NASA USLI 2020 Preliminary Design Review Presentation University of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NASA USLI 2020 Preliminary Design Review Presentation University of Alabama in Huntsville November 12th, 2019

1

2019-2020 CRW Team

2

Social Media & Outreach

Will Snyder

Payload Safety Deputy

Claudia Hyder

Vehicle Safety Deputy

Maggie Hockensmith

Safety Officer

Jessy McIntosh

Payload Lead

James Venters

Vehicle Lead

Peter Martin

Chief Engineer

Josh Jordan

Project Engineer

Nick Roman

Faculty Advisor

Bao Ha

Faculty Advisor

David Lineberry

Mentor

Jason Winningham

Introduction - Nick Roman

2019-2020 CRW Team

3

Team Detail

• 20 Students participating as part of UAH Senior Rocket Design Course
• 1 Mentor
• 1 Instructor
• 8 Mechanical Engineers
• 12 Aerospace Engineers
• 3 Students with prior rocketry experience through NAR Level Certifications

Introduction - Nick Roman

Presentation Agenda

Introduction - Nick Roman

• Introduction - Team Introduction, Mission Statement, &

Mission Objectives

• Vehicle - Upper Airframe, Lower Airframe, Recovery

System, Mission Performance and Flight Trajectory, Subscale Rocket

• Payload - Chassis, Powertrain, Sample Recovery, Mass

Budget, Deployment, Electronics, Test Plans

• Safety - Safety Officer, Safety Deputies, Analysis Matrix,

Risk Assessment

• Management - Schedule, Budget, Outreach, &

Requirements Validation

• Questions

4

Mission Statement

To give students an opportunity to gain experience with high-powered rocketry via the year-long system life cycle and share the knowledge gained with NASA and those in our communities through outreach programs.

5 Introduction - Nick Roman

Mission Objectives

This project consists of a series of objectives UAH will complete according to NASA requirements and derived requirements.

• Design and manufacture a vehicle that will deliver the

payload to and altitude of 4500 feet above ground level

• Test various aspects of the vehicle and payload to ensure

functionality

• Launch subscale and full-scale rockets prior to competition

date

• Complete payload mission on competition day according to

NASA requirements

6 Introduction - Nick Roman

7

Vehicle

Lead: Peter Martin Safety Deputy: Maggie Hockensmith

Vehicle Team Introduction

8 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Vehicle Lead

Peter Martin

Simulations Roman Benetti Recovery

Jeremy Hart

Motor Retention

Jacob Zilke

Electronics

Ben Lucke

Fin Design

Rachel O’Kraski

Material

Rodney Luke

Top-Level Requirements

• Vehicle shall reach an

apogee of 4500 ft within ± 250 ft

• Launch Vehicle will

accelerate to a minimum velocity of 52 ft/s off the rail

• Each independent section of

the launch vehicle will have a maximum kinetic energy

• f 75 lb-ft at landing

Status

• Trade studies conducted
• Preliminary designs for recovery, tracking, avionics, motor retention, fins, body

tubes, and motor

• Preliminary test plan outlined
• Requires further analysis

Vehicle Characteristics

9 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 1

Vehicle Characteristics Cont.

10 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 2

Launch Vehicle Concept of Operations

11

Con-Ops Diagram

Vehicle - Peter Martin

Main Parachute

Upper Airframe Overview

Overview

• 24 in 4:1 Ogive nose cone
• 55 in upper airframe body tube length for configuration 1
• Major inner diameter of 6 in
• Houses payload bay and main parachute (configuration 1)
• Tracker housed in nose cone
• Forward rail button located 66.5 in from tip of nose cone
• Configuration 1 diagram shown below

12 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 1 Upper Airframe Diagram Tracker Payload Avionics Rail Button 6in Shoulder

Upper Airframe Overview Cont.

Overview

• 35 in upper airframe body tube length for configuration 2
• Houses payload bay only
• Tracker housed in nose cone
• Configuration 2 diagram shown below

13 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 2 Upper Airframe Diagram Tracker Payload 6in Shoulder

Lower Airframe Overview

Overview

• 40 in lower airframe length
• Major inner diameter of 6 in
• Houses drogue, avionics, and propulsion system
• 4 fins mounted with individual brackets
• Aft motor retention with thrust plate
• Configuration 1 diagram shown below

14 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 1 Lower Airframe Diagram Avionics Drogue Parachute Motor Case Rail Button Motor

Lower Airframe Overview Cont.

Overview

• 60 in lower airframe length
• Houses main parachute, drouge, avionics, and propulsion system
• Forward rail button located 67 in from tip of nose cone
• Configuration 2 diagram shown below

15 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Configuration 2 Lower Airframe Diagram Drogue Parachute Main Parachute Avionics Motor Case Rail Button Motor

Motor Retention

Design

• Threaded retention ring
• Screws into thrust plate
• Purchased from Apogee rockets
• Reloadable motor case

Load Path

• Boost
• Motor Case
• Thrust plate
• Body tube
• Coast
• Retention cap holds motor

Alternatives Considered

• Forward retention
• Snap ring
• Retention plate

16 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Motor Retention Assembly

Retention Ring Cap Threaded Retention Ring Thrust Plate

Fins

• Material G-10 fiberglass sheet
• Fabricate in house
• Fixed to bracket with 4 bolts or screws

(each) and 4 nuts (each)

• 4 trapezoidal fins
• Shape determined by OpenRocket

Brackets

• Contain 4 brackets
• Full Scale: Connect to the body tube

using 8 bolts or screws (each) and 8 nuts (each)

• Subscale: Connect to the body tube

using epoxy

• Fabricated in house using ABS plastic

Alternative Considered

• Fin Can Design

Fin Assembly Design

17 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Fin Assembly

Recovery Overview

Recovery is in the process of determining the exact method to be used for the full-scale rocket

• Trade study done between a traditional recovery system or a system implementing

a tender descender

• Trade study done between the payload having its own parachute for deployment or

being attached to the main parachute of the rocket

18

Parachute Tender Descender

Vehicle - Jeremy Hart

Recovery Comparison

19

Commonalities

• Drogue
• Deploys at apogee
• Fruity Chutes CFC-24 (CD = 1.5)
• Recovery Harness: Tubular Nylon
• Main
• Deploys at 600 feet above ground level
• Fruity Chutes IFC-84 (CD = 2.2) if payload has own chute
• Fruity Chutes IFC-96 (CD = 2.2) if payload connected to

main

• Recovery Harness: Tubular Nylon

Primary Differences

• Tender Descender
• Drogue connected to the tender descender and upper airframe
• Main connected to the tender descender and lower airframe
• Traditional
• Drogue connected to the lower airframe
• Main connected to the upper airframe

Vehicle - Jeremy Hart

Tender-Descender Traditional

Drift and KE Calculations

Body Section Mass (lbm) Kinetic Energy at Touch Down (ft-lbf) Upper Airframe 12.29 31 Lower Airframe 17.48 44 Payload 8.4 45

Kinetic Energy Analysis

• Estimated mass; calculations will be more accurate as mass is refined later.
• Lower Airframe hits ground first, reducing effective weight for succeeding sections
• Terminal velocity of vehicle is 12.77 ft/s and 19.3 ft/s for payload

Vehicle - Jeremy Hart 20

Drift Analysis

• Assumptions
• Apogee is over launch rail
• Horizontal wind speed is

constant and unidirectional

• Max drift with 20 MPH wind is

2134 feet

Tracking

Tracking

• CRW-developed XBee-Pro S3B with Antenova GPS
• Transmission distance up to 6 miles using free program called X-TCU
• Powered by CR123 3V Lithium Ion Battery
• Housed in nose cone, operates independently of main avionics
• Transmission frequency between 902 and 928 MHz

Vehicle - Jeremy Hart 21

XBee-Pro S3B Tracker Tracker with Antenna

Avionics Mounting Assembly

Avionics

• Eye bolt on forward and aft bulkhead for chute shock cords
• 4x switch/port holes - SPST key switch for arming/disarming

altimeters

• 2 Stratologger CF altimeters with discrete

power supplies

• 8x circuit barrier strips for quick starter connection to Stratologger CF

altimeters

• 4x PVC wells for redundancy in chute deployment - redundant charge

115% size of original charge

Vehicle - Jeremy Hart 22

Avionics Housing Avionics Housing Key Switch

Selected Motor

Aerotech 1420R Hardware RMS-75/5120 Single-Use/Reload/Hybrid Reloadable Total Impulse (lbf*s)/(N*s) 1035/4603 Propellant Weight (lbm) 5.64 Loaded Weight (lbm) 12.30 Weight After Burnout (lbm) 6.66 Maximum Thrust (lbf) 408 Average Thrust (lbf) 319 Burn Time (s) 3.2

