Colorado State University Paul Scholz, Tyler Faucett, Abby Wilbourn, Michael Somers June 14 2010 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UP, UP, AND AWAY! CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW Ty Bailey, Soo Park, Cameron Coupe, Trevor Arrasmith, Carolyn Mason, Sam Frakes, Brandon Harris, Peter VanderKley.
Advertisements

Matt Breihan, Jay Davis, Jack Gregory, Ashton Schrage, Sara Schuette, and Lydia Whitney October 14, 2008.
Solar Cell Efficiency Flight Readiness Review Teddy Bounds Angela Dunn Joel Sasser.
Clean Air Project: Team Big Green SpaceGasm Launch Readiness Review Hillary Beltran, Edward Crawford, Nicole Harris, Edward Lowe, Emily Proano, and Kevin.
Colorado Space Grant Consortium DemoSat-B Colorado State University Matthew Jui, Ian Patterson, Mark Spowart, Todd Wallis June Colorado Space Grant.
Team Lightning Rod Launch Readiness Review Fall 2010 Rev C 11/2/2010 Trevor Luke Chris Bennett Matt Holmes Sushia Rahimizadeh Alex Shelanski Matthew Dickinson.
DemoSat V: CSU DemoSat Team Colorado State University Abby Wilbourn, Tyler Faucett, Paul Scholz, and Michael Sombers July 28, 2010.
TEAM kkkkk Conceptual Design Review Saad Alqahtani, Charles MacCraiger, Alexa Warly, Connor Jacobson, Kyle Skjerven, Matt Busby 09/19/11 Fall 2011 Rev.
Team 2 Careful Harry Glenda Alvarenga J.J. Busse Emily Eggers Adam Kemp Gabrielle Massone Dalton Smith Corey Wilson Dynamo Critical Design Review.
Team 7, Final Presentation December 1, Mission Overview Send up petri dishes containing bacteria Analyze the effects of temperature, pressure, and.
Brynn Larson Trey Karsten Terek Campbell Marcus Flores Marcell Smalley Shunsuke Miyazaki 2015/6/10 Team Ochocinco.
Metropolitan State University Isaac Hamilton Jordan Gallegos Christopher Olson McMillan Miskin Daniel Koch Thomas Mindenhall Cody Overcash March 27, 2009.
BalloonSat “Optimism Prime” Team “Thumbs Up” Conceptual Design Review Nick Lenk, Greg Nelson, Eddie Cyrus, Jake Varey, Chase Pritchett, Brian Inglis 9/23/08.
Paul “Trey” Karsten Marcell Smalley Shunsuke Miyazaki Brynn Larson Terek Campbell Marcus Flores 11/25/09 Final Revision.
Team Cutthroat Critical Design Review Chris Alley Annie Frederick Josh Marshman Julie Price Lance Tokmakian Kent Welborn October 17, 2006.
Team R3D3 Final Presentation Devon Campbell Greg McQuie Kate Kennedy Henk Wolda Marisa Antuna Nicole Ela Tyler Smith 12/1/11.
Carnivorous Ninja Warriors Critical Design Review Cameron Comeau, Katie Brissenden, Kat Bryant, Arley Hendrick, Aram Podolski, Hannah Williams 06OCT2009.
Team Mate Launch Readiness Review Jason Schelz, Will Hakes, Emma Mossinger, Ethan Long, Brendon Barela, Amelia Weller 11/02/10.
Teamo Supremo Critical Design Review Ahna Issak Wes Roos Kristen Brenner Kimberley Fornall Barton Tofany Nick Martinez Ahna Issak Wes Roos Kristen Brenner.
Carnivorous Ninja Warriors Launch Readiness Review Katie Brissenden, Hannah Williams, Aram Podolski, Kat Bryant, Arley Hendrick, Cam Comeau November 5,
