Post on 21-May-2018
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Modular RovingPlanetary Habitat,
Laboratory, and Base
Critical Design ReviewApril 19, 2004
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
“Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program… Themoon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might beharvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time onthe moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems thatwill allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is alogical step toward further progress and achievement.”
~ President George W. Bush
Mission Statement
• Restore human exploration to the moon,investigating a large portion of the lunar surface
• Maximize the search for natural lunar resourcesthrough a mobile base
• Develop the experience and the requiredtechnologies for extended human space travel
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Program Overview
• Launch small, autonomous, mobile modules with specializedpurposes to the moon
• Assemble the modules into a complete base• Send a crew of 4 to the assembled base to conduct experiments
for 3 lunar day-night cycles (months)• Disassemble base and send modules to next site of interest, up
to 1000km away, over an unmanned period of 3 months
Designed to meet externally applied constraints
Kevin Eisenhower
2005 2015
Design/Manufacture
2010
TestSystems
LaunchModules
Manned Missions(every 6 months)
2020
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Water ice and ore depositsas potential resources
Deep lunar compositionVolcanic and impact history
Environmental variationsalong the surface
Muscle developmentand decay
Cardiovascular system
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition and medical care
Human performanceand adaptations
Plant and animal biology
Crew dynamics
Science Objectives• Study the effects of the lunar environment on life,
especially long duration missions
• Study the moon and its resources
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Assembly Sites and Selection Criteria
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/i-map/i2769/
Sites1) Marius2) Flamsteed3) Gassendi4) Tycho5) Meretus6) Drygalski7) Schrodinger8) Minnaert9) Mare Ingenii10) Gagarin
12
34
6 5
10
89
7 6
• Approximately 1000 km apart• Apollo site candidates• Surveyor landing sites
• Ore deposits and useful elements• Permanently shadowed regions• Age and appeal of lunar structures
Near Side Far Side
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module Types• 6 Habitable Modules
– Size governed by launch vehicle payload size– Need 6 to achieve the necessary floor space and
volume to accommodate a crew of 4 for 3 lunar sols
• 6 Chassis with all-wheel drive– Provide locomotion for Habitable Modules– Equipped with transit connections to link vehicles
in the transit phase
• 4 Power Modules with all-wheel drive– Provides AC power to all modules– Equipped with navigation computers and leads
during transit
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Transit configuration:1 Power Module,2 Habitable Modules, &2 Chassis Modules
Modularity – Transit Phase
Kevin Eisenhower
• After each mannedmission,MORPHLAB willdisassemble andtravel autonomouslyto a new base site
• Science will beperformed by themodules whiletraveling
• Enables exploration andanalysis of vast areas ofthe Lunar surface
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Modularity – Manned Base Phase• Multiple base configurations possible• Subsystems split between modules
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Benefits of Modularity• Modules are less massive than a large-scale structure
– Can be launched on existing launch vehicles– Increased mobility
• Capable of traversing great distances– Multiple lunar base locations– Science may be performed while modules are in transit– Experiments may be subjected to long exposures to the
lunar environment• Feasible program expenditures
– Allows for cost spreading over the program duration• Utilizes a cost learning curve
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module DetailsHabitable Module
Power ModuleChassis Module
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable Module
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable Module Overview• Habitable modules:
– provide the space where the crew will live and workwhile not out on EVA
– two types of modules:• Habitable-Living (3 of 6)• Habitable-Science (other 3 of 6)
• This breakup– allows minimal disruption if the astronauts have different
sleeping schedules– restricts lunar dust to the EVA areas
• Functions are distributed and redundant so that thefailure of any one module will not disrupt normalactivities (Level 1 requirements I3, I11)
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Sizing Requirements• All crew interfaces are sized to accommodate 95th
percentile American males to 5th percentileJapanese females (Level 1 requirements L1, L2)
• The size of the modules is bounded by– maximum radius of Delta IV-Heavy payload area – 4.5 m– minimum amount of room necessary for four people in
the same module – 10.24 m2
• Habitable modules are 4.0 m in diameter, whichgives 12.56 m2 of floor space per module– accounts for wires and pipes behind walls and furnishings– leaves enough open space in the modules to move about– keeps the module mass reasonable
Cat McGhan &Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Living SubtypesCrew quarters (2) Galley (1)
• Both types include– Basement level radiation shelter sleeping areas– Two hatches, L-shape intersection
Cat McGhan
4m
3.7m
RadiatorAndrogynousDockingMechanism
ViewingWindow
O2 Tanks
N2 Tanks
H2O Tanks
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Science SubtypesEVA workspace (2) Experiment area (1)
• Both types include– Basement level storage compartments– Three exits, T-shape intersection
Cat McGhan
4m
3.7m
RadiatorAndrogynousDockingMechanism
EVA doorAndrogynousDockingMechanism
Ladder
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation Environment
Cat McGhan, John Albritton
Note: Drawing not to scale
96-99% p+, 1-3 days10-3 – 104, max ~10610-103, max ~104SPE
85% p+, 13% He+, 2% HZE, Near-constant10-5 – 1, max ~2102 – 104, max 1011GCR
Trapped p+, e-, Short-duration102 – 101010-1 – 103Van Allen Belts
Particles, TimeFlux (p/cm2-s)Energy Level (MeV)
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lifetime Limits: BFO dose (blood-forming organs), 5 cm depth
300 rem400 rem
55
250 rem325 rem
45
175 rem250 rem
3525
100 remFemale150 remMale
AgeSex
Necessity of Radiation Shielding
• SPE shielding is necessary• From the Level 1 requirements (M1, M6, I1, L2, L5, L6,
L7), shielding must prevent the radiation dose received fromexceeding these levels for the habitable mission length
Cat McGhan
1 year30 daysTime interval
25 rem50 rem
BFO dose limits
30 rem/yearGCR200 remSPEOn Lunar SurfaceDose Source
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation Shielding Comparison
• 5.7cm Polyethylene is used for SPE shielding• 4mm Aluminum pressure hull helps block GCR
Cat McGhan
SPE Dose, 4 August 1972 Flare
0
50
100
150
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
slab, x, g/cm^2
5 c
m B
FO
do
se, re
m
Regolith, H,LaRC
Polyethylene,H, LaRC
Aluminum, alt.reference
GCR Doses, Solar Minimum
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
slab, x, g/cm^2
5 c
m B
FO
do
se, re
m/y
ear Regolith,
H60, 1977
Polyethylene,H60, 1977
Aluminum,alt. reference
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
48.91 remTotal dose 84+180 days24.99 remTotal dose 30 days2.2200 kg/per4320180DIPS (5 modules)11.991 Al2805180GCR awake21.745.41 polyethylene72180SPE, August 1972 dosage0.011 Al~3.5180EVAs2.855.41 polyethylene1440180GCR asleep1.03200 kg/per201684DIPS (5 modules)4.311 Al100884GCR awake, no EVA1.335.41 polyethylene67284GCR asleep1.441 Al33684EVAs2------Van Allen Belts both ways
Totaldose (rem)
Shielding (g/cm2)Totalhours
Period
Radiation Dose Breakdown
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation Shelter Sleeping Areas
• Habitable-living basement level• Split in half by a noise-muffling
curtain for privacy• Dual-purpose• Emergency exit procedure:
– Move curtain aside– Exit via second door
• From the Level 1 requirements and trade studies:– Level 2 requirement L6: Radiation shielding capable of
suitable protection against a solar flare must be internal toat least three habitable modules.
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation Shelter Specifics• Shelter built into basement of Habitable-
Living modules– Maximizes daytime living floor area– Minimizes mass consumption by doubling shelter as
sleeping quarters– Basement also leaves room for storage and ECLSS
systems• High Density Polyethylene
– Superior radiation protection per amount of masscompared to other materials
– 0.057 m thickness based on radiation analysis– 568 kg total
Kevin Macko
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation Shelter Specifics• Can accommodate two
people each• Two doors built into
the top• Internal Dimensions
– Based on estimatednecessary volume for95th percentileAmerican male tosleep comfortably(derived from L1requirement)
– 1.9 m long, 1.95 mwide, 0.8 m tall
Kevin Macko
Dividing curtain Polyethylene shielding
Cutaway Shelter Layout
ECLSS andstorage volume
2.8 m
4.0 m
0.8 m
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Procedure for Impending SPE• In the event of an impending SPE:
– SOHO (SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory) or itssuccessor will give 2-3 days notice of heightened activity
– The astronauts will be informed by Mission Control andEVAs will be cancelled for the duration
– Just before the event, SOHO and other Space Weathersatellites will give a few hours notice
– Astronauts will retreat to the shelter for the duration ofthe event
• The crew will be able to maintain contact withMission Control via their laptops, and they willhave access to whatever libraries and amusementsthat they can download from the NASA computers
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Micrometeoroids massive enough to cause damage arevery rare: probability analysis is necessary
• NASA Human rating requirement: The program shall bedesigned such that the cumulative probability of safecrew return over the life of the program exceeds 0.99
• We will assume a desired 0.996 Probability of NoPenetration (PNP) per mission - same as Apollorequirement
F = cumulative flux (hits/m^2-year) A = exposed surface area (m^2) = 41.6 m^2 Y = exposure time (year) = 0.75 years
• F = 1.28x10-4 hits/m2-year
Micrometeoroid Protection
tA
PNPF
*
)ln(!=
Kevin Macko
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Micrometeoroid ProtectionCumulative Micrometeoroid Flux vs. Mass
[Vanzani, et al. Micrometeoroid Impacts on the LunarSurface. Lunar and Planetary Science XXVIII, 1997.]
