Aerospace engineering assignment

Subject : aerospace engineering assignment 2000 words max
please find attached assignment details and template.please read and follow thoroughly the (ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: TASKS AND BASELINE REQUIREMENTS) section and the marking criteria at the bottom of the assignment brief which should guide to the desired mark.The software to be used when needed are (CATIA ), (STARCCM+) and (MATLAB ).please find attached assignment details and template.please read and follow thoroughly the (ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: TASKS AND BASELINE REQUIREMENTS) section and the marking criteria at the bottom of the assignment brief which should guide to the desired mark.The software to be used when needed are (CATIA ), (STARCCM+) and (MATLAB ).

ORBITAL LAUNCHER CONCEPT

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Aerospace engineering assignment
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Your SID Your Name Your Surname Your email

  • CONCEPT

1.1 Rationale

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

1.2 Mission and design features

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

1.3 Advantages and disadvantages

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

1.4 Design schematics

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

2.0 SCRAMJET DESIGN

2.1 Design overview and schematic

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

2.2 Analysis

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

2.3 Performance and plots

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

3.0 ROCKET DESIGN

3.1 Design overview and schematic

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

3.2 Analysis

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

3.3 Performance and plots

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

 

4.0 VEHICLE PERFORMANCE

4.1 Vehicle overview

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

4.2 Weight response

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

4.3 Altitude performance

Click or tap here to enter text.

CONTENT ABOVE INCLUDED IN THE PAGE LIMIT                            Feedback score: score%

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Click or tap here to enter text.

 

APPENDIX 1: Scramjet inlet source code

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

 

APPENDIX 2: Rocket nozzle source code

Click or tap here to enter text.

Feedback score: score%

APPENDIX 3: Additional information

Click or tap here to enter text.

 

 