Christian Zempel Eric Stackpole Gavin Hagiwara Xander Wroblewski Department of Mechanical Engineering IRIS-VIEWS SHOT II 6/11/10 Verification of In-flight.
University of Wyoming Dorin Blodgett, Kevin Brown, Heather Choi, Ben Lampe Eric Robinson, Michael Stephens, Patrick Weber October 7,
Critical Design Review Nick Hoffmann Miranda Rohlfing Geoff Morgan Miles Buckman Lauren Wenner Rahul Devnani October 17, 2006.
Team DSRO Critical Design Review Taylor Boe Andrew Buckner Andrew Gilbert Emily Howard Grace Harsha Bobby Stillwell October 14, 2008.
Team Hubble Jr. Final Presentation Rachel Small, Holly Zaepfel, Ryan Del Gizzi, Kyle Norman, and Evan Levy December 5, 2006.
Critical Design Review Riley Pack, Sebastian Seeds, Greg Stahl, Paul Loeb, Nic Zinner, Pierce Edwards October 17, 2006 Project Frankenfine: A Near Space.
Team Dionysus Launch Readiness Review Elise Kowalski, Michael Beach, Josh Tiras, Chris Konciljia, Alijah Smith, Becca Seigel November 5, 2009.
Design Review Corinne Desroches Saad Alqahtani Charles MacCraiger Alexa Warly Connor Jacobson Kyle Skjerven Matt Busby.
CDR Presentation. - Team T.E.N.’s objectives are to fly Ralph with all the systems functioning properly. This includes the boom arm, radiation badge,
Space Debris Launch Readiness Review Seanna Renworth, Emily Logan, Corey Godwin, Sean Murphy, Cole Bostrom, Jonathan Kirchmaier November 11 th, 2008.
Charging System Service
Full Mission Simulation Report New Jersey Space Grant Consortium at Stevens Institute of Technology and Rutgers University Ethan Hayon, Mark Siembab, Mike.
Presented at the Colorado Undergraduate Space Research Symposium April 20, 2013 Aurora, CO Team Charlie: Aaron Bartelt Stacie Noetzelmann Philip Jurney.
Speed of Sound Team BalloonWorks. Table of Contents Mission Goal and Objectives Science and Technical Backgrounds Mission Requirements Payload Design.
PHAT-TACO Experiment Pressure Humidity And Temperature Tests And Camera Observations Hannah Gardiner, Bill Freeman, Randy Dupuis, Corey Myers, Andrea Spring.
Hang Seven Launch Readiness Review Lucas Migliorini, Becca Lidvall, Paul Smith Chase Goodman, Ethan Hollenbach, Nikhil Desai, Abby Caballero, Sierra Williams.
Dhruv Patel 12th- Project manager Max Beasley 11th- Systems Engineer Trey Hargett 11th Jonathan Ford 11th Brent Higdon 11th Austin Lambert 11th Jay Chenault.
RamRack Preliminary Design Review Colorado State University Zach Glueckert Christopher Reed Timothy Schneider Brendan Sheridan Christina Watanuki Advisor:
Team Lightning Rod Critical Design Review Fall 2010 Rev A Trevor Luke Chris Bennett Matt Holmes Sushia Rahimizadeh Alex Shelanski Matthew Dickinson.
Team Hang 7 Final Presentation Lucas Migliorini, Sierra Williams, Chase Goodman, Ethan Hollenbach, Becca Lidvall, Abby Caballero, Paul Smith, Nikhil Desai.
Hang Seven Critical Design Review Sierra Williams, Lucas Migliorini, Abby Caballero, Chase Goodman, Paul Smith, Becca Lidvall, Ethan Hollenbach, Nikhil.