• Micrometeoroid fluxof 1.28x10-4 hits/m2-year is off this chart
• Data curve wasgraphically extendedto this flux
• Criticalmicrometeoroid massestimated to be 3x10-4
grams
Kevin Macko
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Micrometeoroid Protection
• Data based on heuristic from NASA Preferred Reliability Practices document onmicrometeoroid protection (Practice No. PD-EC-1107)
• Assumed .5 mm spacing between MLI and aluminum pressure hull• 4 mm Al skin chosen based on 13.3 km/s average lunar micrometeoroid velocity
Kevin Macko
Critical penetration mass vs. impact velocity
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.001
0 5 10 15 20
micrometeoroid impact velocity (km/s)
cri
tical p
en
etr
ati
on
mass (
g)
1 mm Al
skin
2 mm Al
skin
3 mm Al
skin
4 mm Al
skin
design critical mass
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Pressure Hull Design• Requirement S1 states that
pressurized tanks must havefactor of safety of 3.0
• Rounded shape chosen tominimize stresses due tointernal pressure
• Bottom is rounded tominimize pressure stress,but flattened to lay onchassis module correctly
Kevin Macko
Top View
Side View
Doors
Window
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Pressure Hull Analysis• 4 mm thick Al-2014
pressure hull– Stress concentrations
around doors and windowsare assumed to be handledby their frames
– 2.8 margin of safety forhoop stress
• 2 mm thick bottomreinforcement– Where stresses are above
164 MPA with 4mmthickness
• Design based on FEAis conservative:stringers not includedin pressure model
240 Mpa
185 MPa
135 Mpa
80 MPa
25 MPa
Kevin Macko
Finite element analysis with57.2 kPa internal pressureapplied
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Internal Support Structure• 3 critical loading scenarios considered
– Launch: 6g’s axially, 2.5g’slaterally (based on Delta-IV-Hpayload planner’s guide)
– Landing: 1 lunar g vertically andhorizontally, on one leg
– Hab/Science to Chassis attachment:4 lunar g’s
• All elements made of titanium alloywith hollow circle cross-section
• Primary structure designed for 2.0factor of safety based on S1requirement
Kevin Macko
8 Circular Stringers
8 Elliptical Stringers
3 Circular Frames
8 Vertical Stringers
157 kg
32 kg
24 kg
49 kg
Mass
524 MPa
542 MPa
524 MPa
394 MPa
Max Design Stress
.052
.018
.052
.40
Margin of Safety
Compression.026 m.031 mCircular Frames
Bending.014 m.018 mElliptical Stringers
Bending.032 m.033 mCircular Stringers
Compression.024 m.030 mVertical Stringers
Failure ModeI.D.O.D.Component
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Internal Support Structure• FEM Assumptions
– Door and window frames that intersect with internal structure will act as thestringers in reality
– FEM analysis is conservative because skin is not included to take loads– Excessive load concentrations at joints can be ignored
• Launch Loading– Vertical stringers, circular
frames, and upper circularstringers sized based on thisscenario
– Constrained at 4 connectionpoints along bottom frame
– 3700 kg vehicle massdistributed to structuralconnection points
Highest stress concentrations
525 MPa395 MPa265 MPa135 MPa70 MPa
Kevin Macko
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Landing Loading– Worst case – landing on one leg– Constrained at leg attachment points– Max stress: 179 MPa - no internal
structural components sized forlanding
Internal Support Structure
• Hab to ChassisAttachment– .03 m fall onto chassis
when landing legs areremoved
– Max stress: 542 MPa inlower elliptical stringers
Displacement exaggerated by factor of 15;3 cm actual displacement
Attachment Loading FEM
Kevin Macko
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Additional Structural Analysis
Kevin Macko
HoopStress
58.0033109Aluminum2014
NitrogenTank
HoopStress
65.0033109Aluminum2014
OxygenTank
Bending5683.61.53.2PolyethyleneRadiationShelter
Bending93.0492174Aluminum2014
DockingMechanismWalkway
Compression21.2.262437TitaniumAlloy
RadiatorSupport
Structure
Failure ModeMass(kg)
Margin ofSafety
SafetyFactor
Max DesignStress (MPa)
MaterialComponent
• Safety factors based on S1 requirement– 2.0 for primary structures– 1.5 for secondary structures– 3.0 for pressure vessels
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Floor Panel Requirements• Composite sandwich panel used to sustain
compressive and bending loads of floor items• Level 1 requirements
– S1: Factor of Safety = 2– S2: Non-negative MOS (Margin Of Safety) for
launch loads (6g Earth)• Total load of interior items
– Must sustain launch loads– Assumed the load is distributed over entire panel– Future iterations will use composite laminate theory
for more precise numbers
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Floor Panel Design
Top-Down View
Cross-Sectional View
Mass of Interior Items Estimated 876.1 kg
Skin: High Modulus Carbon Fiber-Epoxy- 37 kg- 0.13 cm thick
Core: Aluminum 5056 Honeycomb- 37 kg/m3
- ¼ in. cell size- 24 kg- 7.24 cm thick
Total Panel:61 kg7.49 cm thick0.98 cm max. deflection
Module W
all
Module W
all
desk
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Floor Panel Deflection andFailure Modes
Buckling StressPotential FailurePhenomenon
1.24 GPa1.24 GPa
1.80 MPa
1.24GPa
5.20 MPa0.01 cm
Limit MOSEffect InducedLoading Effect
0.071.33 GPaSkin Wrinkling12.4420 GPaIntra-cell Buckling
9.690.168 MPaCore Shear Stress19.8359.5 MPaSkin Stress
451.7311500 PaLocal Compressive Stress0.020.98 cmMaximum Deflection
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Types: Hatch and General Area• Level 1 Requirements
– S1: Factor of Safety = 3– S2: Nonnegative MOS in bending for launch loads (6g Earth)– L2: Adhere to NASA-STD-3000, delimiting the following:
• minimum window diameters, minimum blunt impact (550N) , heightof windows, optical and manufacturing requirements, ionizingradiation protection (GCR), non-ionizing radiation protection (UV),safety precautions
– L8: Must have emergency alternative access / bailout options• S2 met by using the window frame to channel launch loads
around the window and into a stringer• L2 is met using a sunshade 4 mm thick of Aluminum
2014. Sun shade also protects crew from earth’s magneticfield
• L8 is satisfied using hatches, where a porthole must bepresent to allow astronauts to see what is on the other sideof the hatch
Window Requirements
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Window Assembly• Material: Ceradyne Thermo-Sil® Ultra High Strength Fused Silica - radio wave, IR, microwave radiation transparent - low CTE (0.5*10-6/°C)
Hatch Window Assembly
Alan Felsecker
- high strength/weight ratio: flexural strength ~ 55 MPadensity ~ 2020 kg/m3
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Window Assembly
• Similarities to ISS windows:– Same debris pane thickness– Anti-reflective coating on outer surface of outer window
pane– Blue-red reflective coating on inner surface of inner
window pane to filter out IR and UV– Air tight seal between pressure panes
Alan Felsecker
• Differences from ISS windows:–Different pressure pane thicknessfrom ISS
–MORPHLAB uses 4 mmAluminum 5056 sunshades over allwindows
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Window Panes
6.180.835Mass (kg)0.9700.970Thickness (cm)
Fused Silica Debris Pane3.770.510Mass (kg)
0.4000.400Thickness (cm)
Aluminum Sunshade3.480.556Mass (kg)
0.01820.0182MOS0.6440.644Thickness (cm)
Fused Silica Kick Pane
50.820.3Diameter (cm)
0.01000.0100MOS8.760.559Mass (kg)
1.370.547Thickness (cm)
General AreaHatchPressure Pane
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Window Masses Per Module
1*0
Hatch Windows with PressurePanes, Kick Pane, AluminumSunshade, and Debris Pane
9.5735.3Total Window** Weight (kg)
01
General Area Windows withPressure Panes, Kick Pane,Aluminum Sunshade, andDebris Pane
3*2
Hatch Windows with PressurePanes, Kick Pane, andAluminum Sunshade
Habitable-ScienceHabitable-Living
* Walkways protect all hatch windows except outer EVA hatch window; only the outerEVA door’s window needs micrometeoroid and lunar dust protection during transit** Total Window Weight excludes TBD window frames
Alan Felsecker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Hatches & DockingInflatable tunnel
Extendable mating ringon each inflatable tunnel
Sliding interior doors
Russell Parker, Craig Nickel
• Provides travel between modules in shirtsleeve environment• Provides power, water, and air transfer between modules during base phase• More details forthcoming
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Module
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Overview• Single universal chassis for all MORPHLAB applications
4 power modules landed on Moon with chassis permanently attached
6 Chassis Module landed on Lunar Surface
• 4 wheel drive / 4 wheel steering
• Total Mass = 1483kg
• Drive platform for Power Module and Habitable Module
• Utilizes 24 hour battery power source until mated with Power Module
• Capable of supporting 3700kg load during transit and base phase
• Can be directly landed on lunar surface with a payload of 2000kg
• .7m minimum ground clearance and 1.4m diameter wheel to meet Level 1requirement : capability of traversing a .5m obstacle
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis DimensionsRequirements:
Must be capable of traversingover a .5m boulder
Must fit within 4.5m dynamicenvelope of Delta IV-H payloadshroud
• Max wheelbase = 4.16m
• Max Wheel Stance (width between wheels) =3.2m
• Total Structural Mass = 305kg
• Materials used include Aluminum 2014 &Titanium Alloy (Ti -10V-2Fe-3AL)
Jason Seabrease
• Ground clearance = .7m
• Total Height = 1.7m
• Maximum width = 4.16m
• Closed Maximum length = 4.16m
• Open Maximum length = 7.6m
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis ExpansionRequirements:• Must be capable of traversing a 20 deg. cross slope.• Must be capable of traversing a 30 deg. Direct incline.• All components of MORPHLAB shall be launched on Atlas V or
Delta IV launching systems.- Launching on a Delta IV-H results in greatest payload in LEO,therefore, greatest landed mass on lunar surface.- To fit on Delta IV-H all components of MORPHLAB must fit inside4.5m diameter dynamic envelope of a 5m payload shroud.
To meet these requirements thechassis was designed to be in afolded position during transitatop a Delta IV-H and toexpand during lunar orbit to agreater wheelbase. Theextended wheelbase of 4.16m isnecessary to prevent tippingduring 30 deg. direct incline.
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Expansion• Expansion accomplished by two equal length ‘spreading bars’ rotating about a‘central pin’ to force two ‘sliding bars’ outward carrying with them the wheels andstruts that are attached.
• The spread bars are both driven by a single electric motor with a geared connectionto the bars.
• Once in final position the strut assembly is rigidly locked in place at the ends of theupper frame to prevent loads during landing and lunar surface transit to flow throughthe ‘spreading bars’.
• Expansion mechanism mass = 20kg.
Spread Bars About Central Pin
Sliding bar forcedoutward by 2cylindersconnected tospread bars withball joints
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Components
Transit Connections:• Connect modules and provide power and data connections during transitconfiguration• Initially stowed to fit in Delta IV-H payload
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Components
Decent Beams (2) :•Aluminum 2014
•Mass of each = 5.8kg
•Critical Load During Lunar Decent eachsustaining 3500N Maximum Stress =81MPa
•Margin of Safety = 1.02
•Failure mode : bending
Launch Beams (2):•Titanium Alloy Ti -10V-2Fe-3AL
•Mass of each = 53.7kg
•Critical Load During Delta IV-H main engine cutoff,max axial acceleration = 6g’s, max lateral acceleration= 2.5 g’s, supports maximum of 3500kg (includingchassis)
•Margin of Safety = .23
•Failure mode: bending
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Components
Wheel Axle Vertical StrutAngled Strut #1 Angled Strut #2
•Struts and axles affected by bending moments, compression, and tension.
•Compression, bending, and sheer forces most critical during lunar landing.
•Struts and axles also affected by dynamic loading during lunar transit and staticloading during base configuration.
•Components sized to support 3500 kg above chassis during all transit and static casesand to support 3500 kg total for landing loads.
•All components finalized through Finite Element Analysis with ProMechanica.
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis ComponentsStruts and Axles:
27.80.0980.11.20.58350Ti AlloyWheel Axle
57.80.040.051.10.38400Ti AlloyAngled strut 2
25.00.0450.050.90.38400Ti AlloyAngled strut 1
22.20.0450.050.80.38400Ti AlloyVertical Strut
Totalmass
(kg)
InnerRadius
(mm)
OuterRadius
(mm)length
(m)Margin Of
Safety
MaxStress(MPa)Material
ComponentName
Vertical Strut (4) and Angled Strut 1 (4) :Critical loading during power modulelanding on lunar surface directly on wheels; worst case considered as landing directly onone wheel with all force acting in vertical direction. Failure due to combination ofcompression and bending.
Angled Strut 2 (4) and Wheel Axle (4) : Critical loading during power module landingon lunar surface directly on wheels; worst case considered as landing directly on onewheel with all force acting in chassis horizontal direction (first wheel touchdown withchassis perpendicular to lunar surface).
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Wheel Design• Requirement
– MORPHLAB mustovercome 0.5m obstacles.
– Wheel must support theweight of power moduleduring landing
– Safety Factor = 2
Kevin Mako/Abraham Daiub
vehiclelunarmg
Constraint
MS = 0.540
357MPa
Mass = 37.4kg dimensions: cm
• Assumptions– Axle constrain– Load =
glunar*mvehicle
– Wheel diameter= 1.4 m
– Ti alloy
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Motor / GearWith a 20% margin:• The wheels need 655.4 N-m
torque on the Power module• The wheels need 810.2 N-m
torque on the Hab Life/Sciencemodules
• The chosen motor is theMF0210050 from EmoteqCorporation
Chosen for:• Decent torque output 305.7 N-m• Low Mechanical time constant
(time to get to 63.2% of maxspeed)
• Low weight 7.61 kg
• The torque is good, but a gearwill need to be used to get thetorque for the modules, thus agear with a gear ratio of 3 to 1 isused
www.emoteq.com
Picture of a MF0210 motor
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Braking System• Derived Requirements
– Stop while moving at maximum speed• Stopping distance < linkage bending tolerance• Stop full caravan assembly
– Stopped on maximum slope• 30º longitudinal slope• One end sitting on 0.5 meter obstacle
• Electrohydraulic Disc Brakes (shuttle)– Less torque variation during stop vs. drum brakes– Benefits of carbon brakes vs. steel brakes
• Lighter• Resistant to friction• Efficient whether hot or cold• Absorbs 2-3 times more heat
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Braking System
3920 WAverage Power Dissipated
358 JEnergy Dissipated
0.091 sStopping Time
165 N-mBrake Torque
236 NBraking Force
6370 N-mBrake Torque
9110 NBraking Force
Stopped on Slope
Moving at 1 km/hr
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis / Habitable InterfaceRequirements:
•Provide rigid connectionbetween Habitable moduleand Chassis
•Transfer power betweenChassis and Habitablemodule
•Prevent Dust frominterfering with powerconnection
Blue cup fixed on 4 locations on bottom ofHabitable Module Skin.
Yellow sleeve spring loaded and designed toprevent dust from collecting on powerconnection.
Sleeve is driven down inside larger sleeveto expose supporting cylinder and powerconnection probe
Power connection probe
Supporting cylinder
As Habitable Module descends itautomatically aligns itself snuggly on topof supporting cylinder and allows powerprobe to reach into plug internal toHabitable Module
Cylinder Diameter = 5 cm
Cylinder length = 8 cm
Max Compression = 128 MPa
Material = Al 2014
Margin of Safety = .2
Jason Seabrease &John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Module
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Module OverviewRequirements:• Supports a 5 year mission (M6)• Capable of producing power during the lunar night (M1)• Must not impose a health risk to the crew (M1, L7)• Multiple power sources to accommodate potential module loss (I3, I4)• Size must not impact MORPHLAB system mobility (M2)• Additional Factors: low system mass, high reliability
.9955No Single-Point Failure Reliability26%Thermal to Electric Efficiency
420 kgTotal DIPS Mass (with shielding)5.3 kWePower Output
4Number of Units
12.6 W/kgSpecific Power (with shielding)
Selected: Dynamic Isotope Power System (DIPS)
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Module Components
Joe Cavaluzzi
Heat Source
Shadow Shield Radiator
Avionics suite
DIPS
Robotic Arm(stowed configuration)
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
DIPS Details
20.3 kWtThermal Output
19.5 kWtEOL ThermalOutput
95 kgMass
88 yearsHalf Life
64.3%Carnot Eff.
460 KTL
1300 KTH
7.4 kWWork Out
48.6%Actual Eff.
5.5 kWtQout
15.3 kWtQin
5.1 kWeEOL PowerOutput
5.3 kWePower Output
72%Efficiency
Radiator
PuO2
Power Out
5.3 kWe
Lithium HydrideShadow Shield200 kg (0.3 m3)
Stirling Cycle EngineHeat Source Alternator
Heat Source: Engine: Alternator:
(EOL: End of Life)
(Not to Scale)
Total System Mass: 420 kg
Joe Cavaluzzi
Heat transfer into engine estimated as 75% efficient
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Common Sub-Systems
Communications
Thermal Control Systems
External Lighting
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Modules will be insulated with Multilayer Insulation (MLI)– Thin layers of Mylar coated with aluminum separated by a vacuum– The Mylar has low-conductivity of .20 W/m*K so it effectively isolates
the inner-workings of the module from the harsh lunar environment withfluctuations in temperature from 160K to 380K
– During the lunar day and night, the assumption is there will be enoughlayers of MLI (ie. 10) to act adiabatically and therefore keep the ambientinside reference temperature at 298K
– Moonshine and lunar albedo will not pose a heating problem to themodule, even though it will “see” 380K at some points, because of theMLI and its adiabatic assumption
– Aerogel will be used where heat leakage paths occur (ie. Panel seams,corners) because it insulates well (thermal cond.= .004 W/m*K) and hasa density of 10 kg/m3
– 10 layers @ .25 mm thickness implies volume of .14 m3 and with adensity of 1420 kg/m3 gives a mass of 193 kg
Thermal Control System
Matt Hughes
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• A vertical radiator atop a module on the lunar surface will “see” solarflux (Is), moonshine (IR), and lunar albedo (alb) which means theenvironment temperature would be around 380K at the equator duringlunar noon.
