[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

I dont think so, without any means of slowing the lander down it would hit at 200m/s (at best) - on mars the landers had parachutes, which are ineffective on the moon without an atmosphere!

Also one of the competition guidelines is that the probe must be soft landed - so we are already looking at a more complex design..

To answer your question tutle, the above been the case if we want multiple rovers it would be much to expensive and complicated to scatter them - as cool as that would be!

J

I envisioned slowing the lander down via rockets before deploying the airbag(s). Once slowed enough by rocket the airbag is deployed, or the vehicle disperses multiple airbag wrapped rovers. Think dropping a sockerball from a tall building. Now think opening a net bag of six soccer balls from the building. Soft enough I think.

I'm no rocket scientist...good thing some of you are.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I envisioned slowing the lander down via rockets before deploying the airbag(s). ...

Actually, that's NOT a bad idea. The computer wizardry required for a rocket landing is HUGE compared to your approach.

[Pyrotex]

Rocket Engineering Lesson 1

I've gone ahead and done a WBS analysis (first pass) on just the piece that goes to the Moon. Now, if you come up with a different way to land or navigate, then your WBS will be different, so be aware.

Lunar Payload
1. Communication System
2. Navigation System
3. Reaction Control System
4. Electrical Power System
5. Thermal Control System
6. Descent Rocket Motor & Controller
7. Lander Attach/Detach System
8. Lander System
8.1 Lander Static Structure
8.2 Lander Airbag System
8.3 Lander Electrical Power System
8.4 Lander Thermal Control System
8.5 Lander Computer System
8.6 Lander Communication System
8.7 Lander Camera System
8.8 Lander Unfolding System
8.9 Rover Attach/Detach System
8.10 Rover System
8.10.1 Rover Static Structure
8.10.2 Rover Electrical Power System
8.10.3 Rover Thermal Control System
8.10.4 Rover Computer System
8.10.5 Rover Communication System
8.10.6 Rover Camera System
8.10.7 Rover Transport System
8.10.7.1 Electrical Motors
8.10.7.2 Motor Controllers
8.10.7.3 Steering Assemblies
8.10.7.4 Wheel Assemblies
8.10.7.4.1 Wheel Rims
8.10.7.4.2 Wheel Spokes
8.10.7.4.3 Wheel Hubs
8.10.7.4.4 Wheel Axle Assemblies
8.10.7.4.5 Wheel Gearing Assemblies

There's a start. But look. I began with 3 computer systems, then I decided to merge the overall Lunar Payload computer with the Lander computer to save weight and complexity. But was this the right decision? What are the pros and cons? Could I have just had one computer on the Rover and have it control all three major sections? (Payload, Lander & Rover) Do I need a kick motor on the the Payload section for either orbital insertion or decelleration? I don't think so, but you consider that. How many wheels? Should the gearing assembly be part of the Motor assembly? On second thought, I'm beginning to change my mind.

Notice that I broke only one 4th level WBS item into its 5th level sub-items. You really need to do this kind of decomposition for EVERY item in the whole WBS.

For example, consider the Lunar Payload Navigation System, WBS#2. What does it break into? Do you need a radar? How about a gyro inertial platform? How about a star tracker? How about a Lunar horizon detector? What are you gonna need to have the payload know where it is and how it is oriented and when things need to happen?

You may find that you're designing something that is NOT in the WBS. Well, it needs to be there!!! But where? At what level? Is your thing part of something else, or is something already in the WBS just a part of what you're designing? You all need to agree on the WBS before you can build the first thing.

GOOD LUCK, DUDES & DUDETTES!!!

[TheBigDog]

Soft landing is a relative term. Any landing which allows the mission to be completed is soft in my book. If our lander could survive a 200m/s impact I would consider that soft. I have no reservations about making a crater in the process.

Bill

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Soft landing is a relative term. Any landing which allows the mission to be completed is soft in my book. If our lander could survive a 200m/s impact I would consider that soft. I have no reservations about making a crater in the process.

