IPT2003 White Paper Template

Competition Sensitive Document Attached Team ZZX IPT 2008 White Paper - TEMPLATE

The Attached Document is Competition Sensitive until May 2, 2008

IPT Phase 2 White Paper File naming Convention: Section 01 IPT2008_01_Phase2_TeamX_White_Paper_revXX.doc Section 02 IPT2008_02_Phase2_TeamX_White_Paper_revXX.doc Section 03 IPT2008_03_Phase2_ TeamX_White_Paper_revXX.doc

Project Team Baseline Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 01 Micro UAV Team A 01-BL 01A-ALT1 01A–ALT2 01A–ALT3 01 Micro UAV Team B 01-BL 01B-ALT1 01B–ALT2 01B–ALT3 01 Micro UAV Team C 01-BL 01C-ALT1 01C–ALT2 01C–ALT3 02 LETS Team D 02-BL 02D-ALT1 02C–ALT2 N/A 02 LETS Team E 02-BL 02E-ALT1 02E–ALT2 N/A 02 LETS Team F 02-BL 02F-ALT1 02F–ALT2 N/A 03 CCLR Team G 03-BL 03G-ALT1 03G–ALT2 03G–ALT3 03 CCLR Team H 03-BL 03H-ALT1 03H–ALT2 03H–ALT3 03 CCLR Team I 03-BL 03I-ALT1 03I–ALT2 03I–ALT3

If you find this document unattended put it in a secure place and notify

Dr. Robert A. Frederick, Jr. IPT Project Director Office: 256-824-7203 Cell: 256-503-4909 [email protected]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 1 of 21 Alternate Concepts White Paper

IPT ZZX

Systems Engineering Discipline Name John Doe; Team Leader; Institution Discipline Name John Doe; Thee University of Alabama in Huntsville Discipline Name John Doe; Southern University Discipline Name John Doe; ESTACA Discipline Name John Doe; Institution Modeling and Simulation Discipline Name John Doe; Team Leader; Institution Discipline Name John Doe; Southern University Discipline Name John Doe; ESTACA Discipline Name John Doe; Institution Discipline Name John Doe Manufacturing and Testing Discipline Name John Doe; Team Leader; Institution Discipline Name John Doe; Institution Discipline Name John Doe; Institution Discipline Name John Doe; Institution Discipline Name John Doe, Institution

Submitted By:

[Insert Company Name Here]

Submitted To: Mr. Tom Percy and Dr. D. Brian Landrum, or Dr. P.J. Benfield and Dr. Matthew Turner or Dr. Robert Frederick and Dr. D. Brian Landrum Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering The University of Alabama in Huntsville [email protected]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 2 of 21 Abstract

For the Spring 2008 IPT competition, Team Frankenstein will be competing in the design of a Lunar Exploration Transportation System, LETS. This system must have the ability to land on the moon at a polar location and also have the ability to move around while on the moon. For a single site, we must determine lighting conditions every two hours over the course of a year, determine micrometeorite flux, and assess electrostatic dust levitation and its correlation with lighting conditions. We must also achieve our mobility goals by collecting independent measurement of 15 samples in permanent dark and 5 samples in lighted terrain, determine the composition, geotechnical properties and volatile content of the regolith, and relay all information back to earth. For the second phase of this competition, Team Frankenstein has developed two alternatives to the given Baseline Design, the Viking. Each design consists of a lander and rover combination. The first is a land on wheels concept that encompasses the lander and rover into one vehicle. The second concept is a traditional lander that will deploy a rover on the lunar surface. Each design will be thoroughly assessed based on the specifications of the Concept Description Document (CDD). After each design is assessed and ranked, one design will be chosen and carried on into the third phase.

Team Frankenstein’s first option is Cyclopes. This design encompasses the land on wheels concept. Cyclopes will land and travel on the lunar surface to accomplish our CDD requirements. The lander will have two MR-80 monopropellant liquid rocket engines, twelve MR-106 monopropellant thrusters, a hexagonal structure with six wheels, and penetrators. This option has been selected by team Frankenstein to carry on into the third phase of the project.

The second option is Medusa. This design has a lander, which will deploy a rover on the surface to complete the CDD requirements. The lander will have two MR-80 monopropellant liquid rocket engines, twelve MR-106 monopropellant thrusters, a hexagonal structure with four landing legs, and penetrators.