• Since the top of the module is 4.5m off the surface, a horizontal radiatorwill never “see” moonshine or lunar albedo. The only radiation it will“see” is from solar flux, where the worst case would be noon at theequator when the entire radiator is illuminated.
• There will be no solar flux at night or at the poles because of the sun’sincident angle of zero degrees to the radiator
albedo
IR
Is IsVerticalRadiator
HorizontalRadiator
No albedo
NO IR
Radiator
Matt Hughes
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Ran thermal equilibrium analysis on horizontal radiator to find out what areawas needed to dissipate the allotted heat per module
• Since lunar albedo and moonshine are not considered, the thermalequilibrium equation then becomes:
α : Absorptivity (.08) ε : Emissivity (.92) As : Projected Area Facing Sun AR : Total Radiative Area Pint : Internal Heat Dissipated (Qin) σ : Stefan-Boltzman Constant (5.67e-8 W/m2K4) Trad : Temperature of Radiator Surface Tenv : Temperature of Environment (4K)
• Took case of sun directly overhead illuminating the whole area of the radiatorwith all energy needing to be dissipated through radiator. Therefore,
AR = As = A
Isdfsfdsf
)T(TåóAPáAI envradRss
44
int!=+ ( 1 )
Radiator Sizing
Matt Hughes
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiator Sizing Continued• Taking the case of Lunar noon at the equator, the optical properties must have a low
absorptivity as to minimize solar heating effects and high enough emissivity toradiate internal heat effectively (ie. ε = .92 and α = .08)
• ^ Assuming Trad = 298K, and therefore in thermal equilibrium with inner cabin• * Assuming 5.3 kg/m2 for one-sided, horizontal radiators from Lunar Base
Handbook• ~ Assuming .04 m for thickness of typical radiator
4.65 x 1.5 x.04
3267PowerModule
2.77 x 2.77x .04
417.672.3HabitableScience
5.00 x 2.67x .04
7113.344.0HabitableLiving
Dimensions(m3) ~
Mass(kg)*
Rad Area(m2) ^
Qin(kW)
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiator Sizing Cont.
• Using loop heat pipes (LHP) due to flexibility and fact that they dissipate moreheat then conventional heat pipes. A benchmark of 1 loop heat pipe being ableto dissipate 1.6kW was used.
• Habitable-Living Module has 4 LHP (two outer: 1350 kW/each, two inner:650 kW/each to handle lower night loads
• Habitable-Science Module has 4 LHP (two outer: 500 kW/each, two inner:650 kW/each to handle lower night loads as well
4.513.161.3.29HabitableScience
10.183.161.3.51HabitableLiving
Area(m2)
Area (m2)Low Level
Qin (kW)Low Level
Volume(m3)
Radiator Mass
Matt Hughes
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Living Radiator
Evaporators
Reservoirs
Qin via LHP
Thermistorsto monitorTrad
Trad = 298K
Low Conductance Mountings
Spring-loadeddeployable joints
Condensers
Mass = 71 kg
AluminumHoneycombbacking
α,ε = .08, .92
MLI undersideacts adiabatically
Deep Space = 4KHabitable Living Radiator
Matt Hughes
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Communication Capabilities• Level 1 Requirements:
– 10Mbps of bidirectional digital data– Two uplink channels HDTV– One downlink channel HDTV
• Derived Requirements:
Mike Naylor
– EVA communications• Module – Rover
– Main comms. with EVA– Send one HDTV to base
• Module – Astronaut– Voice– Health monitoring
– Inter-Module communications• Nominally use only wireless• Backup physical connection• Receive commands during
transit• Processor/memory sharing
during peak usage times
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Bandwidth Requirements• Lunar Surface
– Bandwidth determined by• Rover – Module• EVA/Suit - Module• Module – Module
– Inter-modulecommunications used forcomputer interaction andcommunications betweencrew members
• <1Mbps for voice comms• Remainder used for data
transfer and video link
• Total Uplink – 60Mbps• Total Downlink – 40Mbps
• HDTV Requirements– Uncompressed single
channel is 1.5Gbps– With MPEG-2 compression
single channel is 19.4 Mbps• Internationally accepted
industry standard• Depending on available
bandwidth high qualitycompression up to 80Mbps
– 4 – 8 standard videochannels on single HDTVband
– Two uplink – 40Mbps– One downlink – 20Mbps
• Total Uplink – 50Mbps• Total Downlink – 30Mbps
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Halo Orbit• Far side communications will be accomplished
through satellites placed in halo orbits about theEarth-Moon L2 point– Number of satellites: 4
• Placed in the same orbit with 90° phase offset• Provides two fault tolerance regardless of base or satellite location
– Orbital parameters• Period: ~ 1 year• In-plane amplitudes:
– 32,250 km in line with the Earth-Moon vector– 90,000 km normal to the Earth-Moon vector
• Out-of-plane amplitude: 63,200 km
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Halo Orbit Diagram
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Moon – Earth Link Budgets
3.0 dB3.0 dB3.0 dB3.0 dBLink Margin
11.4 W4.0 W4.0 W1.2 WOutputPower
10 Mbps30 Mbps10 Mbps30 MbpsReceiveBit Rate
10 Mbps50 Mbps10 Mbps50 MbpsTransmitBit Rate
KaKaKaKaBand
10 cm50 cm10 cm50 cmDiameter
Moon FSPower-Halo
Moon FSHab-Halo
Moon NSPower-Earth
Moon NSHab-Earth
NS – Near Side FS – Far Side Hab – HabitableModule
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lunar Surface Link Budgets
3.0 dB3.0 dB3.0 dB3.0 dBLink Margin
37.5 W1 W18.2W(Rover only)
N/AOutputPower
40 Mbps<1 Mbps10 Mbps30 MbpsReceiveBit Rate
60 Mbps<1 Mbps30 Mbps30 MbpsTransmitBit Rate
UHFUHFUHFUHFBand
Omni-antennaOmni-antennaOmni-antennaOmni-antennaDiameter
Total ModuleBudget
EVA Suit-Module
10km range
Rover-Module20km range
Module-Module
20km range
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Radiation-Hardened Computers• Level 1 Requirements
– Shall be capable of reaching a TRL of 6 by thetechnology cut-off date of Jan. 1, 2010
• TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in arelevant environment (ground or space)
• Looked at 7 different radiation hardened (Rad-Hard) computers for trends
• Compared Rad-Hard vs. Commercial Off the Shelf(COTS) to identify technology gaps and trends:- Processor Speed -Bus Speed -Power Consumption
John Albritton
- RHPCM- RAD750- SCS750 - RHPPC
- RAD6000- MASS
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
COTS vs Rad-Hard: Clock Speed
• Trends suggest a 5 year technology gap in clockspeed between COTS and Rad-Hard• By 2010 Rad-Hard Processor speed of 3400 MHz
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
COTS vs Rad-Hard: Bus Speed
• Bus speed is positively related to clock speed for COTS• No correlation or trend could be established for Rad-Hard in 2010
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
COTS vs Rad-Hard: Max Power
• Used COTS to establish a heuristic• Rad-Hard plotted against heuristic as verification
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Rad-Hard Computer Mass Rad-Hard Computers MHz Power Mass
MASS N/A 11 W < 1 kg
RAD6000 25 7.5 0.849
RHPPC 100 11 W 1kg
RHPCM(p) 120 11W 1kg
RAD750 166 10W .549 kg
RAD750*** 200 10W 1kg
Proton100K 400 7-9 W N/A
SCS750* 800 8-22 W < 1.5kg
• As technology increases, performance increases, but alsohardware is smaller and lighter, thus mass is relatively constant.• We adopted a mass estimation above the current heaviest andhighest performing Rad-Hard computer of 1.5 kg.
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Rad-Hard Computer• Conclusion: By 2010:
• Other Features:– Single Event Latchup immune– Single Event Upset rate 1E-6 upsets/day– Direct Memory Access Bus 1GB/s for data storage– Selectable processor speed and power consumption
• Open Items: Look into ThinkPad 760X, ThinkPad755C, AP-101S
256 MB1.5 kg96 W3400-50 MHz
SDRAMMassPowerClock-Bus Speed
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Dual Computer Interface
Non-volatilememory card
Solid staterecorder
Solid staterecorder
Non-volatilememory card
Storage
3
2
2
5
Transit
131Chassis
3-431Habitable
Living
1-532 (1)Habitable
Science
152Power
BaseLanding# of
ComputersModule
Mike Naylor
1 – Minimum processing power – sensor monitoring, basic communications3 – Medium processing power – GUI interfaces, full communications, calculations5 – High processing power – High rate data intake and analysis, autonomous tasks
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Multi-Processor Issues• Each module will be equipped with up to two computer
systems that utilizes three CPUs each– Two of three processors used during healthy mode– Third processor monitors heartbeat of other two and takes control in
the event of CPU failure
• Measures must be taken to ensure correct handling of alltasks– Tasks must have locks to ensure only one processor attempts it at a
time– Local memory to perform current task– Shared memory to provide information to other processors about
state of completed tasks– Memory backups for recovery on separate CPU/computer
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
CPU Monitoring
– Hardware monitoring• Voltages throughout system• Memory parity checking• CPU temperature• Clock/timer input sync
– Software monitoring• Unexpected results trigger diagnostics• Checksum calculation verification on memory contents• Extra diagnostics run during idle periods• All functions return status codes• Timeouts on all loops• Event logging
Mike Naylor
Each set of computers will need to be monitored onboth a hardware and software level:
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Computer System Fault Path
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
One CPU Failure…
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Two CPU Failures…
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
External Lights• Made from super bright
LED’s (light emittingdiodes)
• LED’s will be bundled intoa “headlight” configurationconsisting of 19 individualdiodes
• The resulting bundle willbe 3-4 times brighter thana standard headlight, withat least as much range(~.15 km)
Close up of light
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
External Lights• LED used LEDW47-66-
60-120 by Laser Optronix• Each LED produces 13
candles of light• Each LED weighs .037 kg
which makes each bundleweighs .71 kg
• Each LED needs 4.56 W ofpower
• Lights will be used duringtravel phases for far sideand night traversing
LED
• Lights will be used duringbase phase for perimeterlighting for safety
31.5 mm
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
External Lights
Two types of lights made from the bundles
Non-movable
±125°±125°
Limited Movement lights
Limited Movement can also pitch up and down 35°
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
External Light PlacementPower module:3 lights integratedwith sensor suite
Rover (not pictured):1 light mounted on a rotating mount
Robonaut onwheels: (notpictured)1 mounted light
Habitable module:2 limited movement lightsmounted on opposite sides
Power lights mounted with lidar suites
Lights mountedon Hab modules
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module Mass Breakdown
Habitable Modules
Living Specialized:
Science Specialized:
Kevin Eisenhower, DanielSenai & Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module Mass Breakdown
Power Module
Chassis Module
Kevin Eisenhower, DanielSenai & Luke Twarek
Avionics 100 kg
Structural 650 kg
Transit Connections 200 kg
Drive System 650 kg
Power Systems 90 kg
Total 1480 kg
Margin 60%
Avionics 200 kg
Structural 750 kg
Drive System 650 kg
Power Systems 240 kg
2 Robotic Arms 150 kg
Total 1980 kg
Margin 46%
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Distribution• Combination of AC and DC power
– AC enables multiple base configurations whilereducing switchgear
– DC reduces development costs for electricalcomponents by utilizing already developedcomponents
– Exact voltages and frequencies are still beingdetermined to minimize power losses and reducearcing potential
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Connections & Distribution
Chassis Modules:• AC/DC Rectifier• Rechargeable Battery
Habitable Modules:• AC/DC Rectifier• Rechargeable Battery
Power Modules:• DIPS• AC/DC Rectifier
AC Power Source
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Power Module Power Layout
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable Module Power Layout
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Module Power Layout
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Unmanned Transit Phase
Vehicle Assembly
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Transit Phase Overview• After each manned
mission, MORPHLABwill disassemble andtravel autonomously to anew base site
• Enables the explorationand analysis of vastareas of the Lunarsurface
• Science will beperformed by themodules while traveling
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Transit Phase Topics• Transit assembly layouts• Mapping satellites• Position determination & obstacle avoidance• Transit power budgets• Transit connections• Steering• Module control scenarios & failure modes• Science performed in transit
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Vehicle Assembly
• 3 Vehicle Assemblies:– Each vehicle assembly consists of a power module
and two habitable – chassis assemblies– The modules are joined through transit connections
on the chassis– Power and data are transferred through the transit
connections
Width:4mLength: 22.9m
Transit connection
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Vehicle Assembly
• 1 power module isdedicated to carrytwo lunar modules
Width: 7.6m Length: 7.0m
• Vehicle assemblies can take different paths tothe next base site, expanding the area coveredfor scientific exploration
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mapping Satellite• Current lunar
topographical information– Clementine LIDAR
mapping mission• Resolution
– Vertical: 40 m– Horizontal: 100 m
• Cross-track measurementspacing: 40 km
• In-track measurementspacing: 1 – 2 km
• Coverage limited to ± 60°latitude
• Photography– Lunar Orbiters
• Photographed 95% ofthe surface
• Resolution up to .3 m
• Derived requirements– Courses must be
plotted prior todeparture
