik udleveret CS’ risikovurderinger i forbindelse med Nexø 1
og Nexø 2 opsendelserne (2016 og 2018) og at disse risikovurderinger har været til den
tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes rådighed og kendskab, da de skrev deres egen rapport.
De sidst nye tilføjelser omkring NFPA 1127 og den implementerede portugisiske nationale
godkendelsesmodel understøtter denne konklusion yderligere.
Uagtet den geopolitiske situation i Østersøen i september 2022, så eksemplificerer ovenstående
hvordan lignende opsendelseszoner ville kunne etableres midlertidigt i Nordsøen eller andre
omkringliggende farvande.
CS har benyttet sig af alle officielle og etablerede varslingsredskaber (efterretninger for
søfarende, NOTAM og HCOC), så alle relevante nationale og internationale myndigheder har
været fuldt orienteret om opsendelserne.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
21/42
Risiko for raketnedfald – Et konkret eksempel
Følgende eksempel, fra Nexø 2 opsendelsens risikovurdering4, illustrerer i Figure 10 hvorfor det til
opsendelseslejligheden oprettede cirkulære fareområde, som CS traditionelt har defineret til at være
16 sømil i diameter, er væsentligt større end strengt nødvendigt, for at overholde de definerede
grænseværdier for skader i forbindelse med raketnedfald.
En Monte-Carlo simulering (som er en alment anerkendt metode til risiko-evalueringer) af 10.000
Nexø 2 opsendelser, med de i risikovurderingen nærmere fastsatte kriterier, resulterer i følgende
oversigt over raketnedslag.
Figure 10: 10.000 simulerede opsendelser af Nexø 2, efter forudsætningerne defineret for Monte-
Carlo simuleringerne. Farverne koder for forskellige nominelle eller fejlende nedslag i det
definerede og varslede fareområde.
CS påpeger at Nexø 2 raketten under ingen omstændigheder kunne nå land, hvorfor eventuelle
diskussioner omkring personsikkerhed og befolkningstæthed på Bornholms østvendte kyster og
øvrige byer betragtes som useriøse, for så vidt angår større civile raketter, med ydelse som Nexø 2
eller derunder. Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe havde hele CS’ risikovurdering til rådighed da
de skrev deres rapport.
Monte-Carlo simuleringerne udregner herved risikovurderingens resulterende sikkerhedsafstand,
i dette konkrete eksempel under forudsætning af at:
• Nexø 2 rakettens areal ved nedslag er 10m2 (raketten kommer ned i flere stykker)
• At hver persons ”kollisionsareal” udgør et areal på 1m2 (raketdele kommer ned ovenfra)
• At 50 personer deltager i opsendelsen i ESD139 (der deltog i praksis 27 personer)
4
CS_svar_pkt_1_Risikovurdering ved raketopsendelse.pdf
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
22/42
• At chancen for at en af de 50 deltagende personer bliver ramt af dele fra raketnedfald er
mindre end 1:100.000 (Wallops Island grænseværdi, sektion 6.2.2.1: 10 ppm)
Figure 11: Den beregnede sandsynlighed for kollision med en af 50 tilstedeværende personer i
ESD139 som funktion af afstand til opsendelsespunktet. (bemærk at y-aksens enhed er [ppm], parts
per million).
Som det fremgår af Figure 11, så dykker risikoen for at ramme en person under grænseværdien på
10 ppm, allerede når sikkerhedsafstanden er blot 400 meter. I en afstand af eksempelvis 4
kilometer chancen reduceret til omkring 100 gange mindre end den opstillede grænseværdi
(Wallops Island, sektion 6.2.2.1: 10 ppm).
I yderligere betragtning af at CS til overvågning af det etablerede maritime fareområde under
opsendelser, medbringer (eller kræver CS opsendelser):
• Betydelig og tilstrækkelig radarkapacitet (elektronisk sø-overvågning)
• Små hurtigtgående både (visuel overvågning)
• Maritime AIS systemer (elektronisk sø-overvågning)
Perspektivering af risikoen 1*10-8 (4 kilometer fra opsendelsespunktet):
Chancen for at vinde førstepræmien i Lotto, ved brug af kun én enkelt talrække, er cirka 12
gange større, end chancen for at bare én af de 50 tilstedeværende CS-medlemmer, indenfor en
radius af 4 kilometer, bliver ramt af nedfaldsdele. Dette er så yderligere et konservativt estimat.
Lottochancen er 1 til 8.347.860 (kilde, Danske Spil)
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
23/42
• Mindst ét overvågningsfly (visuel overvågning)
• God sigtbarhed og roligt vand
så fastholder CS, at opsendelsen af både Nexø 1 og Nexø 2 raketterne (med stor margin) ikke
udgjorde nogen reel fare for sø-trafikken i området (hverken CS-personel, tredjemand eller
tredjemands ejendom), i henhold til raketnedslag og de i branchen accepterede grænseværdier.
Hvis den omtalte sejlbåd (gul cirkel, Figure 8, afstand 14km) antages at have et areal på 25
kvadratmeter, hvilket er halvdelen af det areal de 50 tilstedeværende CS-medlemmer i området
udgør, så er den astronomisk lille chance yderligere halveret i forhold til at ramme sejlbåden ude på
14.000 meters afstand.
Etablering af den uforholdsmæssigt store cirkulære farezone (16 sømil diameter), resulterer derfor i
yderligere væsentligt reducerede chancer for skader som følge af raketnedfald, selv i forhold til
grænseværdierne etableret for de autoriserede opsendelsesfaciliteter Wallops Island og Esrange.
