DOCSLIB.ORG

PROJECT PENGUIN Robotic Lunar Crater Resource Prospecting VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY Kevin T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PROJECT PENGUIN Robotic Lunar Crater Resource Prospecting VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY Kevin T PROJECT PENGUIN Robotic Lunar Crater Resource Prospecting VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY Kevin T. Crofton Department of Aerospace & Ocean Engineering TEAM LEAD Allison Quinn STUDENT MEMBERS Ethan LeBoeuf Brian McLemore Peter Bradley Smith Amanda Swanson Michael Valosin III Vidya Vishwanathan FACULTY SUPERVISOR AIAA 2018 Undergraduate Spacecraft Design Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Competition Submission i AIAA Member Numbers and Signatures Ethan LeBoeuf Brian McLemore Member Number: 918782 Member Number: 908372 Allison Quinn Peter Bradley Smith Member Number: 920552 Member Number: 530342 Amanda Swanson Michael Valosin III Member Number: 920793 Member Number: 908465 Vidya Vishwanathan Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Member Number: 608701 Member Number: 25807 ii Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................vi List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................................................... vii I. Team Structure ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Background & Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 2 B. Problem Definition ........................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Scope ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 D. Requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 5 E. Crater Location ................................................................................................................................................. 6 III. Mission Architecture Decision ................................................................................................................................ 8 A. Two Rover System ConOps ............................................................................................................................. 9 B. Pod System Launched from Orbit ConOps .................................................................................................... 10 C. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 IV. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 12 V. Lunar Surface.......................................................................................................................................................... 15 A. Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 15 B. System Overview............................................................................................................................................ 16 C. Rover Instrumentation .................................................................................................................................... 17 D. Rover Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 22 E. Rover Navigation and Guidance ..................................................................................................................... 25 F. Rover Power ................................................................................................................................................... 28 G. Rover Thermal ................................................................................................................................................ 31 H. Rover Communication .................................................................................................................................... 33 I. Rover Dust Mitigation System ....................................................................................................................... 37 J. Rover Avionics ............................................................................................................................................... 37 K. Rover Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 38 L. Mass Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 40 VI. Entry, Descent, & Landing .................................................................................................................................... 41 A. EDL Trajectory ............................................................................................................................................... 41 B. Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 43 C. System Overview............................................................................................................................................ 44 D. Lander Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 45 E. Lander Propulsion .......................................................................................................................................... 47 F. Lander Guidance, Navigation, and Control .................................................................................................... 51 G. Lander Power ................................................................................................................................................. 53 H. Lander Thermal .............................................................................................................................................. 53 iii I. Lander Avionics ............................................................................................................................................. 55 J. Mass Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 56 VII. Earth to Lunar Transfer ........................................................................................................................................ 58 A. Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 58 B. Launch Vehicle Selection ............................................................................................................................... 58 C. Transfer Trajectory ......................................................................................................................................... 60 D. System Overview............................................................................................................................................ 