The main reason for selecting Cyclopes is because of the score of the evaluation matrix. This design is the best choice at this time to carry on to the third phase of the project.

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 3 of 21 Technical Description [Limited to pages 4 - 5 only]

1.0 Overview of Phase 2 For Phase 2, the individual IPTs have worked independently to produce three alternative configurations to a Baseline Design. The deliverables for Phase 2 are a White Paper and an Oral Presentation. The White Paper compares the Baseline Concept, named the Viking Lander and Serial Number with three alternative concepts. This White Paper summarizes a strategy for selecting alternative systems, qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate each idea, and a logical rationale for down selecting one concept from among the two presented.

1.1 Specification Summary For this project to be a successful mission, there are certain requirements that must be achieved. 1 For this mission, the lander and rover must be able take and retrieve the CDD requirements and data from the moon’s surface and relay back to the earth. The lander shall be able to achieve the worse case g-load and be able to land on a 12 degree slope. The lander will land at a polar location with the capability to land at other lunar locations. After reaching the moon, each lander has to be able to determine lighting conditions every two hours over the course of a year, determine micrometeorite flux, and assess electrostatic dust levitation and its correlation with lighting conditions for a single site. We must also achieve our mobility goals by collecting independent measurement of 15 samples in permanent dark and 5 samples in lighted terrain. From the collected samples, we must then determine the composition, geotechnical properties and volatile content of the regolith, and relay all information back to earth by the end of our mission end (one year). The total landing mass cannot exceed 997.4kg for the chosen Atlas V-401 EPF shroud configuration. The system must be able to survive the polar and lunar environment for a year.

1.2 Team Frankenstein Approach to Phase 2 Upon completing Phase 1, the Baseline Review, Team Frankenstein began to function as a team. This is where each of the individuals became responsible for their own disciplines. The first step in Phase 2 was creating individual resumes for each team member and the Letter of Intent to create a common format for team operation. The two issues that caused the most concern were the harsh environment and mobility. The harsh environment presents as an issue because of the little information known about the moon. Our requirements to achieve our surface objectives in the permanently dark sites are also an issue due to the temperature ranging from +107 to -153 degrees Celsius. Mobility was non-existent on our baseline lander. The CDD for the LETS, however, does require mobility.

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 4 of 21 The group studied back over the Baseline Review presentation to attain detailed information about the Customer’s specific requirements. From the customer’s requirements, each discipline began investigating the possible situations to meet the given CDD requirements. Once each team member envisioned several ideas, they were presented to the entire team. The team began revising these possibilities. Team Frankenstein began narrowing the alternatives to a couple designs. From team collaboration two complete concepts were created. The team evaluated the concepts based on the weighted values for desired criteria and chose the highest score to be the winning concept.

Figure 1 shows the outline of the design process used for Phase 2. Figure 1 shows the outline of the design process used for Phase 2. The CDD requirements were evaluated and given to the Project Manager. The Manager then forwarded them on to the Systems Engineers and finally to the individual disciplines. After each discipline presented their own alternatives, a complete systems evaluation was completed and made changes as necessary. This process was repeated until the final concepts were developed. Our results were then submitted to the Project Office for a final evaluation before presented to the Customer.

CDD/Customer

Project Office

Systems Engineer

Payloads Operations GN&C Structures Pow e Thermal Mobility Sample Return r

System Simulation

Results

Figure 1 – Outline of the Design Methodology1

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 5 of 21 2.0 Description of Concepts [Limited to page 6 only] In this section, you are to explain the logic that you used in identifying the attributes of a concept, eliminating possible choices, and configuring the three alternative concepts. Since there will be thousands of possible configurations, and you will only present three, this part of the White Paper briefly describes the logic and strategy for the configurations that you are presenting. It is essential to concentrate on the major attributes necessary to make a configuration decision.

Table 1 summarizes the final configurations of the Baseline plus your three team-specific alternatives. It shows the different categories of configuration choices in the left column. The template has an example for the IPT 2008 class for inspection. The Systems Engineering leads from each team need to reconfigure this table for you project. Within each category, there are several configuration states listed. Teams may add team-specific choices within categories if required without revealing the choice to the entire class. There are four columns in the table that describe configuration state for each concept. Systems engineering for all teams again need to propose the values for the class baseline so that it is presented consistently by both teams.