CS bemærker endvidere, at fremtidige raketter opsendt i ESD138/139, med en flyvehøjde på op
mod det dobbelte af Nexø 1 og Nexø 2’s nominelle flyvehøjde (svarende til omkring 25 kilometer)
stadig er mulige, hvis man eksempelvis fastholder et kriterie om at en given raket, i det absolut
værst tænkelige scenarie, stadig ikke må kunne nå Bornholms østkyst.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
24/42
Arbejdsgruppens kritik af CS’ sikkerhedsorganisation i forbindelse med
opsendelsen af Nexø 1.
CS modtog, i forbindelse med et ”kaffemøde” med den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe, konkret
kritik af foreningens sikkerhedsorganisation, for at have opsendt Nexø 1 raketten i 2016, til trods
for at et udefrakommende skib kort forinden havde overskredet det traditionelt etablerede cirkulære
(16 sømil i diameter) fareområdes grænse.
CS henholder sig (på mødet dengang, som nu) til at chancerne for at Nexø 1 kunne forårsage
personskade på det indtrængende skib, dikteret af Figure 11, fra den konkrete Nexø 1
risikovurdering, var mindre end 1*10-11, til trods for at skibet kort forinden havde overskredet det
traditionelt etablerede fareområdes grænse.
CS påpeger endnu en gang, at det traditionelt etablerede fareområde (illustreret i Figure 7) i praksis
resulterer i en sikkerhedsrisiko for raketnedslag, der er over 10.000 gange lavere end den af
Wallops Island acceptable risiko. CS valgte på baggrund af denne risikovurdering at opsende Nexø
1 raketten til trods for det indtrængende skibs tilstedeværelse i udkanten af det etablerede
sikkerhedsområde.
Den mindre succesfulde opsendelse af Nexø 1 resulterede som bekendt i at raketten slog lodret ned i
Østersøen med omtalte 530 kilometer i timen. Raketten slog (harmløst) ned omkring 280 meter fra
opsendelsespunktet, i centrum af det etablerede fareområde, fuldstændigt i henhold til den
udarbejdede risikovurdering. Der skete ingen eller materiel- eller person-skade (med undtagelse af
raketten selv).
Forsikring af raketopsendelse, samt dækning af person- og/eller
materielskader.
CS’ erhvervsansvarsforsikring dækker person- og materielskader for tredjemand, forårsaget af
foreningens aktiviteter, inklusive skader opstået i forbindelse med foreningens
opsendelsesaktiviteter.
Perspektivering af risikoen 1*10-11 (10 kilometer fra opsendelsespunktet):
Chancen for at vinde førstepræmien i Lotto, ved brug af kun én enkelt talrække, er cirka
12.000 gange større, end chancen for at bare én af de 50 tilstedeværende CS-medlemmer,
indenfor en radius af 10 kilometer, bliver ramt af nedfaldsdele.
Chancen bliver herefter endnu mindre ud mod kanten af sikkerhedsområdet (14 km), hvor den
indtrængende sejlbåd befandt sig.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
25/42
Scenariet ”Til gene og fare for lufttrafikken”
Dette afsnit forholder sig til hvorvidt maritime raketopsendelser fra ESD138/139 er til gene eller til
fare for lufttrafikken i området.
Det konstateres at den europæiske studenterraketkonkurrence EuRoC afholdes på et militærterræn
110 kilometer øst for Lissabon, som tilfældigvis ligger lige midt i en nord-syd gående luftkorridor,
uden at dette tilsyneladende skaber nævneværdig gene eller fare.
For en opsendelseskampagne med en varighed på en uge, så lukkes luftrummet 2-3 gange dagligt, i
perioder af op til en time, da mange raketter har en tophøjde over den kommercielle lufttrafik. For
raketter med en forventet tophøjde under tre kilometer, så omdirigeres lufttrafikken ikke engang.
Lufttrafikken instrueres bare i at holde sig over 10.000 meters høje, mens der skydes raketter af syv
kilometer under dem.
Flytrafikken i luftrummet over området ESD 139, kontrolleres og styres af den svenske Transport
styrelsen via AMC Sweden. CS har i forbindelse med foreningens raketopsendelser i området derfor
ansøgt og fået tilladelse fra Transportstyrelsen til lukning af luftrummet.
I tilladelsen til opsendelsen af Nexø 2 raketten og lukning af luftrummet over ESD139 (4. august
2018) bemærker den svenske Transportstyrelse følgende (uddrag af den udstedte tilladelse).
Det farliga området har inrättats för militär verksamhet och allmän ordning och säkerhet. En
tillfällig ändring av användningsområdet och en utökning i höjd kan i det aktuella fallet göras för
att skydda allmän ordning och säkerhet. Detta då det endast rör sig om en raket, begränsad tid
samt att det sker i ett redan existerande farligt område. Även om området upprättas med
utökad höjd så kommer påverkan på den civila luftfarten att vara begränsad då endast cirka ett
halvtimmesfönster under lördagar och söndagar kommer att utnyttjas under perioden med aktiverat
område5.
Endvidere gav den svenske transportstyrelse tilladelse til opsendelse i weekender i tidsrummet
06:.00 UTC (eller tidligere), frem til senest 11.00 UTC, af hensyn til den civile lufttrafik:
Remiss
Transportstyrelsen har samrått med AMC Sweden. AMC kan endast acceptera en sluttid på 11.00
UTC, men har inga problem med att verksamheten påbörjas tidigare än 06.00 UTC.
5
Beslut om tillstånd för uppskjutning av obemannad raket samt ändrad användning och utökning i höjd av ES D139,
TSL 2018-4971
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
26/42
Argumentet är att den civila trafiken ökar kraftigt efter 11.00 UTC och ett aktivt ES D139 påverkar
den civila trafiken.