SDMAY11-01 Advisor: Dr. Ajjarapu Team Members: Luke Rupiper Shonda Butler Andrew Nigro Ryan Semler Chad Hand.
High Altitude Imaging and Atmospheric Data Collection Experiment by SABRE (Scientific Aerospace and Balloon Research Engineers) Team Advisor:Atin Sinha.
Project: Weather Video Sat 4/2/04 Mesa State College, Grand Junction.
Follow up Design Review The University of Northern Colorado GoGreenSAT Jessica Gage, Max Woods, Brent Hill, Ryan Marshall, Zach Sears Mar
Zachary Cuseo, Andrew Fruge’, Tyler Knappe, Christopher Nie, Sydni Smith, and Shweta Maurya 5 November, 2009.
Space Cadets Ali Javed Ravneet Singh Ravneet Singh Brock Couvillion Dean Slama Dean Slama Temperature, Pressure, Humidity, and Imaging Characteristics.
Preliminary Critical Design Review Jason Mueller Jeff Weinell Brittany Dupre TEAM TOTAL RESISTANCE 1.
DemoSat IV: Metro Triple Threat Metropolitan State College of Denver Matt Hanley David Fifield Jason Igo Evan I Spitler Devlin Thyne Matt Hanley David.
Team SSCSC Critical Design Review Nick Brennan, Kier Fortier, Tom Johnson, Shannon Martin, Dylan Stewart, and Adam Wright October 05, 2010 Fall 2010 Rev.
Critical Design Review The University of Northern Colorado GoGreenSAT Jessica Gage, Max Woods, Brent Hill, Ryan Marshall, Zach Sears Feb
Napoleon Connor Strait | Chris Gray | Chad Alvarez Akeem Huggins | Ashley Zimmerer Tucker Emmett | Ginny Christiansen |Caleb Lipscomb Conceptual Design.
Victor Taberski, Ryan Walker, Allen Marshall, Matt Kerwin, Andrew Winthrop, Steven Ramm October 14, 2008 UANIOOU – (Upper Atmosphere Near-Infrared Optical.
Team Honey Badger R.A.H.D. Critical Design Review October 18, 2012 Josh Power Karyn Science Kyle Team Leader C+DH Annie C+DH Zach Budget + Science C&DH.
DemoSat IV: RedRoverSat University of Colorado at Boulder Jaime Catchen, Chris Homolac, Emily Walters August 9, 2006.
Team Hubble Jr. Critical Design Review Ryan Del Gizzi, Evan Levy, Kyle Norman, Chris Everhart, Holly Zaepfel, Rachel Small October 17, 2006.
BlackBox Sat Critical Design Review Colorado State University-Pueblo April 2, 2004 Greg Barela Jose Segovia Enrique Cornejo.
Skillz That Killz Critical Design Review Jocelyn Mulkey, Jess Davidoff, Kaitlyn Zimmitti, Taylor Smith, Travis Dowdy, Hunter Hoopes October 8, 2009.
S.H.I.E.L.D. CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW Addison, Travis, Jared, Evan, Aaron, Matt 10/14/08.
Colorado State University Paul Scholz, Tyler Faucett, Abby Wilbourn, Michael Somers June
Scott Luisi, Abe Fark, Trent Quick, Jack Szmanda, Tom Valkenberg AEM 1905, 11/20/2008.
PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ASCEND! 2009 ASGC Symposium April 18,
SOAREX VII Mission Design, construct, test, and fly an ultralight (
Junk in a Box Critical Design Review
Team Go Go Gadgets Launch Readiness Review
Team Thumbs Up Final Presentation
Launch Readiness Review
CSU DemoSAT-B 2010 DemoSat V: Colorado State University April 9, 2011
Team TWSS Launch Readiness Review
Team Icarus Brandon Scott Bosomworth Edgar Alejandro Flores
Presentation transcript:

