Abstract
Technical Project
My technical project involved building a dragonfly unmanned aerial system (UAS) with a team of 15. The problem with quadcopters is that, while they are excellent at hovering, they struggle to maneuver in tight spaces. Alternatively, fixed-wing vehicles cannot hover at all, representing a major aerodynamic tradeoff. Dragonflies solve this through four independently actuated wings and differential flapping kinematics, achieving lift-to-weight ratios exceeding 230% while maintaining impressive maneuverability and directional thrust control. This biological inspiration motivated our micro aerial vehicle (MAV), which has four independently actuated wings, brushed DC motors, PWM control, and a control system with Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC) for flight stabilization. Our work throughout the year was guided by our main technical objectives: to design, build, and operate a UAS that mimics biological quad-winged flight, establish stable flight dynamics that enable specific aerial maneuvers such as ascent/descent and forward flight, and provide a proof of concept of four independently actuated wings. These requirements had to be accomplished within our mission constraints of keeping expenses under $3000, conducting simulations prior to experimental testing, and maintaining a total weight of less than 250 g. We had three subteams in the fall: aerodynamics, avionics, and structures. Aerodynamics worked to analyze different wing shapes and sizes with CFD to find what size and AOA were most effective at producing lift. Avionics focused on electronics, and structures focused on designing the body and flapping mechanism. In the spring, we transitioned into three different subteams: integration, controls, and mechanical. Integration worked to wire all electronics and integrate them into the body along with RF communication. Controls worked on the software to control the dragonfly, and mechanical worked on iterating on parts and wing manufacturing to find a reliable and reproducible method. The current status of our project is a successful proof of concept for four independently actuated wings. Stable hover and forward flight are the primary objectives that will be pursued next year with a new team using the work we have already done.
STS Paper
Supersonic commercial aviation died with the Concorde in 2003. Why hasn’t it come back despite massive technological advances? My paper explores the dynamics of the commercial aviation industry to show how institutional inertia and legacy regulation play a major role in determining what type of aircraft we fly on, not just engineering capability. I introduce the 1973 supersonic overland flight ban and how it contributed to the downfall of the Concorde, along with environmental, noise, safety, and economic concerns. I used two frameworks to drive my analysis: Hughes’s Technological Momentum and Winner’s Politics of Artifacts. Together, these frameworks help explain how complex systems acquire mass and resist change as they become more developed, and how technology is never neutral; it embeds power. I present extensive data in my paper, including a case study on the Concorde and NASA’s X-59, past and present policy changes, autoethnographic data from my internship with Rolls-Royce, and insight from former X-59 project manager and UVA professor Craig Nickol. My goal is to show the effort required to get these projects off the ground and provide context on the sonic boom signature these jets produce, as well as how NASA is trying to redefine what is publicly acceptable based on Executive Order 14304 and the Supersonic Aviation Modernization (SAM) Act, which aim to shift governance from speed-based to noise-based standards. Additionally, I address why turbofans are currently so successful and where the market is projected to go in the future. In regard to sustainability, I examine the projected environmental impact of supersonic travel and how it might be integrated into the current landscape, where sustainable aviation fuel is becoming a priority. I argue that supersonic aviation will emerge as a niche premium market, not a mass-market replacement. Since the technology is already available, it is critical that regulatory institutions act as system architects, not just gatekeepers.
Connection
While my technical project and STS paper are different, there is a parallel between NASA’s resourcefulness philosophy and my team’s approach. NASA’s X-59 aimed to reduce risk and focus on its main goal: proving that supersonic flight can have a quieter sonic boom than what was traditionally understood. To maximize resources for this mission, the team reused an F-16 undercarriage, a T-38 canopy, and an F-117 control stick to avoid unnecessary hurdles. This approach was similar to the construction of our MAV, which builds on Purdue’s open-source flapping simulator and repurposes off-the-shelf motors and encoders. Additionally, both operate at the edge of what is standard, pushing for advancements in new areas. In both cases, the proof of concept unlocks a prerequisite for a shift, though the nature of that shift differs. In the case of the X-59, it is commercial supersonic air travel, and for our MAV, it is increased mission capability that opens new doors for reconnaissance.
Notes
School of Engineering and Applied Science
Bachelor of Science in Aerospace
Technical Advisor: Haibo Dong
STS Advisor: Joshua Earle
Technical Team Members: Lily Byers, Kathryn Geoffroy, Theodore LengKong, Jafar Mansoor, Justin Matara, Owen McKenney, Andrew Mercer, Carter Nickola, Jeremiah Nubbe, Nicholas Owen, Mark Piatko, Luis Ramos-Garcia, Matthew Sendi, George Zach