Den svenske Transportstyrelse bemærker at et aktivt ESD139 påvirker den civile lufttrafik, men at
påvirkningen er begrænset til et vindue på omkring en halv time, samt at påvirkningen reduceres
yderligere, hvis opsendelsen finder sted på bestemte tidspunkter af døgnet.
CS bemærker, at opsendelsesaktiviteter i ESD138/139 påvirker den civile lufttrafik, men også at et
fornuftigt tilrettelagt opsendelsestidspunkt, fastsat i samarbejde med den svenske Transportstyrelse,
minimerer generne for lufttrafikken til et absolut minimum. Dette er fuldstændigt analogt med den
strategi den portugisiske luftfartsmyndighed ANAC bruger.
CS har en betydelig interesse i at være til så begrænset gene for lufttrafikken, som muligt, hvilket i
2018 konkret betød at de første CS-fartøjer gik ud fra Nexø havn kl. 02 om natten for at nå en tidlig
morgenopsendelse.
I forbindelse med ansøgningen til den svenske Transportstyrelse, om at få luftrummet lukket over
ESD138/139, fastslår Transportstyrelsen følgende:
D-1 senast kl 11.00 UTC ska anmälan ske till AMC Sweden som utfärdar NOTAM.
Samverkan ska ske med WS ATCC Malmö för att anpassas till tider så det påverkar övrig
flygtrafik så lite som möjligt.
Senast 30 min före uppskjutning ska WS Malmö ATCC kontaktas för koordinering och aktivering
av området (tel + 46 406132400)
Avaktivering ska ske till WS ATCC Malmö så snart verksamheten genomförts.
Copenhagen Suborbital ska under uppskjutningen ha kontinuerlig kontakt med WS ATCC Malmö
för att i händelse av nöd kunna avbryta verksamheten6.
Udover at stille krav om at CS varsler opsendelsen dagen i forvejen (senest kl 11:00), og igen 30
minutter før lukningen af luftrummet aktiveres, så skal CS også være i konstant kontakt med de
svenske flyveledere, så en opsendelse uden varsel kan sættes i bero eller en flyvning afbrydes.
Hvor det igen bemærkes at opsendelsen skal tilrettelægges, så den påvirker den øvrige flytrafik så
lidt som muligt, så er den vigtigste oplysning at AMC Sweden udfærdiger og udsender den
obligatoriske NOTAM (NOtice To AirMen).
Enhver pilot har under sin ruteplanlægning pligt til at holde sig orienteret om eventuelle NOTAMs i
flyveruten. Dette gælder for civil kommerciel luftfart, såvel som for privat og fritidsmæssig
flyvning.
6
Beslut om tillstånd för uppskjutning av obemannad raket samt ändrad användning och utökning i höjd av ES D139,
TSL 2018-4971
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
27/42
Figure 12: Relevant eksempel på en NOTAM, som udsendes af AMC Sweden under eksempelvis CS
raketopsendelser. (https://notaminfo.com/swedenmap)
Specifikt for opsendelsen af Nexø 2 udsendtes følgende NOTAM:
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
28/42
De svenske flyvelederes aktivering og deaktivering af ESD139 foregår i praksis over flyradio, i
henhold til ovenstående varsel, mens CS holder kontakt med flyvelederne over en
satellittelefonforbindelse.
CS bemærker også med undren arbejdsgruppens bilag 10, der optræder under den stærkt
misvisende overskrift ”Kort over intensiteten af lufttrafikken i luftrummet over/omkring Danmark –
eksemplet er et øjebliksbillede fra den 10. august 2018”.
”Et øjebliksbillede” kan ikke være korrekt, da kortet viser den kurs fly allerede har taget turen hen
over Danmark, efter alt at dømme i løbet af et helt døgn. Hvis bilaget skulle udgøre ”et
øjebliksbillede”, så ville der alene på baggrund af trafiktætheden over Københavns Lufthavn, med
stor sandsynlighed være en uacceptabel chance for kollisioner i luften.
Figure 13: Bilag 10 fra arbejdsgruppens rapport. Betegnelsen "Øjebliksbillede" kan per definition
ikke benyttes om en lang række allerede passerede fly. Kortet anses for at dække flyaktivitet over
Danmark for et helt døgn.
Kortet indeholder derfor en historik over flyvninger, sandsynligvis for et helt døgn, hvorved kortet
anses for at skabe et decideret urigtigt og unødigt skræmmende billede af ”fly-trafiktætheden” over
Danmark. Det samme billede tegner sig for skibstrafikken i området.
Et reelt øjebliksbillede af flytrafikken i nærheden af ESD139, i affyringsøjeblikket 4. august 2018 –
07:33 UTC, kan af alle hentes fra de historiske arkiver på hjemmesiden flightradar24.com. Denne
side registrerer alle transpondere ombord på flyvemaskiner, og viser i realtid hvor stort set samtlige
fly er henne i verden, på et givent tidspunkt.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
29/42
Figure 14: Et reelt øjebliksbillede af flytrafikken omkring ESD139, i Nexø 2 opsendesesøjeblikket
(4. august 2018 - 07:33 UTC). Det etablerede øvelsesområde ESD139 er indtegnet på kortet og
nærmeste fly er omkring 70 kilometer fra opsendelsespunktet, som er en anelse nord for 3-tallet i
ESD139.
Figure 14 viser at det nærmeste fly er omkring 70 kilometer fra opsendelsespunktet. Dette billede er
et uddrag af en længere video, som dokumenterer den sparsomme flytrafik i området. Den fulde
video kan på opfordring rekvireres hos CS.
CS konkluderer som følge heraf, at opsendelsesaktiviteter, når de er veltilrettelagt og behørigt
trænet, resulterer i en yderst begrænset gene for den civile lufttrafik og derudover ikke udgør
nogen reel fare for flytrafikken. Dette understøttes af erfaringer og procedurer fra opsendelserne af
store ikke-statslige raketter i Portugal.
CS fastholder også, på baggrund af ovenstående uddrag af tilladelser og varslinger, at alle
relevante myndighedstilladelser og procedurer er fulgt (ved Nexø 2 opsendelsen, såvel som
tidligere opsendelser), på en sådan måde, at der som udgangspunkt ikke vil være nogen fly til stede
i det lukkede fareområde ESD138/139, udover det eller de af CS medbragte overvågningsfly.
Da civile kommercielle piloter ikke må udvise tilstrækkelig grov uforsvarlighed til at ignorere en
NOTAM under deres ruteplanlægning, så vil det i givet fald være et privat VFR-sportsfly
(formegentlig uden transponder) der ville havde forvildet sig 30-35 kilometer ud over Østersøen øst
for Bornholm, i fald der uretmæssigt var et fly til stede i opsendelsesområdet.
CS finder sådan et scenarie højest usandsynligt.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
30/42
CS finder derfor, at en konstant kommunikation med AMC Sweden, i et varslet og lukket luftrum,
betyder at der ikke forefindes nogen former for civile kommercielle luftfartøjer i
opsendelsesområdet. Chancen for tilstedeværelse af mindre private civile luftfartøjer, ud over de af
CS medbragte, grænser til ikkeeksisterende.
CS konkluderer derfor, at opsendelsesaktiviteter af større civile raketter ikke er til fare for
lufttrafikken i ESD138/139, såfremt alle procedurer følges og alle relevante tilladelser indhentes
og varsler udsendes (Efterretninger for Søfarende, NOTAM, HCOC).
Figure 15: Forsvarets 3D Martello EW-radar på toppen af Rytterknægten har totalt overblik over al
lufttrafik i ESD138/139. (http://tidende.dk/?Id=64600)
Slutteligt kan det tilføjes, at såfremt ovenstående procedurer ikke synes at tilfredsstille behovet for
at sikre at det relevante luftrum reelt er tømt, så bemærker CS at Forsvaret meget bekvemt har
placeret en Martello Early Warning Radar på toppen af Rytterknægten på Bornholm. Denne 3D
appertur radar holder øje med alt hvad der flyver i hele Østersø-regionen (med og uden
transpondere), til og med Kaliningrad og den litauiske kyst.
Da denne radar alligevel kører i bemandet døgndrift, så vil det være en forholdsvis simpel og
beskeden opgave at koordinere med denne radarstation inden en opsendelse, så den sidste rest af en
eventuel frygt for uautoriserede luftfartøjer i fareområdet kan aflyses.
Såfremt Forsvaret ikke vil være i stand til at bistå med bekræftelse af at luftrummet under
fremtidige opsendelser er frit for uautoriserede luftfartøjer, så har CS efter opsendelsen af Nexø 2
haft dialog med en prominent dansk virksomhed i forsvarsmaterielbranchen, omkring mulighederne
for bistand til netop luftrumsovervågning, i form af en mobil radarstation.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
31/42
Konklusion for ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Specifikt omkring
opsendelser)
Copenhagen Suborbitals kan på baggrund af ovenstående analyse og redegørelse ikke erklære sig
enig i Arbejdsgruppens følgende påstand og konklusion, på det af arbejdsgruppen udarbejdede
foreliggende grundlag:
”Arbejdsgruppen kan endvidere ikke pege på noget sted i Danmark, hvor større
opsendelsesaktiviteter kan ske uden at være til gene (og/eller potentiel fare) for sø-trafikken og
trafikken i luftrummet over Danmark, jf. rapportens kortbilag. Befolkningstætheden i Danmark
taler generelt imod at udføre sådanne større raketopsendelser i Danmark.”
Copenhagen Suborbitals analyse peger på den stik-modsatte konklusion: At ESD138/139 som
udgangspunkt og som minimum er velegnet til maritime opsendelser af en vis størrelsesklasse
af ’større civile raketter’ i den ”store ende af skalaen”, under hensyntagen til rakettens ydelse og
områdets beskaffenhed (trafik, overvågningsmuligheder, etc.).
Danske militære skydeterræner på land, samt militære skydeterræner der indbefatter
sikkerhedsområder ud over havet, kan med baggrund i NFPA 1127 også vise sig velegnede til
opsendelse af store ikke-statslige raketter i en grad, der står i mål med rakettens ydelse og områdets
udstrækning, omgivelser og beskaffenhed.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
32/42
Af de vigtigste fordele ved fortsat mulighed for maritime opsendelser af større civile raketter fra
eksempelvis ESD138/139 eller tilsvarende maritime områder. Yderligere kan nævnes:
• Da definitionen af ’mindre civile raketter’ må anses for at være for små til at udvikle
avanceret raketteknologi af konkurrencedygtig kompleksitet, så vil tungere raketter (med
begrænset tophøjde sat af den tekniske gennemgang af raket, historik og teknisk
dokumentation, etc.) stadig tillade udvikling, videreudvikling og afprøvning af de relevante
teknologier indenfor Danmarks grænser.
• Copenhagen Suborbitals kan fortsætte udviklingen af bæredygtig og genbrugelig
raketteknologi, herunder brugen af bio-ethanol som brændstof, landing og gentagne
flyvninger med samme raketter. Dette er der mindre end en håndfuld europæiske
raketaktører der arbejder på i øjeblikket.