Vehicle - Peter Martin 23

Flight Profile

Profile

• Maximum Speed: 553 ft/s
• Maximum Acceleration: 208 ft/s2,

6.46 g’s

• Apogee: 4427 ft
• Time to Apogee: 17.3 s

Vehicle - Peter Martin 24

Stability

• Static margin of 2.13 off the rail
• Calculated using average weather

and launch day conditions

• Average wind speeds of 5-6

MPH

• Rail length 12 feet
• Values will change as the rocket

mass estimates become better

Subscale Overview

• Producing two subscale rockets allowing all team members to participate and gain

experience

• Intended to replicate the full scale rocket’s drag, CG, and CP
• Targeting November 9th launch date

25 Vehicle - Peter Martin

Vehicle Test Plan

26

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Full and Sub Scale Recovery System Deployment Test Verify the black powder charges reliably fire and are powerful enough to deploy the parachutes Pack the rocket as it be for flight and manually detonate the separation charges The black powder charges will successfully separate the vehicle and eject the parachutes Tracking Test Verify that the tracker is functioning and determine the usable range With the tracker in the nose cone, continually move further from the transmitter until the signal is lost The tracker accurately relays the rockets position and has a useable range of over 2,500 ft Bulkhead Strength Test Verify the bulkheads connected to the recovery harness are strong enough to withstand the required forces Determine the highest force that will be experienced and replicate the force using weights The bulkheads will remain firmly mounted in the vehicle and have sustained minimal damage Avionics Standby Test Verify that the avionics will be capable of remaining on the launch pad for over two hours without draining their batteries Power on the altimeters with new batteries and record the time needed to deplete the batteries The altimeters will still be functional after two hours of standby Vehicle - Peter Martin

Vehicle Test Plan

27

Test Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome

Subscale Test Flight Collect flight data and verify the accuracy of simulations Launch and recover subscale launch vehicle and compare flight data to simulation profiles The flight profile of the actual subscale rocket will closely match the profile created by simulations Full Scale Demonstration Flight Verify that the vehicle is fully

• perational and reliable before

loading in the payload Launch and recover the complete launch vehicle with a simulated mass in place of the payload The full-scale rocket will perform as designed, be recovered with minimal damage, and be able to be reused with the actual payload Full Scale Payload Demonstration Flight Verify that the entire system works as designed Launch and recover the vehicle and payload as it will operate on competition day All systems will operate successfully, the vehicle and payload are recovered with minimal damage, and they are able to be reused Fin Assembly Strength Test Verify that the fins and fin brackets are strong enough to withstand the forces experienced during flight Determine the highest load the fin assembly will experience during flight and replicate it using weights The fins and fin brackets will have sustained minimal damage and remain securely attached to the body of the rocket

Electronic Interference Verify the altimeters perform correctly and do not exhibit any signs of electrical interference While mounted in the avionics bay, subject the altimeters to an RF source and monitor the

• utput signals

The altimeters will be sufficiently shielded from interference by the avionics bay and operate as intended

Vehicle - Peter Martin

Payload

Lead: James Venters Safety Deputy: Claudia Hyder

28

Payload Team Introduction

Payload Lead

James Venters

Vehicle Sample Collection

Kevin Caruso

Retention/ Deployment

Jake Moseley

Electronics

Thomas Salverson

Chassis

Johnathon Jacobs

Powertrain

Joseph Agnew

Top-Level Requirements

• Must traverse

muddy/difficult terrain

• Battery power sufficient for

2 hours pad time and 40 minutes travel time

• Withstand 75 lb*ft

maximum landing energy

• Capable of collecting 20 ml

minimum sample size Status

• Alternatives selected for analysis
• Trade studies conducted
• Preliminary designs for sample collection, rover, and retention/deployment outlined
• Preliminary test plan outlined
• Preliminary testing performed on specific components
• Further analysis to be done on payload retention, track tensioning, and deployment

tactics

Payload - James Venters

Rover Trade Study Selection

30

Payload Rover

Battery Drive Motors Servos Power Module GPS + Compass Computer Transceiver Motor Controller RC Receiver RC Transmitter

Deployment

In development Final selection Tracks Hemispherical Bumpers Chassis Material Sample Collection Linear Rail System Linear Sleeve Bearing Body Tube Mount Linear Rail/Bumper Interface Body Tube Mount Jig Body Tube Axis Retention

