Pyrotex Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 :bounce:Is there any chance of humble self being allowed a small part in this communal effort? :) Starting Monday, I shall be analyzing risks and hazards for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). That might be a useful skill. I know a little something about physics, astronomy, rocket science, spacecraft control systems, telemetry -- you know, from reading all that SF when I was a kid. Might want to up our target mass for the rover. Say, 5 kg (11 pounds). The lander/platform would be a little more, say, 50 kg (110) pounds, and that includes whatever landing system (rockets?) we decide on. The lander/platform would include its own camera (0.1 kg) and so that would meet the self-portrait requirement. Where does one START with a project like this? Where NASA and engineering companies start is with a set of "requirements". The goals of the Xprize folks are "requirements", but certainly not all we need. And we also need a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This is simpler than it sounds. It is simply a breakdown of the whole shebang into its major component systems. (electrical, thermal, communication, structural, guidance, etc.) Then we breakdown each system into its subsystems and components. This makes it a lot easier for individuals to research and contribute. I suggest that maybe, perhaps, we look around for a launch system that already works -- something off the shelf, so to speak. My role? I'll leave all the fun stuff to you guys. But I would be more than happy to organize and oversee the requirements analysis, the WBS analysis, and the risk mitigation analysis. I'll coach -- you DO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Hey, is it to late to join? I would Like to be part of vehicle design. You are most certainly welcome to join the fun. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 :bounce:Is there any chance of humble self being allowed a small part in this communal effort? :) Starting Monday, I shall be analyzing risks and hazards for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). That might be a useful skill. I know a little something about physics, astronomy, rocket science, spacecraft control systems, telemetry -- you know, from reading all that SF when I was a kid. Might want to up our target mass for the rover. Say, 5 kg (11 pounds). The lander/platform would be a little more, say, 50 kg (110) pounds, and that includes whatever landing system (rockets?) we decide on. The lander/platform would include its own camera (0.1 kg) and so that would meet the self-portrait requirement. Where does one START with a project like this? Where NASA and engineering companies start is with a set of "requirements". The goals of the Xprize folks are "requirements", but certainly not all we need. And we also need a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This is simpler than it sounds. It is simply a breakdown of the whole shebang into its major component systems. (electrical, thermal, communication, structural, guidance, etc.) Then we breakdown each system into its subsystems and components. This makes it a lot easier for individuals to research and contribute. I suggest that maybe, perhaps, we look around for a launch system that already works -- something off the shelf, so to speak. My role? I'll leave all the fun stuff to you guys. But I would be more than happy to organize and oversee the requirements analysis, the WBS analysis, and the risk mitigation analysis. I'll coach -- you DO.YEAH! Welcome aboard, Pyro. Lets do it! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I think an airbag landing would be easiest to execute. That way, everything stays together until we land successfully. I dont think so, without any means of slowing the lander down it would hit at 200m/s (at best) - on mars the landers had parachutes, which are ineffective on the moon without an atmosphere! Also one of the competition guidelines is that the probe must be soft landed - so we are already looking at a more complex design.. To answer your question tutle, the above been the case if we want multiple rovers it would be much to expensive and complicated to scatter them - as cool as that would be! J I envisioned slowing the lander down via rockets before deploying the airbag(s). Once slowed enough by rocket the airbag is deployed, or the vehicle disperses multiple airbag wrapped rovers. Think dropping a sockerball from a tall building. Now think opening a net bag of six soccer balls from the building. Soft enough I think. I'm no rocket scientist...good thing some of you are. :bounce: :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I envisioned slowing the lander down via rockets before deploying the airbag(s). ...Actually, that's NOT a bad idea. The computer wizardry required for a rocket landing is HUGE compared to your approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Rocket Engineering Lesson 1 I've gone ahead and done a WBS analysis (first pass) on just the piece that goes to the Moon. Now, if you come up with a different way to land or navigate, then your WBS will be different, so be aware. Lunar Payload1. Communication System2. Navigation System3. Reaction Control System4. Electrical Power System5. Thermal Control System6. Descent Rocket Motor & Controller7. Lander Attach/Detach System8. Lander System8.1 Lander Static Structure8.2 Lander Airbag System8.3 Lander Electrical