1. 2012 PDR NODDEX: Nitric Oxide and Dust Detector EXperiment Preliminary Design Review Virginia Tech/Baylor University Presented by Stephen Noel December 7, 2011 1

2. 2012 PDR PDR Presentation Content 2 Section 1: Mission Overview –Mission Overview –Organizational Chart –Theory and Concepts –Concept of Operations –Expected Results Section 2: System Overview –Subsystem Definitions –Critical Interfaces –System Level Block Diagram –System/Project Level Requirement Verification Plan –User Guide Compliance –Sharing Logistics with UW

3. 2012 PDR PDR Presentation Contents Section 3: Subsystem Design –Data Logger Trade Study –NO Sensor NO Block Diagram PDD Risk Matrix/Mitigation –PDD PDD Block Diagram PDD Risk Matrix/Mitigation –IMU IMU Block Diagram IMU Risk Matrix/Mitigation 3

4. 2012 PDR PDR Presentation Contents Section 4: Prototyping Plan –NO Prototyping (or reuse) –PDD Prototyping and Testing Section 5: Project Management Plan –Schedule –Budget –Work Breakdown Structure 4

5. 2012 PDR Mission Overview Stephen Noel 5

6. 2012 PDR Mission Overview Nitric Oxide (NO) sensor implementation –Measure concentration of NO as a function of altitude –Flight heritage in RockSat-C (NOIME) Piezo Dust Detector (PDD) –Collect measurements of velocity and energy from incoming dust particles –Existing flight heritage on UT satellite 6

7. 2012 PDR Mission Overview Utilize Nitric Oxide sensor for NO concentration data collection in high altitudes –IMU data to accompany NO data –Optimal senor orientation –Successful data transmission and storage –Mechanical and thermal securing for reentry Successful implementation of Piezo Dust Detector and collection of space dust impact energy readings for Baylor University –Successful data transmission and storage –Mechanical and thermal securing for reentry 7

8. 2012 PDR Organizational Chart 8 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh kashin@vbi.vt.edu Team Leader: Stephen Noel snoel07@vt.edu Power: Jake Aberman Brian McCarthy Matt Clark Juan Ojeda Waqas Khattak Asim Khattak Command, Control, and Data Handling: Louis Cirillo Jay Lee Instrumentation: Jason Duane Peter McDonald Mark Godine Matt Clark Juan Ojeda Diwas Thapa Mechanical and CAD: Charlie Vasko AJ Jones Mike Mascaro Ryan Hatton Graduate Advisor: Robbie Robertson Faculty Advisor: Dr. Troy Henderson

9. 2012 PDR Theory and Concepts Utilizing NO sensor and IMU from NOIME (RockSat-C flight heritage) –NO sensor collects wavelength data around 220nm –NO sensor oriented at 45 degrees to catch light off of upper atmosphere –Stepped conical shape on the inside to allow only direct rays –IMU collects acceleration, angular rate, and magnetic field data 9

10. 2012 PDR Theory and Concepts Piezo Dust Detector (PDD) –Little flight heritage –Stacked webs of charged wires which filter particles measuring dust velocity and energy 10

11. 2012 PDR NODDEX ConOps (for Terrier-Orion) t ≈ 15 min Splash Down t ≈ TBD Altitude: TBD Skirt Released, NO data collection -NO, IME, and PDD sensors on -Begin data collection t = 0 min t ≈ 4.0 min Altitude: 95 km NO data collection Apogee t ≈ 2.8 min Altitude: ≈115 km End of Orion Burn t ≈ 0.6 min Altitude: 52 km t ≈ 4.5 min Altitude: 75 km Reentry Altitude t ≈ 5.5 min Chute Deploys

12. 2012 PDR Expected Results 12 Utilizing NO sensor and IMU from NOIME (RockSat-C flight heritage) –NO sensor collects wavelength data around 220nm –Compare data to current atmospheric models Still need expected PDD results data from Baylor University

13. 2012 PDR System Overview Stephen Noel 13

14. 2012 PDR Subsystem Overview 14 IMU Amplifiers

15. 2012 PDR Critical Interfaces 15 Interface NameBrief DescriptionPotential Solution IMU/Transceiver /Log1 and TM IMU mounts to RockSat-X deck rigidly. RS482 connection into transceiver, RS232 connection from transceiver into data logger 1 and to the TM output. Determine physical connectors needed. Transceiver will convert the RS482 signal to RS232 standard. NO/Femto amplifier/Post amplifier/Log2 and TM NO sensor rigidly connected to RockSat-X deck. RS232 connection from NO sensor to Femto amplifier. Femto Amplifier connected to a post amplifier. Outputs into data logger 2 and TM by analog pin. Decide on post amplifier (produce or buy?). Determine specific connectors needed. Determine how to connect hardware to deck. PDD/Log3 and TM PDD rigidly connected to RockSat-X deck. RS 232 connection to data logger 3 and serial TM pin. Determine how to connect hardware to deck. Determine specific connectors needed.

16. 2012 PDR System Level Block Diagram 16 Analog

17. 2012 PDR Requirement Verification 17 Requirement Verification Method Description Optimal NO senor orientation and successful data transmission and storage DemonstrationWill verify calibration with simulation in lab assisted by Dr. Bailey The full system shall fit on a single RockSat-X deck InspectionVisual inspection will verify this requirement The system shall survive the vibration characteristics prescribed by the RockSat- X program. TestThe system will be subjected to these vibration loads in June during testing week.