Payload - James Venters

Payload Powertrain

Payload - James Venters 31

Four-Wheeled Two-Tracked Six-Wheeled Four-Tracked

Payload Powertrain

Payload - James Venters 32

Wheeled Design Overview

• Pros
• Good speed
• Low maintenance
• Low cost
• Low weight
• Cons
• Poor multi-terrain performance
• Additional motors or more

complicated drive system Tracked Design Overview

• Pros
• Good relative ground pressure
• More simple powertrain system
• Good multi-terrain performance
• Cons
• High power consumption
• More complex

2-Tracked Design Overview

• Pros
• Higher relative ground pressure
• Lower power draw
• More durable
• Simple symmetric implementation
• Cons
• Complex suspension (if used)

4-Tracked Design Overview

• Pros
• Easier to implement in traditional

wheel-style drivetrain

• Simpler suspension options
• Cons
• High power consumption
• More costly
• More complex

Payload Powertrain

33

Track Design Down-selection

Clockwise from top: M60 tank, construction vehicle straight style tracks, Mark V tank [selected]

Payload - James Venters

Payload Powertrain

Payload - James Venters 34

Parallelogram-shape tracks

• Allows for equal performance in upright and flipped orientations
• Acute leading edge increases obstacle traversing capability
• Good ground pressure adds to off-road ability
• Provides room within tracks for additional component volume

Implementation

• Dual-motors, one to a side, 200 RPM and 290 oz*in torque
• Single drive sprocket to each side
• Right-angle gearbox to transfer power from motors to drive sprockets
• Idler/’bogie’ wheels to improve ground pressure and keep tracks aligned
• Cover plate to stiffen drive system and protect interior components

Design Model: Mark V Tank

Sample Collection

Enclosed Auger

• Pros
• Recovering Ice Below the

Surface

• Cons
• High Cost
• High Weight
• Complex Design
• Low Reliability
• Recovering Ice Above the

Surface Scoop Mechanism

• Pros
• Low Cost
• Low Weight
• Simple Design
• High Reliability
• Recovering Ice Above the

Surface

• Cons
• Recovering Ice Below the

Surface Requirement: The payload must recover and secure 10 ml of simulated lunar ice. Leading Design Option - Scoop Mechanism: The scoop design will be overall cheaper, lighter, simpler, and more reliable to complete the mission successfully.

Auger Design Scoop Design

Payload - Jake Moseley

Chassis

36 Payload - Jake Moseley

ABS Plastic

• Pros

⁻ Lightweight ⁻ Easier to manufacture complex parts

• Cons

⁻ Less Rigid Aluminum

• Pros

⁻ Rigid

• Cons

⁻ Heavy ⁻ Harder to manufacture complex parts Combination of both materials

• Can 3D print complex and

nonstructural parts

• Use aluminum for structural and

simple parts Gear Box Chassis Cover Chassis Plate

Chassis Diagram

Mass Budget

37

Rover and Deployment Components Mass (lbs) Electrical Components 1.6 Motors 0.8 Rover Chassis and Side Plates 2.3 Tracks, Pulleys, and Gear Box 2.0 Scoops and Servo 0.2 Deployment system 0.8 10% Margin 0.7 Total 8.4

Payload - Jake Moseley

Payload Deployment

38 Payload - Jake Moseley

Drawer

• Pros
• Convenient
• Reliable
• Cons
• Weight
• Large sheets of metal
• Difficulty fitting

within a 6 in body tube Linear Rails

• Pros
• Simple
• Reliable
• Less expensive
• Easily fits within 6 in

body tube

• Cons
• Potentially long rods
• f aluminum

Drawer Concept Linear Rail Concept

Payload Deployment

39

Linear Rail Deployment Concept

Design Considerations:

• Rails must run from the body tube
• pening to the rear of the rover
• 6 in for coupler
• 6 in for parachute and shock cord
• 12 in for the length of the rover
• Body mount bracket shaft using an

epoxy joint

• Keeps a low profile
• Alignment jig to ensure

linear rail alignment

• Retention system
• Linear actuator pulls a pin to

release the payload at main parachute deployment

• Location and orientation of

retention system within the body tube pending payload location within the body tube

