Alternatives Concepts White PaperIPT 02E

Project ManagementThe University of Alabama Huntsville

Team Leader Eddie Kiessling

Structures Nathan Coffee

Systems Engineer Jay Gala

GN & C Brandon York

GN & C Joseph Sandlin

Operations Brett Guin

Thermal Kathryn Kirsh

Thermal Eddie Kiessling

Payload Operations Brent Newson

Power Christopher Goes

Technical Editor Michael Bryan

Overview

• This Whitepaper seeks to establishes team roles, develop two alternative designs, and select one design as the final concept to take into Phase 3.

• The Viking Lander, the baseline design, for this project was compared to a Lander on Wheels (LOW) and a Lander with a Single Rover (LSR).

• Each concept was weighted against each other and utilizing Weighted Factor Analysis and Concept Evaluation Matrix to choose a final design.– Our results will show that the Lander on Wheels would be the

best approach.

Technical Description

• Overview of Phase 2:– Deliverable Items:

• White Paper– Summarizes the strategy for selecting alternative

systems– Qualitative/quantitative information to evaluate each idea– Logical rational for down selecting one concept among

the three concepts

• Oral Presentation– Summarizing information from the White Paper to

present to the review board.

Technical Description

• Specification Summary– Level 1 Requirements

• Housed within an Atlas V-401 EPF Shroud• Total Landed Mass – 997.4 kg• Launch Date – NLT September 30, 2012• Survivability Time of 1 Year• Attain a slope of 12º• Polar Landing as well as other Lunar Landings• Land Precision +/- 100m 3σ• Maneuverability• SMD to ESMD

Specification Summary

– Critical Requirements• Launch Date• Mass• SMD to ESMD ratio• Landing Capabilities• Mobility

Team Eclipse Approach to Phase 2Baseline CDD

Mobility Trade SpaceViking 1 FOM

Customer

Systems Engineer and Team Lead

Power Payload Thermal Structures Operations GN&C

Analysis

Results

Description of Concepts

• 3 Concepts– Viking Lander (Baseline Design)– Lander on Wheels (Concept 1)– Lander + Rover (Concept 2)

• Selection Process– Advantages and Disadvantages– Weighting of FOMs– Analysis and Comparison

• Concept Chosen: Lander on Wheels (Concept 1)

Boost Matrix for Project 02Baseline Alternative Concepts

02-BL 02E-ALT1 02E-ALT2

Configuration Category

State Viking Lander on

Wheels Lander +

Rover

Power

RTG Lithium

NiCd Fuel Cell

RTG 2 RTGs

RTG & Rechargeable

Rover

RTG Radiation

Heater Regenerative

Thermal

Radiation

RTG (Heating)

Radiation (Cooling)

RTG (Heating)

Radiation (Cooling)

RTG (Heating)

Radiation (Cooling)

Composite Alloys

Titanium Structure

Aluminum

Aluminum And

Titanium Titanium

Titanium (Lander)

Composite (Rover)

LRO Payload Bay Sample/ Data

Acq./Transmissions Operations

Data Storage

Single Site Science

Multiple Site Science and

Samples

Single Site Science and Multiple Site

Samples

Travel to Sites GN&C

Landing Landing

Landing + Travel to Sites

Landing + Travel to Sites

Shroud (4 m) Payload Bay for

Samples Payload

SRV

N/A Shroud (4m)

SRV Shroud (4m)

SRV

02-BL “Viking”• Availability of Data• Martian Surface• Single Site Science Mission• Subsystems

– Thermal• Active & Passive

– Structural• Parachute, Bio-shield, & Aero-decelerator

– Redundant Communications– Power

• RTGs & Nickel-Cadmium Batteries– Guidance, Navigation, and Controls

• Three Axis Gyros and Accelerometer & Redundant x-axis system.

02E-ALT1 “Lander on Wheels”• Power System

– 2 RTGs (output of 1400 W)• Thermal Systems

– Heating – Excess energy from RTG– Cooling – Moon’s environment

• Structure– Titanium– 8 Wheel Rocker Bogey Configuration

• Operations– Communicate with LRO & Earth at Direct LOS

• GN & C– Landing Hazard Avoidance– Travel to Scientific Sites

• Payload– Scientific Equipment– SRV

02E-ALT2 “Lander + Rover”• Power System

– Lander: 1 RTG (output of 700 W)– Rover: Rechargeable battery system

• Thermal Systems– Lander: Heating – Excess energy from RTG– Rover: Heating – Energy from battery system– Lander and Rover: Cooling – Moon’s environment

• Structure– Lander: Titanium– Rover: Composite

• Operations– Communicate with LRO & Earth at Direct LOS

• GN & C– Lander: Landing Hazard Avoidance– Rover: Travel to and from Scientific Sites

• Payload– Scientific Equipment– Rover– SRV

Selection of Final Concept

• Criteria selection (in order of importance)– Technology Ratio– ConOps– Objectives Completed– Percent Payload– Surface Objectives Completed– Percent Power System

• Chosen Concept– Lander on Wheels (Alternative Concept 01)

Illustrations02-BL “Viking”

Illustrations02E-ALT1 “Lander on Wheels”

IllustrationsShroud Configuration

Video

Illustrations02E-ALT2 “Lander + Rover”

Engineering Summary

02E-BL 02E-

ALT1 02E-

ALT2

Viking1 Lander

on Wheels

Lander +

Rover NAME Units

1. Lunar Lander Data a) Width m 2 3.5 3.5 b) Length m 3 8 3.5 d) Height m 2 3.5 8

c) Dry Mass kg 576 997.4 997.4 1- Structure kg 90 115

2- Propulsion Dry Mass kg 64.6 64.6 3- Mobility System kg 150 n/a 4- Communications kg 50 70

5- Power kg 15.4 30.8 15.4 6- SRV kg 200 200

7- Science Equipment kg 91 120 100 8- Rover kg n/a 200

1 United States. National Aeronautics & Space Administration. Viking.

Concept Evaluation Matrix

Scoring Legend

Not Analyzed

N/A

Does Not Meet

0

Meets 5

Exceeds 10

02E-BL 02E-ALT1 02E-ALT2 CDD Figures

Of Merit

Score Weight Viking

Lander on Wheels

Lander + Rover

Goals

Number of Surface

Objectives Completed

2 0 10 10 20

Sites

Percent Payload

2 10 10 5 Maximize Payload

SMD to ESMD Ratio

2 10 10 5 2:1

ConOps 3 5 10 5 Efficiency

Percent Power System

2 10 10 5

Minimize Weight

Of Power System

Ratio Of

Off Shelf To

New Technology

3 5 5 10 High Ratio

With TRL Level 9

TOTAL 90.00 125.00 95.00

Phase 3 Plan

• Key Issues– Power Supply– Single Site Goals Issue– Finalize Mobility Concerns

• Tasks for Partner Universities– Southern University

• Rocker Bogie Suspension System• CAD Model of Mobility System

– ESTACA University• Design of SRV Propulsion System• CAD Model of SRV

Review

• Technical Description

• Description of Concepts

• Selection of Final Concept

• Phase 3 Plan