• En national dansk godkendelsesmodel vil tillade Copenhagen Suborbitals, DTU DanSTAR
og andre kommende aktører med at fortsætte deres virke, og bibeholde viden og erfaring
som den/de indtil videre eneste organisation(er) i verden, med unik ekspertise og erfaring til
at foretage maritime opsendelser af komplekse raketter.
• Copenhagen Suborbitals kan fremadrettet stille ”payload kapacitet” til rådighed for danske
gymnasiale uddannelser og universitets-projekter, til inspiration og videnskabsformidling for
den naturvidenskabelige uddannelsesretning og styrkelse af STEM fag. Copenhagen
Suborbitals forventer at kunne stille den overskydende pay-load kapacitet (op til 1500kg) til
rådighed gratis.
• Copenhagen Suborbitals kan fortsat stille opsendelseskapacitet til rådighed for andre danske
raketorganisationer, der på universitetsniveau udvikler og raffinerer komplicerede
væskeraketter ud over den foreslåede definition for ”mindre civile raketter”, med reel
chance for efterfølgende at vinde prestigefyldte internationale og højt eksponerende
konkurrencer.
• Skabe en fortsat bekvem grobund for, på lidt længere sigt at få igangsat og modnet en
spirende og lukrativ kommerciel ”up-stream” industri, baseret på de højt motiverede
eksisterende og nyuddannede ingeniørkompetencer.
• Opfylde og begynde at levere på de to første punkter i den danske rumstrategi, for så vidt
angår up-stream markedet (øget vækst i den private rumbranche og øget hjemtag af ESA-
midler).
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
33/42
Kommentarer til ”Godkendelsesmodellen” (Specifikt omkring
godkendelser)
Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe skriver følgende:
Arbejdsgruppen finder, at en ”godkendelsesmodel” med regulering og godkendelse af større
opsendelsesaktiviteter forudsætter, at der hos en myndighed opbygges helt nye kompetencer og højt
specialiseret viden om relevante risici og sikkerhedsforhold. Godkendelsesmodellen bygger på, at
der tilvejebringes et regelgrundlag og en myndighedsstruktur, som gør det muligt at foretage en
samlet og solid konkret vurdering af større opsendelsesaktiviteter, hvilket indebærer vurdering af
raketten, opsendelsesplatformen og den nærmere indretning af forholdene på opsendelsesstedet.
CS anerkender som sagt behovet for regulering og godkendelse af civile raketopsendelser.
Dog stiller CS sig undrende overfor den lidt snævre konstatering, af at der ikke findes de
nødvendige godkendelseskompetencer hos nogen myndigheder i staten og at opbygningen af disse
kompetencer vil være for omkostningskrævende.
DTU har allerede tidligere i sit høringssvar til Rumloven peget på DTU Space stiller sig til rådighed
for vanlig myndighedsbetjening, hvilket eksempelvis kan inkludere godkendelsesopgaver.
Citat fra DTU’s høringssvar til Rumloven i 2016: "Det bør fremhæves, at man også kan bruge
danske operatører, f.eks. GTS-institutter eller danske universiteter som konsulenter. DTU opfordrer
Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet til sammen med DTU Space at afsøge, hvilke opgaver DTU
Space kan yde konsulentbistand til i forbindelse med implementering og håndhævelse af en
vedtagen rumlov."
DTU Space er Danmarks største rumforskningsinstitut og internationalt anerkendt i
rumfartsbranchen. DTU Space stiller sig igen til rådighed i forbindelse med vurdering af
ansøgninger og teknisk dokumentation, i forbindelse med rumaktiviteter og rumgenstande, herunder
ansøgning om tilladelse til opsendelse af kommende større danske civile raketter under en national
dansk godkendelsesmodel.
CS har gennem de seneste 10 år opbygget en stor erfaring med civil raketopsendelse fra Østersøen.
Herunder:
• Sikkerheds og risikovurdering af egene raketter og opsendelser.
• Sikkerhedsprocedure udarbejdet efter samme principper og grundlag som bruges af bl.a.
Esrange, Wallops Island og NASA.
• Kontakt til og ansøgning om tilladelser fra relevante myndigheder.
• Praktiske erfaringer fra arbejdet i den portugisiske Tekniske Evalueringsgruppe
CS vil i denne sammenhæng naturligvis ikke kunne stå for godkendelse af egen opsendelse, men vi
stiller gerne vores erfaringer til rådighed for opbygning af en godkendelsesprocedure. For
opsendelser af CS-raketter kan der trækkes på eksisterende national og international ekspertise,
herunder godkendelsesnetværket etableret omkring den nationale Portugisiske godkendelsesmodel
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
34/42
og EuRoC raketkonkurrencen, således at principperne om uafhængig prøvning af risikovurderinger,
teknisk dokumentation, ekspertise og opsendelseshistorik er efterlevet.
For validering af at godkendelsesprocedurerne er overholdt og at udarbejdede risikovurderinger
beror på et gennemarbejdet og validt grundlag, så kan den godkendende danske myndighed benytte
sig af ekspertisen fra blandt andet ledende danske universiteter, i form af myndighedsbetjening.