67 E. Orbiter Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 68 F. Orbiter Propulsion .......................................................................................................................................... 69 G. Orbiter Power ................................................................................................................................................. 71 H. Orbiter Thermal .............................................................................................................................................. 72 I. Orbiter Communication .................................................................................................................................. 73 J. Orbiter ADCS ................................................................................................................................................. 78 K. Mass Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 80 VIII. Systems Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 82 A. Mission Mass Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 82 B. Mission Cost Budget .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • China's Touch on the Moon
    commentary China’s touch on the Moon Long Xiao As well as being a milestone in technology, the Chang’e lunar exploration programme establishes China as a contributor to space science. With much still to learn about the Moon, fieldwork beyond Earth’s orbit must be an international effort. hen China’s Chang’e 3 spacecraft geological history of the landing site. touched down on the lunar High-resolution images have shown rocky Wsurface on 14 December 2013, terrain with outcrops of porphyritic basalt, it was the first soft landing on the Moon such as Loong Rock (Fig. 2). Analysis since the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 mission of data collected by the penetrating in 1976. Following on from the decades- Chang’e 3 radar should lead to identification of the old triumphs of the Luna missions and underlying layers of regolith, impact breccia NASA’s Apollo programme, the Chang’e and basalt. lunar exploration programme is leading the China’s robotic field geologist Yutu has charge of a new generation of exploration Basalt outcrop Yutu rover stalled in its traverse of the lunar surface, on the lunar surface. Much like the earlier but plans for the Chang’e 5 sample-return space programmes, the China National mission are moving forward. The primary Space Administration (CNSA) has been objective of the mission will be to return developing its capabilities and technologies 100 m 2 kg of samples from the surface and depths step by step in a series of Chang’e missions UNIVERSITY STATE © NASA/GSFC/ARIZONA of up to 2 m, probably also in the relatively of increasing ambition: orbiting and Figure 1 | The Chinese Chang’e 3 spacecraft and smooth northern Mare Imbrium.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE RESEARCH in POLAND Report to COMMITTEE
    SPACE RESEARCH IN POLAND Report to COMMITTEE ON SPACE RESEARCH (COSPAR) 2020 Space Research Centre Polish Academy of Sciences and The Committee on Space and Satellite Research PAS Report to COMMITTEE ON SPACE RESEARCH (COSPAR) ISBN 978-83-89439-04-8 First edition © Copyright by Space Research Centre Polish Academy of Sciences and The Committee on Space and Satellite Research PAS Warsaw, 2020 Editor: Iwona Stanisławska, Aneta Popowska Report to COSPAR 2020 1 SATELLITE GEODESY Space Research in Poland 3 1. SATELLITE GEODESY Compiled by Mariusz Figurski, Grzegorz Nykiel, Paweł Wielgosz, and Anna Krypiak-Gregorczyk Introduction This part of the Polish National Report concerns research on Satellite Geodesy performed in Poland from 2018 to 2020. The activity of the Polish institutions in the field of satellite geodesy and navigation are focused on the several main fields: • global and regional GPS and SLR measurements in the frame of International GNSS Service (IGS), International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS), International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), European Reference Frame Permanent Network (EPN), • Polish geodetic permanent network – ASG-EUPOS, • modeling of ionosphere and troposphere, • practical utilization of satellite methods in local geodetic applications, • geodynamic study, • metrological control of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment, • use of gravimetric satellite missions, • application of GNSS in overland, maritime and air navigation, • multi-GNSS application in geodetic studies. Report
    [Show full text]
  • Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp
    Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp AIAA Space Mission System 2019-2020 Virginia Tech Aerospace Engineering Faculty Advisor : Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Team Members : Olivia Arthur, Bobby Aselford, Michel Becker, Patrick Crandall, Heidi Engebreth, Maedini Jayaprakash, Logan Lark, Nico Ortiz, Matthew Pieczynski, Brendan Ventura Member AIAA Number Member AIAA Number And Signature And Signature Faculty Advisor 25807 Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Brendan Ventura 1109196 Matthew Pieczynski 936900 Team Lead/Operations Logan Lark 902106 Heidi Engebreth 1109232 Structures & Environment Patrick Crandall 1109193 Olivia Arthur 999589 Power & Thermal Maedini Jayaprakash 1085663 Robert Aselford 1109195 CCDH/Operations Michel Becker 1109194 Nico Ortiz 1109533 Attitude, Trajectory, Orbits and Launch Vehicles Contents 1 Symbols and Acronyms 8 2 Executive Summary 9 3 Preface and Introduction 13 3.1 Project Management . 13 3.2 Problem Definition . 14 3.2.1 Background and Motivation . 14 3.2.2 RFP and Description . 14 3.2.3 Project Scope . 15 3.2.4 Disciplines . 15 3.2.5 Societal Sectors . 15 3.2.6 Assumptions . 16 3.2.7 Relevant Capital and Resources . 16 4 Value System Design 17 4.1 Introduction . 17 4.2 Analytical Hierarchical Process . 17 4.2.1 Longevity . 18 4.2.2 Expandability . 19 4.2.3 Scientific Return . 19 4.2.4 Risk . 20 4.2.5 Cost . 21 5 Initial Concept of Operations 21 5.1 Orbital Analysis . 22 5.2 Launch Vehicles . 22 6 Habitat Location 25 6.1 Introduction . 25 6.2 Region Selection . 25 6.3 Locations of Interest . 26 6.4 Eliminated Locations . 26 6.5 Remaining Locations . 27 6.6 Chosen Location .