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
317SE Propulsion systems and aerodynamics
Assignment Brief
Module Title
Propulsion systems and aerodynamics
Individual Cohort (Sept) Module Code
317SE
Coursework Title
Design of a conceptual reusable orbital launch engine prototype
Hand out date:
22/09/2020
Lecturer
Dr H Medina
Due date: 13/11/2020
Time: 18:00:00
Estimated Time (hrs):
Page Limit: 8 pages
Coursework type:
Technical brief
% of Module Mark
40%
Submission arrangement online via Aula:
File types and method of recording:
Mark and Feedback date: 27/11/2020
Feedback method: written feedback and in-class discussion
MODULE LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSED (IN RED)
1. Assess the merits of the wide variety of propulsion systems available and be able to match
systems to particular aircraft demands. e.g. Range, speed, altitude etc.
2. Analyse and predict engine thermodynamics, determining component performance parameters
and overall cycle, thermal and propulsive efficiencies.
3. Evaluate the operation of engine ancillary systems. e.g. Fuel systems, heat exchangers,
lubrication systems, secondary air systems, ram air turbines etc.
4. Determine appropriate wing geometry’s for a given aircraft’s requirements using appropriate
2D and 3D methods.
5. Undertake preliminary propeller design and analysis.
SUBMISSION DETAIL
• The brief should not exceed 8 pages
• Use the template provided (ensure you enter your details correctly in the appropriate fields)
• The minimum figure size is 8×6 cm
• Include your MATLAB code(s) in the appendices 1 and 2. The code should include comments
• Appendix 3 can be used to provide further relevant information (i.e. it is discussed in the main
body)
• All MatLab scripts must be submitted as a .zip file (within a single directory) to allow for
evaluation (if required)
• Use the APA reference style (CUHarvard is allowed but use of APA is encouraged)
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
INTRODUCTION
According to a report in 2018 by the UK Space Agency, the space sector continues to grow at a steady
pace, and it is expected that it will continue this trend for decades to come. The launch into orbit and
operation of satellites is a particularly profitable activity. However, there is a clear demand for reducing
the costs associated with launching cargo into orbit. Traditional launch vehicles have employed rocket
propulsion technologies successfully for decades. Unfortunately, rocket engines are not very efficient
since they must carry all their fuel and oxidant onboard. It can be argued that the efficiency of launch
vehicles could be improved by developing hybrid engine configurations that combine traditional rockets
with air-breathing engines; resulting in a reduction of the take-off mass. In turn, higher engine
efficiencies can be achieved. The purpose of this assignment is to develop and defend a conceptual
reusable orbital launch engine prototype for nanosatellites. This will be achieved by proving the merits
of your design using your knowledge of compressible aerodynamics and by presenting suitable
performance estimates. The design must include a rocket engine and a scramjet.
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS: TASKS AND BASELINE REQUIREMENTS
You will prepare a short, yet complete, technical report to introduce your design and demonstrate its
feasibility. The target audience of your report are engineers representing potential investors.
Therefore, they must be technically satisfied that your design is feasible. The report should be a
“technical sales pitch”, that is, you want to avoid including basic calculations which may distract them
from your “sales pitch” whilst demonstrating that the design is technically sound (i.e. the results are
explained and discussed clearly and within the context of the flow physics, flight mechanics,
performance, etc.). The report will include the following 4 sections and minimum information:
1. Concept
Here you will present your concept, how it operates, and any assumptions and/or additional
requirements you have stipulated. It must also include a clear sketch of your proposed design (not by
hand i.e. CAD drawings or simple schematic using a diagram e.g. Visio or Inkscape). The rationale for
the design should be explained (technically).
Basic design requirements:
• Reusable i.e. single body design with no disposable parts
• Able to take a nanosatellite to orbit with a mass of 10kg
• Must include a scramjet
o As a minimum requirement it must be analysed at an altitude of 10,000 m at Mach 5
• Must include a rocket
o Minimum analysis must be carried out at an altitude of 15,000 m
• Fuel considerations must be included
• Material selection is not required
• CFD analysis is not required (only analytical or semi-empirical analyses are required)
This part will include the following sections:
1.1 Rationale: what requirements drove the design and why? Your argument should be backed up
with the literature.
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
1.2 Mission and design features: how does the proposed design meet its mission? How does it
operate and what are the salient design features? Again, this is an opportunity to include
references to the latest developments found in the literature.
1.3 Advantages and disadvantages: a list of the key advantages and limitations of your design
1.4 Design schematics: a schematic or drawings (not by hand) showing an overview of your design
with basic dimensions and it should include appropriate labels.
2. Scramjet inlet conceptual design
In this section you will present your conceptual design for the scramjet inlet sub-system. The geometry
you have designed, and why. A preliminary inlet flow analysis should be included, along with
performance characteristics. A preliminary analysis of the overall thermodynamic cycle of the engine
should also be included. This is a great opportunity for you to show that you understand the limitations
of your analytical calculations, you understand the flow physics, and you are aware of the latest
scientific publications and how they relate to your design. This section will include the following:
2.1 Design overview and schematic: here you will present your inlet design and schematic/s. You
will describe the design philosophy and key feature/s of your design. You should justify your
design choices/decisions and include appropriate explanations linking to the flow physics,
performance and/or thermodynamics, using the literature to justify your choices.
2.2 Analysis: A description and justification of the analysis performed. Also, make sure to include
references to the literature that were used to drive/inspire your analysis. The minimum
requirement is to analyse the flow through the inlet at a fixed altitude and flight speed to
determine the compression performance of your design. For those of you looking for a
challenge, you can also include an analysis evaluating altitude effects, thermodynamics cycle
