1. Space Grant Symposium Presentation Saturday – April 19th, 2008 Joseph Farrell – U of A

2. Background Information • Junior in Aerospace Engineering at University of Arizona • Location of internship – Raytheon Missile Systems • Project Title – “Robotic Lander Design and Development” • Mentor – Jim Head (with assistance from Raytheon Engineers, and UA Faculty/Students) Joseph Farrell

3. General Tasks/Analysis Completed • Analysis of a Lunar Surface Return (LSR) report and excel spreadsheet (‘06-’07 Space Grant Report). Review of the Boomerang Report (NASA). • Analysis of Lander thruster configurations. • Other Tasks: • Organization and summarization of the Goddard Space Flight Center Program Listing. • Basic Matlab proficiency. • Preliminary Honeycomb Analysis (See Chris Rogers’ presentation). Joseph Farrell

4. Lunar Surface Return Mission Focus of Analysis Image taken from the Boomerang Report Joseph Farrell

5. LSR – Cont. • LSR Report details a round-trip mission to the moon to collect a payload of moon material and bring it back to Earth. • “Boomerang” Report details a functionally similar mission. • Tasked with making the spreadsheet “close” • Enough Net Delta V available for both the ascent and landing stages • Positive lift margin for the launch stage • Goal was to optimize the spreadsheet to function with the parameters of the “Boomerang” Report. Joseph Farrell

6. LSR – Cont. • Analysis parameters: - Fixed Launch Vehicle - Landing Stage • Between 1-4 pairs of fuel tanks • Variable SRM Engine (Star # ATK Motor) - Lunar Ascent Stage (LAV) • 2 Stage Launch • Stage 1 – Variable SRM Engine (Star # ATK Motor) • Stage 2 – Variable SRM Engine (Star # ATK Motor) Joseph Farrell

7. LSR – Cont. • Ultimately concluded that spreadsheet can not ‘close’. • “Boomerang” assumptions include the Lunar Lander providing delta V for landing and ascent. • LSR Report / Spreadsheet lacks this assumption. Joseph Farrell

8. Thruster Configuration Analysis • Presented with four potential thruster configurations for landing a Planetary Lander with a vertical delta V=250m/s: • Configuration 1: 4 Divert Thrusters, 8 ACS Thrusters on deck. • Configuration 2: 4 Divert Thrusters, 6 ACS Thrusters on poles. • Configuration 3: 2 Lateral and 2 Downward Divert Thrusters , 8 ACS Thrusters on deck. • Configuration 4: 2 Lateral and 2 Downward Divert Thrusters, 6 ACS Thrusters on poles. Joseph Farrell

9. Thruster Configuration – Cont. Joseph Farrell

10. Thruster Configuration – Cont. • Task was to judge/analyze different configurations based on (only a few listed): - Braking Time - Fuel usage - Correction time for 10ms Divert misfire - Ability to compensate for C.G. drift - Misfires about the X, Y, and Z axes - More… Horizontal Vertical Error bars compensate for C.G. Drift Joseph Farrell

11. Thruster Configuration – Cont. • Configuration 3 chosen to be optimum configuration – 2 Down, 2 Lateral Divert Thrusters, 8 ACS Thrusters on deck. Joseph Farrell

12. Conclusion • Overall, my experience at Raytheon has been a very positive one. • Gained valuable insight into team-work and solitary analysis. • Better understanding of the practical work that goes with the title of an “engineer”. • Thanks!! Joseph Farrell