– Polar regions need tobe analyzed fortopography and waterice deposits
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mapping Satellite• Specifications derived
from Mars GlobalSurveyor (MGS)– MGS Narrow Angle
Camera• Resolution: 1.4 m/pixel• Field of view (FOV) up to
2.9 km X 25.2 km– MGS LIDAR
• Resolution– Vertical: 2 m– Horizontal: 160 m
• 10 Hz sample rate
• Assumptions– Mission duration: 60 days– Circular Orbit– Tech capabilities scaled
by 2x compared to MGS– Photographs
• Taken on light side only• Resolution and FOV
scaled linearly vs. altitude– LIDAR ranging
• Taken on both sides• No across-track
measurements
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mapping Mission Analysis• Nominal mission
duration: 60 days• Altitude: 115 km• Camera specs
– Resolution: 20 cm– Field of View:
1.5km X 15 km• LIDAR specs
– 20 Hz sample rate– Measurements:
• In-track: 76m• Cross-track: 15 km
David Pullen
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Position Determination• MORPHLAB must be capable of determining its position
and attitude during its entire mission duration– This will be accomplished with:
• Inertial mass units (IMU)• Star trackers• Communications with other modules and Earth
Tom Farrell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Position Determination• Currently, IMUs and star trackers are used in
many space applications for position andattitude determination– Current specifications will be sufficient to meet
requirements– Specific systems used in MORPHLAB will be
determined closer to the technology cutoff date• Design constraints
– Low Mass– High Reliability
Tom Farrell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Position Determination
Tom Farrell
Current IMU specifications– Source: Ball Aerospace– Mass: 1.4 kg– Power requirement: 6 W– Gyro
• Range: +/- 200 deg/sec• Bias: +/- 1 deg/hr
– Accelerometer• Range: +/- 12 g’s• Bias: +/- 0.3 mg’s• Clock: 10MHz• Activation time: 5 sec
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Position Determination
Tom Farrell
Current star tracker specifications– Source: Ball Aerospace– Mass: 2.5 kg– Power requirements: 9W– Angular accuracy: 40 arc sec– Update rate: 10 Hz– Field of view: 20° x 20°– Catalog Size: 6000 stars
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance
Tom Farrell
• Level 1 requirements– MORPHLAB must be capable of traversing
obstacles smaller than 0.5 m– MORPHLAB must be capable of traversing
slopes up to 20° cross-slope or 30° direct slope• Derived requirements
– Sensors must be capable of resolving a 0.5 mobstacle at a distance of no less than 7 m away
– Transits must be plotted prior to departure toensure paths are free of large obstacles or slopesover the entire route
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance• Rough course will be determined from Earth by
analyzing mapping satellite data prior to missionstart
• Small obstacles will be located and avoided in real-time using on-board sensor suites– Power module sensor systems
• Laser imaging radar (LIDAR) – resolves obstacles regardless oflighting
• Video cameras – provide visual images for teleoperation /supervisory control
– All other modules will be controlled by the powermodules via communications links
Tom Farrell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance• Power modules will have 3 complete sensor suites
– Mounted on gimbals in rotating assemblies• Azimuth range of vision: 360°• Elevation range of vision: 180°
– One sensor is located in the rear, dedicated torobotic arm operations
LIDAR/Camera Housing
Tom Farrell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance
Tom Farrell
• Current LIDAR specifications– Mass: 3.6 kg x 3 = 10.8 kg– Power requirement: 16 W x 3 = 48 W– Pulse duration: 8 ns– Measurement rate: 12 kHz– Distance range: 0 – 250 m– Accuracy: +/- 6 mm– Acquisition time: 2 sec
• Current video camera specifications– Mass: 0.3 kg x 3 = 0.9 kg– Power requirements: 3 W x 3 = 9 W– Image: 1024 x 1024 pixels
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance
Tom Farrell
• The following conditions must be known or monitored:– Situational awareness
• State of own vehicle– Current speed / acceleration– Position on surface– Adherence to planned route– Reaction time of human or computer in control
• State / model of nearby objects / environment– Location and classification of object– Patterns of transit hindering objects and lighting distortions
– Processing and algorithms• What situation are we in?• How likely is a collision?• How dangerous is the situation?• Is an action needed?
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Obstacle Avoidance
Tom Farrell
• System response– Human or on-board computer senses a transit
hindering obstacle via sensor systems– Collision warnings
• Audio and visual warning alert user of a likelycollision
• Vehicle comes to a stop
– Collision avoidance• Steering and speed of vehicle altered to avoid obstacle
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Operational Requirements• Level 1 requirements:
– Systems onboard MORPHLAB shall be capable of operating in anyof the following control modes for any or all of the nominal missionsegments:- On-board direct human control- Teleoperation- Supervisory control- On-board autonomous control
• Derived requirements– A human operator shall be able to take over the control of the vehicle
from Earth and teleoperate if a critical situation arises (e.g. less than0.01m from an approaching boulder larger than 0.5 m in height)
– If an obstacle is observed, but the planned trajectory does not avoidthe obstacle, supervisory control shall be implemented to avoidobstacle.
Tom Farrell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Teleoperation and Supervisory Control
Tom Farrell
• Some situations may arise that will force MORPHLAB outof autonomous control and into either supervisory orteleoperational control
• Supervisory – operation via preprogrammed sequence of events fromEarth followed by the execution of these commands by MORPHLAB– Shall be implemented if MORPHLAB detects a potential problem that
cannot currently be avoided via autonomous control– Reliant on accuracy of on-board computers
• Teleoperation – operation of MORPHLAB from Earth– Shall be implemented if MORPHLAB senses an unavoidable object– Ground user shall take over control, navigate around object, and return
MORPHLAB to autonomous control– Reliant on accuracy of navigational equipment
• Teleoperation and supervisory control modeled from previous Earth, Mars andLunar exploration missions: Dante II, NOMAD, Sojourner, Lunakhod
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Transit Peak Power System
Habitable Module: 101 kg Li-Ion Bank
Chassis: 44 kg Li-Ion BankShort TermPower
Li-Ion Battery Banks:
•Sized to provide 24 hours of standby power to an unmated module
•Under high system loads when modules are linked, battery resources can bepooled to meet peak power needs
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Vehicle Assembly Power Budget
6.8 kWeTotal1.5 kWeBattery5.3 kWeDIPS
Generated Power
1 kWeAvionics5 kWeTotal
1 kWeThermal Control3 kWeLocomotion
Vehicle Assembly System Average
1.3 kWeAvionics6.7 kWeTotal
1.2 kWeThermal Control4.2 kWeLocomotion
Vehicle Assembly System Peak
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Locomotion Resistive Forces•Soil Compaction Resistance Rc = func.(wheel width, soil properties, wheelsinkage)
•Bulldozing Resistance Rb = func.(wheel width, soil properties, terrain slope)
•Rolling Resistance Rr = func.(soil properties, wheel loading)
•Gravitational Resistance Rg = func.(wheel loading, terrain slope)
Assumptions:•Maximum chassis wheel load = 1962 N
•Maximum power module wheel load = 1430 N
•Terrain slope will not exceed 30 degrees
•Rolling friction is estimated as 0.2 (comparable to firm sand)
Joe Cavaluzzi
Forward Motion:
Tractive Force > Motion Resistance
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Transit Power Usage
0º - 16 º slope : 16 º - 30 º slope :Transit Speed 1.2 - 1 km/h Transit Speed 1 - 0.7 km/h
1.2 kWe300 WPower Module4.2 kWe-Vehicle Assembly
1.5 kWe375 WChassisMax Motion Power (4 wheels)Max Power/WheelComponent
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Transit Connection
Kevin Eisenhower
0.8 MPa
10,000N10,000N
Ball joint rotates± 45° left/right
Ball joint rotates± 30° up/down
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Turning Capabilities• True Double-Ackerman Design:
– Back Wheel/Front Wheel turnangle ratio of 1
• Turning radius for single module:– Wheelbase Length: 4.2m.– Wheelbase Width: 3.3m.– Wheel turn Angle: 30 deg.– TURN RADIUS = 4m
• Turn radius for single vehicleassembly:– Total vehicle length: 20m.– Total vehicle width: 3.3m.– Wheel turn Angle: 30 deg.– TURN RADIUS = 8m
Daniel Senai
R = 8m
R = 4m
Note: Figures not to scale
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Steering Mechanism• Modified rack-and-pinion system• Four-wheel steering with independent motors• Allows modules to rotate with no translation• Lunar dust effect on steering is a major concern
Abe Daiub, Daniel Senai
Top ViewNote: Figure not drawn to scale
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Steering Mechanism
Abe Daiub, Daniel Senai
20Net Torque feedbackto Steering System
0Overturning Torque
0Rolling Resistance Torque30Aligning Torque50Tractive Force (Fx)0*Lateral Force (Fy)-48Vertical Force (Fz)
(N-m)Torque due to:
Fx
Fz
FyMx
My
Mz
* Assumed slow motion
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Slope Traversal• Level 1 Requirements
– 30 degree direct slope– 20 degree cross slope– 0.5 meter obstacle
• Max direct angle: 36.8º• Max cross angle: 28.7º• Max C.G.: 2.80 m
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Hang-Up Failure
• Vehicle ground clearance: 1.35 m• Clearance Requirements
– 30º direct slope• 0.542 m (up-slope to flat)• 1.10 m (up-slope to down-slope)
– 20º cross slope• 0.2845 m (up-slope to flat)• 0.562 m (up-slope to down-slope)
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Nose-In Failure
Vehicle overhang from wheel base < wheel radiusNose-In Failure is not a concern
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Science in Transit
• Capable of collecting and storing soil samples• Equipped with soil analyzing instruments• Vehicle assemblies may travel separate to sample more of the surface• More details forthcoming
Kevin Eisenhower
2 robotic arms on each power module:
Arms stowed
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Intermission
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Manned Base Assembly Phase
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Phase Topics• Science in base assembly• Docking Mechanism• Base power budget• Crew Systems & ECLSS• Logistics Module• Interior layout• Extra vehicular activity• Lunar roving vehicle
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Assembly Site• Crew support equipment is
supplied by a logistic depot,landed near the desiredassembly site
• The specific base locationand configuration will bedetermined whenMORPHLAB arrives
• Assembly will be within10km of logistic depot
• Astronauts land within 100mof the assembled base
• Tele-operated lunar roverspick up landed astronauts
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Assembly Overview• Transit connections
disconnect and modulesreconfigure into a base
• While reconfiguring,batteries supply power tothe habitable and chassismodules
• Once the modules arepositioned correctly, thedocking mechanismsextend and connect
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Assembly Overview• Power modules connect power
cords to the chassis moduleswith the robotic arms
• Power modules are driven 10maway from the base assembly toreduce radiation exposure to thecrew from the DIPS
• The modules arepressurized andcomputers are initializedto prepare for the arrivalof the astronauts
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module Overview• 2 Habitable-Living: Crew Quarters
– 2 docking hatches– Primary used as sleeping quarters
• 1 Habitable-Living: Galley– 2 docking hatches– Primary used as a galley
• 2 Habitable-Science: EVA– 1 EVA Airlock– 2 docking hatches
• 1 Habitable-Science– 3 docking hatches
Bed
Liv:Galley
EVA
Sci:Galley
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Optimum Base Assembly• Base Assembly Requirement
– At least one habitable-science module is needed toprovide all habitable-living modules with complete lifesupport
– Each module should have two routes to reach EVAairlocks for an emergency evacuation
• Level 1 requirement L8 : System shall provide for emergencyalternative access and EVA "bailout" options
• Consideration for base assembly– Base assembly should be comfort for living and working
on missions for astronauts
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Assembly Configuration• Primary Base
Assembly
EVASci:Galley Bed
Bed
EVA
Liv:Galley
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Assembly Configuration• Optional Base Configuration
EVASci:Galley
Bed
Bed
EVA
Liv:Galley
Susumu Yamamoto
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Assembly Site Selection Criteria
Kevin Eisenhower
• Apollo landing site candidates• Volcanic lava “tunnels” (rilles)• Permanently shadowed regions• Age of lunar structures• Highland material• Approximately 1000 km apart
– Helium– Nitrogen– Oxygen
– Carbon– Silicon– Thorium KREEP*
materials
Solar cellproduction
* Potassium, Rare Earth Elements, Phosphorus
Water ice and ore depositsas potential resources
Deep lunar composition
Volcanic and impact history
Environmental variationsalong the surface
ice
• Ore deposits and useful elements:
Level 1 Science Goals:
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Assembly Site Selection
Kevin Eisenhower
12 3
46 5
10
89
7 6
Near Side Far Side
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/i-map/i2769/* Site rankings done bytrade study of goals, sitecriteria, and feasibility
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Assembly Site Distances
Kevin Eisenhower
Assembly Site
Straight line
distance
