Lunar Exploration Transportation System (LETS) Team Frankenstein Phase 2 Presentation 3/6/08

Agenda CDD Summary Team Disciplines Abstract of Phase 2 Design Technical Description of Phase 2 Design

CDD Summary Level 1 Requirements Figures of Merit Surface Objectives Concept Design Constraints

Level 1 Requirements Landed Mass kg 1 st mission landing site is polar region Design must be capable of landing at other lunar locations Minimize cost across design Launch Date NLT September 30 th 2012 Mobility is required to meet objectives Survivability ≥ 1 year Lander/Rover must survive conops The mission shall be capable of meeting both SMD and ESMD objectives The lander must land to a precision of ± 100m 3 sigma of the predicted location The lander must be capable of landing at a slope of 12 degrees (slope between highest elevated leg of landing gear and lowest elevated leg) The lander shall be designed for g-loads during lunar landing not to exceed the worst case design loads for any other phase of the mission (launch to terminal descent)

Proposed FOMs Surface exploration Maximized Payload Mass (% of total mass) Objectives Validation: Ratio of SMD to ESMD: 2 to 1. Conops: Efficiency of getting data in stakeholders hands vs. capability of mission. Mass of Power System: % of total mass. Ratio of off-the-shelf to new Development –Minimize cost

Single site goals: –Geologic context Determine lighting conditions every 2 hours over the course of one year Determine micrometeorite flux Assess electrostatic dust levitation and its correlation with lighting conditions Mobility goals: –Independent measurement of 15 samples in permanent dark and 5 samples in lighted terrain Each sampling site must be separated by at least 500 m from every other site –Minimum: determine the composition, geotechnical properties and volatile content of the regolith Value added: collect geologic context information for all or selected sites Value added: determine the vertical variation in volatile content at one or more sites –Assume each sample site takes 1 earth day to acquire minimal data and generates 300 MB of data Instrument package baselines: –Minimal volatile composition and geotechnical properties package, suitable for a penetrometer, surface-only, or down-bore package: 3 kg –Enhanced volatile species and elemental composition (e.g. GC-MS): add 5 kg –Enhanced geologic characterization (multispectral imager + remote sensing instrument such as Mini-TES or Raman): add 5 kg Surface Objectives

Concept Design Constraints Surviving Launch –EELV Interface (Atlas 401) Mass Volume Power Communications Environments –Guaranteed launch window Survive Cruise –Survive Environment Radiation Thermal Micrometeoroids NOTE: MUST PICK A SHROUD CONFIG!! CROP CHOICE

Concept Design Constraints Lunar Environment poles and equator) –Radiation –Micrometeoroid –Temperature –Dust –Lighting Maximize use of OTS Technology (TRL 9) Mission duration of 1 year Surface Objectives Reference: Dr. Cohen

Team Disciplines The University of Alabama in Huntsville Team Leader – Matt Isbell –Structures – Matt Pinkston and Robert Baltz –Power – Tyler Smith –System Engineering – Kevin Dean –GN&C – Joseph Woodall –Thermal – Thomas Talty –Payload/Communications – Chris Brunton Southern University –Mobility – Chase Nelson and Eddie Miller ESTACA –Sample Return - Kim Nguyen and Vincent Tolomio

Abstract Team Frankenstein competing in design of LETS System must meet all CDD requirements Two concepts developed in Phase 2 based on baseline, Viking Lander –Both lander and rover combinations First Option (Cyclopes) –Land-On-Wheels Concept consisting of the lander and rover as one vehicle –Travels on lunar surface –Hexagonal structure with six wheels –Penetrators Second Option (Medusa) –Traditional lander which will deploy a rover on the lunar surface –Hexagonal structure with four landing legs –Pentetrators –Each design assessed based on the specifications of the CDD –Both were assessed and ranked, Cyclopes chosen to be carried into Phase 3 Lighter weight, ease of design, achieving scientific objectives and ease of mobility just to name a few were all deciding factors in choosing this option based on the score from the evaluation matrix

Technical Description Phase 2 Overview Concept Descriptions Final Concept Description Phase 3 Plan Illustrations

Phase 2 Overview Deliverables –white paper Compares baseline concept, the Viking Lander, with two alternative concepts Summarizes a strategy for selecting alternative systems, Qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate each idea A logical rationale for selecting one concept from among the presented options –oral presentation Specification Summary –Certain requirements must be achieved for a successful mission –Lander and rover is required to meet the CDD requirements for the mission –The requirements are the foundation for the lander design –Each subsystem is also directly affected by the requirements and moon environment Approach to Phase 2 –Team Structure After Phase 1, the baseline review, Team Frankenstein began to function as an individual team Each individual team member became responsible for their own discipline –Concerns Harsh environment - an issue because of the little information known about the moon Surface objective requirements - the permanently dark sites are an issue due to the temperature ranging from +107 to -223 degrees Celsius Mobility - non-existent on the baseline lander and LETS CDD requires mobility –Concept Design Reviewed baseline presentation for detailed information about the customer’s specific requirement Investigated possible solutions to meet the given CDD requirements. Each discipline presented design ideas to the team Team revised these possibilities and created two design concepts Evaluated the concepts based on the weighted values for desired criteria and chose the winning concept

Phase 2 Overview The figure shows the design process outline for Phase 2 –CDD requirements were evaluated and given to the project manager –Manager forwarded on to the systems engineer –System engineer sends to individual disciplines –Each discipline present their own alternatives –Systems evaluation was completed and changes were made as necessary –Process was repeated until the final concepts were developed –Our results were then submitted to the project office for a final evaluation before being presented Results System Simulation CDD/Customer Project Office Systems Engineer Thermal Power GN&COperationsPayloads StructuresMobilitySample Return