Payload design
Type
Team project
Year
2026
My job was to make the 3D model and technical drawings of a rocket payload for the TEKNOFEST competition while sticking to the specifications.
After several attempts, I concluded that in order to design it, I had to keep in mind the following conditions: weight over 4 kg, hollow on the inside for the electronic components, fixed height and diameter to fit inside the rocket, solid protection for the internal components, a parachute attachment eyebolt, and of course, keeping in mind the ability to be produced with the available machines.
The following content will explain why I made such decisions in the design and the results.
My job was to make the 3D model and technical drawings of a rocket payload for the TEKNOFEST competition while sticking to the specifications.
After several attempts, I concluded that in order to design it, I had to keep in mind the following conditions: weight over 4 kg, hollow on the inside for the electronic components, fixed height and diameter to fit inside the rocket, solid protection for the internal components, a parachute attachment eyebolt, and of course, keeping in mind the ability to be produced with the available machines.
The following content will explain why I made such decisions in the design and the results.
My job was to make the 3D model and technical drawings of a rocket payload for the TEKNOFEST competition while sticking to the specifications.
After several attempts, I concluded that in order to design it, I had to keep in mind the following conditions: weight over 4 kg, hollow on the inside for the electronic components, fixed height and diameter to fit inside the rocket, solid protection for the internal components, a parachute attachment eyebolt, and of course, keeping in mind the ability to be produced with the available machines.
The following content will explain why I made such decisions in the design and the results.
My job was to make the 3D model and technical drawings of a rocket payload for the TEKNOFEST competition while sticking to the specifications.
After several attempts, I concluded that in order to design it, I had to keep in mind the following conditions: weight over 4 kg, hollow on the inside for the electronic components, fixed height and diameter to fit inside the rocket, solid protection for the internal components, a parachute attachment eyebolt, and of course, keeping in mind the ability to be produced with the available machines.
The following content will explain why I made such decisions in the design and the results.
The process to the final Design
The process to the final Design
The process to the final Design
Version 1: The interior diameter inside the rocket was 125mm, and at first, I thought it was better to cut the sides to let the parachute shock cord slide through. The problem was that to eject the payload, we used two Hot Gas Generators (HGGs) that operate under pressure. If the sides remained open, deployment would fail; because the payload sits under the nose cone's shoulder, that pressure would escape toward the nose cone instead. Since we needed both to deploy successfully, we had to fully seal the sides, which led directly to the second model.
Version 2: With the second model, I ran into an issue with internal clearance. My teammates in charge of electronics informed me that the available space wasn't sufficient. I was faced with two options: redesign the entire rocket along with the whole design and simulation workflow, or come up with an alternative solution. That dilemma sparked the concept for the third version.
Version 3: Combining the best elements of the first and second versions, I sealed both sides while optimizing weight distribution. I added internal structural supports to house the electronics securely and ensure they remain safe upon ground impact.
Version 1: The interior diameter inside the rocket was 125mm, and at first, I thought it was better to cut the sides to let the parachute shock cord slide through. The problem was that to eject the payload, we used two Hot Gas Generators (HGGs) that operate under pressure. If the sides remained open, deployment would fail; because the payload sits under the nose cone's shoulder, that pressure would escape toward the nose cone instead. Since we needed both to deploy successfully, we had to fully seal the sides, which led directly to the second model.
Version 2: With the second model, I ran into an issue with internal clearance. My teammates in charge of electronics informed me that the available space wasn't sufficient. I was faced with two options: redesign the entire rocket along with the whole design and simulation workflow, or come up with an alternative solution. That dilemma sparked the concept for the third version.
Version 3: Combining the best elements of the first and second versions, I sealed both sides while optimizing weight distribution. I added internal structural supports to house the electronics securely and ensure they remain safe upon ground impact.
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
Small details but essentiel
Small details but essentiel
Small details but essentiel
Structural Fastening & Standoffs (figure1):
To simplify payload assembly under launch-day time constraints, I recognized that threading individual nuts onto long threaded rods to hold the internal plates—as done in the initial concept—would be too time-consuming. I replaced them with 12 aluminum standoff tubes with 7mm internal diameter. These tubes act as fixed spacers, making assembly significantly faster while utilizing readily available stock material. Additionally, securing every intermediate plate with nuts and split-ring lock washers to resist launch vibrations would have added unnecessary cost, weight, and assembly complexity. Using a single set of fasteners secured at the top and bottom plates proved to be both the simplest and safest approach.