between (km)
Estimated
driving distance
(km) (+ 30%)
1) Marius Hills
515 670
2) Flamsteed Crater P
479 623
3) Gassendi Crater
966 1256
4) Tycho Crater
911 1184
5) Moretus Crater
553 719
6) Drygalski Crater
212 276
go through South Pole
546 710
7) Schrodinger Crater
562 731
8) Minnaert Crater
822 1069
9) Mare Ingenii
539 701
10) Gagarin Crater
Largest
distance
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
1
1) Marius Hills(51W, 11N)• Steep volcanic hills• Large amounts of silica• Rilles nearby could be
collapsed lava tunnels2) Flamsteed Crater P
(43W, 4S)• 1m thick regolith infers
that it is young• Surveyor 1 landing site
Marius
Flamsteed
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
3) Gassendi Crater(38W, 19S)• Contains ancient
highland rocks• Lunar transient
phenomenonobservations
• Most likelycandidate forApollo 18
Flamsteed
GassendiCrater
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
4) Tycho Crater(12W, 42S)• Rare materials• Lunar transient
phenomenon observations• Crater still has rays infers
that it is young• Youngest known crater by
current knowledge• Surveyor 7 landing site
GasendiCrater
TychoCrater
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
5) Moretus Crater(9W, 72S)• Possibility of ice in
permanently shadowedcraters
TychoCrater
MoretusCrater
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
6) Drygalski Crater(83S, 90W)• Possibility of ice in
permanently shadowedcraters
• Areas of constant sunlightnearby (MalapertMountains)
DrygalskiCrater
Moretus Crater
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
7) Schrodinger Crater(72S, 134W)• Contains recent
volcanic ejecta• Second youngest
impact basin
Schrodinger Crater
DrygalskiCrater
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
8) Minnaert Crater(67S, 171W)• Strongest possibility
of investigating lunarmantle
• Located withinAitken Basin
Minnaert Crater
Schrodinger Crater
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
9) Mare Ingenii(40S, 167W)• High concentration of
thorium• Possibility of investigating
lunar mantle• Located within Aitken basin
MinnaertCrater
MareIngenii
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04 Kevin Eisenhower
10) Gagarin Crater(29S, 150W)• Contains ancient highland rock
Mare Ingenii
GagarinCrater
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Geological Science Instruments
Potential water ice
Ore deposits aspotential resources
Deep lunarcomposition
Lunar volcanic andimpact history
Lunar dust andenvironmental
changes
Level 1
Soil collection
Seismicinstruments
Mineralanalysis
Dust detectinginstruments
Surveyor instrumentretrieval
Level 2 Level 3• Mini Thermal Emission spectrometer• X-ray / Gamma-ray spectrometer• Mossbauer spectrometer• Integrated Dust/Soil Experiment mass spectrometer
• Passive Seismic Experiment Package• Active Seismic Profiling Experiment
Robotic arms
• Scoop• Hammer• Rake• Tongs• Electric drill
Lunar Dust Detector
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Soil Sample CollectionApollo Soil Collection Details
total rock largest rock
Apollo mass (kg) # of rocks returned (kg) mission hours EVA hours
11 21.6 68 5.6 195.5 2.25
12 34.3 69 2.4 31.5 7.5
14 42.3 150 9.0 33.5 9.5
15 77.3 370 9.7 67 18.5
16 95.7 731 11.7 71 20.25
17 110.5 741 3.6 75 22
Apollo
avg EVA hours /
mission hours
average rock
mass / EVA hour
average
rock # / EVA hour
11 0.012 9.6 30.2
12 0.238 4.6 9.2
14 0.284 4.5 15.8
15 0.276 4.2 20.0
16 0.285 4.7 36.1
17 0.293 5.0 33.7
average 0.275 4.6 23.0
MORPHLAB manned mission: 2160 hours (3 months)Total collected rock mass: 600 kg
Assumption:Collect at 1/4th the
rate of Apollo(larger stay times,
and more timespent traveling in
the rover)
Kevin Eisenhower
Apollo 11 discarded
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Soil Sample CollectionApollo Rock Samples
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 - .2 .2 - .4 .4 - .6 .6 - .8 .8 - 1 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10 10+
rock mass (kg)
nu
mb
er o
f ro
cks
11
12
14
15
16
17
Keep rocks for 7 days 46 EVA hours (28% mission hours)50 kg of rocks collected
+ 300 kg of rocks returned each mission (50% total collected)= 350 kg total rock storage mass
Want robotic armcapable of picking
up 6 kg rock
Kevin Eisenhower
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Robotic Arm Capabilities• Pick up and store soil samples• Soil inspection• External module inspection / maintenance• Removal of descent engines• Plugging in power cords
lift at min. temp. max temp.
mass (kg) reach (m) extension (N) (deg C) (deg C)end effectors
Ranger Arm 77 1.35 133 -40 150interchangeable
Requirements: 2 59 -173 127
6 kg rock moon
http://ranger.ssl.umd.edu
• Different end effectors for each operation• Modifications necessary (1m extensions, temperature)
Kevin Eisenhower
Arms stowed
Arms extended
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Life Sciences: Level 1 and 2
Muscle development/decay
Cardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Long term radiationexposure
Nutrition andmedical care
Human performance,adaptations
Plant biology in thelunar environment
Ultrasound
Questionnaires
EVARM system
Gas Analyzer Systemfor Metabolic AnalysisPhysiology (GASMAP)
Portable ClinicalBlood Analyzer
(PCBA)
AdvancedAstrocultureTM Chamber
Crew dynamics
Foot/Ground Reaction System
Ambulatory DataAcquisition System
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Life Sciences: Level 2• Most of these systems have been used on the
ISS. The reason for repetitions are:– Different gravitational environment– Find trends from mission to mission– Find a relationship between the Earth’s gravity,
the Moon’s gravity, and microgravity; theneducated predictions for other planetary gravitiescan be made
– Enhance technology for medical care on Earthand future planetary bases
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Racks• Each science module will
have one science rack
• These racks contain theinstruments needed toperform variousexperiments
• The rack method makes iteasy to changeexperiments & instrumentsfrom mission to mission
• Rack 1– PCBA (Portable Clinical Blood
Analyzer)– The PCBA Cartridge Kit– PCBA Control Kit– EVARM system
• Rack 2– The Advanced Astroculture– Foot Ground Interface - Flight Cal
Unit– Total Force - Foot Ground Interface– Lower Extremity Monitoring Suit– Ambulatory Data Acquisition System
• Rack 3– Ultrasound– GASMAP /calibration module
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Questionnaires
• “The objective of this study is to measure theimpact of cultural and language backgroundon space missions and to characterize changesover time in a number of importantinterpersonal factors, such as tension,cohesion, leadership role, and the relationshipbetween space crews and monitoringpersonnel on Earth” (http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov )
• Questionnaires are submitted via computerback to Earth
Life Sciences: Level 2
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Life Sciences: Level 2• Bones have a steadydecay, even withexercise.
• Muscle strengthdecreases significantly
• In lunar gravity, thesenumber are notexpected to be asdrastic, but bone andmuscle decay still needto be studied
Muscle Decay in Space
020406080
100120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Day
Perc
ent
max explosive powermuscle strength
Bone Decay in Space
95.000
96.000
97.000
98.000
99.000
100.000
0 20 40 60 80Day
Perc
ent
w/o exercise
w exercise
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Foot/Ground Reaction System– Lower Extremity Monitoring Suit– Total Force – Foot Ground Interface– Foot Ground Interface – Flight Calibration Unit
• Measures the forcesyour legs and feetexperience through
a normal work day
• Mass: 46 kg http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/experiments/fact_foot.html
Life Sciences: Level 2
Paula C. Herda
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Ultrasound• 3D capability &
real time 2D• Respiratory
Trace Display
• Total Mass: 86 kg
http://hrf.jsc.nasa.gov/ultrasound.htm
Life Sciences: Level 2• Applications:
– Echocardiography
– Abdominal (deep organ)
– Vascular, muscle, tendon,trans-cranial ultrasound
Paula C. Herda
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Measures volume,temp, frequency,pressure of inhaled &exhaled air
• To be used duringexercise
• Total Mass: 244 kg
http://hrf.jsc.nasa.gov/gasmappics.htm
Life Sciences: Level 2Gas Analyzer System for MetabolicAnalysis Physiology (GASMAP)• Study effects of reducedgravity on the musculoskeletalaspects of breathing duringrest, heavy exercise, and deepbreathing
Paula C. Herda
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Portable Clinical BloodAnalyzer (PCBA)
• Study red blood cell massand production.
• Mass PCBA: 0.54 kg• Mass Cartridge Kit: 0.27 kg
http://www.amedical.com/istat.html
Life Sciences: Level 2
Paula C. Herda
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Provides convenient dataacquisition and storage of datacollected by physiological sensors(such as FOOT). It will measurecore body temperature, bloodpressure, respiration and otherphysiological responses.
Life Sciences: Level 2
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
Paula C. Herda
Ambulatory Data Acquisition System
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Mounted inside theEVA suit
• Worn on the head,torso and leg
Life Sciences: Level 2
http://resources.yesican.yorku.ca/trek/radiation/final/index_EVARMS.html
EVARM System
Paula C. Herda
• Records radiationover different partsof the body duringan EVA
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamics
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Autonomous &continuous care forthe plant for anaverage 180 days.
http://wcsar.engr.wisc.edu/advasc.html
Life Sciences: Level 2
Muscle decayCardiovascularsystem
Skeletal system
Radiation
Nutrition &medical care
Humanperformance,adaptations
Plant biology
Crew dynamicsAdvanced AstrocultureTM (ADVASC)
•Mass: 4.4 kg
• Growing Space– Shoot area: 486 cm2
– Shoot height: 34.5 cm– Root area: 486 cm– Root height: 5 cm
• The top box contains thecomputer, electronics &other support systems
• The bottom box containsthe controlled plant growthchamber and ancillarysubsystems
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
AA batteries2.31Ambulatory DataAcquisition System
Peak 300 W46.7AstrocultureTM Chamber
1574W426 kgTotals
--Questionnaires--EVARM system
Two 9 volt batteries.81 kg(PCBA)Peak 270 W244 kg(GASMAP)Peak 1004 W86 kgUltrasound
Batteries included 1.5 V dc46 kgFOOTPowerMass: kgInstrument
Summary of Instruments
Paula C. Herda
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitat to Habitat Connections• To fulfill requirement M5, that all nominal movement
between modules be accomplished in shirtsleeve conditions,some form of pressurized mating tunnel is required.
• Space limitations in the launcher payload shroud dictatedthat this system be retractable.
• Mass limitations on the habitat modules dictated that thissystem be as light as possible.
• Concerns over tipping while in transit dictated that thissystem needed to be able to deploy and retract before andafter each crewed mission segment.
Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Paramount Tunnel Tradeoffs• Metallic vs. Composite• Male/Female mating vs.
Androgynous mating• Layered pressure bladder vs.
Abrasion cover• Active terminal mating vs.
Passive terminal mating• Passive latch connection vs.
Active bolt connection• Doors: normally open vs.
normally closed
Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Additional Tunnel Concerns• To modularize the air and water
purification systems– Airflow must be allowed between
habitable sections– Piping for water transport would need
to exist between habitable modules
• Power delivery between modulescould not be accomplished usingthe mechanical chassis linkagesduring Base Assembly Phase– Cables for power transfer would need
to exist between habitable modules
Luke Twarek
Water
Air
Power
Module
Module
Tunn
el
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Extendable Tunnel• Foldable composite (Kevlar-
49) was chosen over atelescoping metal tube.– Mass savings of 8x– Lighter extension mechanism
than a large telescopingstructure
– Less likely to puncturepressure bladder
• Layers will be held together atthe ends by clampedaluminum hoops.
• Two lengths: 1 m and 0.5 m• Mass of 1 m tunnel: 10 kg• Mass of 0.5 m tunnel: 6 kg
Luke Twarek
MLI Layers
Kevlar-49 Cross-Weave Stiffness Layer
PVC Pressure Bladder
Nomex Cross-Weave Abrasion Layer
***Inside (P = 25.7 kPa)***
***Outside (P = 0)***
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mating Ring• Androgynous mating system
chosen over male/female systemto maximize possible baseconfigurations.
• Tunnel connected to mating ringvia clamping mechanism withself-sealing o-rings to ensurepressure seal.
• Power and water pipingconnections located in ring– Hard dock seals piping– Piping runs inside or parallel to
extension mechanism• Total mass of mating ring: 80 kg
Luke Twarek
Aluminum Ring
Dust Cover
Pressurized Seal Bladder
Pressurization InletA-A
A-A
A
A
Dimensions in meters
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Hard Dock• Antisymmetric nut/bolt
configuration providesandrogynous interface.
• Inner and outer hard connectionpoints.
• 16 connections needed to ensureboth two-fault tolerance andantisymmetry.
• Active bolt hard dock chosen due to2x mass savings over passivelatches.
• Spring-loaded dust covers ensureno particles get into threads whennot in base assembly.
Luke Twarek
AA
A-A Soft Dock
A-A Hard Dock
B=BoltN=Nut
N
N
N
N B
BB
B
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Pressure Seal• After hard dock, PVC pressure
seal bladder inflates in order toform a self-sealing pressure seal.
• In the event of a rupture in thebladder, the other pressure sealbladder can inflate to seal theleak.
• Spring-loaded dust coverprevents dust and UV radiationfrom degrading the PVC whennot in base assembly.
• Pressurization lines carried withextension mechanism.
Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Extension Mechanism• Exact mechanism has not
yet been chosen, thecandidates are:– Telescoping tube
• Can also be used to transferpower and water
– Rotators and beams• Can be used for precision
alignment of mating rings– Extending beams
• Easily adapted from chassis
Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mating Sequence• Initial alignment with
chassis wheels• Initial tunnel extension• Terminal alignment via
sensors• Terminal tunnel extension• Soft dock• Extend bolts• Hard dock• Pressure seal inflation• Pressure bladder inflation• Exterior walkway
deployment• Doors open to circulate air
Luke Twarek
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Peak Power System
MORPHLAB Net Battery Totals
Mass: 870 kg
Storage Capacity: 108 kWhr
24 Hour Discharge: 4.5 kWe
Maximum Power Output: 20.4 kWe (for 24 hours) With 3 DIPS
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Base Power Budget
20 kWeTotal4 kWeScience
1 kWeBattery Recharge
3 kWeThermal Control
1 kWeHouse Keeping3 kWeAvionics
8 kWeCrew Systems
Base System Peak
20.4 kWeTotal4.5 kWeBattery
15.9 kWeDIPS*
Generated Power
*Output of 3 Power Modules
15 kWeTotal3.5 kWeScience
0.5 kWeBattery Recharge
2 kWeThermal Control
1 kWeHouse Keeping2 kWeAvionics
6 kWeCrew Systems
Base System Average
Joe Cavaluzzi
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Crew Systems
• All crew interfaces shall– Accommodate the 95th
percentile American male to the5th percentile Japanese female(L1)
– Adhere to NASA STD-3000 (L2)
• For optimal performance onlong duration missions– Minimum surface area = 61 m2
– Min. ceiling clearance = 2.2 m– Min. interior volume = 135 m3
Design Constraints:• Nominal mission consists of
– 4 member crew (L4)– Capable of daily 2 person EVAs(L5)– Zero pre-breathe time for EVAs(L9)
• Emergency requirements– 180 day subsistence food stock(L6)– At least 2 IVA exits from eachmodule–EVA bailout options(L8)
* IVA = Inter-Vehicular Activities
Cat McGhan &Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
MORPHLAB vs. LMLSTP• Lunar-Mars Life Support Test Project
(LMLSTP)– NASA/ Johnson Space Center project– 4 crew members spending 90 days in a closed-
loop life support system habitat– Habitable Surface Area = 58.44 m2
– Habitable Volume = 163.63 m3
• Total for MORPHLAB base configuration– Habitable Surface Area = 75.4 m2
– Habitable Volume =198 m3
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Module SubtypesHabitable-Living:• 2 Crew quarters
– Sunken SPE-shielded beds– Sanitary systems, main level
• 1 Galley– Food preparation area– Exercise area, lounge– Backup quarters (I3 & I11)
• ECLSS systems– Vapor Phase Catalytic
Ammonia Removal– Multi-filtration– Supercritical Waste
Oxidation
Habitable-Science:• 2 EVA areas
– Main airlocks, dust removal– Repair area, tool storage– Durable experimentation area
• 1 Experiment area– Finer specialized equipment– Backup galley (I3 & I11)
• ECLSS systems– Water Vapor Electrolysis– Electrochemical Depolarized
Cells– Sabatier– Trace Contaminant Control
Cat McGhan &Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Atmosphere Selection• Cabin pressure set at 57.1 kPa
– Design Considerations:• Pressure low enough to allow R value under 1.6
(NASA standard)• Pressure high enough to allow for minimum fire risk
• 40% O2, 59% N2, 1% CO2– Calculations of partial pressures of each of the
gas’ minimum and maximum levels for longduration exposure were used to determine thismake-up
– Levels for hyperoxia, hypoxia, CO2 toxicity, andfire prevention from NASA STD-3000 document
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ECLSS – Overview
Syed Hasan
1.440.00040.100.150.050.15/0.111.60PowerReq. (kW)
2.120.00120.240.300.040.070.75Volume(m3)
694.003.9068.00100.0017.9044.40144.00Weight(kg)
SCWOMFVAPCARTCCSabatierEDCWVESubsystem
Supercritical Water OxidationSolid Waste Removal: MultiFiltrationWater Filtration: Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia RemovalWater Distillation: Trace Contaminant Control SystemTrace Contaminant Control: SabatierCarbon Dioxide Reduction: Electrochemical Depolarization ConcentratorCarbon Dioxide Removal: Water Vapor ElectrolysisOxygen Generation:
* All values for crew per day
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ECLSS – Needs and Effluents
101.6Hygiene Water
2.48Solids9.48Supply Water
3.36OxygenSupply (kg)Needs
Product (kg)Effluents
0.44Solids
6.00Supply Water
101.6Hygiene Water
4.00Carbon Dioxide
Oxygen - Shortage of 0.40 kg per crew/day
Water vapor Electrolysis produces 2.96 kgper crew/day while 3.36 kg is required
Hygiene Water – no shortage.
Multifiltration produces 100% water resupplyup to flow of 114 kg day ( > 101.6 kg )
Supply Water – Shortage of 3.48 kg percrew/day
Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia RemovalSystem produces 100% water resupply up toflow of 13 kg/day (> 6 kg). 6.00 kg or supplywater is recycled while 9.48 kg is required.
Solids – 2.48 kg required per day
Supercritical Waste Oxidation has 0%resupply flow rate. All solids needed must beprovided using food.
* All values for crew per day
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ECLSS – Interior LayoutsHabitat Module Basement –
Living/BedHabitat Module Basement –
Science/EVA
Water VaporElectrolysis
Sabatier
Electrochemical DepolarizationConcentrator
Trace ContaminantControl
Vapor PhaseCatalytic AmmoniaRemoval
Supercritical WasteOxidation
Multifiltration SleepingQuarters
Trap door fromupstairs
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ECLSS Flow Diagram
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Air Flow Diagram
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Water and Waste Flow DiagramsWATER FLOW WASTE FLOW
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ECLSS - Summary
347.0Supercritical Water Oxidation
2.0MultiFiltration
34.0Vapor Phase Catalytic AmmoniaRemoval
100.0Trace Contaminant Control System
17.9Sabatier
44.4Electrochemical DepolarizationConcentrator
144.0Water Vapor Electrolysis
Weight (kg)Subsystem
383.0Living/Bed
306.3Science/EVA
Weight (kg)Module
208.3Solids
292.3Supply Water
0.0Hygiene Water
33.6Oxygen
Amount(kg)
Product
Supply needed permission (84 days)
Syed Hasan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Logistics Depot• Will be launched before
every mission containingre-supply of provisions
• Exterior of habitablemodule, with provisions inplace of interior equipment
• First depot:– Supplies provisions for
two months– Contains mobile
Robonauts to performmaintenance throughoutprogram
– Contains two lunar rovers
LogisticsDepot 2-10
First mission– 56 days
Remaining missions- 84 days
3121Water tanks (6)
208139Food
TOTAL
Lunar Rovers (2)
Hull
Science instruments
Landing legs
DC battery
Robonaut on wheels (2)
Water
Nitrogen tanks (6)
Nitrogen gas
Oxygen tanks (6)
Oxygen gas
ITEM
25422833
-416
410410
563563
212212
4444
-312
292195
308205
5336
345230
7550
MASS (kg)MASS (kg)
Syed Hasan
LogisticsDepot 1
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Living: Crew Quarters
*2 modules
stowage
desk desk
chairchair
stowage
closet
closetshower
sink & cabinet
toilet
mirror
dockingmechanism
radiationshelterdoors
dockingmechanism
Top View
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Living: Galley
stowage
storage& exercise equipment
table &4 chairs
sink
refrigerationunit
shower
toilet
cabinets,microwave& counter
storagecabinets& counter
radiationshelter doors
dockingmechanism
dockingmechanism
Top View
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Science: EVA
loungechair
sciencerack 2
airlock pumpstorage
EMUStore
airlock
desk
EMUboxes &storage
loungechair
storagestowage (3)tv
chair
storage
dockingmechanism
dockingmechanism
*2 modules
Top View
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable-Science
cabinets, microwave& counter
extendablework table& 4 chairs
refrigerationunit
sink
sciencerack 3
exerciseequipment storage
storage
cabinet & counter
dockingmechanism
dockingmechanism
dockingmechanismTop View
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Interior Acoustics
Human lethalitySudden onset167
Reduced visual acuity; chest wallvibrations; gag sensations;respiratory rhythm changes
2 minutes150
Hearing loss occursContinuous120Pain in the earsSudden onset114
Reflex response of tensing,grimacing, covering the ears, andurge to avoid or escape
Sudden onset100
Protective earwear must be wornLong85
Voices must be raised significantly;telephone use difficultContinuous60-70
No conversation interferenceContinuous30-40
Performance EffectsDurationSound PressureLevel in dB
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Computer User Interface• Will be LCD flat panel, touch screen mounted on the walls
in the habitable modules– Currently have 18” LCD touch screen panels that weigh less than 2kg– No external input devices reduces clutter inside module
• System of menus to browse different command options– Sensor monitoring
• ECLSS• Power grid• Computer status• Communication status
– Communications with Earth– Communications with other modules– EVA support
• Communications with Astronauts• Tele-operation of rovers
– Entertainment
Mike Naylor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Alerts for Sensor System• Integrated sensors for
– air and water composition– pressure levels– system integrity
• Monitoring Computer System (MCS)– sensors are all tied into it; tracks changes in the levels– issues commands to the appropriate system to make
adjustments if optimal levels are not met– communicates problems to the crew via yellow and red
alert alarms when problems occur
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
System Levels – ECLSS
• Note: Yellow levels are 10% in from Red levels
Cat McGhan, Syed Hasan
1023K,--
923K,25.3MPa
647K,22.1MPa
Supercritical Water Oxidation
328K,210kPa
----
289K,70kPa
Multifiltration
723K,200kPa
350K,80kPa
--50kPa
Vapor Phase CatalyticAmmonia Removal
----
723K,100kPa
----
Trace Contaminant Control811K700K366.5KSabatier
297K--291KElectrochemical DepolarizedConcentrator
Red,high
NominalRed, lowSystem
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
System Levels – Atmosphere• For internal working considerations only:
• For EVA considerations only:
• Psuit = 25.7kPa, Pmodule = 57.2kPa nominal• O2% = 100% - N2% - 1% CO2
Cat McGhan
----
18.62kPa,32.5%
Red, low
3.54kPa,3.5%
1.01kPa,1.7%
0.4kPa,0.69%
----
CO2
41.38kPa,72.28%
34.48kPa,60.2%
22.89kPa,40%
21.38kPa,37.3%
O2
Red, highYellow, highNominalYellow, lowGas
62.76kPa, 65%60.69kPa, 68%1.655.17kPa, 65%
52.41kPa, 63.5%Red, low Pmodule, high N2%
57.93kPa, 62%1.455.17kPa, 60.5%1.3
Yellow, low Pmodule, high N2%R-factor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Other Monitoring• Fire protection
– minimal because of the atmospheric composition– fire extinguishers are present to put out small fires
• Health monitoring– occurs on a daily basis– is part of the exercise routine for data collection
on the effects of a low-gravity environment onthe human physiology
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Crew Activity• Crew Schedule Guidelines:
– The crew may adjust theschedule to that day’s science
– The following guidelinesshould be followed whenadjusting daily schedule (L2)
• Crew members must eat atleast once every 7 hours
• 2 hours delegated for exerciseand recreation each day
• 8 hours of sleep a day
• EVA rotation:– Two, two person teams will
alternate daily EVAs– Teams will alternate crew
members every weekSleep2200 - 2400
Downtime2100 - 2200Hygiene2000 - 2100Dinner1900 - 2000
Exercise & Recreation1700 - 1900
EVA/Tasks1400 - 1700Lunch1300 - 1400
EVA/Tasks0800 - 1300Daily Coordination0700 - 0800
Hygiene/Breakfast0600 - 0700Sleep0000 - 0600
Crewmember Task Daily schedule
Sample Crew Schedule:
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Food & Water• Level 1 requirements state that MORPHLAB must hold 180
days of food at a subsistence level in addition to the 90 daysnominal mission supply (L1)
• Subsistence level will contain mostly EVA food bars &nutritional supplements, estimated weight=100kg