Ekspertisen til rådighed på danske universiteter betyder at redeligheden og korrektheden af indsendt
dokumentation for opsendelser vil være sikret.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
35/42
Kommentarer til ”Henvisningsmodellen”
Den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes rapport foreslår en ”henvisningsmodel” for alle fremtidige
større danske civile raketter. Herved henvises opsendelser af alle større civile danske raketter til
autoriserede opsendelsessteder, med egen sikkerhedsorganisation og hvor opsendelsesaktiviteterne
er myndighedsreguleret, såsom:
• Andøya opsendelsesfaciliteten i Nordnorge (Afstand fra Kbh: 1500 km)
• SvalRak, Svalbard (ejet af Andøya Rocket Range) (Afstand fra Kbh: 2500 km)
• Esrange opsendelsesfaciliteten i Nordsverige (Afstand fra Kbh: 1400 km)
• Kourou i Fransk Guiana, Sydamerika. (Afstand fra Kbh: 8000 km)
Startende med Guiana Space Center, Kourou som tankeeksperiment, så vil danske amatører ikke
blive lukket indenfor hegnet på den eneste strategiske europæiske opsendelsesfacilitet i verden,
hvor Ariane 5 og Vega raketter opsendes fra.
For hvad angår Svalbard, så er udfordringerne ved at sende raketter op kun 800 km fra Nordpolen,
samt de logistiske omkostninger ved at bringe raket, materiel og mandskab op til den nordlige ende
af polarhavet fuldstændigt prohibitive, alene hver især.
Esrange i Kiruna og Andøya er principielt mulige opsendelsesfaciliteter, hvis man så bort fra
logistik og transportomkostninger, samt det ikke uanselige beløb faciliteterne skal have for at
forestå en opsendelse.
En prisforespørgsel hos Andøya resulterede i et prisoverslag på 4-6 millioner norske kroner, alene
for opsendelsen af en Spica-størrelse sub-orbital raket. Herudover skulle der medregnes yderligere
½-1 million norske kroner for det obligatoriske recovery-skib, der skal lokalisere, indsamle
og/eller sænke nedfaldne raketdele, der må formodes at kunne flyde og være til fare for
skibstrafikken i Norskehavet. Transport af raket, materiel og mandskab, fra København til Andøya
skal yderligere tillægges de ovenstående beløb.
Når der så yderligere står i kommissoriet for den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes forslag til
regulering, at
”Arbejdsgruppens anbefalinger skal holdes inden for de respektive ministeriers samlede
økonomiske rammer.”
så stiller CS og DTU DanSTAR sig stærkt tvivlende overfor prospektet om at den danske stat,
nærmere betegnet Forsknings- og Undervisningsministeriet, vil bistå med penge til opsendelse af
større civile danske raketter fra autoriserede opsendelsesfaciliteter. Hvor mange opsendelser tænker
den danske stat at støtte, når der kommer gang i raketaktiviteterne hos de andre danske
universiteter?
CS bemærker i forbindelse med den foreslåede nationale godkendelsesmodel, set i lyset af
ovenstående bemærkninger om henvisningsmodellen, at:
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
36/42
• Copenhagen Suborbitals ejer sin egen opsendelsesinfrastruktur i forbindelse med
opsendelser i Østersøen og foreningen bruger sit eget mandskab til at forestå opsendelserne.
Herved spares de betragtelige udgifter i forbindelse med at en autoriseret
opsendelsesfacilitet forestår opsendelsen (4 – 6 millioner norske kroner for store ikke-
statslige raketter på halvandet ton og opefter).
• Copenhagen Suborbitals egne skibe forestår opsamling af alle flydende nedfaldne raketdele.
Herved spares de betragtelige udgifter i forbindelse med at den autoriserede
opsendelsesfacilitets brug af et specialfartøj til opsamling af flydende raketdele i
Norskehavet (½ – 1 million norske kroner).
• Da Copenhagen Suborbitals mandskab er frivilligt og ulønnet koster en opsendelse fra
ESD138/139 omkring 75.000kr i direkte omkostninger, såsom diesel, raketbrændstof,
forplejning, transportudgifter og generelt slid på materiel og skibe.
• For en frivillig forening som Copenhagen Suborbitals, med et årsbudget på omkring 1
million danske kroner (hvoraf cirka 70% går til faste udgifter), så er det komplet urealistisk
at tænke sig at foreningen selv kan afholde udgifterne til en opsendelse fra Esrange eller
Andøya (5-7 millioner norske kroner).
• Hvis den varslede regulering af større civile raketopsendelser gennemføres, uden tilføjelse af
en mulighed for ministeren til at meddele opsendelse (national dansk godkendelsesmodel),
så er det ikke urealistisk at forvente at Copenhagen Suborbitals afvikles indenfor kort tid.
◦ Uden mulighed for at kunne opbære udgifterne til en opsendelse fra en autoriseret
opsendelsesfacilitet,
◦ Uden at kunne forvente økonomisk assistance fra den danske stat,
◦ Uden at kunne benytte foreningens egen opsendelsesinfrastruktur,
så udslukkes mulighederne for (mindst) et spirende højteknologisk eventyr, indenfor
bæredygtig og genanvendelig dansk raket- og opsendelsesteknologi.
Eventuelle fremtidige virksomheder, med fokus op raket- og opsendelsesteknologi, der
skulle finde på at oprette aktiviteter i Danmark, vil være multinationalt, udenlands ejet
og dermed betale skat i et land udenfor Danmark, samt udføre deres overskud fra
Danmark.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
37/42
CS bemærker sig slutteligt en undren overfor den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppes favorisering af
Esrange’s 5000 km2 store opsendelsesområde (og negligering af de 2500 km2 i det lokale maritime
øvelsesområde ESD138/139), under betragtning af den svenske lokalbefolkning, der bor og lever i
Esrange’s opsendelses- (og nedfaldsområde).
Fra Esrange Safety Manual7 (sektion 6.4.1):
Ud fra en rent sikkerhedsmæssige betragtning foretrækker Copenhagen Suborbitals derfor at
opsende større civile raketter fra 2500 km2 tomt (og ubeboet) etableret maritimt øvelsesområde i
Østersøen, hvor man med moderne elektroniske overvågningsmetoder kan finde egnede
opsendelsesvinduer, hvor området er (til vished grænsende) tomt for fly- og skibstrafik.