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Impact Structures Provide the Only Ground Truth Against Which Computational and Experimental Results Can Be Com­ Pared
    Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1987. 15:245-70 Copyright([;; /987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved TERRESTRIAL IMI!ACT STRUCTURES ··- Richard A. F. Grieve Geophysics Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OY3, Canada INTRODUCTION Impact structures are the dominant landform on planets that have retained portions of their earliest crust. The present surface of the Earth, however, has comparatively few recognized impact structures. This is due to its relative youthfulness and the dynamic nature of the terrestrial geosphere, both of which serve to obscure and remove the impact record. Although not generally viewed as an important terrestrial (as opposed to planetary) geologic process, the role of impact in Earth evolution is now receiving mounting consideration. For example, large-scale impact events may hav~~ been responsible for such phenomena as the formation of the Earth's moon and certain mass extinctions in the biologic record. The importance of the terrestrial impact record is greater than the relatively small number of known structures would indicate. Impact is a highly transient, high-energy event. It is inherently difficult to study through experimentation because of the problem of scale. In addition, sophisticated finite-element code calculations of impact cratering are gen­ erally limited to relatively early-time phenomena as a result of high com­ putational costs. Terrestrial impact structures provide the only ground truth against which computational and experimental results can be com­ pared. These structures provide information on aspects of the third dimen­ sion, the pre- and postimpact distribution of target lithologies, and the nature of the lithologic and mineralogic changes produced by the passage of a shock wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Programs
    LUNAR PROGRAMS NASA is leading a sustainable return to the Moon Aerospace is partnered with NASA to with commercial and international partners to return humans to the Moon in every expand human presence in space and gather phase and journey, including the: new knowledge and opportunities. In 2017, Space › Planning and supporting the Policy Directive-1 called for a renewed emphasis on first lifecycle review of the commercial and international partnerships, return Gateway Initiative of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization followed by human missions to Mars. › Design, systems engineering and Aerospace is partnered with NASA in this endeavor integration, and operational concepts and is involved in every phase and journey. of the EVA system Artist’s conception of a gateway habitat. Image credit: NASA Humans must return to the moon for long-term › Ground testing of the NEXTStep deep exploration and utilization of deep space, but lunar space habitat module prototypes exploration is more than a stepping stone to Mars missions. The phased plan includes › Design and test of the Orion sending missions to the moon and cislunar space for exploration and study, and the capsule avionics construction of the Deep Space Gateway, a space station intended to orbit the moon. Aerospace provides support to these missions in areas such as systems engineering and integration, program management, and various subsystem expertise. Current Lunar Programs GATEWAY INITIATIVE NASA’s Gateway is conceived to be an exploration and science outpost in orbit around the moon that will enable human crewed missions to both cislunar space and the moon’s surface, meet scientific discovery and exploration objectives, and demonstrate and prove enabling technologies through commercial and international partnerships.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minor Planet Bulletin
    THE MINOR PLANET BULLETIN OF THE MINOR PLANETS SECTION OF THE BULLETIN ASSOCIATION OF LUNAR AND PLANETARY OBSERVERS VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3, A.D. 2009 JULY-SEPTEMBER 77. PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS OF 343 OSTARA Our data can be obtained from http://www.uwec.edu/physics/ AND OTHER ASTEROIDS AT HOBBS OBSERVATORY asteroid/. Lyle Ford, George Stecher, Kayla Lorenzen, and Cole Cook Acknowledgements Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire We thank the Theodore Dunham Fund for Astrophysics, the Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004 National Science Foundation (award number 0519006), the [email protected] University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (Received: 2009 Feb 11) Blugold Fellow and McNair programs for financial support. References We observed 343 Ostara on 2008 October 4 and obtained R and V standard magnitudes. The period was Binzel, R.P. (1987). “A Photoelectric Survey of 130 Asteroids”, found to be significantly greater than the previously Icarus 72, 135-208. reported value of 6.42 hours. Measurements of 2660 Wasserman and (17010) 1999 CQ72 made on 2008 Stecher, G.J., Ford, L.A., and Elbert, J.D. (1999). “Equipping a March 25 are also reported. 0.6 Meter Alt-Azimuth Telescope for Photometry”, IAPPP Comm, 76, 68-74. We made R band and V band photometric measurements of 343 Warner, B.D. (2006). A Practical Guide to Lightcurve Photometry Ostara on 2008 October 4 using the 0.6 m “Air Force” Telescope and Analysis. Springer, New York, NY. located at Hobbs Observatory (MPC code 750) near Fall Creek, Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Warfare in a Fragile World: Military Impact on the Human Environment