Interface & Deployment Attachments(figure3):
The payload required a parachute eyebolt attachment point as well as a handle for inserting and retrieving the module from the rocket airframe. The bottom surface will face the pressure generated by the HGGs charge during deployment.
Enclosure & Shell Mounting(figure2):
A small groove (recessed step) cut to the plate thickness was added to the outer rim to seat the side cover flush. One curved aluminum cover plate was designed to fasten directly into the internal frame via counter-sunk screws. This flush-mount design prevents the cover from extending beyond the outer footprint, maintaining uniform clearance inside the rocket tube. One side cover remains easily removable, allowing quick access to configure and power on the electronics prior to launch.
Structural Fastening & Standoffs (first figure): To simplify payload assembly under launch-day time constraints, I recognized that threading individual nuts onto long threaded rods to hold the internal plates—as done in the initial concept—would be too time-consuming. I replaced them with 12 aluminum standoff tubes with 7mm internal diameter. These tubes act as fixed spacers, making assembly significantly faster while utilizing readily available stock material. Additionally, securing every intermediate plate with nuts and split-ring lock washers to resist launch vibrations would have added unnecessary cost, weight, and assembly complexity. Using a single set of fasteners secured at the top and bottom plates proved to be both the simplest and safest approach.
Interface & Deployment Attachments(third figure): The payload required a parachute eyebolt attachment point as well as a handle for inserting and retrieving the module from the rocket airframe. The bottom surface will face the pressure generated by the HGGs charge during deployment.
Enclosure & Shell Mounting(second figure): A small groove (recessed step) cut to the plate thickness was added to the outer rim to seat the side cover flush. One curved aluminum cover plate was designed to fasten directly into the internal frame via counter-sunk screws. This flush-mount design prevents the cover from extending beyond the outer footprint, maintaining uniform clearance inside the rocket tube. One side cover remains easily removable, allowing quick access to configure and power on the electronics prior to launch.
figure 1
figure 2
figure 3
More Projects
More Projects
The process to the final Design
Version 1: The interior diameter inside the rocket was 125mm, and at first, I thought it was better to cut the sides to let the parachute shock cord slide through. The problem was that to eject the payload, we used two Hot Gas Generators (HGGs) that operate under pressure. If the sides remained open, deployment would fail; because the payload sits under the nose cone's shoulder, that pressure would escape toward the nose cone instead. Since we needed both to deploy successfully, we had to fully seal the sides, which led directly to the second model.
Version 2: With the second model, I ran into an issue with internal clearance. My teammates in charge of electronics informed me that the available space wasn't sufficient. I was faced with two options: redesign the entire rocket along with the whole design and simulation workflow, or come up with an alternative solution. That dilemma sparked the concept for the third version.
Version 3: Combining the best elements of the first and second versions, I sealed both sides while optimizing weight distribution. I added internal structural supports to house the electronics securely and ensure they remain safe upon ground impact.
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
Small details but essentiel
Structural Fastening & Standoffs (figure1):
To simplify payload assembly under launch-day time constraints, I recognized that threading individual nuts onto long threaded rods to hold the internal plates—as done in the initial concept—would be too time-consuming. I replaced them with 12 aluminum standoff tubes with 7mm internal diameter. These tubes act as fixed spacers, making assembly significantly faster while utilizing readily available stock material. Additionally, securing every intermediate plate with nuts and split-ring lock washers to resist launch vibrations would have added unnecessary cost, weight, and assembly complexity. Using a single set of fasteners secured at the top and bottom plates proved to be both the simplest and safest approach.
Interface & Deployment Attachments(figure3):
The payload required a parachute eyebolt attachment point as well as a handle for inserting and retrieving the module from the rocket airframe. The bottom surface will face the pressure generated by the HGGs charge during deployment.
Enclosure & Shell Mounting(figure2):
A small groove (recessed step) cut to the plate thickness was added to the outer rim to seat the side cover flush. One curved aluminum cover plate was designed to fasten directly into the internal frame via counter-sunk screws. This flush-mount design prevents the cover from extending beyond the outer footprint, maintaining uniform clearance inside the rocket tube. One side cover remains easily removable, allowing quick access to configure and power on the electronics prior to launch.
figure 1
figure 2
figure 3
