Moon Shot - Ground Equipment Section

First private sector mission concepts, potential revenue streams, what various companies and organizations are doing along these lines, <b>closely</b> related topics

Moderator: smccann

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:15 pm

[quote=""Engineer817""]Probably certified to work. I'd suggest that if you haven't already, take a computer engineering lab. you'll find that most electronics and products come with a DATA sheet. you can find lowest operation temperature, highest maximum voltage ratings, all that jazz. http://search.digikey.com/us/en/cat/rf- ... ransmitter go ahead and wet your appetite. Equipment is now cheap and easy to come by. and the documentation on them are great.
:cool: [/quote]


Exactly correct. Add to this list the equipment's ability to operate in vacuum. Imagine the typical PC being placed in a vacuum chamber...

JR

User avatar
stevend
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:48 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by stevend » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:53 pm

[quote=""joertexas""]Exactly correct. Add to this list the equipment's ability to operate in vacuum. Imagine the typical PC being placed in a vacuum chamber...

JR[/quote]

Sure, that's straight forward good engineering but "certify"? Things are certified so that consumers know the product they're buying will work as advertised. But you're talking about building a component for use in a system only you will use. No need to certify. There's no one to certify it anyway. Just make sure it's engineered properly. If you want, get someone else to check it for you - typical peer review.

Sorry, it just seemed a strange thing. If a mining company's engineering department designs and builds a doohickey for their process, they don't get it certified - though they would patent it if it's patentable.
-Steve

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:31 pm

[quote=""stevend""]Sure, that's straight forward good engineering but "certify"? Things are certified so that consumers know the product they're buying will work as advertised. But you're talking about building a component for use in a system only you will use. No need to certify. There's no one to certify it anyway. Just make sure it's engineered properly. If you want, get someone else to check it for you - typical peer review.

Sorry, it just seemed a strange thing. If a mining company's engineering department designs and builds a doohickey for their process, they don't get it certified - though they would patent it if it's patentable.
-Steve[/quote]

Space rated is a common term in the aerospace industry. It's a short way of saying that the hardware can operate in space. If I go to a manufacturer and say I want a space rated motor, for example, they would know that the motor would have to operate in vacuum, under some fairly extreme temperatures, and be reasonably radiation tolerant.

JR

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

Good enough just doesn't cut it lads

Post by Engineer » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:50 am

I'd say that it should be certified. by ourselves. We need to look at each tiny component. every little nut, bolt, IC unit, and strut and make sure that there will never be any thing unsuspected during the mission. and if I can be multipurpose, all the better. On that note, 2 things. Are we using a predesigned lander or are we going our own on that. and if either case, what can we use when we get down there as spare parts? Also, theres more options then the falcon 9 and or heavy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... ck=main_sr
:cool:
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:18 pm

[quote=""Engineer817""]I'd say that it should be certified. by ourselves. We need to look at each tiny component. every little nut, bolt, IC unit, and strut and make sure that there will never be any thing unsuspected during the mission. and if I can be multipurpose, all the better. On that note, 2 things. Are we using a predesigned lander or are we going our own on that. and if either case, what can we use when we get down there as spare parts? Also, theres more options then the falcon 9 and or heavy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... ck=main_sr
:cool: [/quote]

On certification - we will bust the budget if we try to certify every part of the hardware, and it isn't necessary. All of the components we need, radios, cameras, motors, and so on, are available as flight proven designs from existing manufacturers. There are also proven practices and materials for building the vehicles. We will need to test the vehicles themselves, both individually as as a group to verify that they can work together and survive the various environments they will be subjected to, from transport, to launch, to operations on the moon.

I'm planning to use the Falcon 9 because using any other nation's booster invokes ITAR. Essentially, if we plan to build or launch any part of this in the US, we have to stick with US companies. If we go outside the US, then we have to use non-US companies exclusively.

The lander will be a custom vehicle, mostly because of how the cargo box is configured. The lander will resemble a Skycrane helicopter, in that the cargo is slung under the vehicle. It will be made of aluminum tubing with composite panels, which is a well proven method. It's the same idea as building a homebuilt aircraft - the design may be unique, but the materials and methods have been used successfully many times before.

I'll cover the issue of reusing parts in a new thread, because there is a bigger issue - the amount of sunlight available at the location.

JR

User avatar
RaresH
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:40 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Post by RaresH » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:14 am

This very well thought out , I have to say Joe. What I wonder is, is it necessary and maybe more complex than needed to box the rovers. Why not simplify things and have them mounted to the chassis. It's a Three day trip out of how many weeks/months so sun light should be manageable. But if it's a problem then we can simply mount a shade.
Last edited by RaresH on Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:12 am

[quote=""RaresH""]This very well thought out , I have to say Joe. What I wonder is, is it necessary and maybe more complex than needed to box the rovers. Why not simplify things and have them mounted to the chassis. It's a Three day trip out of how many weeks/months so sun light should be manageable. Bit if it's a problem then we can simply mount a shade.[/quote]

I won't discount that idea out of hand, but I'm thinking that the box could serve as protection in case of an oopsie on landing. If it can be discarded, though, I'd be all for it. Being all composites, it really won't weigh much.

JR

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:00 am

I found out that NASA has a couple of large vacuum chambers that can simulate the conditions inside lunar craters, including the soil, hard vacuum and 20K temperatures. That means we can test the rover in the environment it will encounter.

JR

Post Reply