    Recent Slprt•• books World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbook 1979 World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbooks 1968-1979, Cumulative Index Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapon Proliferation Other related •• 8lprt books Ecological Consequences of the Second Ihdochina War Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment Publish~d on behalf of SIPRI by Taylor & Francis Ltd 10-14 Macklin Street London WC2B 5NF Distributed in the USA by Crane, Russak & Company Inc 3 East 44th Street New York NY 10017 USA and in Scandinavia by Almqvist & WikseH International PO Box 62 S-101 20 Stockholm Sweden For a complete list of SIPRI publications write to SIPRI Sveavagen 166 , S-113 46 Stockholm Sweden Stoekholol International Peace Research Institute Warfare in a Fragile World Military Impact onthe Human Environment Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI is an independent institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of disarmament and arms regulation. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden's 150 years of unbroken peace. The Institute is financed by the Swedish Parliament. The staff, the Governing Board and the Scientific Council are international. As a consultative body, the Scientific Council is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. Governing Board Dr Rolf Bjornerstedt, Chairman (Sweden) Professor Robert Neild, Vice-Chairman (United Kingdom) Mr Tim Greve (Norway) Academician Ivan M£ilek (Czechoslovakia) Professor Leo Mates (Yugoslavia) Professor
    [Show full text]
  • To the Moon and Beyond! Article
    3/12/2020 Achieve3000: Lesson Printed by: Jessica Christian Printed on: March 12, 2020 To the Moon and Beyond! Article PART 1 NEW DELHI, India. Both India and China are moving ahead in space exploration. Both countries launched space missions in 2013. India's Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) was sent to Mars in November. China's Chang'e 3 spaceship blasted off on its way to the moon in December. India India launched its first spacecraft bound for Mars on November 5, 2013. The craft spent almost a month in Earth's orbit. Then, on November 30, 2013, the orbiter went on its way to the Red Planet. "The Earth orbiting phase of the spacecraft ended. The spacecraft is now on a course to reach Mars after a journey of about 10 months around the sun," the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) said in early December. The 3,000-pound (1,350-kilogram) orbiter is called Mangalyaan. That means "Mars craft" in Hindi. It must travel 485 million miles (780 million Photo credit and all related images: kilometers) to reach an orbit around Mars. It will take about 300 days. It is Arun Sankar K/AP expected to do this by September 2014. This is the Satish Dhawan Space Center in southern India. India sent its first spaceship to Mars in The orbiter will gather images and data. They will help in determining how November 2013. Martian weather systems work. India is also looking to MOM to figure out what happened to the large quantities of water that are believed to have once existed on Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • Pro.Ffress D &Dentsdc Raddo
    Pro.ffress d_ &dentSdc Raddo FIFTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RADIO UNION September 5-15, 1966 Munich, Germany REPORT OF THE U.S.A. NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RADIO UNION Publication 1468 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Washington, D.C. 1966 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 55-31605 Available from Printing and Publishing Office National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418 Price: $10.00 October28,1966 Dear Dr. Seitz: I ampleasedto transmitherewitha full report to the NationalAcademy of Sciences--NationalResearchCouncil,onthe 15thGeneralAssemblyof URSIwhichwasheldin Munich,September5-15, 1966. TheUnitedStatesNationalCommitteeof URSIhasparticipatedin the affairs of the Unionfor forty-five years. It hashadmuchinfluenceonthe Unionas,.for example,in therecent creationof a Commissiononthe Mag- netosphere.ThisnewCommission,whichis nowvery strong,demonstrates the ability of theUnion,oneof ICSU'sthree oldest,to respondto the changingneedsof its field. AlthoughtheUnitedStatessendsthelargest delegationsof anycountry to the GeneralAssembliesof URSI,theyare neverthelessrelatively small becauseof thestrict mannerin whichURSIcontrolsthe size of its Assem- blies. This is donein order to preventineffectivenessthroughuncontrolled participationbyvery largenumbersof delegates.Accordingly,our delega- tions are carefully selected,andcomprisepeoplequalifiedto prepareand presentour NationalReportto the Assembly.Thepre-Assemblyreport is a report of progressin
    [Show full text]
  • Mighty Eagle: the Development and Flight Testing of an Autonomous Robotic Lander Test Bed
    Mighty Eagle: The Development and Flight Testing of an Autonomous Robotic Lander Test Bed Timothy G. McGee, David A. Artis, Timothy J. Cole, Douglas A. Eng, Cheryl L. B. Reed, Michael R. Hannan, D. Greg Chavers, Logan D. Kennedy, Joshua M. Moore, and Cynthia D. Stemple PL and the Marshall Space Flight Center have been work- ing together since 2005 to develop technologies and mission concepts for a new generation of small, versa- tile robotic landers to land on airless bodies, including the moon and asteroids, in our solar system. As part of this larger effort, APL and the Marshall Space Flight Center worked with the Von Braun Center for Science and Innovation to construct a prototype monopropellant-fueled robotic lander that has been given the name Mighty Eagle. This article provides an overview of the lander’s architecture; describes the guidance, navi- gation, and control system that was developed at APL; and summarizes the flight test program of this autonomous vehicle. INTRODUCTION/PROJECT BACKGROUND APL and the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) technology risk-reduction efforts, illustrated in Fig. 1, have been working together since 2005 to develop have been performed to explore technologies to enable technologies and mission concepts for a new genera- low-cost missions. tion of small, autonomous robotic landers to land on As part of this larger effort, MSFC and APL also airless bodies, including the moon and asteroids, in our worked with the Von Braun Center for Science and solar system.1–9 This risk-reduction effort is part of the Innovation (VCSI) and several subcontractors to con- Robotic Lunar Lander Development Project (RLLDP) struct the Mighty Eagle, a prototype monopropellant- that is directed by NASA’s Planetary Science Division, fueled robotic lander.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept for a Crewed Lunar Lander Operating from the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway
    69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 1-5 October 2018. Copyright © 2018 by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms. IAC-18.A5.1.4x46653 Concept for a Crewed Lunar Lander Operating from the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway Timothy Cichana*, Stephen A. Baileyb, Adam Burchc, Nickolas W. Kirbyd aSpace Exploration Architect, P.O. Box 179, MS H3005, Lockheed Martin Space, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. 80201, [email protected] bPresident, 8100 Shaffer Parkway, Unit 130, Deep Space Systems, Inc., Littleton, Colorado, 80127-4124, [email protected] cDesign Engineer / Graphic Artist, 8341 Sangre de Christo Rd, Deep Space Systems, Inc., Littleton, Colorado, 80127, [email protected] dSystems Engineer, Advanced Programs, P.O. Box 179, MS H3005, Lockheed Martin Space, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. 80201, [email protected] * Corresponding Author Abstract Lockheed Martin is working with NASA on the development of the Lunar Orbiting Platform – Gateway, or Gateway. Positioned in the vicinity of the Moon, the Gateway allows astronauts to demonstrate operations beyond Low Earth Orbit for months at a time. The Gateway is evolvable, flexible, modular, and is a precursor and mission demonstrator directly on the path to Mars. Mars Base Camp is Lockheed Martin's vision for sending humans to Mars. Operations from an orbital base camp will build on a strong foundation of today's technologies and emphasize scientific exploration as mission cornerstones. Key aspects of Mars Base Camp include utilizing liquid oxygen and hydrogen as the basis for a nascent water-based economy and the development of a reusable lander/ascent vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures
    Space 2003 AIAA 2003-6280 23 - 25 September 2003, Long Beach, California Mobile Lunar and Planetary Bases Marc M. Cohen, Arch.D. Advanced Projects Branch, Mail Stop 244-14, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 TEL 650 604-0068 FAX 650 604-0673 [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents a review of design concepts over three decades for developing mobile lunar and planetary bases. The idea of the mobile base addresses several key challenges for extraterrestrial surface bases. These challenges include moving the landed assets a safe distance away from the landing zone; deploying and assembling the base remotely by automation and robotics; moving the base from one location of scientific or technical interest to another; and providing sufficient redundancy, reliability and safety for crew roving expeditions. The objective of the mobile base is to make the best use of the landed resources by moving them to where they will be most useful to support the crew, carry out exploration and conduct research. This review covers a range of surface mobility concepts that address the mobility issue in a variety of ways. These concepts include the Rockwell Lunar Sortie Vehicle (1971), Cintala’s Lunar Traverse caravan, 1984, First Lunar Outpost (1992), Frassanito’s Lunar Rover Base (1993), Thangavelu’s Nomad Explorer (1993), Kozlov and Shevchenko’s Mobile Lunar Base (1995), and the most recent evolution, John Mankins’ “Habot” (2000-present). The review compares the several mobile base approaches, then focuses on the Habot approach as the most germane to current and future exploration plans.
    [Show full text]