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 6 of 21 Table 1– BOOST Matrix for [Project Name] [Page 7]

Baseline Alternative Concepts 03H- 03-BL 03H-ALT1 03H-ALT2 CONFIGURATION STATE Coyote CATEGORY 1. Packaging [Tube] [Backpack] Tube [Other] 2. Air Vehicle [Fixed Wing] [Rotary Wing] [Compound] Fixed Wing {Other} 3. Cruise Propulsion [Rocket] [Air breathing] [Electric] Air Breathing [Other] 4. Sensor [Day-color] [IR] Interchangable [Hybrid] Day/IR [other] 5. Guidance [Autonomous] [Teleoperated] Other [Other] 6. Communications [NLOS] NLOS [LOS] [Other] LOS 7. Launch [Tube] [Hand] Tube [Other] 8. Recovery [Expendable] [Self-Recovery] [Soldier Expendable Recovered] [Other] 9. Warhead Fusing [Contact] [Airburst] [Tri-modal] NA [Other] 10. Launch [Rocket] [Spring] Spring / Propulsion [Air Breathing] Parachute [Other] 11. Engagement [Rocket] [Air breathing] Propulsion [Electric] NA [Other] 12. Power Source [Army Battery] [Other] ?? 13. Field Assembly [None] [Assembly Required None [Other]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 7 of 21 2.1 Baseline Concept: “Shark 1” [01-BL] [page 8] [Give a good 1 page description of the overall configuration (Table 2), key subsystems, operations, technical data (Table 2), evaluation of the configuration (Table 3), and others as you see fit. Refer to Figure 2 in section 5.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 8 of 21 2.2 Alternative 1 Concept: “Sword Fish” [01A – ALT1] Page 9 [Give a good 1 page description of the overall configuration (Table 2), key subsystems, operations, technical data (Table 2), evaluation of the configuration (Table 3), and others as you see fit. Refer to Figure 2 in section 5.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 9 of 21 2.3 Alternative 2 Concept: “Crab” [01A – ALT2 ]” page 10 [Give a good 1 page description of the overall configuration (Table 2), key subsystems, operations, technical data (Table 2), evaluation of the configuration (Table 3), and others as you see fit. Refer to Figure 2 in section 5.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 10 of 21 2.4 Alternative 3 Concept: “Sting Ray” [01A – ALT1 ] [Give a good 1 page description of the overall configuration (Table 2), key subsystems, operations, technical data (Table 2), evaluation of the configuration (Table 3), and others as you see fit. Refer to Figure 2 in section 5.] .

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 11 of 21 3.0 Selection of Final Concept [Limited to Page 12] [Discuss Table 3. Explain the categories that you used, the weighting factors, and the scoring methods. Summarize the biggest distinction(s) and the reasoning behind your evaluation of them. Declare one concept as your Preferred Concept]. Explain WHY you think that the choice you made is the best potential idea, based on the customer requirements.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 12 of 21 4.0 Phase 3 Plan [Limited to Page 13]

4.1 Key Issues to Address [Note the major issues that must be addressed in order to deploy the concept by the required date. These could include technology development, clarification of actual operations interfaces with station, testing and verification, availability of funding, etc.]

4.3 Phase 3 Schedule [Outline your plans for refining the selected concept in Phase 3. Describe how you intend to address the developmental issues in Phase 3 using analysis, assumption, or other methods.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 13 of 21 5.0 Illustrations [Page 14]

Figure 2 – Baseline: “Shark 1” [01-BL]

Figure 3 -:Alternative 1 Concept : “Sword Fish” [01A – ALT1]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 14 of 21 [Page 15]

Figure 4 – Alternative 2 Concept: “Crab” [01A – ALT2]

Figure 5 – Alternative 3 Concept : “Sting Ray” [01A – ALT1]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 15 of 21 Table 2 – Engineering Summary (required) [Page 16]

