1. 1 Titan EDD Fall Semester 12/02/2008 Andrew Welsh Jon Anderson Nick Delucca Steve Hu Travis Noffke Pawel Swica CDR Andrew Welsh

2. Team Lead Hours Worked: 118 2 Team Member Andrew Welsh

3. Titan EDD CDR Agenda Introduction and Overview – Andrew Welsh Entry Position and Entry Capsule – Pawel Swica Entry Simulation and Atmospheric Profile – Nick Delucca Parachute and Parachute Deployment – Travis Noffke Airship and Airship Deployment – Jon Anderson Helicopter and Helicopter Deployment – Steve Hu FMEA – Andrew Welsh 3Andrew Welsh

4. 4 Overview Purpose: Design a system to insert an aerial vehicle into Titan’s atmosphere capable of exploring the ethane lake on Titan’s south pole. Ontario Lacus (Credit: Right image - NASA/JPL/University of Arizona Left image - NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute) Andrew Welsh

5. 5 Overview Mission Description: 2018 tentative launch date Aerial vehicle four year operational lifetime Aerial vehicle: Helicopter, Airship, Fixed Wing Capable of exploring Ontario Lacus Andrew Welsh

6. 6 Requirements 1.Design an Entry, Descent, and Deployment (EDD) process and select an aerial vehicle based of work done elsewhere. 2.EDD system capable of delivering the aerial vehicle on or near the surface of Titan. Heating Constraints Deceleration Constraints 3.Aerial vehicle must at a minimum be able to explore Ontario Lacus. 4.Successful aerial vehicle deployment in a configuration capable of beginning its exploration mission. Andrew Welsh

7. Stephen Hu7 Top Level Requirements RequirementDeliverableCompletion Status Top Level Trade Study12 AvailableComplete Create or modify a simulation for the entry and descent phase 1000 km to 8 km: Entry Capsule 8 km to 5.6 km: HS and Airship 5.6 km and below: HS and Helicopter Complete Design baseline entry and descent phase Animation/Trade StudiesComplete Identify aerial vehicleAirship and HelicopterComplete Design aerial vehicle separation method Pyrotechnic BoltsComplete Integrate all systems into a package that is capable of taking the aerial vehicle from insertion to deployment Volume Available: Volume Used: Mass Available: Mass Used: Complete

8. Andrew Welsh8 Requirements Entry RequirementsDeliverableCompletion Status Heatshield MaterialSRAM-14 Complete Entry Speed6.5 km/s Complete Max Heat Rate146 W/cm 2 Complete Max Deceleration86.6 m/s 2 Complete Total Heat Transferred22552 J/cm 2 Complete Completion Time3947 s ≈ 1 hourComplete Velocity at Parachute Deployment 8 m/sComplete Altitude at Parachute Deployment 8 km Complete

9. Stephen Hu9 Parachute RequirementsDeliverable Completetion Status Entry Capsule StabilizationPilot Sized Parachute Complete Top Aeroshell and Heat Shield Separation 10 meter clearance within 5 seconds of separation Complete Parachute SelectionConical RibbonComplete Parachute Nominal Diemeter1.5 mComplete Parachute MaterialKevlar© 29Complete Top Aeroshell and Heat shield Separation Method Pyrotechnic Bolts/Parachute DragComplete Requirements

10. Stephen Hu10 Deployment RequirementsDeliverableCompletion Status Vehicle SelectionAirship/Helicopter CombinationComplete Capable of exploring Ontario Lacus Circumference of Titan: Range of Vehicles: 30,000 km Complete FMEAAvailableComplete Requirements

11. 11 Approach Team Lead: Andrew Welsh Integration Team: Travis Noffke, Pawel Swica, Steve Hu Entry Team: Nick Delucca, Pawel Swica Descent Team: Travis Noffke, Andrew Welsh Dep. Team: Jon Anderson, Steve Hu Andrew Welsh