Bill

I am toying with the idea of using current OTS jetpack technology for the lunar decent deceleration. The module for sale here carries payload 80kg for 9mins in Earth gravity, so I think that is more than adequate to be adapted for our needs - its nice and small for a start! can anyone see any shortcomings with using a system like this?

Great to have you on board Pyro

[TheBigDog]

I like the idea of having the lander act as a command center for the rovers. The rovers are basically stupid remote control cars run by the lander PC. The lander has solar panels and acts as a recharger for the rovers. They go out and return on a single charge. Very simple little devices. There are virtually no moving parts on the lander. It acts as a base station for the rovers and does all the communication with Earth. The computers use all solid state memory. Again, no moving parts.

I like Turtle's idea of not putting all of our eggs in one basket. What if we keep the lander/rover packet small enough that we send two. We then double out chances for a successful touch down. I envision that the stuff we are landing is going to be one of the least expensive parts of the mission. Off the shelf electronics, simple engineering.

I think my favorite idea is for a constant motion lander. Get this... we have a lander that when in the sunlight can maintain 8-10 k/h. That is fast enough to perpetually stay in the sunlight. If it lasts for 28 days it would circumnavigate the moon. Imagine how cool that would be!

Another idea I had was to have the lander use a mortor type launcher to send rovers or other landers to places on the moon several hundred kilometers away. If we want to take pictures of the existing Apollo equipment that might be the way to do it.

Lots of ideas.

Great list, Pyro. I would actually like to trim it down into about half a dozen with the details as requirements of separate teams. We will need to come up with some guiding principles to help guide our decision making. I like redundancy in every place we can afford it. The initial launch might be the only place we can't do that.

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

I am toying with the idea of using current OTS jetpack technology for the lunar decent deceleration. The module for sale here carries payload 80kg for 9mins in Earth gravity, so I think that is more than adequate to be adapted for our needs - its nice and small for a start! can anyone see any shortcomings with using a system like this?

Great to have you on board Pyro

Great idea, JQ. Wherever we can employ off the shelf technology we are ahead of the game. And if it cheap enough that we can run practical tests, all the better!

Project Plan and High Level Design. That is the first order of business.

Bill

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I like the idea of having the lander act as a command center for the rovers. The rovers are basically stupid remote control cars run by the lander PC. The lander has solar panels and acts as a recharger for the rovers. They go out and return on a single charge. Very simple little devices. There are virtually no moving parts on the lander. It acts as a base station for the rovers and does all the communication with Earth.
...Great list, Pyro. I would actually like to trim it down into about half a dozen with the details as requirements of separate teams. We will need to come up with some guiding principles to help guide our decision making....

Okie-dokie! First the brainstorming!


Visually, conceptually, what do y'all want? I could go with two rovers on one lander, if they're small enough. We can dumb down the rovers and have the lander be the brains. But a moving lander is gonna quadruple the weight of everything, and multiple the size of the descent rocket motor by 10 or 20!!! Maybe. Pros and cons to everything. Y'all come to a consensus and THEN we'll break the idea down into a WBS and into Systems that teams can work on.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Okie-dokie! First the brainstorming!


Visually, conceptually, what do y'all want? I could go with two rovers on one lander, if they're small enough. We can dumb down the rovers and have the lander be the brains. But a moving lander is gonna quadruple the weight of everything, and multiple the size of the descent rocket motor by 10 or 20!!! Maybe. Pros and cons to everything. Y'all come to a consensus and THEN we'll break the idea down into a WBS and into Systems that teams can work on.

Could we seal the rover into a ball, like a hamster? That would protect it from dust. It could have function to vibrate (shaking off dust) then open a door to take clear pictures. Then close up and protect from the dust again. This is pure brainstorm.

Bill

[Jay-qu]

I dont think we should go with a moving lander - its damn cool, but its outside the scope of the objectives. If we want to win the prize we need to just achieve the objectives as cheap and fast as possible.

I asked for application to become an official team and there are already over 100 teams the sign up fee has not been finalised but they say its between $US1-10thousand - let the fund raising begin!