Colorado State University Paul Scholz, Tyler Faucett, Abby Wilbourn, Michael Somers June

Mission Overview Objective: to study alternative energy collection at different altitudes Find the ideal altitude for alternative (wind & solar) energy collection. Is high altitude energy collection worthwhile? Can the added cost of high altitude energy collection be made up for with increases in efficiency? 2

Current Products “MARS” – Maggen Air Rotor System 3

CoolEarth Solar Balloon MARS turbine 4

How we can help Our test could provide useful data to someone wishing to put up a similar system on Earth or Mars An airborne solar/wind power farm could be very useful for remote area power generation Our test vehicle will provide data to give an altitude of maximum power generation. 5

Mission Requirements 6 REQUIREMENTMETH ODSTATUS Payload mass must be 1.5 kg or lessDesign and use of lightweight materials Payload must accommodate flight string per the users guide Design and test Payload must pass all structural tests in users guide Design and test Payload must successfully complete all functional and environmental tests Design and test Payload must have the capability to complete all mission objectives Design and test Payload must cost under $1000Budget carefully

Concept of Operations Just before launch power to the heaters and microcontroller will be turned on via switches on the top of the payload The microcontroller will run its program which includes taking input from 5 different sources and transmit the data serially back to the SD card at a rate which we will specify for each sensor After the program has run for 150 minutes, the program will end so that we do not write over our flight information with data collected on the ground 7

Subsystems Structural Thermal Data Storage Processing Electrical Sensing 8

Subsystem – Structural Must have cylindrical shape Allows for even and constant sun exposure to solar faces Must have center core flight string pass through Pass through design must comply with all DemoSAT-B regulations Pressure differences inside and outside the payload must not exceed 10 psid 9

Subsystem - Thermal The internals of the payload must remain above 0C to prevent failures of electrical components The internal electrical components must be placed as close to the center of the payload as possible Internal flexible heaters will be installed to maintain required internal temps. Flexible heaters allow for easy placement near critical components (battery) Temp. Distribution Flux 10

Subsystem - Data Processing All sensor data shall be processed on a PIC 16F884 microcontroller Storage The PIC shall send data from the sensors to the data storage unit every 5 seconds The data storage device shall be removable and portable and must allow for computer interface 11

Subsystem - Electrical All electrical components must be powered by a 5V source The power supply must be able to produce 4.8V to 6V for at least 2 hours Switches for electrical components must be mounted on the external of the payload 12

Subsystem – Sensing Wind Speed Sensing – Anemometer must be at least 2in from the flight cord – At least 2 axis of acceleration must be sensed to accurately measure wind speed Altitude Sensing – Payload must contain at least 1 pressure sensor and 1 temperature sensor Pressure and Temp must be measured externally for accurate data Solar Panels – Solar panels must cover at least 90% of the rounded faces of the payload All external sensors must be able to operate at temperatures ranging from -80C to 30C 13

Subsystems Block Diagram 14

Schematics/Drawings/Analysis 15

16

17

18

19

100mph winds at -80C 5W internal heat generation Steady state. 20

100mph winds at -80C 5W internal heat generation Steady state. 21

Commands and Sensors Sample Rate Sample Duration # of samples Bytes/ Sample (estimated) Min Required Memory For data storage Available Memory 1 sample every 5 seconds 2 hours 1440 (samples/ sensor) * 6(sensors) = 8640 samples 4 bytes34560 bytes2Gb SD – (less due to formatting, etc.) Data transferred serially from PIC microcontroller to SD card mounted in SD card reader. 22

23

Sensor Specifications SensorOperational Voltage Operational Temperature Measurement Range Notes Temperature3.0 to 5.5V-55C to +125C Converts Temperature to 12-bit Digital Word in 750 ms Pressure5.0V0C to 85C0 psi to 1 psi through 0 psi to 100 psi Response time of 8 ms Accelerometer (2-axis) 2.4V to 5.25V-20C to 70C+/- 18g----- Cup Anemometer mph to 125+ mph 2.5 mph per Hz (1 Hz=1 pulse/sec) Solar Panels (3) Voltage: 7.2 V Watts: 1.44 W Amperage: 200 mA 24

Accelerometer Math 25 X and Y out were generated randomly Samples were taken every second for this example

Test Plans Testing Types Structural Test Whip test Drop test Stair pitch test Environmental Test Cooler Test Functional Tests Bench Test 26