Payload - Jake Moseley

Rover Electronics Trade Selection

40

Description Quantity Model/Specification Computer 1 mRo Pixracer GPS 1 mRo GPS u-Blox Power Module 1 APM Power Module Motor Controller 1 RoboClaw 2x15 Motor 2 Pololu 50:1 Gearmotor Servo 2 Power HD Mini Battery 1 Ovonic 3S-2 Telemetry Transceiver 2 Holybro 915 Mhz 100mW Radio RC Receiver 1 Frsky R- XSR RC Transmitter 1 Taranis Q X7 Ground Station Software

• Mission Planner

Payload - Thomas Salverson

Final Design Capabilities

• GPS tracking with ground

station

• Autonomous or manual

rover control

• Manual rover control with

an RC controller

• Battery capacity that

supports 2 hours of mission standby and 40 minutes of drive time

Rover Electronics Block Diagram

41

Battery (LiPo 3s) Drive Motors Servos Power Module GPS + Compass Motor Controller Computer (Pixracer) Transceiver Transceiver RC Receiver RC Transmitter Battery Monitor Legend 11.1 V Power line 5.3 V Power line 5 V Power line Data line 915 Mhz Telemetry Data 2.4 Ghz Rover Control Ground Station

Payload - Thomas Salverson

Estimated Power Budget

42

Mission Leg Time (min) Power draw (W) Pad Standby 120.0 4.2 Flight 5.0 4.2 Driving to ice 30.0 78.2 Harvest ice 5.0 89.3 Drive away from ice 2.0 78.2 Total 2.7 (hr) Total Power Required 58.0 (Wh) Total Power with Safety Factor of 1.5 86.9 (Wh) Approximate Battery Size: 3S Lipo: 8000mAh, 11.1V (88.8 Wh)

Payload - Thomas Salverson

Estimated Link Budget

43 Payload - Thomas Salverson Frequency (Mhz) Wavelength, λ (in) Transmit Power, PTX (dBm) TX Antenna Gain, GTX (dB) Maximum Free Space Loss, LFS (dB) Fade Margin, LM (dB) RX Antenna Gain, GRX (dB) Signal Strength at Receiver, PRX (dB) RX Sensitivity (dB) Max Range (miles) 915 13 20 2

• 125
• 15

2

• 116
• 117

30

Ground Station Rover 915 Mhz, 100 mW Transceivers with Dipole Antennas Max Range of 30 miles for Telemetry Data

• Maximum free space loss:
• Receiver Power:
• Minimum required telemetry range: 1 mile
• Maximum telemetry estimated range: 30 miles

Payload Overview

Overall Rover Design

• Symmetrical
• Hemispherical Bumpers
• Two Scoops
• Tracks

Deployment Options

• Pyrotechnic Drawer
• Linear Rails

44 Payload - Thomas Salverson

Rover Design with Bumpers Removed Rover with Hemispherical Bumpers Rover Design with Bumpers Installed Bumper Scoop (second scoop not visible) Tracks

Rover Material and Dimensions

Overview

• Chassis Material: ABS Plastic (colored red)
• Side Plates Material: Aluminium (grey)
• Gear Boxes Material: Aluminium (blue)
• Hemispherical Bumpers Material: ABS Plastic
• Tracks Material: NinjaFlex 3D Printer Filament
• Scoops: ABS Plastic

45

Direction Length (in) Height 4 Length 12 Width 5.8 Ground Clearance Between Tracks 0.4 Tracks Width 1

Payload - Thomas Salverson

Payload Design

Preliminary Payload Testing

Payload - Thomas Salverson 46

Autonomous Rover Test Platform

• Designed a moon rover for the NASA

2019 International Space Apps Challenge

• Preliminary component testing
• mRo Pixracer
• mRo GPS
• Holybro 915 Mhz 100mW Radio
• Verified RC car control with Mission

Planner and Pixracer

• Tested both autonomous and manual

control

Autonomous Rover Test Platform

Payload Testing Plan

Payload - Thomas Salverson 47

Purpose Procedure Desired Outcome Ejection Test Ensure payload is correctly ejected from vehicle Pull payload out of the body tube using a spring scale Payload requires less force to come