and Mach number effects along with a changing geometry design. In your analysis, you should
as a minimum requirement discuss the “starting problem”.
2.3 Performance and plots: The performance presented will depend on the analysis carried out. As
a minimum requirement it is expected that you will present flow conditions along the inlet of
your ramjet. Include plot/s to showcase the analysis/performance of your design. Plots must be
accompanied with a corresponding discussion. Plots included without discussion will not be
considered.
3. Rocket nozzle conceptual design
Here you will showcase your Rocket engine nozzle design. This section should include similar
information to that contained in section 2. That is, a conceptual design for the nozzle, the geometry you
chose and why. A preliminary analysis of the gas dynamics and performance characteristics. A brief
discussion of the thermodynamics should be included.
3.1 Design overview and schematic: see 2.1 above
3.2 Analysis: A description and justification of the analysis performed. Also, make sure to include
references to the literature that were used to drive/inspire your analysis. The minimum
requirement is to analyse the flow through the inlet at a fixed altitude and flight speed to
determine the expansion performance of your design. The minimum design analysis should
provide evidence that there are no shockwaves within the divergent section of the nozzle at a
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
fixed altitude. For a more complete analysis, you may also want to study the configurations
that result in shockwave formation within the divergent part of the nozzle and/or explore
varying nozzle area solutions.
3.3 Performance and plots: The performance presented will depend on the analysis carried out. As
a minimum requirement it is expected that you will present flow conditions along the nozzle.
Include plot/s to showcase the analysis/performance of your design. Plots must be
accompanied with a corresponding discussion. Plots included without discussion will not be
considered.
4. Global performance estimates
In this last section you want to perform an analysis of the “mission” performance. That is, how will your
engine operate and perform at different speeds and altitudes.
4.1 Vehicle overview: This is a short section presenting key information about your design. You
should include key performance metrics and details about the vehicle e.g. weight, fuel, range,
empty weight, maximum payload. No detailed analysis is needed, but the origin of your
estimation should be briefly included in the appendix e.g. if you include a weight estimation,
include a table in the appendix showing the key estimation for the weight of individual
systems/components.
4.2 Weight response: This section will include a preliminary mission analysis to showcase how the
vehicle weight is expected to change during the mission. Ideally the mission will cover take-off
to-orbit. However, depending on your design you may want to start at a given altitude using a
support launch vehicle e.g. an aircraft carrier. Here, you can consider how weight relates to
flight speed. Include plot/s to illustrate the performance.
4.3 Altitude performance: The analysis in this section will be similar to section 4.2. However, the
focus is on showcasing how key performance metrics change with altitude for your choice of
propulsion systems combined e.g. you can look at how the compressing performance of the
scramjet changes with altitude or how the thrust of the nozzle changes with altitude, etc. The
ultimate choice of performance metrics will depend on each individual design. Here, you can
consider how flight speed affects performance. Include plot/s to illustrate the performance.
References
A list of references used to develop your design or justify your design choices. Not included in the page
limit.
Appendix 1: Scramjet inlet code
Include the source code used to carry out your scramjet analysis/design. The code should include
comments. Not included in the page limit.
Appendix 2: Rocket nozzle code
Include the source code used to carry out your rocket analysis/design. The code should include
comments. Not included in the page limit.
Appendix 3: Additional information
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Additional information needed to “complete” your report. The information included here should be
referenced in the main text. That is, results/data should be discussed. Not included in the page limit.
Notes:
1. You are expected to use the Coventry University APA style for referencing. For support and
advice on this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).
2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined
here.
4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops
or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to
save it on the University system.
5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework
through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an
appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will
normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the
weekend period. This will be communicated via your Module Leader.
6. Assignments that are more than 10% over the page limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the
mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction of 6% to 54%. The page limit includes figures and
tables, but excludes the bibliography or reference list.
7. You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on Aula.
8. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by
other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be
reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
9. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class
discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in
you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your
own work.
10. If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version
and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
11. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full),
either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, with the exception of
resits, where for the coursework, you maybe asked to rework and improve a previous attempt.
This requirement will be specifically detailed in your assignment brief or specific course or module
information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e. it has already been published/submitted,
you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently may also be
considered to be self-plagiarism.
General mark allocation guidelines/feedback
0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 80+
Work mainly
incomplete
and /or
Most elements
completed;
weaknesses
Most elements
are strong,
Strengths in all
elements
Most work
exceeds the
All work
substantially
exceeds the
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their
assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any