Structural Tests Test Structure Made in the same fashion as actual structure with minor differences Heavier outer shell with no carbon fiber around the foam Thicker (2x) mounting plate Ballast taped to mounting plate on inside Accelerometer bracket attached Aluminum square screwed to top to simulate the anemometer. Total weight was 3.25 lbs 27

Test Structure Photos 28 Assembled test structure Pieces of ballast usedRemovable Frame

Whip Test Performed 5 whip tests and took video of all of them. Payload was spun overhead as fast as possible After being at speed for several revolutions the experimenter pulled in on the string as hard as possible to simulate a high g-load. The length of rope from the hand of the experimenter to the payload cg was 80 inches From the video the calculated angular velocity was 60 RPM The calculated g load at these conditions was 8.2g with the peak during the pull being higher 29

Potenial Damage/Assessment Top plate could have been bent Epoxy interface between the tube and fitting could fail Acrylic posts imbedded in the foam could pull out or break No damage was observed during this test 30

Whip Test Video 31

Stair Pitch Test Structure was kicked down a flight of 13 concrete steps Step profile was 7.25 inches tall and 10.5 inches long 32

Potential Damage/ Assessment CF tube could break Foam could fracture Acrylic posts breaking or pulling out Top plate bending One Acrylic post was broken during the tumble at the base of the nut All other parts were unharmed Possible fix would be to shorten the posts to be only as tall as the nuts to lessen the moment on impact 33

Drop Test Structure was thrown off a balcony from a height of ft. above the concrete ground It landed almost sideways but angled enough that the top plate took the initial impact 34

Potential Damage/ Assessment Broken CF tube Acrylic posts breaking or pulling out Foam breakage Top plate bending The top plate was bent from impact The foam fractured and broke from impact The foam layers separated near the region of impact The fix for the foam is that it will be encased in a carbon fiber outer shell 35

Structural Test Summary No repairs were made during testing Weak points were discovered to be the acrylic posts and the top aluminum plate Of the five pieces of ballast originally taped to the mounting plate before the tests 3 were still attached The plate may have bent less from the drop test if the third post had still been there From the tests we are confident that the electronics on our payload will survive the extreme conditions they may encounter and our data will be recoverable 36

Secondary Whip Test This test was added after the other tests had been completed and analyzed In this version of the whip test, we dropped the payload attached to a 10 foot rope The sudden stop the payload experienced as the rope came to its full length was a better way to impart a sudden directional change in order to determine if the posts would hold, and if the internal electronics would stay secure All other tests had been performed previously, and the damage was repaired 37

Potential Damage/Assessment The post that previously broke and was re-glued broke again Minor foam fractures around the posts No internal ballast pieces separated from the mounting plate Overall, there was no significant additional damage to the structure. We are still confident that the top plate will remain secure, as well as the internal electronics Vibration testing may be analyzed when all electronics are in place to verify that our data will be retrievable 38

Secondary Whip Test Video 39

Environmental Tests Cooler Test Must purchase Dry Ice and Cooler Potential Point of Failure: Payload: Insulation design may be flawed and low internal temps may cause freezing/condensation on electrical components. Adjustments may need to be made to heater placement and insulation 40

Solar Panel Cold Test The solar panel output will be tested for variations in temperature The panel, a 90 W light source above the panel, and a thermocouple will be placed inside a refrigerator originally at room temperature The refrigerator will then be turned on to its highest setting The solar panel output and temperature will be recorded at a constant temperature interval of 2 degrees Celsius 41

Setup 42

Results The starting temperature was 22 ˚C Final temperature was -18 ˚C Voltage readings were taken with a multimeter every two degrees The voltage readings combined with known resistance values yielded current and power Dry ice was added to the refrigerator to reach the lowest temperature 43

Temperature Relationships 44

Functional Test Bench Test Potential Points of Failure: Overheating of internal electrical components No data transmission to SD Card No data transmission from sensors Wiring failure 45

Parts List 46

Schedule 47

48

Mass BudgetMonetary Budget 49

Questions? 50