• ut of body tube than shock cord

will exert Drop Test Verify that payload will endure the force of landing Drop rover from height equivalent to kinetic energy force expected at landing No damage to the structure of the rover Endurance Test To test the maximum time the rover can operate Continuously drive the rover until the battery is depleted Travel distance covers at least half a mile Retention Test To verify rover will not exit the body tube pre-maturely Secure rover in body tube, then apply loads to verify retention Retention system handles loads greater than expected flight loading Telemetry Range Test To test the range limits of the telemetry transceiver Move the payload away from the ground station until the telemetry connection is lost Telemetry remains connected at a distance of at least one mile Ice Collection Test To test the payloads ability to collect ice Operate the payload scoops and collect simulated ice The payload scoops collect a minimum of 10 ml of simulated ice Ground Test To test the complete mission

• f the payload

Drive the payload a predetermined distance, collect ice, and drive away from the ice location Complete the entire mission outline within one hour and without power

• r telemetry loss

48

Safety

Lead: Jessy McIntosh Deputies: Maggie Hockensmith, Claudia Hyder

Safety Officer and Deputies

Safety Officer

• Jessy McIntosh

Responsibilities

• Management of Hazard and FMEA Analysis
• Risk Analysis
• Overseeing application of safety requirements from NAR, NASA, and the PRC
• Standard Operating Procedures
• Management of Test Plans
• Management of Team certifications
• Safety Briefings

Safety Deputies

• Maggie Hockensmith (Vehicle) and Claudia Hyder (Payload)

Responsibilities

• Interfacing between teams and Safety Officer
• FMEA
• Component Information
• Hazards

49 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

Analysis Matrix

50 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

Risk Level

• Red must be mitigated
• Yellow is undesirable and will be mitigated
• Green is acceptable

Analysis of Failure Modes

Identification of Failure Modes

• How can this component or material fail functionally or break?
• Designer/Selector CDS sheets
• Previous years’ failure modes for similar parts

Likelihood

• Analyzing manufacturing strength of components or materials in relation to flight

forces derived from simulation

• Experience, past failures

Severity

• Directly determined by the outcome of such a failure (matrix)

51 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

FMEA Sample

52 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

Personnel Hazard Analysis

Identification of Hazards

• Derived inductively from safety requirements, safety manuals of machinery, and

test facility safety requirements

• Experience with accidents

Likelihood

• Will tend to be high without mitigation, based on zero safeguards

Severity

• Directly determined by the outcome of an accident (matrix)

53 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

Personnel Hazard Analysis Sample

54 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

Categories and Events

• Shop Hazards

⁻ Cuts ⁻ Electrical and Shock ⁻ Burns

• Flight Hazards

⁻ Catastrophe at takeoff ⁻ Falling Debris

• Environmental Hazards

⁻ Weather ⁻ Trees

Environmental Concerns

Identification of Concerns

• Derived from expected hazards associated with various weather, climate, and field

conditions

• Previous years’ hazard analyses and experiences

To the Rocket

• External factors that could have an impact on the flight

By the Rocket

• Processes during manufacturing or events during launch that could have a lasting

environmental impact

55 Safety - Jessy McIntosh

56

Management

Lead: Nick Roman

Schedule - Overview

57 Management - Nick Roman

Schedule - PDR

58 Management - Nick Roman

Projected Costs

59 Management - Nick Roman

Budget Summary: Totals: Subscale Vehicle $674.68 Full Scale Vehicle $4,176.80 Payload $1,621.50 Administration $400.00 15% Margin $1039.80 Total $7912.78 Total Expenditures as

• f 10/23/19

$1,025.40

• Totals for the final costs of the full scale vehicle

and payload are based off the proposal and are in line with historical CRW spending.

Expenditure Projection

60

• Projection based off of the proposal budget outline since it is similar to the spending of

past teams.

• Currently approaching the end of initial funding, more available from the Alabama Space

Grant Consortium.

• Reclaimed materials are not accounted for in the current funding plan. It is expected that

the on hand materials will bring expenditures in under budget.

Management - Nick Roman

Requirements Validation Plan

• A verification plan has been outlined for all competition requirements and team

derived requirements

• Progress on requirement compliance is tracked using a spreadsheet shown in the

example below

61 Management - Nick Roman

NASA Requirements General Requirements Requirement Number Description Verification Type Verification Plan Verification Progress NASA-1.1 Students on the team do 100% of the project. Demonstration Students will ensure no outside parties complete any work or submit any data In Progress NASA-1.2 Team will provide and maintain a project plan. Demonstration Team will present the plan in various deliverable forms. In Progress