Data based off ISS dailyconsumables
2230.62Food
2700.75Food preparation water
4141.15In food water
5761.6Drinking water
Single manned missionrequirement (kg)
kg/person-day
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Nutrition• NASA STD-3000 states crew member diet must meet FDA
nutritional requirement standards (L2)• Daily caloric intake based on weight in kg
– Men• 18-30 years: kcal/day = 1.7 (15.3*Weight + 679)• 30+ years: kcal/day = 1.7 (11.6*Weight + 879)• Range: 2791.9 - 3716.3 kcal/day
– Women• 18-30 years: kcal/day = 1.6 (14.7*Weight + 496)• 30+ years: kcal/day = 1.6 (8.7*Weight + 829)• Range: 1897.12 – 2244.8 kcal/day
• An additional 500 kcal/day should be added whenan EVA occurs
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Nutrition
100-200 µgChromium20 mgNiacin150 µgIodine400 µgFolate70 µgSelenium2 mgRiboflavin15 mgZinc1.5 mgThiamin4 mgFluoride2 µgVitamin B6
2.0-5.0 mgManganese2 µgVitamin B12
1.5-3.0 mgCopper100 mgVitamin C10 mgIron80 µgVitamin K3500 mgPotassium20 mgVitamin E1500-3500 mgSodium10 µgVitamin D350 mgMagnesium1000 µgVitamin A1000-1200 mgPhosphorus238-357 ml per MJ consumedFluid1000-1200 mgCalcium30-35% total energy consumedFat5 mgPantothenic Acid50-55% total energy consumedCarbohydrate100 µgBiotin12-15% total energy consumedProteinRequirementNutrientRequirementNutrient
ISS Daily Nutritional Recommendations
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Food Storage• Three levels of storage
– Frozen: includes most entrees, vegetables, baked foods, grains, anddesserts
– Refrigerated: fresh-treated fruits and vegetables, extended-shelf-liferefrigerated foods, dairy products
– Ambient: thermostabalized, irradiated, aseptic-fill, shelf-stablenatural-form foods, and rehydratable beverages
• 180 subsistence level kept on board at all times, split upevenly between modules– Diet will consists of EVA food bars and nutritional supplements
• Nominal manned mission food supply will be sent up viaLogistics Depot before each manned mission– Food will be stored in 2 week supply containers– Containers will have straps so it can be carried onboard during the
first EVA
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
EMU Selection
Late 1970s/early 80s1970s1980s19881998Year developed
Bags & HungBagsHungHungBagsStoring
WaistWaistBackBackWaistEntryILC Dover
ILCDoverNASA AmesILC Dover
ILCDoverManufacturer
Soft w. hardupper torsoSoftHardHybridSoftSuit type
1.141.30.591.14 (at 4.3 psi)1.3R value
4.3 psi3.7psi8.3 psi
8.3 psi, testedat 4.3 psi3.75 psi
OperatingPressure
65 kg48 kg83.25 kg82.5 kg78.9 kgTotal Weight15 kg26 kgnever fitted15 kg15 kgWeight- PLSS50 kg22 kg83.25 kg67.5 kg63.9 kgWeight- Suit
Shuttle EMUA7LBAX5MK IIII-Suit
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
EVA Support• I- Suit
– Manufactured by ILC- Dover– Soft bodies suit increases mobility and
decreases weight– Waist entry– 8 suits for redundancy (I4)
• 4 come up with crew, fitted specifically for them• 4 kept on board, general sizes with
interchangeable section– 80 kg weight with Portable Life Support System
(PLSS)– 8 hours of nominal breathing, 45 minutes of
emergency life support– 25.7 kPa, 100% O2 atmosphere– Zero pre-breathe (L9)
• R value of 1.3 http://strangeblue.iwarp.comspacesuits/ILC.html
Jessica Seidel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Emergency EVA Access• Level 1, L8: System shall provide emergency
access and EVA bailout alternatives• Airlock connections between modules will serve as
pressure doors in case of decompression and also asemergency bailout hatches
• Procedure for emergency egress:– Put on EVA suit– Make sure all doors are closed and sealed– Disengage umbilical walkway– Open hatch door to outside– Deploy flexible ‘rope’ ladder from floor and egress
Cat McGhan
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Airlock• 101 kg total mass
– 50 kg structure– 22 kg inner door
(pressure hatch)– 10 kg ladder– 14 kg pump– 5 kg tubing
• Accommodates one person in I-suit– 0.8 m x 0.8 m x 2.0 m high
• Depressurized and Re-pressurized– Most of airlock air pumped back into module before
outer door is opened– Air shower from above when air returns to airlock
Kate Castell
Airlock
Habitable- Science: EVA (Top View)
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Airlock• Pump similar to Dekker Vacuum
Technologies DuraVane RVD007L– Chosen based on: mass, ultimate vacuum,
speed to depressurize– 14 kg mass– 12 kPa ultimate vacuum– 0.2 m3/min pumping speed, depressurizes
airlock in 7 minutes
Kate Castell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lunar Roving Vehicle• Level 1 requirements lead
us to selection of a rover– MORPHLAB shall have
daily EVAs by twoastronauts (L5), and that theymust be able to travel withina radius of 10 km from thebase (M4)
• A 10 km-radius circle is toomuch area for astronauts toexplore on foot, so they need arover
– A rover will allow them to bring back soil and rocksamples, as in the Level 1 requirements (M3)– The rover can be used to transport the astronautsfrom the landing vehicle to MORPHLAB (M5)
Kate Castell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lunar Roving Vehicle• Based on Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle
– 208 kg mass– 3.1 m long, 1.8 m wide, 1.2 m high– Carries up to 490 kg payload including astronauts,
samples, and equipment– Folds up to 0.85 m3 for storage– Top speed 14 km/h– Can go over obstacles 30.5 cm high, crevasses 70 cm
wide– Travels on 25° slopes, parks on 35º slopes– Pitch and roll stability of ±45º
• Will have two modules to meet redundancyrequirement (I3 & I11)
Kate Castell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
• Original Apollo LRV batteries not acceptable– Two 36 V silver-zinc batteries– 78 hour lifetime
• MORPHLAB LRV will have rechargeablebatteries– Two 36 V lithium ion– 112 W constant power– 11 kg mass– Rechargeable
• Plug into habitat module (currently drawing least power)• Budgeted 200 Watts per hour to recharge in 8 hours
• Batteries aren’t sufficient for 3 month traverse, sothe rovers are transported on the power modules
Lunar Roving Vehicle
Kate Castell
Lunar Rover 1
Lunar Rover 2
Power Module
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lunar Roving Vehicle• Payload Breakdown
– 2 astronauts, 95 percentile American males:197 kg
– 2 Mark III Suits & PLSS: 148 kg– Lunar samples and soil instruments: 95 kg– Communication/control/camera equipment: 10
kg Total: 450 kg• Speed is useful
– 14 km/h for an 8-hour EVA gives 112 km oftravel total
– Can return from 10 km in 43 minutes if needed
Kate Castell
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Getting to the Moon
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Getting to the Moon Topics• ΔV Calculations• Launch Options• Multi-Stage System• RCS• Landing Autonomy• Landing Zone• Landing Legs• Chassis Transit
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ΔV Requirements
Russell Parker
.01 km/sLLO to LD3
.84 km/sLTO to LLO2
3.14 km/sLEO to LTO1ΔVBurn DescriptionBurn # LEO = Low Earth Orbit
(alt =185km, 28.5º)LTO = Lunar Transfer Orbit (6560km X 386200km)LLO = Low Lunar Orbit (alt = 50km)LD = Lunar Descent (50km x 10km)
Burn 1
Burn 2Burn 3
*NOTE: Not to Scale
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
ΔV Requirements
.26 km/sLanding5
1.88km/sBraking andApproach4
ΔVBurnDescriptionBurn #
Total ΔV = 6.13 km/s
Burn 4 Burn 5
*NOTE: Not to Scale
Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Launch Vehicle Options• Level 1 Requirement:
All components for MORPHLABsystem installation andoperation shall be designed forlaunch on the Atlas V, Delta IVHeavy
• LEO Mass: Delta IV vs. Atlas V– Delta IV-H ~ 25,800 kg– Atlas V-551 ~ 20,000 kg
• Delta IV-H 2nd Stage to LEO vs.LTO.– Mass after LTO insertion burn:
• Delta IV to LEO 8350kg• Delta IV to LTO 12980kg
• One Stage vs. TwoStages– Assuming:
– Payload (LandedUsable Mass)
• One Stage 4200 kg• Two Stage 3800 kg
Russell Parker
.26.073502nd
5.87.014651st
ΔVInert MassFractionIspStage
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Two Stage System• Despite lower mass still going
with a two stage system.• Benefits:
– Allows us to takeadvantage of a high Ispengine for majority of burns
– Easily dispose of largepropellant tanks and mainengine
– Decrease ground clearance(smaller landing legs)
– Landing stage can bemoved out of the way byPower Module dexterousarm. (largest mass = 45kg)
Lunar Landing Stage
(Second Stage)
with Habitable module
ΔV = .26 km/s
Lunar Transfer andApproach Stage
(First Stage)
ΔV = 5.87 km/s
Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Lunar Transfer and Approach Stage
Modified Pratt andWhitney RL-10B-2
• Isp: 465s• Mass : 280 kg• Thrust can be throttled
Titanium Thrust Structure
• Support loads of:• 6g’s vertical• 2.5g’s lateral
• Low Thermal Conductivityto decrease boil off
• Mass = 920kg
LOX Tank• Propellant Mass: 15960 kg• Tank Mass: 560 kg• Insulation Mass: 50 kg• Variable Density Multi-Layer Insulation to reduceboil off from radiation
LH2 Tank• Propellant Mass: 2720 kg• Tank Mass: 550 kg• Insulation Mass: 200 kg• VD-MLI to reduce boiloff from radiation
Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Structural Analysis• Launch loads:
– 6 g’s vertical– 2.5 g’s lateral
• Material comparison– Al ~ 1340kg– Titanium ~ 920 kg
Euler Buckling
Euler Buckling
Bending
Compression
Local Buckling
Failure Mode
3.40
3.38
.30
2.42
4.31
.198
.198
.250
.100
.346
LengthI.D.M.S.
Dimension (m)Truss Member
O.D.
.10.105LOX
2.7.300LOX Connect
.25.200Module
.009.200LH2
.013.350Engine
450MPa
50MPa
Module
LH2
LOXConnect
LOX
Engine
Ti FEM Analysis
Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Thermal Analysis
Q12 Q23 Q34 270 KModule
4 KLH2 Tank
80 KLOX Tank
270 KEngine
AssumedTemperatureComponent
2.10W27.5 m2LH2SunQradiation
3.24W.007 m2LH2ModuleQ34
4.12W14.0 m2LOXSunQradiation
.13 W.007 m2LH2LOXQ23
16.2 W.031 m2LOXEngineQ12
QAreaSinkSourceFlow
Qradiation
•Given:•KTi = 6.7 W/m-K•LO2 = 213 kJ/kg•LH2 = 446 kJ/kg
•Boil Off•LOX = 29.7kg (.19%)•LH2 = 5.7kg (.21%)
Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Descent Engine• Descent Engine’s Responsibility
– Hovering• Modules hovers for 60 seconds• During hovering the lunar surface will be surveyed
– Landing• The engine used to carry the module within the designated landing
zone• The engines are throttled to low thrust for soft landing on landing
legs onto the lunar surface– Descent Engines Considered
Thrust(N) Isp(sec) length(m) diameter(m) gimbaled(deg)throttled mass(kg)
S3K (DASA/EADS) 3500 352 1.03 0.53 no 14.5
OMV Variable Thrust Engine (TRW) 578 308 0.7005 0.2713 10-100 6.8
RS-28 (Rocketdyne) 2670 220 ? ? ?no 12.7
RS-21 (Rocketdyne) 1330 294 ? ? ?no 8.4
Tia Burley
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Stage
Modified
EADS S3K (6)• Isp: 350s• Mass : 14.5 kg• Full Throttle : 3500 N• Thrust can be throttled
MMH Tank(2)• Propellant Mass : 95 kg/tank
• Tank Mass : 45 kg/tank
MON3 Tank(2)• Propellant Mass : 72 kg/tank
• Tank Mass : 22.5 kg/tank
He Pressure Tank• Not shown on model.
• He and Tank Mass < 5 kg
Tia Burley & Russell Parker
Support Structure• Still being determined.
• Conservative mass estimateof 150 kg.
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Engine Schematic
MMH
Tank
MON3
Tank
helium isolation
valve
pressure relief
valve
fill/vent
S3K Engine
check valve
supply
line
pressurized
helium tank Pressure Fed System
Tia Burley
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Reaction Control• Reaction Control System’s (RCS)
Responsibility– Attitude control during orbital maneuvering– Small translation maneuvers– Assist descent engine with landing maneuvers
• Reaction Control Thrusters ConsideredRocket Thrusters Thrust(N) Isp(sec) length(m) diameter(m) throttled % mass(kg)
CHT 20 (EADS) 20 230 0.195 0.033 40-100 0.395
S22 (EADS) 22 290 0.212 0.055 ? 0.65
R-1E (Marquardt) 110 280 0.279 0.15 60-140 3.7
MR-107 (Rocket Research) 178 236 0.218 0.066 28-140 0.885
Tia Burley
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Reaction Control System• Assume RCS only necessary to
prevent rotational drift duringtransit.