18. 2012 PDR RockSat-X 2011 User’s Guide Compliance 18 Rough Order of Magnitude mass estimates pending Payload components are relatively small, no layout problems expects No deployables needed TM connector pin allocation: Wyoming/VT TM connector: 1 Analog (pin 10) 1 RS232 Data (pin 32) 1 RS232 Ground (pin 33) Colorado TM Connector: 1 RS232 Data (pin 32) 1 RS232 Ground (pin 33) Using two timer event pins and one GSE CG will be kept within +/- 1 inch of center of deck The PDD uses 3W, need to allocate power appropriately RS-X Shared Power Connector PinFunctionTeam 1GSE-1WYO 2TE-RA WYO 3TE-RB 4TE-NR1WYO 5GNDWYO 6GNDWYO 7GNDWYO 8GNDWYO 9GSE-2VT 10TE-NR2VT 11TE-NR3VT 12GNDVT 13GNDVT 14GNDVT 15GNDVT

19. 2012 PDR Sharing Logistics 19 Payload area will be shared with UW –The AstroX team strives to test an electrically active heat shield prototype Plan for collaboration –Team leads will stay in contact via email –SolidWorks models, mass budgets, power budgets, etc. are shared through a joint drop box account

20. 2012 PDR Subsystem Design Stephen Noel 20

21. 2012 PDR Trade Studies 21 Data Logger Persistor CF2Logomatic v2 Cost 108 Availability 109 Size 68 Data Storage 78 Ease of Programming 510 Average: 7.68.6 Open access to spare Persistors, where as would need to purchase a third Logomatic Logomatic requires little to no programming to initialize whereas Persistor requires working knowledge of C language Equivalent length and width, but Persistor is approximately twice as thick as Logomatic *Most other hardware is legacy

22. 2012 PDR NO: Block Diagram 22 Analog Amplifies very weak signal from NO sensor Amplifies with a gain of ~10

23. 2012 PDR NO: Risk Matrix 23 Consequence NO.RSK.1 NO.RSK.6 NO.RSK.2 NO.RSK.5 NO.RSK.4NO.RSK.3 Possibility NO.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recovered NO.RSK.2: NO pointing insufficient for data collection NO.RSK.3: NO probe does not survive heating of reentry NO.RSK.4: NO probe critically damaged by salt water exposure NO.RSK.5: NO post amplifier fails, no reliable data received NO.RSK.6: NO Femto amplifier fails, no reliable data received

24. 2012 PDR PDD: Block Diagram 24 Needs 5V and up to 3W

25. 2012 PDR PDD: Risk Matrix 25 Consequence PDD.RSK.1 PDD.RSK.2 PDD.RSK.4PDD.RSK.3 Possibility PDD.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recovered PDD.RSK.2: PDD does not provide reliable data, not calibrated correctly PDD.RSK.3: PDD does not survive heating of reentry PDD.RSK.4: PDD critically damaged by salt water exposure

26. 2012 PDR IMU: Block Diagram 26 Convert RS482 to RS232 Use less reliable serial line

27. 2012 PDR IMU: Risk Matrix 27 Consequence IMU.RSK.1 IMU.RSK.2 IMU.RSK.5 IMU.RSK.4IMU.RSK.3 Possibility IMU.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recovered IMU.RSK.2: IMU does not provide reliable data, not calibrated correctly IMU.RSK.3: IMU does not survive heating of reentry IMU.RSK.4: IMU critically damaged by salt water exposure IMU.RSK.5: IMU transceiver fails, no data received

28. 2012 PDR Prototyping Plan Stephen Noel 28

29. 2012 PDR Prototyping Plan 29 Orientation of the sensor and the field of view required NO sensor PDD Post Amplifier Concerns about testing and calibrating the PDD in the lab to determine the expected data The amplification is enough so that the outputs from Femto Amplifier is detectable Verify the vertical distance to Wyoming’s plate so that it does not obstruct the field of view of the sensor. Place sensor as close to edge of plate as possible. Work with Baylor University and determine their method of calibration and expected results Testing to make sure that the gain of the post amplifier is high enough Risk/ConcernAction

30. 2012 PDR Project Management Plan Stephen Noel 30

31. 2012 PDR Schedule 31

32. 2012 PDR Budget 32 NODDEX Budget Updated:12/7/2011 ItemSupplierEstimated or Specific CostNumber RequiredTotal CostNotes NO SensorIn-house$0.001 Will make in shop if needed PDD SensorBaylor U$0.001 Already have IMUNone$0.001 Already have Femto amplifierFemto$0.00 Already have Post amplifierTBD1Cost TBD New Data LoggerSparkFun$60.001 Old Data LoggersSparkFun$0.002 Already have Testing MaterialsN/A$2001$200.00Misc. $260.00Subtotal $325.00w/ 25% margin

33. 2012 PDR WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) 33 NOPDDIMU Finish obtaining design criteria from Dr. Bailey Redesign if necessary Test and implement Obtain SolidWorks drawings from Baylor Receive and test prototype Implement Test last year’s IMU Decide if we will design platform for IMU similar to other years Implement

34. 2012 PDR Conclusion 34