Hvis en given raket, opsendt i ESD138/139 yderligere ikke medbringer tilstrækkeligt brændstof til
at kunne nå Bornholms østkyst, så er Copenhagen Suborbitals ved at have udtømt mulighederne for
hvordan man kan sænke en grænsende til infinitesimalt lav risiko, for tredjemands helbred og
materiel, yderligere.
Copenhagen Suborbitals vil dog stadig kunne fortsætte sin udvikling og raffinere sin
opsendelsesteknik på disse præmisser, der muliggør en flyvehøjde vel over de i lovgivningen
foreslåede 4 kilometer.
Hvis Copenhagen Suborbitals kan validere sin raket- og opsendelsesteknologi ved opsendelser til
lavere højder i Østersøen, så er mulighederne for at en ekstern partner vil opsende en fuldt tanket
raket fra en autoriseret opsendelsesfacilitet, i samarbejde med Copenhagen Suborbitals, væsentligt
forøget.
7
Esrange Safety Manual, doc id REA00-E60, version 7
Information about the B- and C-zones is placed in mailboxes on the
warning signs around the zones. In total there are also 21 shelters in
the B- and C-zones. These shelters are built in order to offer the local
population protection during rocket launchings.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
38/42
Om foreningen Copenhagen Suborbitals
Copenhagen Suborbitals er en frivillig forening, der siden 2010 har udviklet og testet avanceret
raketteknologi, bygget og opsendt seks raketter fra havet øst for Bornholm. Foreningens
medlemmer tæller bl.a. højt uddannede ingeniører, specialister og ildsjæle fra alle dele af det danske
erhvervs- og universitetsliv. Foreningens drift finansieres af en støtteforening, med
støttemedlemmer fra hele verden, der hver måned giver et bidrag til CS-udvikling af raketter.
Derudover modtager støtte fra både fonde og erhvervsvirksomheder, når lejligheden byder sig.
I forbindelse med undervisning og formidling har en lang række studerende, fra både Danmark,
Holland, Tyskland, Singapore og Frankrig skrevet opgaver og projekter med udgangspunkt i vores
arbejde og med vejledning fra os. Vores raketudvikling har også inspireret mindst ét udenlandsk
startup firma inden for raketbranchen, med særlig fokus på sonderaketter og interessen fra store
udenlandske spillere er støt stigende.
Efter en tiltrængt omstrukturering af foreningen i 2014 har CS undergået en veldokumenteret
og entydigt opadgående teknisk og organisationsmæssig formkurve. Den succesfulde opsendelse af
Nexø 2 i august 2018 cementerer CS position som en af de mest avancerede ikke-kommercielle
raketaktører i verden og CS kan på nuværende tidspunkt ikke identificere nogen tekniske
forhindringer for at denne udvikling ikke skulle kunne fortsætte.
CS har fra starten fokuseret på
opsendelser til søs, specifikt af
hensyn til sikkerhed ved opsendelser
af store raketter. Opsendelser til søs
er ikke en let løsning, men har en
betydelig sikkerhedsmæssig fordel.
CS er kendt for at være en af de
eneste organisationer i verden der
har raffineret teknikken
tilstrækkeligt til at foretage en stribe
opsendelser.
CS vil som funktion af opfyldelse af
foreningens formålsparagraf, på sigt,
potentielt kunne udvikle sig fra
frivillig forening til en kommerciel
Dansk virksomhed, med flere flyveklare raketteknologiske produkter (hardware, viden og
ekspertise) i porteføljen, med allerede demonstreret flyvehistorik.
Der er et stadigt stigende marked for udvikling af sonderaketter, til brug ved målinger af forhold i
den øvre del af atmosfæren og til test af udstyr, der skal udvikles til opsendelse i rummet med store
kommercielle raketter fra bl.a. ESA og NASA. CS motorteknologi, styreelektronik og
kommunikationsudstyr kan allerede nu bruges i sådanne forskningsraketter.
CS har dog endnu ikke den fornødne ”kritiske masse” til at kunne overleve overgangen fra frivillig
forening til kommerciel virksomhed. CS er nødt til at raffinere og videreudvikle sin raketteknologi
og ekspertise yderligere, i tråd med opfyldelsen af foreningens formålsparagraf, inden en
kommercialisering kan komme på tale.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
39/42
Den fortsatte mulighed for at bevare, udvikle og realisere en dansk raket- og opsendelsesindustri
beror på fortsatte muligheder for statiske raketmotortests og fortsat adgang til opsendelser af
forsøgsraketter i det egnede maritime øvelsesområde i Østersøen, øst for Bornholm.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
40/42
Copenhagen Suborbitals industrielle partnere
og andre relevante organisationer og
virksomheder:
Copenhagen Suborbitals er en frivillig forening, der siden 2010 uafhængigt har udviklet avanceret
raketteknologi, bygget og opsendt seks raketter fra havet øst for Bornholm. Foreningens
medlemmer tæller omkring halvtreds højt uddannede ingeniører og specialister fra alle dele af det
danske erhvervs- og universitetsliv.
Foreningens oparbejdede teknologiske formåen og kompetencer er fundet betydeligt nok til,
at:
• CS kom ultimo april 2019 til enighed med et Japansk privat/offentligt konsortium (V-Space)
om at påbegynde realitetsforhandlinger omkring design, udvikling, konstruktion og
opsendelse (i 2021 eller 2022) af en ny klasse af raketter, med kapaciteten til at sende en
mindre nyttelast på korte sub-orbitale rumflyvninger.