• RCS uses Kaiser MarquardtR-1E (68N) located on thruststructure at LOX connection andon Module
• Total burn time + 50% Margin =192s
After 1st Burn, approximatevalues
•Ixx = 1.62 x 105 kgm2
•Iyy = 1.62 x 105 kgm2
•Izz = 4.2 x 104 kgm2
•c.g. = 8.3 m (z-direction)
ZY
X
+/- 5°
+/- 5°
+/- 5°
AllowableDrift
.01 °/s
.01 °/s
.01 °/s
RotationalVelocity
63s268N-mZ
33s532N-mY
33s532 N-mX
DutyCycleMax TAxis
Tia Burley & Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Reaction Control System• Kaiser Marquardt R-1E
– Variable Thrust (68N – 158N)– MMH/N2O4
– Isp = 280s– Mass Flow Rate
• MMH = .0354 kg/s• N2O4 = .0256 kg/s
– Mass = 3.7 kg• Mass Breakdown
Tia Burley & Russell Parker
Cluster of 4
Cluster of 3
Location ofModule cluster of 4
151 kgTOTAL20 kg*Structures2 kgTanks
118 kgEngines
11 kgPropellant
MassComponent
*Structural Mass still being determined. 20kg is an approximation
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Launch System Mass Summary
20 kg150 kg920 kgStructure
2 kg130 kg1350 kgTanks andInsulation
N2O4/MMH11 kg
MON3/MMH330 kg
LOX/LH218675 kg
Propellant
R-1E (32)3.7 kg each
S3K (6)14.5 kg each
RL-10B-2280 kg
Engine
ReactionControlSystem
LandingStage
LaunchTransfer and
Approach Stage
Resultant available landed mass: 3700 kg
Tia Burley & Russell Parker
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Requirements• Level 1 Requirements:
– Each MORPHLAB module shall be capable ofsuccessful landing and operations with any or all ofthe following conditions occurring simultaneously:
- 10° slope, any direction- 0.5 m diameter boulder anywhere in landing footprint- residual vertical velocity 1 m/sec- residual horizontal velocity 0.5 m/sec
– Landing systems onboard MORPHLAB modulesshall be capable of operating in on-boardautonomous control
• Derived Requirements:– Upon landing chassis, habitable module must
connect to power module within 24 hours
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Determination• Prior to descent
– Mapping satellite will provide preliminary terrainanalysis of 1.4m resolution to determine ideal landingzone of .10km
– Ideal landing zone will be relatively flat, and have fewterrestrial hazards, cliffs or craters which can disturbcommunications
– Trajectory corrections will keep us in the target footprintof 100m with terrestrial hazards greater than 1.4m known
• Autonomous Descent– Power Modules:
• LIDAR will distinguish objects down to .5m , determine slopesof >10 deg, determine any zone considered unsafe
– Habitable and chassis modules:• Power modules guide to safe landing
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Order and SensorsPower Module Chassis Modules
Landing Order
Habitable Module
John Albritton
Power Module Landing Sensors Chassis & Habitable Sensors
1,2,3,4 5,6,7,8,9,10 11, 12,13,14,15,16
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Footprint• Upon touchdown, LIDARrotates forward to be used asobstacle avoidance
• Power modules reposition100m apart in a diamondformation
• The diamond area, .01km2,will be scanned using LIDARto construct a safe landing zone
• If unsafe landing zone, powermodules will reposition untilsafe area found
“Safe Zone”.01 km2
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Landing• Power module determines
chassis’s relative positionand descent velocity throughtriangulation
• Power modules continuouslyupdate and communicate thedata to the chassis moduleproviding real timenavigation and guidance
• Chassis module is guidedand landed within the “SafeZone”
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Recovery• After successful landing of
chassis, power module retrievesthe chassis
• In the retrieval process the powermodule removes the landingengines first and then connects tochassis for power up.
• The power module alongwith connected chassis willreturn to the diamondformation waiting for nextchassis’s descent
• This retrievalprocess will occurfor all 6 chassis
John Albritton
• Chassis andpower connectionmust occur within24 hours
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Habitable Module Landing
• The habitable and sciencemodules will land using the sameexact process as the chassis.
John Albritton
• A power module-chassis moduleassembly will be sent to retrieve thehabitable module
• After All 6 chassis are successfullylanded and connected, the habitableand science modules follow
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis Recovery
John Albritton
• The powermodule will firstremove thedescent engines
• The chassis will thenbe commanded todrive under thehabitable module andestablish a permanentconnection
• This connection alsois required to takeplace within 24 hours
• This processwill repeat untilall habitablemodules haveestablishpermanentconnections withthe 6 chassis
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Summary• Power modules land using full sensor suite• Chassis and habitable modules landing
without LIDAR utilize navigation andguidance provided by the power modules
• Chassis and habitable modules must connectwith power modules within 24 hours
• All retrieval processes are guided andcommanded by the power modules
John Albritton
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Zone• Landing zone is based upon
Apollo actual off target data• The data was then filtered• A standard deviation and
average value was then found• Then a technology
advancement reduction taken(30% off Apollo numbers)
• A new standard deviation andaverage were then calculated
Apollo 11 6.86 km(filtered) Apollo 15
.55 km(filtered)
Apollo 16.21 km
Apollo 17.20 km
Apollo 12.16 km
Apollo 14.05 km
.155 km average
Apollo Distances from Target Landing Site
Standard deviation.155 kmAverage.068 km
New Standard deviation.0406 km
New Average.0204 km
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Zone• The new Standard deviation
and average were normalizedand then applied to a normaldistribution curve to find a.9990 probability of success
• This value then applied to theaverage gives us theprobability of .9990 of beingwithin a circle of that radiusof the target site
• So, this leaves us with alanding zone with a circularradius of .109 km for the firstmodule (power) to land in
• Other modules will land closeto the first one, due to landingbeacons being placed afterpower module landing,allowing them to land withinmeters of the power module
This .9990 correspondsto .109 km
Normal distribution curve
Rob Winter
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Stability Analysis
• Assumptions– 2-D motion & rigid body dynamics– Collisions are perfectly inelastic– Habitable module modeled as a cylinder and
power module modeled as a box2mv2
1
• Level 1 Requirement– MORPHLAB modules must be able to land on a 10° slope with
residual 1.0 m/s vertical and 0.5 m/s lateral velocities
• Analysis– Energy req. for tipping =
potential energy of centerof gravity – kineticenergy of vehicle
Abraham Daiub
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Landing Stability AnalysisCase A Case B
Case C
Abraham Daiub
No-failure of power or habitable module
7.30m = footprint of habitable module2.28m = footprint of power module
No-failure
7.10 = footprint of habitable module2.22 = footprint of power module
Habitable module footprint = 7.60m → stablePower module wheel base = 3.3m wide 4.2m long → stable
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Design of Landing Legs forHabitable Module
Constraint
Accelerationvector
1/16*landed mass
Abraham Daiub
• Level 1 Requirement– MORPHLAB modules must
be able to land on 10° slopewith residual 1.0 m/s verticaland 0.5 m/s lateral velocities
• Assumptions– 63 m/s2 axial , 1.63m/s2 lateral– Loads through of CG carried by
stringers– Footpad constrained 1.
FEM Setup
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Design of Landing Legs forHabitable Module
Bending
LocalBuckling
LocalBuckling
EulerBuckling
FailureMode
874.2.250.30.50Foot-pad
2900.1960.722.100.099SecondaryStrut
5260.0522.67.120.118PrimaryLowerStrut
3880.3791.45.130.128PrimaryUpperStrut
Max.Stress(MPa)
S.M.Length(m)
OD (m)ID (m)MemberPrimaryUpper Strut
Primary Lower Strut
Secondary Strut
Foot-pad
Abraham Daiub
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Design of Landing Legs forHabitable Module• Requirement
– Absorb all kinetic energy withone load limiter
– Residual velocity 1.0 m/s axialand 0.5 m/s lateral
0.342Mass (kg)0.0129Cross section (m2)
1.40Length (m)
http://www.mcgillcorp.com/alcore/datasheets/spiral-0600.pdf
Parameters
Abraham Daiub
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis During Transit to Moon• Wheels retracted inward toward center of
thrust structure to allow chassis to fit withindynamic envelop of Delta IV-H 5m payloadfairing.
• Launch loads transferred two four points atends of 2 chassis ‘launch beams.’
• Maximum load acted on chassis during transitand launch occur during Delta IV – H mainengine cutoff. Axial acc. = 6g’s, later acc =2.5g’s. Chassis capable of supporting 3500 kg(including itself) during transit and launch.
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Chassis LandingMaximum landed mass = 3500kg
Maximum impact deceleration designed for= 6 lunar g’sMax deceleration is a very conservative estimatederived from our requirement that the maximumresidual velocity during landing cannot exceed1m/s and assuming that the deceleration duringimpact will not occur in less that 1/10th of a second.
Worst cases for struts and axles correspond to a power module initiallytouching down with only one wheel.
Landing loads can act in all three directions and create greater stresses in eachmember for different loading directions.
All cases closely examined and modeled using ProEngineer.
All structural member pass all worst case landing load conditions withpositive margins of safety.
Jason Seabrease
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Mission Planning
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Fault Tolerance
• Fail Safe Mode losses:– 1 Habitable-Science module– 1 Habitable-Living module– 2 Power modules
• Survival Mode losses:– 2 Habitable-Living modules– 2 Habitable-Science modules– 3 Power modules
Daniel Senai
• Level 1 Requirements:– Loss of 1 module should not end mission– Loss of 2 modules should support crew until launch
window occurs
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Fault Tolerance/Reliability• NASA JSC - 28354 requires reliability of 0.99 for crew return• All sub-systems will have to meet these reliability requirements by
Jan. 1st 2010 with a NASA technology readiness level (TRL) of 6
Daniel Senai
= Fail Safe Mode
R-Power
R-Power
R-PowerR-Living
R-Living
R-Living
R-ScienceR-Power
R-Power =0.989 R-Living = 0.930 R-Science = 0.930
R-Power Sys = 0.99988 R-Living Sys = 0.995 R-Science Sys = 0.995
R-Science
R-Science
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Required Sub-System Reliabilities
Daniel Senai
0.9978Thermal0.9978Avionics0.9955DIPS0.9978Chassis Module
Power Module = 0.989
0.9819Docking Mechanism0.9819ECLSS0.9819Thermal0.9819Avionics0.9819Power Sub-systems
Habitable-Living andHabitat-Science Modules =0.930
0.9966Avionics0.9966Power Sub-systems0.9966Drive System0.9966Steering System0.9966Suspension System0.9966Brake System
Chassis Module = 0.9978
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline
• Historical Precedent:– Apollo:
• 5 years from program start to first test• 2 years from testing to first human launch• 7 years total time from program start to human launch
– Shuttle:• 5 years from program start to first test• 4 years from testing to first human launch• 9 years total time from program start to human launch
2005 2015
Design/Manufacture
2010
TestSystems
LaunchModules
Manned Missions(every 6 months)
2020
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline• Launching Phase (2013 – 2014):
– All landings are scheduled forlocal lunar dawn + 3 days
– Launch #18 - #24 are launchwindows built into the timelinein case a launch must bedelayed and so that the mannedmissions will begin on schedule
– LVs can be ready in 22 days,each launch is scheduled 28-30days apart
– Mapping satellites to belaunched January 2011 to get24 months of data and analysisabout the lunar terrain
– Communications satellites willbe launched February 2017
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline• 17 required launches before first human
mission– Launches #1 - #4 will be the power modules– Launches #5 - #10 will be the chassis modules– Launches #11 - #16 will be the habitable modules– Launch #17 will be the first logistics depot
• Each logistics depot will be launched one monthbefore the next human arrival
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline• Mission Phase (2015 – 2019+):
– Each human mission will be 6 months apart startingJune 5, 2015
• Launch will be June 1, 2015• Level 1 Requirement: I10
– System shall provide autonomous checkout and unambiguousevidence of functionality prior to committing the next human
• The first 3 month mission will be unmanned for the firstmonth and land the first crew at local dawn on the second
– The human mission will be 2 months in order to stay onschedule
– Approximately 14 days will be lost of program timewhen the missions change over to far side
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Timeline• In the event that a mission must be delayed
the column labeled “Land Day before/afterFull Moon” will be used to get the newlanding date
• This factor will land humans at local lunardawn + 2 days
• All full moons from 2015 – 2020 are listed inthe detailed timeline document
Craig Nickel
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Cost Analysis• Level I Requirements: $51.5 Billion budget
– Spread over 15 years– Derived from projected NASA spending on a lunar
exploration program
• Mass-based, vehicle-level cost estimatingrelationship– Non-recurring costs– Production costs with 80% learning curve– Constants differ for launch vehicle stage, liquid rocket
engine, scientific instrument, unmanned planetary,manned spacecraft
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Production CostsVehicle Assembly Launch Structure
Satellites
9.67Total1.999
Logistics Modules(2-10)
1.191Logistics Module 11.266Chassis Module1.913Habitable-Science1.993Habitable-Living1.334Power Module
Cost($B04)QtyComponent
1.91Total0.15952Small Engine0.78026Engine0.97326Thrust Structure
Cost($B04)QtyComponent
182Total1154Communications671Mapping
Cost($M04)QtyComponent
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Launch Costs
4.54Total0.122Atlas V1Mapping Satellite0.122Atlas V1Communication Satellites1.49Delta IV-Heavy9Logistics Modules 2-100.165Delta IV-Heavy1Logistics Module 10.990Delta IV-Heavy6Chassis Module
0.495Delta IV-Heavy3Habitable-Science Module0.495Delta IV-Heavy3Habitable-Living Module0.660Delta IV-Heavy4Power Module
Cost($B04)LV
Number LaunchesComponent
Emily Tai
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Wrap Factors
Emily Tai
7.54Total1.180.10Fees1.180.10Program Management and Integration0.7770.066Launch and Landing1.770.15Operations Capability Development1.770.15Program Support0.4120.035Phase B Definition Studies
0.03530.003Phase A Conceptual Studies0.4120.035Advanced Development
Cost($B04)PercentageFactor
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Cost Summary
Allowable reserve factor: 0.537Total budget with 0.4 reserve factor: $39.7 Billion
Emily Tai
23.8Total System Cost7.52Wrap factors4.53Launches0.182Satellite production1.91Launch structure production9.67Vehicle production
Cost ($B04)
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Cost Summary
Emily Tai
Cost-Budget Comparison
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Year/Phase
Do
llars
($M
2004)
Budget
Cost
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Development - Testing/Mapping Launch - Module Launches - Mission/Comm Launch
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Summary• Designed to fulfill the goals of the
President’s new space initiative• Stepping stone for an Earth to Mars mission• Design utilizes existing launch vehicle
technologies• Design has great advantages over a large-
scale stationary lunar base• Inexpensive program
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Open ItemsThere are a few subsystems that either have yet
to be determined or need the completion ofdetailed analysis, these systems are:– Radiator for the power module– Extension for docking mechanism– Specific computing requirements– Interior lighting layout– Steering and suspension mechanism– Lunar rover storage
University of MarylandCDR 04/19/04
Acknowledgments• Our advisors, Dr. Dave Akin and Dr. Mary
Bowden, for their help and support
• All of the people who helped by giving usfeedback at our Trade Study, and PreliminaryDesign Reviews
• Dr. Fourney and the University of Maryland’sAerospace Engineering Department