2012

PDR

NODDEX: Nitric Oxide and Dust Detector EXperiment

Preliminary Design Review

Virginia Tech/Baylor UniversityPresented by Stephen Noel

December 7, 2011

1

2012

PDR

PDR Presentation Content

2

• Section 1: Mission Overview– Mission Overview– Organizational Chart– Theory and Concepts– Concept of Operations– Expected Results

• Section 2: System Overview– Subsystem Definitions– Critical Interfaces – System Level Block Diagram– System/Project Level Requirement Verification Plan– User Guide Compliance– Sharing Logistics with UW

2012

PDR

PDR Presentation Contents

• Section 3: Subsystem Design– Data Logger Trade Study– NO Sensor

• NO Block Diagram• PDD Risk Matrix/Mitigation

– PDD• PDD Block Diagram• PDD Risk Matrix/Mitigation

– IMU• IMU Block Diagram• IMU Risk Matrix/Mitigation

3

2012

PDR

PDR Presentation Contents

• Section 4: Prototyping Plan– NO Prototyping (or reuse)– PDD Prototyping and Testing

• Section 5: Project Management Plan– Schedule – Budget– Work Breakdown Structure

4

2012

PDR

Mission OverviewStephen Noel

5

2012

PDR

Mission Overview

• Nitric Oxide (NO) sensor implementation– Measure concentration of NO as a function

of altitude– Flight heritage in RockSat-C (NOIME)

• Piezo Dust Detector (PDD)– Collect measurements of velocity and

energy from incoming dust particles– Existing flight heritage on UT satellite

6

2012

PDR

Mission Overview

• Utilize Nitric Oxide sensor for NO concentration data collection in high altitudes– IMU data to accompany NO data– Optimal senor orientation– Successful data transmission and storage– Mechanical and thermal securing for reentry

• Successful implementation of Piezo Dust Detector and collection of space dust impact energy readings for Baylor University

– Successful data transmission and storage– Mechanical and thermal securing for reentry

7

2012

PDR

Organizational Chart

8

Graduate Advisor:

Robbie Robertson

Faculty Advisor:

Dr. Troy Henderson

2012

PDR

Theory and Concepts

• Utilizing NO sensor and IMU from NOIME (RockSat-C flight heritage)– NO sensor collects wavelength data

around 220nm– NO sensor oriented at 45 degrees to catch

light off of upper atmosphere– Stepped conical shape on the inside to

allow only direct rays– IMU collects acceleration, angular rate,

and magnetic field data

9

2012

PDR

Theory and Concepts

• Piezo Dust Detector (PDD)– Little flight heritage– Stacked webs of charged wires which

filter particles measuring dust velocity and energy

10

2012

PDR

NODDEX ConOps (for Terrier-Orion)

t ≈ 15 min

Splash Down

t ≈ TBD

Altitude: TBD

Skirt Released,

NO data collection

-NO, IME, and PDD

sensors on

-Begin data collection

t = 0 min

t ≈ 4.0 min

Altitude: 95 km

NO data collectionApogee

t ≈ 2.8 min

Altitude: ≈115 km

End of Orion Burn

t ≈ 0.6 min

Altitude: 52 km

t ≈ 4.5 min

Altitude: 75 km

Reentry

Altitude

t ≈ 5.5 min

Chute Deploys

2012

PDR

Expected Results

12

• Utilizing NO sensor and IMU from NOIME (RockSat-C flight heritage)– NO sensor collects wavelength data

around 220nm– Compare data to current atmospheric

models

• Still need expected PDD results data from Baylor University

2012

PDR

System OverviewStephen Noel

13

2012

PDR

Subsystem Overview

14

IMU

Amplifiers

2012

PDR

Critical Interfaces

15

Interface Name Brief Description Potential Solution

IMU/Transceiver/Log1 and TM

IMU mounts to RockSat-X deck rigidly. RS482 connection into transceiver, RS232 connection from transceiver into data logger 1 and to the TM output.

Determine physical connectors needed. Transceiver will convert the RS482 signal to RS232 standard.

NO/Femto amplifier/Post amplifier/Log2

and TM

NO sensor rigidly connected to RockSat-X deck. RS232 connection from NO sensor to Femto amplifier. Femto Amplifier connected to a post amplifier. Outputs into data logger 2 and TM by analog pin.

Decide on post amplifier (produce or buy?). Determine specific connectors needed. Determine how to connect hardware to deck.

PDD/Log3 and TM

PDD rigidly connected to RockSat-X deck. RS 232 connection to data logger 3 and serial TM pin.

Determine how to connect hardware to deck. Determine specific connectors needed.

2012

PDR

System Level Block Diagram

16

Analog

2012

PDR

Requirement Verification

17

Requirement Verification Method Description

Optimal NO senor orientation and successful data transmission and storage

Demonstration Will verify calibration with simulation in lab assisted by Dr. Bailey

The full system shall fit on a single RockSat-X deck

Inspection Visual inspection will verify this requirement

The system shall survive the vibration characteristics prescribed by the RockSat-X program.

Test The system will be subjected to these vibration loads in June during testing week.