12. 12 Approach Research Aerial Vehicle Selection Descent Method Selection Entry Method Selection Previous Research Our Research and Calculations Final Product Andrew Welsh

13. 13 Program Plan Gantt Chart Andrew Welsh

14. 14 Program Plan Task list with responsible engineers, status, hours worked, total hours worked Andrew Welsh

15. 15 Design Walkthrough

16. 16 References 1.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/0807301 40726.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/0807301 40726.htm 2.https://www.aem.umn.edu/courses/aem4331/fall2008/Ti tanExplorer.htmhttps://www.aem.umn.edu/courses/aem4331/fall2008/Ti tanExplorer.htm Andrew Welsh

17. Pawel Swica17 Pawel Swica Entry/Integration Hours Worked: 106 1 Team Member Pawel Swica

18. 18 Objectives Determine interplanetary orbit path and entry speed Research heat shield materials and heating formulae Determine shield mass based on best material Determine entry position and likely landing area

19. Pawel Swica19 Orbit Evaluation Study yielded an entry velocity of 3.6 km/s However, the orbit relied on a large change in velocity at earth orbit Published materials* detailed how an ion engine powered by solar cells coupled with planetary assist maneuvers would make launch less expensive Published entry speed of 6.5 km/s was used Following slides detail study that in the end was not used * “ Titan Explorer: The Next Step in the Exploration of a Mysterious World, ” Levine, Joel S., Wright, Henry S.; NASA Langley Research Center

20. Pawel Swica20 Relevant Equations For Orbit Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Curtis, Howard D.; 2005

21. Pawel Swica21 Orbit Diagrams

22. Pawel Swica22 Orbit Diagrams

23. Pawel Swica23 Orbit Diagrams

24. Pawel Swica24 Resulting trade study

25. Pawel Swica25 Heat Shield To get an idea of heating, an attempt was made to get an equation that we could put into simulink to get heating during entry While mostly successful the results were off by some fudge factor We went to Professor Candler for assistance 10/14 notes from meeting with Candler –Detailed modeling of entry heating unrealistic given our level of experience –Best approach would be to tweak results of previous publications to fit our conditions (emphasis on Laub* paper) * “Updated TPS Requirements for Missions to Titan,” Laub, B and Chen, Y.-K.; NASA Ames Research Center

26. Pawel Swica26 Relevant Equations Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Planetary Entry, W.H.T. Loh, Prentice Hall Space Technology Series, 1963 -Heating per unit area -Atmospheric constant -Radius of shield -Sea level or ground density C Worked 50/50 with Nick DeLucca

27. Pawel Swica27 Heat Shield Results Results were taken from Laub paper for mass and material SRAM-14 material and less radiative heating gave up to 98 kg mass savings from previous study* which gave a mass of 153 kg Heat shield mass will be approximately 55 kg with shape detailed Back aero shell remains the same as in previous study*, given as weighing 29 kg with shape detailed * “Titan Explorer: The Next Step in the Exploration of a Mysterious World,” Levine, Joel S., Wright, Henry S.; NASA Langley Research Center

28. Pawel Swica28 Heating Graph and Shield Dimensions Figure 4. Entry heating graphFigure 5. Aeroshell model “Updated TPS Requirements for Missions to Titan,” Laub, B and Chen, Y.-K.; NASA Ames Research Center

29. Pawel Swica29 TPS Materials Study “Aeroshell Design Techniques for Aerocapture Entry Vehicles,” Dyke, R. Eric, Hrinda, Glenn A.; NASA Langley Research Center, AIAA 2004-55