Requirements Validation Plan

Requirements are broken up into several sections

• Vehicle Requirements - Will be verified primarily through testing of the vehicle

subsystems and the full launch vehicle

• Payload Requirements - Will be verified by testing of the rover during and after

construction

• Recovery Requirements - Will be verified through testing of the recovery

components on the vehicle and the payload

• Safety Requirements - Will be verified through Safety Briefings and the creation
• f Standard Procedures

62 Management - Nick Roman

Outreach Goal: 1000 individuals engaged Planned Events

• November 16, 2019: Society of Women Engineerings Qualifier
• Activity: Team interaction with students
• Anticipated number of individuals: ≈100
• December 7, 2019: Hampton Cove Middle School, First LEGO League
• Activity: Team interaction with students
• Anticipated number of individuals: ≈75
• February 16, 2020: Science Olympiad
• Activity: Rocketry Basics Presentation
• Anticipated number of individuals: ≈75

Future Events

• December 2019: Hometown High School Outreach
• Activity: Estes Rockets & Rocketry Basics Presentation
• TBA: Hampton Cove Elementary School
• Activity: Propulsion and Vehicle Design
• TBA: Bob Jones High School
• Activity: Estes Rockets & Rocketry Basics Presentation
• TBA: Liberty Middle School
• Activity: Projectile Motion and Forces

Outreach

63 Management - Nick Roman

Questions

Thank you for your time, do you have any questions?

64

BACKUP

65

Body Material Trade Study

66

Factors Fiberglass Carbon Fiber Blue Tube Quantum Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Availability 3 3 9 2 6 3 9 3 9 Weight 5 4 20 5 20 2 10 1 5 Rigidity 4 4 16 5 20 3 12 3 12 Toughness 4 5 20 4 16 3 12 2 8 Electrical Characteristics 2 4 8 2 4 4 8 4 8 Cost 4 3 12 2 8 5 20 5 20 Total 85 79 71 62

Motor Trade Study

Factors Aerotech L1420R Cesaroni L1350 AeroTech L1365M Cesaroni L2375-WT Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Length 5 5 25 5 25 3 15 3 15 Availability 3 5 15 4 12 1 3 2 6 Hardware-o n-Hand 3 5 15 5 15 Thrust Curve Profile 5 4 20 4 20 4 20 5 25 Total 75 57 53 46

67

Fin Assembly Trade Study

68

Factors Fin Can Brackets Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Installing Fins 3 3 9 5 15 Design Complexity 3 2 6 4 12 Fin Assembly Installation 5 5 25 2 10 Ease of Manufacturing 3 2 6 4 12 Cut Body Tube 4 1 4 3 12 Total 50 61

Payload Recovery Trade Study

69

Factors In-Line Independent Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Reliability 5 2 10 4 20 Complexity 4 2 8 3 12 Cost 2 5 10 2 4 Packing Size 2 4 8 2 4 Mass 1 5 5 3 3 Total 41 43

Altimeter Trade Study

70

Factors StratoLogger CF RRC3 “Sport” EasyMega Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Cost 5 5 25 3 15 1 5 Capability 3 3 9 4 12 5 15 Ease of use 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 Total 40 32 26

Tracking Trade Study

71

Factors CRW Prototype Xbee-Pro S3B radio transmitter and Antenova GPS Apogee Simple GPS Tracker Pratt Hobbies MicroBeacon Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Cost 4 5 20 1 4 4 16 Capability 4 3 12 4 16 1 4 Ease of use 2 3 6 5 10 5 10 Total 38 30 30

Track vs. Wheels Trade Study

72

Factors 4 wheels 6 wheels 2 tracks 4 tracks Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Cost 4 4 16 3 12 4 16 2 8 Weight 1 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 Power 2 3 6 3 6 2 4 1 2 Reliability 3 5 15 4 12 3 9 2 6 Terrain 5 1 5 3 15 5 25 5 25 Mobility 3 3 9 4 12 4 12 5 15 Total 55 61 69 58

Sample Collection Trade Study

73

Factors Auger Scoop Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Cost 3 3 9 4 12 Weight 4 3 12 4 16 Complexity 2 3 6 4 8 Reliability 5 3 15 4 20 Total 42 56

Payload Deployment Trade Study

74

Factors Drawer Linear Rails Criteria Weight Satisfaction Score Satisfaction Score Cost 3 3 9 2 6 Weight 3 2 6 4 12 Complexity 2 2 4 4 8 Reliability 5 4 20 4 20 Space 5 1 5 3 15 Total 44 61

Schedule-CDR

75

Schedule - Subscale

76