Alternatives Concepts White Paper IPT 02E

Project Management The University of Alabama Huntsville Team LeaderEddie Kiessling StructuresNathan Coffee Systems EngineerJay Gala GN & CBrandon York GN & CJoseph Sandlin OperationsBrett Guin ThermalKathryn Kirsh ThermalEddie Kiessling Payload OperationsBrent Newson PowerChristopher Goes Technical EditorMichael 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 – 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 2

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 02

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)

Illustrations 02-BL “Viking”

Illustrations 02E-ALT1 “Lander on Wheels”

Illustrations Shroud Configuration

Video

Illustrations 02E-ALT2 “Lander + Rover”

Engineering Summary

Concept Evaluation Matrix

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