30. Pawel Swica30 Entry Corridor Our gathered materials were insufficient 10/24 notes from meeting with Candler –No easy way to determine entry corridor –Hunt through references to find entry angle used –Also can plug angles into simulink to see corridor Found entry corridor information in AAS 06-077 50º down at entry interface (1000 km) with 5º margin in either direction Corridor defined in AIAA 2003-4802, upper bound defined by “skip-out,” lower bound defined by unmanageable heating Modeling in simulink showed successful entry in this corridor with some additional margin “Titan Explorer Entry, Descent, and Landing Trajectory Design,” Fisch, Lindberg, and Lockwood; AAS 06-077 February 4, 2006 “Approach Navigation for a Titan Aerocapture Orbiter,” Haw, Robert J.; Jet Propulsion Laboratory; AIAA 2003-4802

31. Pawel Swica31 Calculation of Landing Point Lastly the point where the probe is expected to land needed to be calculated Outside searches proved fruitless, however using the given initial conditions calculation was possible and successful

32. Pawel Swica32 Relevant Calculations Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Curtis, Howard D.; 2005

33. Pawel Swica33 Results Ontario Lacus lies at latitude 72º* S and the downstream distance given by simulink is 1200 km Probe can land as close as 181 km from Ontario Lacus If the planet is facing the wrong way, this distance could become almost 1800 km Depends on timing the approach just right, which is beyond the scope of our analysis Either way, distance is within travel range of the probe Group mate Jon Anderson estimated a 30,000 km range Also, adjusting to land at Ontario Lacus is well within the entry corridor * “NASA - NASA Confirms Liquid Lake On Saturn Moon,” http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080730.html

34. Pawel Swica34 Vpython Model To verify results a Vpython (iterative visual modeling language) orbit script was modified to match the precise conditions given by the calculations To ensure accuracy, starting point is about 180 Titan radii out Success of program and calculations indicated by probe reaching conditions given by publication (50º at entry interface) Titan and entry interface shown to scale, probe enlarged

35. Pawel Swica35

36. Team Member Nick De Lucca Titan Atmosphere Entry Simulation 120 Hours Nick De Lucca36

37. Atmospheric Profile Needed Information –Density –Temperature Sources –From 50 km to 1000 km data pulled from plots generated by others –Sea level to 50 km data from email correspondence. Nick De Lucca37

38. Titan Entry Simulation Goals: –Determine flight characteristics as a function of time –Analyze heating Simulation Method: –Newtonian aerodynamics –Attempted heating calculation –Given original version of simulation by Professor Garrard Nick De Lucca38

39. Newtonian Aerodynamics Formulas: Nick De Lucca39

40. Simulation Methods and Parameters Polar Coordinate System –Using Velocity and Flight Path angle as reference directions Atmospheric Modeling –Two exponential profiles for density –Three linear temperature profiles Nick De Lucca40

41. Thermodynamic Analysis Original Plan: Model using Simulink –Too complicated to manage within time allowance and with our current Current Method –Adapt the results of others –Scale for our ballistic coefficient –Determine location of peak heating by normalizing Nick De Lucca41

42. Simulation Scope Three Total Simulations: –1000 km to 8 km: entry capsule –8 km to 5.6 km heat shield with inflating airship Time variant ballistic coefficient Buoyancy –5.6k km and below heat shield with helicopter Nick De Lucca42

43. Results Total time taken: 3947 seconds Peak deceleration: 86.6 m/s 2 Maximum heating rate: 146 W/cm 2 Total heat Transferred: 22552 J/cm 2 Nick De Lucca43

44. Results Nick De Lucca44

45. Results Nick De Lucca45

46. Results Nick De Lucca46

47. Results Stephen Hu47

48. Results Nick De Lucca48

49. Methods for improvement Non-Newtonian aerodynamics CFD for the heat shield Nick De Lucca49

50. References Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Planetary Entry. W.H.T. Loh. Prentice-Hall Space Technology Series. 1963. Kazeminejad et al. Temperature Variations in Titan's Upper Atmosphere: Impact on Cassini/Huygens. Annales Geophysicae 23. pp1183-1189. 2005 Pawel Swica50

51. Team Member Travis Noffke Decelerator System Parachute Characterization Aeroshell Separation System Integration Hours: 104