2012

PDR

RockSat-X 2011 User’s Guide Compliance

18

• Rough Order of Magnitude mass estimates pending• Payload components are relatively small, no layout problems

expects• No deployables needed• TM connector pin allocation:

Wyoming/VT TM connector:1 Analog (pin 10)1 RS232 Data (pin 32)1 RS232 Ground (pin 33)

  Colorado TM Connector:1 RS232 Data (pin 32)1 RS232 Ground (pin 33)

• Using two timer event pins and one GSE• CG will be kept within +/- 1 inch of center of deck • The PDD uses 3W, need to allocate power appropriately

RS-X Shared Power ConnectorPin Function Team1 GSE-1 WYO2 TE-RA

WYO3 TE-RB4 TE-NR1 WYO5 GND WYO6 GND WYO7 GND WYO8 GND WYO9 GSE-2 VT

10 TE-NR2 VT11 TE-NR3 VT12 GND VT13 GND VT14 GND VT

15 GND VT

2012

PDR

Sharing Logistics

19

• Payload area will be shared with UW– The AstroX team strives to test an

electrically active heat shield prototype

• Plan for collaboration– Team leads will stay in contact via email– SolidWorks models, mass budgets, power

budgets, etc. are shared through a joint drop box account

2012

PDR

Subsystem DesignStephen Noel

20

2012

PDR

Trade Studies

21

Data Logger

Persistor CF2 Logomatic v2

Cost 10 8Availability 10 9

Size 6 8Data Storage 7 8

Ease of Programming

5 10

Average: 7.6 8.6

• Open access to spare Persistors, where as would need to purchase a third Logomatic

• Logomatic requires little to no programming to initialize whereas Persistor requires working knowledge of C language

• Equivalent length and width, but Persistor is approximately twice as thick as Logomatic*Most other hardware is legacy

2012

PDR

NO: Block Diagram

22

Analog

Amplifies very weak signal from NO sensor

Amplifies with a gain of ~10

2012

PDR

NO: Risk Matrix

23

NO.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recoveredNO.RSK.2: NO pointing insufficient for data collectionNO.RSK.3: NO probe does not survive heating of reentryNO.RSK.4: NO probe critically damaged by salt water exposureNO.RSK.5: NO post amplifier fails, no reliable data receivedNO.RSK.6: NO Femto amplifier fails, no reliable data received

2012

PDR

PDD: Block Diagram

24

Needs 5V and up to 3W

2012

PDR

PDD: Risk Matrix

25

PDD.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recoveredPDD.RSK.2: PDD does not provide reliable data, not calibrated correctlyPDD.RSK.3: PDD does not survive heating of reentryPDD.RSK.4: PDD critically damaged by salt water exposure

2012

PDR

IMU: Block Diagram

26

Convert RS482 to RS232

Use less reliable serial line

2012

PDR

IMU: Risk Matrix

27

IMU.RSK.1: Data Logger fails in-flight, Wallops telemetry data corrupted, no data received or recoveredIMU.RSK.2: IMU does not provide reliable data, not calibrated correctlyIMU.RSK.3: IMU does not survive heating of reentryIMU.RSK.4: IMU critically damaged by salt water exposureIMU.RSK.5: IMU transceiver fails, no data received

2012

PDR

Prototyping PlanStephen Noel

28

2012

PDR

Prototyping Plan

29

Orientation of the sensor and the field of view requiredNO sensor

PDD

Post Amplifier

Concerns about testing and calibrating the PDD in the lab

to determine the expected data

The amplification is enough so that the outputs from Femto

Amplifier is detectable

Verify the vertical distance to Wyoming’s plate so that it does not

obstruct the field of view of the sensor. Place sensor as close to

edge of plate as possible.

Work with Baylor University and determine their method of

calibration and expected results

Testing to make sure that the gain of the post amplifier is

high enough

Risk/Concern Action

2012

PDR

Project Management PlanStephen Noel

30

2012

PDR

Schedule

31

2012

PDR

Budget

32

NODDEX BudgetUpdated: 12/7/2011

Item Supplier Estimated or Specific Cost Number Required Total Cost Notes

NO Sensor In-house $0.00 1 $0.00 Will make in shop if needed

PDD Sensor Baylor U $0.00 1 $0.00 Already have

IMU None $0.00 1 $0.00 Already have

Femto amplifier Femto $0.00 $0.00 Already have

Post amplifier TBD 1 Cost TBD

New Data Logger SparkFun $60.00 1 $60.00

Old Data Loggers SparkFun $0.00 2 $0.00 Already have

Testing Materials N/A $200 1 $200.00 Misc.

$260.00 Subtotal

$325.00 w/ 25% margin

2012

PDR

WBS (Work Breakdown Structure)

33

NO PDD IMU

•Finish obtaining design criteria from Dr. Bailey

•Redesign if necessary

•Test and implement

•Obtain SolidWorks drawings from Baylor

•Receive and test prototype

•Implement

•Test last year’s IMU

•Decide if we will design platform for IMU similar to other years

•Implement

2012

PDR

Conclusion

34