CS er blevet foretrukket over amerikanske alternativer, på baggrund af CS’ unikke erfaring
med opsendelser til søs, samt dokumenteret ekspertise indenfor billig, ukonventionel og
innovativ udvikling af raketteknologi.
CS har ikke fået tilladelse til at afsløre den konsortiets egentlig ”bagvedliggende aktør”, men
det kan nævnes at det er en Japanske industrimastodont med omkring 30.000 ansatte og årlig
omsætning på dkk 95 mia.
• Launcher Inc. (Startet af
internetmillionær Max Hoat) har købt
konsulenthjælp af CS i forbindelse
udvikling af virksomhedens egen 3D
printede raketmotorteknologi og testfaciliteter.
• Efter et succesfuldt besøg af NASA-veteran John Horack
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/horack/) i oktober 2019 (nu
associate dean and Neil Armstrong Chair ved Ohio State
University) er CS i forhandlinger om hvordan en række af
universitets topstuderende kan sendes til Danmark (på kontrakt),
for at få viden og ekspertise i dansk bi-propellant
raketmotorteknologi.
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
41/42
• Som et udfald af at CS blev inviteret til Paris
Air Show, hvor foreningen fik mulighed for
at udstille sin raketteknologi, så har en
delegation fra ArianeWorks (en
udviklingsafdeling under ArianeGroup og
franske CNES) besøgt CS i november 2019.
ArianeWorks sendte tre senior-ingeniører
med næsten 100 års samlet erfaring indenfor
raket- og raketmotorteknologi til et intensivt to-dages seminar, for at få en dybere forståelse
for det tekniske og operationelle niveau i CS, med henblik på at afdække hvilke
samarbejdsmuligheder der kunne identificeres omkring foreningens raket-teknologi, med
henblik på den nye europæiske strategi, for at sætte turbo på udviklingen af den kommende
generation af billige og genbrugelige europæiske rumraketter. Det første efterfølgende besøg
hos CS er allerede under udarbejdelse, hvor en større delegation har ønsket operationel
træning i raketmotortests, samt at diskutere leverancer af komponenter til testfaciliteter af
raketmotorer fra CS.
• Nanyang Technical University (Singapore) købte
i 2015-2016 et skræddersyet kursus i teoretisk og
praktisk raketmotor-design og udvikling. Mange
universiteter udbyder kurser i teoretisk
raketmotorteknologi, men CS blev udvalgt fordi
CS er de eneste organisation, der tilbyder den
praktiske del, med konstruktion og testaffyring af raketmotorer.
• På baggrund af et samarbejde med CS er det i
2018 og 2019 lykkedes Eivind Lilland at rejse
1.763.744 NOK til hans startup virksomhed
Orbital Machines AS. Orbital Machines vil
udvikle elektriske turbopumper til
raketmotorer, samt validere det resulterende
produkt på CS raketmotorer, som forberedelse
til at gå markedet. CS har en bestyrelsespost i
Orbital Machines og ejer 10% af aktierne.
• Børsen beretter i sommeren 2018, at det er, det
lykkedes den Dansk/Britiske rumfartsvirksomhed
Orbex at sikre sig en investering på over en kvart
milliard kroner i ESA/Horizon 2020 midler, samt
midler fra venture-fonde og den britiske regering.
Børsen bekræfter endvidere at en række ”Nøglefolk
fra Copenhagen Suborbitals” udgør kernen af Orbex
udviklingsafdeling, placeret i Hvidovre8.
8
https://borsen.dk/nyheder/virksomheder/artikel/1/366064/raketeventyr_i_hvidovre_rejser_kvart_mia.html
Teknisk analyse, kommentarer og forslag til godkendelsesmodel, for fortsatte opsendelser af større
danske civile raketter. Copenhagen Suborbitals, 2019, <7>
42/42
• CS er uopfordret blevet inviteret med som deltagere til
Paris Air Show i juni 2019 og tildelt en blok i det
officielle program at tekniske indlæg. CS har takket ja, da
Paris Air Show er verdens største udstillingsvindue for
dansk raketteknologi og ekspertise (frivillig eller
kommerciel).
• CS har gennem den sidste dekade været med til at udklække adskillige kommende
ingeniører ved at agere ”samarbejdsvirksomhed” for studerendes projekter. Dette arbejde
har foreningens frivillige medlemmer påtaget sig, udover deres eksisterende forpligtelser og
virke.
CS samarbejder derudover med Danmarks
Tekniske Universitets ”Student association for
Rocketry” (DanStar), der inspireret af CS har
kastet sig direkte over avancerede
væskeraketter med betydelig succes.
Som et almennyttigt civilt raketprojekt, så ønsker CS ydermere at tilbyde danske studerende
og uddannelsesinstitutioner, fra tekniske gymnasier til universiteter, plads til op til samlet
1500 kilo videnskabelig nyttelast og eksperimenter per flyvning ombord på CS raketter,
uden beregning.


Ministeren
Side 1/1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget
Folketinget
Christiansborg
1240 København K
Til udvalgets orientering fremsendes hermed:
• Kommenteret høringsnotat til lovforslag nr. L 77 om ændring af lov
om aktiviteter i det ydre rum (Midlertidig begrænsning af ikke-statslige
større raketopsendelser og ikke-statslige opsendelser af rumgenstande)
• Høringssvar
Med venlig hilsen
Christina Egelund
28. marts 2023
Uddannelses- og
Forskningsministeriet
Børsgade 4
Postboks 2135
1015 København K
Tel. 3392 9700
ufm@ufm.dk
www.ufm.dk
CVR-nr. 1680 5408
Ref.-nr.
385237
Offentligt
L 77 - Bilag 1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)