52. Primary Goals 1.Provide deceleration force to top of aeroshell 2.Clearance of unnecessary system components -Includes:Top of aeroshell Majority of separation system Misc. components 3.Minimize payload descent stability disruption 11/19/200852Travis Noffke

53. Requirements 1.Deploy decelerator at altitude which allows for airship inflation prior to final separation and deployment 2.10 meter clearance between top aeroshell and leading payload within 5 seconds 3.Maintain stable descent of each payload component to respective deployment phase 11/19/200853Travis Noffke 10 meters Payload Containment

54. System Events 1.Mortar fires deployment bag 2.Aeroshell separation mechanism fires 3.Parachute inflates 4.Deceleration on top aeroshell 5.Complete separation 11/19/200854Travis Noffke Payload Containment V payload V top

55. Decelerator System 11/19/2008Travis Noffke55

56. Design Tasks Geometry Selection Parachute Characterization Sizing Opening Forces Loading Mass Ratio Ballistic Coefficient Material Selection Canopy Design 11/19/200856Travis Noffke Conical Ribbon

57. Drag Generation 11/19/2008Travis Noffke57 Altitude: 8 km Atmospheric Density (ρ): 3.910 kg/m 3 v deploy : 15 m/s v terminal : 12 m/s c D : 0.50

58. Canopy 11/19/200858Travis Noffke Canopy profile: Conical Ribbon Geometric Porosity: 30% Diameter: 1.5 m Surface Area: 9 m 2 Vent Area: 0.10 m Maximum Oscillation: 3 degrees [1]

59. Deployment 11/19/2008Travis Noffke59

60. Opening Forces 11/19/200860Travis Noffke

61. Separation Mechanics 11/19/200861Travis Noffke Figure 5. Separation Mechanism Concept Example of separation mechanism Commonly used in spacecraft Performance must meet requirements One of several methods for separation

62. Canopy Material Kevlar© 29 Highest strength-weight ratio Superior tensile strength Space tested Used in heritage systems [2] Dupont.com 11/19/200862Travis Noffke [2] Dupont.com

63. Further Studies Detailed Design Separation System –Nominal functionality test –Drop testing Parachute Decelerator System –Deployment Test –Drop Test Stability Analysis –Test body flow measurements for appropriate Re 11/19/2008Travis Noffke63

64. 64 Airship fo shizzle

65. Jon Anderson Team Lead Hours Worked: 118 65 Team Member Jon Anderson

66. Agenda 66 Outline: Vehicle selection – Military Decision Making Process (FM 101-5) Airship Design Airship Performance Deployment Enabling technologies Recommendation and conclusion Questions 66Jon Anderson

67. 67 Problem Determine which aero-vehicle or combination of aero- vehicle would be best suited for a mission to Titan. Apply Military Decision Making Process

68. 68 Recommendation A combination helicopter – airship design Helicopter – Primary science mission Collect scientific information Airship – Primary communication mission Relay science information to orbiter/earth

69. 69 Facts Vehicle must be able to land. Vehicle must be able to carry the given science instrument payload. Vehicle must have some means of self propulsion. Only a helicopter-airship combination will be evaluated. Most heavily researched options.

70. 70 Assumptions All designs can survive atmospheric conditions All designs can be packaged into a 3 m diameter aero shell All designs will operate within 0-5 km of the surface

71. 71 Courses of Action Helicopter Airship Tilt-Rotor Airplane/Glider Helicopter/Airship combination

72. 72 Screening Criteria Vehicles must have some basic research done from other sources. Can’t design vehicles from nothing

73. 73 Evaluation Criteria Mass – Lower is better Pre Designed Level – Higher is better Operational Life time – Longer is better Top Speed – Higher is better Redundancy – 0 if not available, 1 if available

74. 74 Weighing Criteria Pre-designed Level – 10% Mass – 25% Operational Life time – 15% Top Speed – 10% Redundancy – 40% Assign 1,2,or 3 with 1 being the best in that category