Power System8.4 Lander Thermal Control System8.5 Lander Computer System8.6 Lander Communication System8.7 Lander Camera System8.8 Lander Unfolding System8.9 Rover Attach/Detach System8.10 Rover System8.10.1 Rover Static Structure8.10.2 Rover Electrical Power System8.10.3 Rover Thermal Control System8.10.4 Rover Computer System8.10.5 Rover Communication System8.10.6 Rover Camera System8.10.7 Rover Transport System8.10.7.1 Electrical Motors8.10.7.2 Motor Controllers8.10.7.3 Steering Assemblies8.10.7.4 Wheel Assemblies8.10.7.4.1 Wheel Rims8.10.7.4.2 Wheel Spokes8.10.7.4.3 Wheel Hubs8.10.7.4.4 Wheel Axle Assemblies8.10.7.4.5 Wheel Gearing Assemblies There's a start. But look. I began with 3 computer systems, then I decided to merge the overall Lunar Payload computer with the Lander computer to save weight and complexity. But was this the right decision? What are the pros and cons? Could I have just had one computer on the Rover and have it control all three major sections? (Payload, Lander & Rover) Do I need a kick motor on the the Payload section for either orbital insertion or decelleration? I don't think so, but you consider that. How many wheels? Should the gearing assembly be part of the Motor assembly? On second thought, I'm beginning to change my mind. Notice that I broke only one 4th level WBS item into its 5th level sub-items. You really need to do this kind of decomposition for EVERY item in the whole WBS. For example, consider the Lunar Payload Navigation System, WBS#2. What does it break into? Do you need a radar? How about a gyro inertial platform? How about a star tracker? How about a Lunar horizon detector? What are you gonna need to have the payload know where it is and how it is oriented and when things need to happen? You may find that you're designing something that is NOT in the WBS. Well, it needs to be there!!! But where? At what level? Is your thing part of something else, or is something already in the WBS just a part of what you're designing? You all need to agree on the WBS before you can build the first thing. GOOD LUCK, DUDES & DUDETTES!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Soft landing is a relative term. Any landing which allows the mission to be completed is soft in my book. If our lander could survive a 200m/s impact I would consider that soft. I have no reservations about making a crater in the process. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Soft landing is a relative term. Any landing which allows the mission to be completed is soft in my book. If our lander could survive a 200m/s impact I would consider that soft. I have no reservations about making a crater in the process. Bill :phones: I am toying with the idea of using current OTS jetpack technology for the lunar decent deceleration. The module for sale here carries payload 80kg for 9mins in Earth gravity, so I think that is more than adequate to be adapted for our needs - its nice and small for a start! can anyone see any shortcomings with using a system like this? Great to have you on board Pyro :rant: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I like the idea of having the lander act as a command center for the rovers. The rovers are basically stupid remote control cars run by the lander PC. The lander has solar panels and acts as a recharger for the rovers. They go out and return on a single charge. Very simple little devices. There are virtually no moving parts on the lander. It acts as a base station for the rovers and does all the communication with Earth. The computers use all solid state memory. Again, no moving parts. I like Turtle's idea of not putting all of our eggs in one basket. What if we keep the lander/rover packet small enough that we send two. We then double out chances for a successful touch down. I envision that the stuff we are landing is going to be one of the least expensive parts of the mission. Off the shelf electronics, simple engineering. I think my favorite idea is for a constant motion lander. Get this... we have a lander that when in the sunlight can maintain 8-10 k/h. That is fast enough to perpetually stay in the sunlight. If it lasts for 28 days it would circumnavigate the moon. Imagine how cool that would be! Another idea I had was to have the lander use a mortor type launcher to send rovers or other landers to places on the moon several hundred kilometers away. If we want to take pictures of the existing Apollo equipment that might be the way to do it. Lots of ideas. Great list, Pyro. I would actually like to trim it down into about half a dozen with the details as requirements of separate teams. We will need to come up with some guiding principles to help guide our decision making. I like redundancy in every place we can afford it. The initial launch might be the only place we can't do that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 :phones: I am toying with the idea of using current OTS jetpack technology for the lunar decent deceleration. The module for sale here carries payload 80kg for 9mins in Earth gravity, so I think that is more than adequate to be adapted for our needs - its nice and small for a start! can anyone see any shortcomings with using a system like this? Great to have you on board Pyro :rant:Great idea, JQ. Wherever we can employ off the shelf technology we are ahead of the game. And if it cheap enough that we can run practical tests, all the better! Project Plan and High Level Design. That is the first order of business. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I like the idea of having the lander act as a command center for the rovers. The rovers are basically stupid remote control cars run by the lander PC. The lander has solar panels and acts as a recharger for the rovers. They go out and return on a single charge. Very simple little devices. There are virtually no moving parts on the lander. It acts as a base station for the rovers and does all the communication with Earth. ...Great list, Pyro. I would actually like to trim it down into about half a dozen with the details as requirements of separate teams. We will need to come up with some guiding principles to help guide our decision making....Okie-dokie! First the brainstorming! :phones: :rant: :D Visually, conceptually, what do y'all want? I could go with two rovers on one lander, if they're small enough. We can dumb down the rovers and have the lander be the brains. But a moving lander is gonna quadruple the weight of everything, and multiple the size of the descent rocket motor by 10 or 20!!! Maybe. Pros and cons to everything. Y'all come to a consensus and THEN we'll break the idea down into a WBS and into Systems that teams can work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 Okie-dokie! First the brainstorming! :phones: :rant: :D Visually, conceptually, what do y'all want? I could go with two rovers on one lander, if they're small enough. We can dumb down the rovers and have the lander be the brains. But a moving lander is gonna quadruple the weight of everything, and multiple the size of the descent rocket motor by 10 or 20!!! Maybe. Pros and cons to everything. Y'all come to a consensus and THEN we'll break the idea down into a WBS and into Systems that teams can work on. Could we seal the rover into a ball, like a hamster? That would protect it from dust. It could have function to vibrate (shaking off dust) then open a door to take clear pictures. Then close up and protect from the dust again. This is pure brainstorm. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I dont think we should go with a moving lander - its damn cool, but its outside the scope of the objectives. If we want to win the prize we need to just achieve the objectives as cheap and fast as possible. I asked for application to become an official team and there are already over 100 teams :phones: the sign up fee has not been finalised but they say its between $US1-10thousand - let the fund raising begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted September 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I dont think we should go with a moving lander - its damn cool, but its outside the scope of the objectives. If we want to win the prize we need to just achieve the objectives as cheap and fast as possible. I asked for application to become an official team and there are already over 100 teams :phones: the sign up fee has not been finalised but they say its between -10thousand - let the fund raising begin!100 teams already! We need a working model before they have finalized the requirements. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 We are on the road BD, the wheels are in motion - phone calls are been made and proposals asked for :phones: who is good at selling a concept that will cost lots and give very little return initially? :rant: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 I dont think we should go with a moving lander - its damn cool, but its outside the scope of the objectives. If we want to win the prize we need to just achieve the objectives as cheap and fast as possible. ... Moving is actually one of the primary requirements for the $30 million dollar prize.Google Sponsors Lunar X PRIZE to Create a Space Race for a New Generation | X PRIZE FoundationPrivate companies from around the world will compete to land a privately funded robotic rover on the Moon that is capable of completing several mission objectives' date=' including roaming the lunar surface for [u']at least 500 meters[/u] and sending video, images and data back to the Earth. ... Pyro's taxonomy is a good concept; Perhaps when we get the divisions well settled we can make separate Forums for them and then separate threads within to hash out sub-problems? Perhaps every week or two we can make summary posts to solidify agreement on ideas before we advance? :rant: I'm already having more fun with this than is my due. Que sera sera. :phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted September 21, 2007 Report Share Posted September 21, 2007 Moving is actually one of the primary requirements for the $30 million dollar prize.Google Sponsors Lunar X PRIZE to Create a Space Race for a New Generation | X PRIZE Foundation Pyro's taxonomy is a good concept; Perhaps when we get the divisions well settled we can make separate Forums for them and then separate threads within to hash out sub-problems? Perhaps every week or two we can make summary posts to solidify agreement on ideas before we advance? :rant: I'm already having more fun with this than is my due. Que sera sera. :phones:Sorry turtle I think we need to clarify some definitions here - by lander I meant the module that will provide the shell for the probe, the lander is the part that will require a rocket to slow itself down and some airbags to soften the landing - but after that it cracks open and the buggers roll out :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.