website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
weaknesses in
most areas
outweigh
strengths
minor
weaknesses
standard
expected
standard
expected
Marking scheme (breakdown)
Element assessed Mark allocation
Concept & sketches (25%)
Rationale 10%
Mission and design features 5%
Advantages and disadvantages 5%
Drawing/schematic 5%
Scramjet inlet conceptual design (30%)
Design overview/schematic 5%
Analysis 10%
Performance and plots 5%
Code 10%
Rocket nozzle conceptual design (30%)
Design overview/schematic 5%
Analysis 10%
Performance and plots 5%
Code 10%
Global performance estimates (15%)
Vehicle overview 5%
Weight performance 5%
Altitude performance 5%
Marking criteria (next page)
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Marking Criteria: Section 1 – Concept
GRADE RATIONALE MISSION & FEATURES ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES SCHEMATIC
≥70
• Exceeds requirements
• Design decisions justified and linked to
literature
• Excellent background literature included
• Mission illustrated in detail and uses technical
argument to justify its feasibility
• Design features discussed critically and links
with literature for justification are excellent
• Extensive literature included
• Most advantages identified and linked to
state-of-the-art
• Most disadvantages identified and linked to
state-of-the-art
• Excellent quality schematic included
• Labels are very informative
60-69
• Meets most requirements
• Some design decisions justified and linked to
literature
• Evidence of background literature included
• Mission illustrated in detail and feasible
• Design features discussed and links with
literature for justification
• Relevant literature included
• Most advantages identified and linked to
technical knowledge/literature
• Most disadvantages identified and linked to
technical knowledge/literature
• Very good quality schematic included
• Labels are informative
50-59
• Meets some requirements
• Some design decisions justified
• Evidence of background literature included
• Mission illustrated and technically sound
• Design features discussed and links with
literature
• Some literature included
• Many advantages identified
• Many disadvantages identified
• Good quality schematic included
• Labels are clear
40-49
• Meets a few requirements
• Design decisions not justified
• Minimal literature included
• Mission illustrated but unfeasible
• Design features discussed but descriptive
• Minimal literature included
• Some advantages identified
• Some disadvantages identified
• Schematic included
• Labels are difficult to assimilate
<40
• Does not meet the requirements
• Design decisions not included
• No literature included
• Mission not illustrated or unfeasible
• No design features discussed
• No literature included
• No advantages identified
• No disadvantages identified
• No schematic included
• Labels are illegible
Late 0 0 0 0
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Marking Criteria: Section 2 – Scramjet inlet design
GRADE DESIGN OVERVIEW & SCHEMATIC ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE & PLOTS CODE
≥70
• Excellent design includes feasibility
considerations and critically invokes the
physics, materials and mission
• Design decisions justified and linked to the
state-of-the-art
• Excellent schematic with informative labels
• Variable design geometry for altitude and
flight speed effects
• Compression performance, inlet drag &
starting problem analysed
• May consider complete engine
thermodynamics and thrust estimates
• Design features discussed critically and links
with literature for justification are excellent
• Performance metrics are discussed fully and
include implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are extensively discussed
• Plot quality is excellent (with consistent
format)
• Code is excellent, efficient and fully reusable
• Extensive comments are included alongside
usage notes
60-69
• Very good design includes some feasibility
considerations and invokes the physics,
materials and mission at times
• Most design decisions justified and linked to
the literature
• Very good schematic with informative labels
• Single design geometry may consider some
altitude and/or flight speed effects
• Compression performance, inlet drag or
starting problem analysed
• May consider some thermodynamics or thrust
estimates
• Design features discussed and some links
with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are discussed and
include some implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are discussed
• Plot quality is very good (with consistent
format)
• Code is very good, effective and mostly
reusable
• Very good comments are included alongside
some usage notes
50-59
• Good design includes limited feasibility
considerations and invokes the physics,
materials and mission few times
• Some design decisions justified but limited
consideration of the literature
• Good schematic with missing labels
• Single design geometry mentions altitude
effects
• Compression performance
• Does not consider thermodynamics
• Design features described and limited links
with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are described and
include limited implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are described with limited
discussion
• Plot quality is good
• Code is good, generally effective but many
elements are not reusable (hard-coded)
• Good comments are included may include
some usage notes
40-49
• Design includes little evidence of feasibility
considerations and does not invoke the
physics, materials and mission
• Limited design decisions justified but no
consideration of the literature
• Poor schematic with missing labels
• Single design geometry no consideration for
altitude effects
• Compression performance but accuracy of
solution may be questionable
• Does not consider thermodynamics
• Design features described and minimal or no
links with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are described and does
not include implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included may not described and without
limited discussion
• Plot quality is poor
• Code is working with deficiencies, but many
elements may/are not reusable (hard-coded)
• Comments are minimal
<40
• No obvious design solution
• No design decisions justified or consideration
of the literature
• No or illegible schematic
• No analysis evident
• No performance metric/s identified
• No literature included
• Performance metrics are not included
• Plots may be included but not described or
irrelevant to the task
• Plot quality is poor or irrelevant
• Code not working or meeting requirements
• No comments
Late 0 0 0 0
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Marking Criteria: Section 3 – Nozzle design
GRADE DESIGN OVERVIEW & SCHEMATIC ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE & PLOTS CODE
≥70
• Excellent design includes feasibility
considerations and critically invokes the
physics, materials and mission
• Design decisions justified and linked to the
state-of-the-art
• Excellent schematic with informative labels
• Variable design geometry for altitude effects
• Expansion performance, variable exit area &
shockwave location vs back pressure is
analysed
• May consider complete engine
thermodynamics with thrust estimates
• Design features discussed critically and links
with literature for justification are excellent
• Performance metrics are discussed fully and
include implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are extensively discussed
• Plot quality is excellent (with consistent
format)
• Code is excellent, efficient and fully reusable
• Extensive comments are included alongside
usage notes
60-69
• Very good design includes some feasibility
considerations and invokes the physics,
materials and mission at times
• Most design decisions justified and linked to
the literature
• Very good schematic with informative labels
• Single design geometry may consider some
altitude effects
• Expansion performance, variable exit area or
shockwave location is analysed
• May consider some thermodynamics with
thrust estimates
• Design features discussed and some links
with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are discussed and
include some implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are discussed
• Plot quality is very good (with consistent
format)
• Code is very good, effective and mostly
reusable
• Very good comments are included alongside
some usage notes
50-59
• Good design includes limited feasibility
considerations and invokes the physics,
materials and mission few times
• Some design decisions justified but limited
consideration of the literature
• Good schematic with missing labels
• Single design geometry mentions altitude
effects
• Expansion performance
• Does not consider thermodynamics
• Design features described and limited links
with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are described and
include limited implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included are described with limited
discussion
• Plot quality is good
• Code is good, generally effective but many
elements are not reusable (hard-coded)
• Good comments are included may include
some usage notes
40-49
• Design includes little evidence of feasibility
considerations and does not invoke the
physics, materials and mission
• Limited design decisions justified but no
consideration of the literature
• Poor schematic with missing labels
• Single design geometry no consideration for
altitude effects
• Expansion performance but accuracy of
solution may be questionable
• Does not consider thermodynamics
• Design features described and minimal or no
links with literature for justification
• Performance metrics are described and does
not include implications (cost, technical,
feasibility, operational, etc.)
• Plots included may not described and without
limited discussion
• Plot quality is poor
• Code is working with deficiencies, but many
elements may/are not reusable (hard-coded)
• Comments are minimal
<40
• No obvious design solution
• No design decisions justified or consideration
of the literature
• No or illegible schematic
• No analysis evident
• No performance metric/s identified
• No literature included
• Performance metrics are not included
• Plots may be included but not described or
irrelevant to the task
• Plot quality is poor or irrelevant
• Code not working or meeting requirements
• No comments
Late 0 0 0 0
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third
parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Marking Criteria: Section 4 – Global performance
GRADE VEHICLE OVERVIEW WEIGHT PERFORMANCE ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE
≥70
• Excellent vehicle information presented,
including weight, fuel, materials and
aerodynamics (yet succinctly presented)
• Excellent links to the design, mission or
requirements with references to literature
• Excellent supporting data in appendix
• Excellent vehicle weight analysis presented
with consideration to fuel burnt in-mission,
altitude effects and include combined engine
“switching”
• Plots presented are excellent and relevant
(with consistent format)
• Excellent vehicle altitude analysis presented
with consideration to how altitude affects
performance and includes solid mitigation
strategies e.g. varying exit nozzle area or
adapting inlet geometry
• Plots presented are excellent and relevant
(with consistent format)
60-69
• Most vehicle information presented, including
weight, fuel & materials
• Very good links to the design, mission or
requirements with references to literature
• Very good supporting data in appendix
• Very good vehicle weight analysis presented
with consideration to fuel burnt in-mission and
altitude effects
• Plots presented are very clear and relevant
(with consistent format)
• Very good vehicle altitude analysis presented
with consideration to how altitude affects
performance and includes basic mitigation
• Plots presented are very clear and relevant
(with consistent format)
50-59
• Some vehicle information presented,
including weight and fuel
• Good/some links to the design, mission or
requirements
• Some supporting data in appendix
• Good vehicle weight analysis presented
attempted a consideration to fuel burnt inmission
• Plots presented may not be clear or relevant
• Good vehicle altitude analysis presented
attempted a consideration to how altitude
affects performance
• Plots presented may not be clear or relevant
40-49
• Minimal vehicle information presented,
including basic weight
• Unclear links to the design, mission or
requirements
• Unclear supporting data in appendix
• Basic vehicle weight analysis presented
without consideration to fuel burnt in-mission
• Plots presented are not clear or relevant
• Basic vehicle altitude analysis presented
without consideration to how altitude affects
performance
• Plots presented are not clear or relevant
<40
• No vehicle data presented
• No relevance to design
• No supporting data in appendix
• No vehicle weight analysis presented
• No plots presented
• No vehicle altitude analysis presented
• No plots presented
Late 0 0 0

Get professional assignment help cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.

Why choose our academic writing service?

  • Plagiarism free papers
  • Timely delivery
  • Any deadline
  • Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
  • Subject-relevant academic writer
  • Adherence to paper instructions
  • Ability to tackle bulk assignments
  • Reasonable prices
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Get superb grades consistently

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.

Read more

Free-revision policy

The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.

Read more

Privacy policy

The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Open chat
1
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via +1 817 953 0426

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code VICTORY