75. 75 Analysis – COA screened out Tilt rotor Airplane/Glider Lack of information

76. 76 COA - Airship Mass – 490 kg Pre Designed Level - High Operational Life time – 150 Days Top Speed – 3.5 m/s Redundancy - None

77. 77 COA - Helicopter Mass – 290 kg Pre Designed Level - low Operational Life time – 120 Days Top Speed – 4.5 m/s Redundancy - None

78. 78 COA - Combination Mass – UNK – Assume largest Pre Designed Level – Medium Operational Life time – 120 Days Top Speed – 3.5 m/s Redundancy - Yes

79. 79 Information Presentation Took COA Applied weighing criteria Assigned number values based on 1 as the “best” and 3 being the “worst” Tallied findings in a table Example calculation for combination values: Mass - highest mass – scored 3, weight 10%, score =.3 Pre-design level – second highest – scored 2, weight 10%, score =.2

80. 80 Analysis Continued - Airship Mass (10%) Pre-design level (10%) Life time (15%) Speed (15%) Redun. (50%) Total Airship.20.1.15.30.51.25 Helicopter.10.3.15.51.35 Combination.30.2.3.3001.10 Overall Total score – Lower is better Combination is the recommended COA Through research – divided mission of science and communication to save on overall mass.

81. 81 Airship Design Jon Anderson Mission Goal: The primary mission of the airship is to function as a relay between the orbiter and the helicopter. The secondary mission of the airship is to function as a reserve platform capable of carrying out the science mission should the helicopter become inoperable.

82. 82 Design Constraints Jon Anderson Communication payload Extra redundancy – orbiter and helicopter Science payload Power subsystem MMRGT

83. 83 Assumptions Jon Anderson Mass Assumption: Needed initial estimate for mass of hull and structural components Found fraction of weight for non-hull components vs NASA Estimated initial weight Designed airship, calculated final mass Reiterated process with calculated mass

84. 84 Equations Jon Anderson Buoyancy and Volume equations: Shape and Surface Area equations: Sources: 5. Wolfram: The Mathematica Book, Wolfram Media, Inc., Fourth Edition, 1999 6. Gradshteyn/Ryzhik: Table of Integrals, Series and Products, Academic Press, Second Printing, 1981

85. 85 Equations Jon Anderson Drag and Reynolds number equations: Thrust and power available equations:

86. 86 Diagram of Airship Jon Anderson Length13.83 m Width3.45 m Volume34.47 m^3 Ballonet volume8.96 m^3 Fins1x1x.7 m Gondola.7x.7x1.63 m 20% Margins

87. 87 Reynolds # and Drag vs Velocity Jon Anderson

88. 88 Power Required/Available vs Velocity Jon Anderson

89. 89 Inflation time/percent vs Lift Jon Anderson

90. 90 Performance Jon Anderson Mass195 Kg Operational Cruse Velocity2.5 m/s Max Velocity2.98 m/s Min Climb/Descent Rate *50 m/min Range36200 km Service Ceiling5 km Absolute Ceiling40 km Estimated Lifetime *150 days

91. 91 Deployment Jon Anderson Airship inflation immediate Both bayonets and main envelope Changing ballistic coefficient Separate via explosive shearing bolts Immediately max velocity

92. 92 Enabling Technologies Jon Anderson Multi Mission Radioisotope Thermal Generator Complicated – beyond scope of design 5 fold increase in power Lower mass

93. 93 Recommendation and Conclusion Jon Anderson High Altitude Design Detailed data bandwidth analysis Hull/system optimization Experments

94. 94 Questions? Jon Anderson

95. Stephen Hu Deployment Vehicle Selection Helicopter Design Hours Worked: 102 95 Team Member Stephen Hu

96. Helicopter Design 96 Introduction General Characteristics Constraints Deployment Conclusions Recommendations 96Stephen Hu

