Alternate
Solution 1:
Pros: As a result of the low parachute opening design, this solution will allow the probe to free fall most of the descent, recreating a more realistic atmosphere to earth entry. The parachute will not be deployed during interference with the jets stream altitudes, therefore preventing lateral travel of the probe.
Cons: Our funding is limited, so our priority is cost effectiveness. A reliable automatic parachute opening systems is around $1,500, which is beyond our launch and recovery budget. Buying retail opening systems is almost impossible, thus we would have to buy a used one or design our own. Secondly, automatic parachute openers can sometimes short out leaving our probe crashing towards Earth.
Cons: Our funding is limited, so our priority is cost effectiveness. A reliable automatic parachute opening systems is around $1,500, which is beyond our launch and recovery budget. Buying retail opening systems is almost impossible, thus we would have to buy a used one or design our own. Secondly, automatic parachute openers can sometimes short out leaving our probe crashing towards Earth.
Conclusion: This solution is allows the probe to free fall through the atmosphere. However, there are multiple risks involved.
Alternate Solution 2:
Introduction: Similar to Solution 1, this system propels the probe using a single helium-filled weather balloon. The distance between the balloon and the probe hull is longer because the parachute is pre-deployed in-between balloon and the hull. When the balloon explodes due to pressure, the downward force of the falling probe fills the parachute with air. The parachute is instantly filled, allowing a slow descent of 120,000 feet.
Pros: This solution is extremely cost effective. The design only requires a parachute not a parachute opening system. This saves over a thousand dollars. Also, this parachute system is much more reliable than an automatic parachute opener system. This probe also gives the Tardigrades more time to witness atmospheric conditions.
Cons: This solution does not allow the probe to naturally fall. This is important because the probe should free fall to simulate an actual meteor entering the Earth. In this solution, the parachute opens before passing through the jet stream. The parachute causes extra drag, causing the probe to drift further from the launch site.
Conclusion: This design is low risk and low cost. Unfortunately, the design may require a water contact landing system and finding the probe may be a challenge.
Alternate Solution 3:
Introduction: This is an “Apollo 13” inspired solution. Similar to the landing of the Apollo 13 module, this solution is designed for water contact landing. The probe is supported by three parachutes to ensure a slow and safe descent. A floatation device is used to keep the hull out of the water.
Pros: Our probe has the ability to stray up to 180 miles from the launch site because of jet streams. If our probe was carried to the ocean, this solution would protect our important cargo from damage due to a water landing. This allows us to not have to drive as far west to avoid all possible water landings. Also, because there are a total of three parachutes, if one of the parachutes doesn’t deploy properly the other two will support the weight of the probe.
Cons: The water landing system adds weight to the probe. The lighter the probe hull, the greater the altitude we can ascent to. Having this extra weight will minimize our maximum altitude.
Conclusion: This design overlooks maximum altitude and data collection and focuses on landing safely and securely.
Alternate Solution 4:
Introduction: This solution focuses on maximizing altitude. The design includes three helium balloons, each partially inflated to allow room for expansion. The landing system is a parachute already deployed hanging upside down. As the balloons pop, the parachute is pulled upward and the hull slowly descents to Earth.
Pros: Our goal is to have the Water Bears attest to the worst conditions possible, including UV radiation only found in the atmosphere. This design will propel the probe to the edge of the stratosphere, passing through the ozone layer and submitting the Tardigrades to excessive radiation.
Cons: This design requires two more extra weather balloons and therefore not cost effective. Also, the probe might continue to ascent too high creating a risk that we probe won't return.
Conclusion: Although this design would require extra money and resources, the probe will be propelled to our goal of over 100,000 feet.
Design Matrix:
Conclusion:
Alternate Solution 2:
Introduction: Similar to Solution 1, this system propels the probe using a single helium-filled weather balloon. The distance between the balloon and the probe hull is longer because the parachute is pre-deployed in-between balloon and the hull. When the balloon explodes due to pressure, the downward force of the falling probe fills the parachute with air. The parachute is instantly filled, allowing a slow descent of 120,000 feet.
Pros: This solution is extremely cost effective. The design only requires a parachute not a parachute opening system. This saves over a thousand dollars. Also, this parachute system is much more reliable than an automatic parachute opener system. This probe also gives the Tardigrades more time to witness atmospheric conditions.
Cons: This solution does not allow the probe to naturally fall. This is important because the probe should free fall to simulate an actual meteor entering the Earth. In this solution, the parachute opens before passing through the jet stream. The parachute causes extra drag, causing the probe to drift further from the launch site.
Conclusion: This design is low risk and low cost. Unfortunately, the design may require a water contact landing system and finding the probe may be a challenge.
Alternate Solution 3:
Introduction: This is an “Apollo 13” inspired solution. Similar to the landing of the Apollo 13 module, this solution is designed for water contact landing. The probe is supported by three parachutes to ensure a slow and safe descent. A floatation device is used to keep the hull out of the water.
Pros: Our probe has the ability to stray up to 180 miles from the launch site because of jet streams. If our probe was carried to the ocean, this solution would protect our important cargo from damage due to a water landing. This allows us to not have to drive as far west to avoid all possible water landings. Also, because there are a total of three parachutes, if one of the parachutes doesn’t deploy properly the other two will support the weight of the probe.
Cons: The water landing system adds weight to the probe. The lighter the probe hull, the greater the altitude we can ascent to. Having this extra weight will minimize our maximum altitude.
Conclusion: This design overlooks maximum altitude and data collection and focuses on landing safely and securely.
Alternate Solution 4:
Introduction: This solution focuses on maximizing altitude. The design includes three helium balloons, each partially inflated to allow room for expansion. The landing system is a parachute already deployed hanging upside down. As the balloons pop, the parachute is pulled upward and the hull slowly descents to Earth.
Pros: Our goal is to have the Water Bears attest to the worst conditions possible, including UV radiation only found in the atmosphere. This design will propel the probe to the edge of the stratosphere, passing through the ozone layer and submitting the Tardigrades to excessive radiation.
Cons: This design requires two more extra weather balloons and therefore not cost effective. Also, the probe might continue to ascent too high creating a risk that we probe won't return.
Conclusion: Although this design would require extra money and resources, the probe will be propelled to our goal of over 100,000 feet.
Design Matrix:
Design Matrix 1A:
Launch System
|
||||
Spec
|
AS 1
|
AS 2
|
AS 3
|
AS 4
|
Light weight
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
Permeable
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Create lift force of
at least 5 pounds
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
Cost effective
|
0
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
Ascend to over 100,000
ft
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
Function well in harsh
conditions
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Stop ascending at
optimal altitude
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Have a radar reflector
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
Total
|
26
|
31
|
26
|
28
|
Design Matrix 1B:
Recovery System
|
||||
Spec
|
AS 1
|
AS 2
|
AS 3
|
AS 4
|
Cost effective
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
Light weight
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
Able to withstand high
velocity winds
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
Allow the probe to
descend for successful retrieval
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Keep the probe upright
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Cushioned landing
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
Total
|
16
|
24
|
18
|
20
|
Design Matrix 2:
Overall Score
|
AS 1
|
AS 2
|
AS 3
|
AS 4
|
Launch System
|
26
|
31
|
26
|
28
|
Recovery System
|
16
|
24
|
18
|
20
|
Total
|
42
|
55
|
44
|
48
|
Conclusion:
After matching each solution comparatively to each specification, the optimal design became evident. Alternate Solution #2 has been selected to continue further through the design process. The design is the most cost effective and minimizes risk while ensuring the mission is accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment