1. Client: Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL) Advisor : Matthew Nelson Anders Nelson (EE) anelson7@iastate.edu Mathew Wymore (CprE) mlwymore@iastate.edu Kale Brockman kaleb@iastate.edu Stockli Manuel stockli@iastate.edu Kshira Nadarajan (CprE) kshira90@iastate.edu Mazdee Masud (EE) mmasud@iastate.edu Andy Jordan andyjobo@iastate.edu Karolina Soppela soppela@iastate.edu 491 Team Component 466 Team Component 1

2.  Project Statement  Conceptual Sketch  Functional Requirements  Constraints and Considerations  Market Survey  Risks and Mitigation  Resources and Cost  Milestones and Schedule 2

3.  Aim: To participate in the International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) August 2011  http://iarc.angel-strike.com/ http://iarc.angel-strike.com/  Overall Challenge: To penetrate a building, navigate through the corridors and complete another task like identifying a USB stick ▪ Our specific challenge: To build a platform capable of flying autonomously, stabilizing and avoiding obstacles 3

4. 4

5. 5

6.  1.5kg Maximum Total Platform Weight  Battery Powered  Capable of >10 minutes of flight time (12 minute goal)  Operational  Onboard stability control ▪ Recovery time goal of three seconds or less ▪ Entirely self-contained hover behavior  Wireless base station communication ▪ Wireless link capable of at least 42 meters ▪ System capable of JAUS-compliant telemetry 6

7.  Expandable  Potential for navigation in a GPS-denied environment ▪ Support for USB laser rangefinder ▪ Considerations for computer vision system  Potential for executing remote autonomous commands  Connectivity for manual remote kill switch  Connectivity for wire-burn USB stick drop-off system 7

8.  Weight  Batteries  Power draw mainly from motors for lift ▪ Lift based on weight-completing interdependence  Compatibility  Must integrate into 466 team’s vehicle platform  Time  Deliverables due at end of school year  Team has other time-consuming obligations  Experience  Team has limited experiences on aspects of the project 8

9.  Unique because it’s ISU’s 9

10.  Too large a bite  Scope limitations  Market survey  Advisor knowledge  Multiple-team structure  Weekly meeting to check up  Shared Dropbox  Email communication 10

11. 11

12. 12

13.  Project plan, design document complete 13

14.  Functional Decomposition  Detailed Design  Technologies Used  Test Plan 14

15.  Control System  Main controller  Flight controller  Sensor System  Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)  Cameras, Range Finders  Will not be selected by us.  Software System  Power System 15

16. 16

17.  Main Controller – Gumstix Overo Fire  Supported by Summit expansion board  Linux with USB host for laser  WiFi communications  Other sensor inputs (A/D)  Flight Controller – PIC24 with nanoWatt XLP  IMU input  PWM output  I2C interface with Gumstix 17

18.  Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)  Takes in 9 DOF measurements  Outputs to Motor Microcontroller through serial interface  Sampling Analog Device’s High Precision IMU  External Sensors  IR/sonar sensors ▪ For basic obstacle avoidance ▪ Used as a fail safe for navigation system  Range Finders and Vision Systems ▪ To be selected by later teams for SLAM 18

19. 19

20.  Motors are Main Power Draw  Require 11.1 V  Each Typically Draw 6A  Competition Requirements  10 Minutes of Flight + 2 Minutes for Safety Range  Battery  11.1 V - 3cell LiPo Batteries  Assume 30A worst case draw – 6Ah capacity required  One Battery is bulky and inhibits thrust  Thus Parallel Combination Used  Allows flexibility of battery placement  Lowers required capacity per battery 20

21.  Stability  Test motor stability control with varying degrees of external disturbance and record response  Communication  Test distance and speed of communication between platform and remote base  Flight Control  Determine accuracy of movement from various control commands  Obstacle Avoidance  Determine reliability and accuracy of obstacle avoidance from movement in various directions  Endurance (Power)  Will run the battery under expected load while monitoring voltage over time 21

22.  Documentation  Project plan, design doc complete  Design  Most hardware selected  Software sketched  Implementation  Start over break  Flight demo in early March 22

23.  Contributions  Anders – Team Lead, Sensor Research  Mazdee – Power System Research  Kshira – Software System Research  Mathew – Control Hardware Research 23

24.  Test Individual Components  Power System Implementation  Test Integration of Components  Stabilization Control Implementation  Establish Autonomous Hovering  Software Implementation  Simple Flight Capabilities from established commands  Testing of Total Design 24

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29