97. Introduction 1.Investigation of the surface and lakes of Titan 2.VTOL capability 3.Dependable performance in hostile environments 4.Able to last four months under constant operation 97Stephen Hu

98. Constraints Environment –Cryogenic Conditions Icing occurs above 10 km (around T~91 K) –Wind: 0-10 m/s –Solar Energy: Minimal - None –Atmospheric Density: 5.44 kg/m 3 Volume/Storage –Diameter of Heat Shield: 3.75 m –Airship Storage Stephen Hu98

99. 99Stephen Hu Type: Coaxial Airfoil: NACA 0012 Helicopter Characteristics

100. Deployment 100Stephen Hu

101. Blade Radius vs. Power Required 101Stephen Hu

102. Forward Velocity vs. Power Required 102Stephen Hu

103. Altitude Ceiling Stephen Hu103

104. 104 Characteristics/PerformanceExpectedMaximum Expected Mass Total Mass (kg)*155.4186.5 Payload Mass (kg)21.6025.92 Rotor Radius (m)1.34 1.41 Main Blade Chord (m)0.089 0.094 Fuselage Length (m)2.56 Fuselage Height (m)0.77 Total Height (m)1.0 Total Width (m)0.8 Max Climb Rate (m/s)1.94 0.965 Spin-up Time (s)16.7 19.43 Max Cruise Velocity (m/s)7.51 7.00 Optimal Cruise Velocity (m/s)3.24 3.54 Range (km)*183.7/100 176.1/100 Altitude (km)*12.6/10 8.47 Conclusions Stephen Hu

105. Characteristi cs/Performan ce Georgia Tech Helicopter NASA AirshipDesigned Combination (Max. Mass) Total Mass (kg) 318.8 Max Cruise Velocity (m/s) 4 7.00/ Optimal Cruise Velocity (m/s) 2.8 3.54/ Max Climb Rate (m/s) 4 Range (km)* 100 Altitude (km)* 10

106. Recommendations More in-depth aerodynamic design Materials Payload Deployment 106Stephen Hu

107. References 1."The Vertical Profile of Winds on Titan." www.nature.com. 8 Dec. 2005. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science.. 2.Wright, Henry S. Design of a Long Endurance Titan VTOL Vehicle. Georgia Institute of Technology.. 3.Leishman, Gordon. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge UP, 2006. 4.Prouty, Raymond W. Helicopter Aerodynamics. 2nd ed. Peioria, ILL: PJS Publications, 1985. 5.Lorenz, R. D. "Flexibility for Titan Exploration: The Titan Helicopter." Innovative Approaches to Outer Planetary Exploration 2001-2020. Lunar and Planetary Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az.. 6.Young, Larry A. "Vertical Lift - Not Just for Terrestrial Flight." Www.Nasa.gov. Army/NASA RotorCraft Division, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.. 7.Lorenz, Ralph D. "Post-Cassini Exploration of Titan: Science Rationale and Mission Concepts." University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. Lunar and Planetary Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, Az.. 107Stephen Hu

108. Additional Information (Backup Slides) RocketsParachutes Aero-control Surfaces Complexity:HighLowMed Cost:HighLowHigh Risk:HighLowMed Efficiency:LowHigh AvailabilityMedHighMed EffectivenessHigh Med 11/19/2008Travis Noffke108 Deceleration Method Trade Study

109. Parachute Geometry Study 11/19/2008Travis Noffke109 Additional Information (Backup Slides) Characterization Conical RibbonDisc-Gap-Band Reliability:High Mass:LessMore Average Oscillation Angle±3°±10 to 15° Drag Coefficient Range.5 to.6.52 to.58 Opening Force Coefficient1.05 to 1.31.3 Performance Comparison Conical RibbonDisc-Gap-Band Reliability: + + Mass: + - Average Oscillation Angle: + - Drag Coefficient Range: + + Opening Force Coefficient: + -

