cansat 2008: tuskegee university final presentation
DESCRIPTION
Final presentation by Tuskegee University at CanSat 2008 http://www.astronautical.org/2008/06/15/cansat-2008-tuskegee-university/TRANSCRIPT
Tuskegee University
Cansat 2008
After – Action Report and Analysis
Overview of After-Action Report Attending Members Design Overview Data as recorded by ground station Results of flight (success, failure, and
omissions) Failure mode analysis Lessons learned Preparations for next competition
Attending Members
Software Lead: Christopher Coleman
Hardware Lead: Brandon Williams
Advisor: Eldon Triggs
Design Overview
2.8 inch diameter by 11 inch length planetary exploration payload
Parachute to surface and record altitude during entire flight
Transmit data to ground station during flight Land upright and detach parachute prior to
landing
Design Overview
Use of COTS hardware to collect data and transmit to ground station (ARTS2 altimeter and TX-900G transmitter/GPS)
Use hotwire connected to pyros to cut parachute loose
Use LDM (Lawn Dart Method) to land upright Use 9.6V battery to power all functions
Ground station data collection Heavy emphasis on collection of altitude
data1. Average descent rate was 14.1 feet/sec or 4.3
meters/sec
2. Max barometric altitude was 4852 feet / 1330 ft AGL
3. Max acceleration was 43.37 meters/sec^2
Results of Flight
Tuskegee University’s Cansat successfully flew on June 14th, 2008
First Cansat competition for Tuskegee
Some objectives/requirements met, some were not
Objectives achieved
Measurement of altitude and transmit to ground station. Good link with ARTS2 altimeter and TX-900G
transmitter throughout duration of flight (maximum signal strength)
Storage of data on ground station and flight computer successful
Objectives achieved
Proper parachute deployment
Parachute packing was correct and allowed proper deployment
Parachute deployed and slowed the Cansat to 4.3 m/s average
Objectives Missed
Landing upright Due to weight restrictions, landing legs were not
installed. Cansat impacted hard soil and was not able to
use landing pegs as LDM (Lawn Dart Method) Center of gravity higher than expected (roughly
centerline of spacecraft instead of low COG)
Objectives Missed
Parachute separation Ultimate altitude not determined correctly prior to
launch. As a consequence, pyros did not fire and cut
parachute cord. Method of parachute detachment outlined in PDR
and CDR was not able to be used due to weight concerns
Bonus Objectives Omitted
Due to weight issues, the vacuum motor, parachute release motor, stepper motor/drill, and temperature probe were omitted
Battery and component weights created issues that prevented attempting any bonus points
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Anticipated failure modes based on severity1. Parachute deployment failure
Catastrophic failure (complete destruction of system, medium possibility)
2. Power system failure (battery disconnect/premature drain) Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, medium
possibility)
3. Data downlink failure/transmission Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, medium
possibility)
4. Parachute not detaching Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, high possibility)
5. Not landing upright Mission failure (not catastrophic, but part of basic requirements, high possibility)
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Actual failure modes based on severity1. Parachute deployment failure
Did not occur (successful)
2. Power system failure (battery disconnect/premature drain) Did not occur (successful)
3. Data downlink failure/transmission Did not occur (successful)
4. Parachute not detaching Mission failure ( failure occurred)
5. Not landing upright Mission failure ( failure occurred)
Failure analysis
Parachute detachment failure1. Pyro switch did not activate due to failure to
attain anticipated altitude (wind restrictions)
2. Pyro switch was calibrated on descent from apogee as well as time (not enough altitude or time)
3. Due to weight restrictions, the ultrasonic rangefinder was omitted and the process of parachute detachment was altered
Failure analysis
Cansat not landing upright1. Weight restrictions prevented landing legs from
being added
2. LDM (lawn Dart Method) was used, but the compacted soil prevented the pegs from penetrating the ground sufficiently (Cansat bounced rather than sticking)
3. Also, failure of parachute detachment mechanism caused the Cansat to be drug 1-2 feet AFTER landing
Lessons learned (generic)
Battery/Power source1. Battery did not fail, however last minute changes
increased the mass of the battery.
2. A larger current was needed to fire the pyro and maintain good downlink
3. Battery sizing needs to be more of a focus in the initial stages
4. Back up batteries on hand
Lessons learned (generic)
Structure1. Structure was satisfactory, but needed minor
modifications
2. Finite Element modeling of structure to properly reduce unnecessary mass
3. Consider alternative materials to reduce mass and increase durability
Lessons learned (generic)
Electronics1. Simplify wiring to reduce mass and possibility of
broken connections due to launch / MECO / Parachute deployment
2. Use of microprocessors to increase capability and reduce mass
3. Move from COTS to hand built parts to tailor functions to specific tasks/objectives
Lessons learned (specific)
Defining vertical landing. Some orientations were on the long axis instead of the circular diameter
Use of e-matches for pyros instead of high resistance / small diameter wire (used rocket igniters) as the wire was an abject failure.
Calibration of ARTS2 flight computer to provide more accurate data (i.e. redefine “up” and “down”
Lessons learned (specific)
Budget1. Funding: secure sources and commitments and
obtain funds EARLY
2. Find outside sources in the commercial community as well as academic
3. Use funding WISELY!
Lessons learned (specific)
Team organization1. Find members from other fields (electrical,
mechanical, etc) and recruit them. This year was aerospace engineering only.
2. Give members tasks based on their individual strengths and fields of study
3. Make team meeting regular and give specific outcomes for each meeting
Questions?