03-BL 03H- 03H- 03H-

Coyote NAME Units 1. Deployed Air Vehicle Data a) Width in b) Length in d) Height in

c) Weight lbf

1- Air Frame lbf

2- Propulsion lbf

3- War Head lbf

4- Avionics/Sensors lbf

5- Power lbf

2. Flight Data (Launch) a) Cruise Speed mph b) Max Launch Acceleration fps c) Maximum Range Miles d) Maximum Endurance Minutes e) Maximum Altitude feet

3. Other (Team supplied)

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 16 of 21 Table 3 - Concept Evaluation Matrix [Page 17] NA Not Analyzed Scoring Legend Does Not Meet Partially Meets Meets 0 0 5 10

03-BL 03H- 03H-Alt2 03H-Alt3 Score ALT1 CDD Requirement CDD Attribute Wt. Sword Sting Coyote Crab Fish Ray

Existing Gun Platform Gun System 2 Bofors Bofors Bofors Bofors Desired L70 L70 L70 L70 Kinetic Energy 3 Minimum of 32 kJ 212.9 212.9 212.9 212.9 Target Diameter of 90% 3 Maximum of 100 mm Intercept 140 140 140 140 ECAP Round Shelf Life 3 Minimum of 15 Years 20 10 Transport Weight 2 NA 26,634 lb Maximum

Divert Radius 3 NA Minimum of 30 m Minimum of 0.4 Shots Firing Rate 2 7.5 per Second Shots per Engagement 2 Less than 30 Desired 10-15 Less than $10,000 Cost per Engagement 1 NA Desired One C-130J, Up to 3 Transportability 2 NA Trips with a CH-47F Mobility 1 Desired -124.34°F (-51.3°C) to Operation Temperature 3 102.74°F (39.3°C) USER SUPPLIED Ease of 3 User Selected Modeling/Simulation Manufacturability 3 User Selected User Option 1 1 User Selected Best Concept = 100 Total Score

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 17 of 21 6.0 References [Page 18] 1Fleeman, Eugene L, “Tactical Missile Design,” AIAA Education Series, 2001, ISBN: I-56347-494-8

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 18 of 21 References: References must be limited to easily accessible documents, i.e., those available from libraries, databases, or other public sources. They are to be numbered in the order in which they are cited and grouped at the end of the manuscript in the following form (not listed alphabetically). Use the INSERT REFERENCE FOOTNONE [ENDNOTE] Command at the point in the text where the reference is cited. This will automatically put you to the end of the report where you can type your reference. The examples below are to show the proper format of different sources. 1) Journals: Walker, R. E., Stone, A. R., and Shandor, M., "Secondary Gas Injection in a Conical Rocket Nozzle," AIAA Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1963, pp. 334-338. 2) Books: Turner, M. J., Martin, H. C., and Leible, R. C., "Further Development and Applications of Stiffness Method," Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis, 1st ed., Vol. 1, Wiley, New York, 1963, pp. 6-10.

3) AIAA Book Series: Sutton, K., "Air Radiation Revisited," Thermal Design of Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer Vehicles, edited by H. F. Nelson, Vol. 96, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, New York, 1985, pp. 419-441.

4) Reports: Book, E., and Bratman, H., "Using Compilers to Build Compilers," Systems Development Corp., SP-176, Santa Monica, CA, Aug. 1960.

5) Transactions/Proceedings: Soo, S. L., "Boundary-Layer Motion of a Gas-Solid Suspension," Proceedings of the Symposium on Interaction Between Fluids and Particles, Vol. 1, Inst. of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1962, pp. 50-63.

6) AIAA Meeting Papers: Bhutta, V. A., and Lewis, C. H., "Aerothermodynamic Performance of 3-D and Bent-Nose RVs under Hypersonic Conditions," AIAA Paper 90-3068, Aug. 1990.

7) Web Page: http://www.place.com, UAH Home Page, Assessed February 20, 2005. Classified or export-restricted references, personal/private communications, and personal Web sites are not permitted. Give inclusive page numbers for references to journal articles and a page or chapter for books. Cite references in numerical order in the text.

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 19 of 21 Appendix A – Instructor Directed Reporting Items [This appendix documents any other instructor directed team reporting items that are not critical to the Phase 2 White Paper, These could be copies of telephone reports with Southern University and ESTACA, revised letters of intent, or other tasks that can be documented in the appendix of the White Paper.]

IPT 2008 White Paper Template Page 20 of 21 1