110. Cluster Single Conical Ribbon Parachute Reliability:High Difficulty:MedLow Redundancy:HighLow StabilityHigh+High- Cost:HighLow Mass:HighMed 11/19/2008Travis Noffke110 Additional Information (Backup Slides) Parachute Cluster Configuration Trade Study Andy Welsh

111. Rocket Assisted Separation Parachute Separation Complexity:HighMed Cost:HighLow Risk:MedLow Effectiveness:HighMed- 11/19/2008Travis Noffke111 Additional Information (Backup Slides) Parachute Avoidance Trade Study Andy Welsh

112. 11/19/2008Travis Noffke112 Additional Information (Backup Slides) Derivations :

113. 11/19/2008Travis Noffke113 Additional Information (Backup Slides)

114. 114 Backup slides - Mass Jon Anderson ComponentMass (kg)Mass after 20% Margin (kg) Subsystem Power2nd Generation MMRTG1720.4 Battery - 12 A h lithium0.470.564 Turbomachinery3.944.728 Turbine0.91.08 Compressor0.91.08 Piping0.7160.8592 Electric Motor1.081.296 Alternator1.081.296 Total26.08631.3032 PropulsionPropeller, axel, case*5.256.3 Total5.256.3 Science InstrumentsHaze and Cloud Partical Detector33.6 Mass Spectrometer1012 Panchromatic Visible Light Imager1.31.56 Total14.317.16 CommunicationX-Band Omni - LGA0.1140.1368 SDST X-up/X-down2.73.24 X-Band TWTA2.12.52 UHF Transceiver (2)9.811.76 UHF Omni1.51.8 UHF Diplexer (2)11.2 Additional Hardware (switches, cables, etc.)67.2 Total23.21427.8568 ACDSSun Sensors0.91.08 IMU (2)910.8 Radar Altimeter4.45.28 Antennas for Radar Altimeter0.320.384 Absorber for Radar Altimeter0.380.456 Air Data System with pressure and temperature56 Total2024

115. 115 Backup slides - Mass Jon Anderson C&DHFlight Processor0.60.72 Digital I/O - CAPI Board0.60.72 State of Health and Attitude Control0.60.72 Power Distribution (2)1.21.44 Power Control0.60.72 Mother Board0.80.96 Power Converters (For Integrated Avionics Unit)0.80.96 Chassis3.44.08 Solid State Data Recorder1.61.92 Total10.212.24 StructureAirship Hull4.575.484 Gondola*8.410.08 Tail Section: 4 Fins and attachments*8.410.08 Attitude Control44.8 Helium Mass (Float at 5 km)29.9535.94 Inflation tank for Helium*19.1723.004 Bayonet fans and eqipment5.56.6 Total79.9995.988 ThermalInflight and during operation8.279.924 Total8.279.924 Total Airship Dry Mass187.31224.772 Total Aiship Float Mass217.26260.712

116. 116 Backup slides Component Power Required (W) Power Required after 20% Margin (W) Subsystem Power580 W Generated ProplusionPropeller/EngineSee Figure 2 TotalSee Figure 2 BayonetsFans (2)90108 Total90108 Science InstrumentsHaze and Cloud Partical Detector20 Mass Spectrometer28 Panchromatic Visible Light Imager10 Total5869.6 CommunicationUHF Transceiver74.88 Total74.889.76

117. 117 Backup slides - Power Jon Anderson ACDS*Sun Sensors 0.56 IMU22.2 Radar Altimeter37.6 Air Data System with pressure and temperature7.72 Total68.08 C&DH*Flight Processor; >200 MIPS, AD750, cPCI11.6 Digital I/O - CAPI Board3.44 State of Health and Attitude Control - SMACI3.44 Power Distribution6.88 Power Control3.44 Power Converters (For Integrated Avionics Unit)13.84 Solid State Data Recorder0.64 Total43.28 Total Power Required without proplusion with all systems operating - Straight and level244.16 Total Power Available for Propulsion - Straight and level335.84

118. Mass and Power Constraints 118Stephen Hu