1. Florida Institute of Technology Lunabotics
Systems Engineering Summary
Team: Florida Tech Lunabotics Team
Team Members: Rafiuddin Ahmed , Brittany Essink , Matthew Goldstein , Michelle Little,
Allison Metzger, Jennifer Mori,
Advisors: Dr. Hector Gutierrez and Dr. Ronnal Reichard
Abstract
The Florida Institute of Technology Lunabotics team implemented a systems life cycle
plan to design a robot for the 2012 NASA Lunabotics Competition. The robot was designed by
analyzing the goals and constraints of the game, extensive research of previous competitors’
robots, and developing a list of system requirements to meet our team’s objectives. In addition to
the design process, each team member underwent machine shop certification, allowing
simultaneous construction and testing of the mechanical and electrical systems.

2. Table
of
Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
System Need................................................................................................................................ 1
Section 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 2
Section 3: Proposed Approach........................................................................................................ 3
Risk Mitigation Strategy ............................................................................................................. 3
Conceptual Design ...................................................................................................................... 4
Creation of a Skilled Team .................................................................................................................... 5
Trade Study .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Concept of Operation ........................................................................................................................... 6
Capabilities Development Document (CDD) ........................................................................................ 6
Funding and Sponsorship ..................................................................................................................... 7
Preliminary Design...................................................................................................................... 7
Systems Requirements Document (SRD) ............................................................................................. 8
Preliminary Design Review ................................................................................................................... 8
Machine Shop Training and Certification ............................................................................................. 9
Safety Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Detailed Design and Development............................................................................................ 10
Parallel Design Process ....................................................................................................................... 11
Bucket ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Chassis ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Arm ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Drive Train .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Electronics .......................................................................................................................................... 16
User Controls ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Coding/Programming ......................................................................................................................... 17
Production and Construction..................................................................................................... 18
Design Margins ................................................................................................................................... 18

3. Testing ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Operation Use and System Support .......................................................................................... 19
Retirement................................................................................................................................. 19
Section 4: Objectives .................................................................................................................... 19
Section 5: Methods/Tasks............................................................................................................. 21
Section 6: Results.......................................................................................................................... 24
Requirements Flowdown Checklist .......................................................................................... 24
Section 7: Conclusions/Recommendations................................................................................... 25
Future Design Improvements.................................................................................................... 25
Section 8: References.................................................................................................................... 25
Referenced Sources................................................................................................................... 25
Additional Sources.................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix: Team Member Contributions...................................................................................... 26
Allison Metzger......................................................................................................................... 26
Matthew Goldstein.................................................................................................................... 27
Michelle Little........................................................................................................................... 27
Brittany Essink.......................................................................................................................... 28
Rafiuddin Arif Ahmed .............................................................................................................. 28
Jennifer Mori............................................................................................................................. 29

4. Section
1:
Introduction
The Florida Institute of Technology Lunabotics team designed, fabricated and tested our
lunabot, Pandia, using a life cycle plan to ensure that the final construction met design
specifications. The systems engineering process followed the standard International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) methodology that involved five stages: creation of a conceptual
design, preliminary design, detailed design and development, production and construction, and
operational systems use and support. In addition to these phases, the team has also created a
retirement strategy for this year’s competition robot, allowing improvements for upcoming
Florida Tech Lunabotics teams.
The systems life span for the Florida Institute of Technology Lunabotics team was a year
and a half, beginning in the 2011 spring semester in the Mechanical Engineering Design
Methodologies class, commonly referred to as Junior Design. During this academic course,
many project concepts were presented and teams were formed. In order for a project to be
developed, three basic requirements needed to be fulfilled: a letter of intent of at least four team
members, the identification of potential sources of funding, and the development of a conceptual
design through the development of a Capabilities Development Document. After required system
capabilities were identified, a Systems Requirement Document was created and a risk mitigation
strategy was formulated and implemented, completing the first milestone. During the 2011 fall
semester, the preliminary design and detailed design and development phases of the system were
completed through the completion of a Preliminary Design Review and a Critical Design
Review. In addition to resource allocation, physical design, and design analysis tasks, the team
members underwent training and certification in the Florida Institute of Technology machine
shop in preparation for the production/construction phases of the design process. One additional
student completed OSHA respirator training for use during particular phases of construction.
After the completion of the system specifications, construction of the robot occurred during the
2012 spring semester, followed by iterative system testing and performance improvement to
maximize system performance. The final robot will begin the operational use and system support
phases during the 2012 Lunabotics competition after which the Florida Institute of Technology
2012 Lunabotics team will be retired.
System
Need
Florida Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering graduates are often recruited
into government and government contracting engineering positions. Maintaining connections to
these agencies and businesses, as well as gaining additional publicity by demonstrating the
quality of the student-engineered systems, ensures the success and growth of the university.
Competitions like the NASA Lunabotics competition serve as an essential platform for
demonstrating the quality of the Florida Institute of Technology programs. Participation of
students in competitions is necessary in order grow the school’s funding, student population, and
reputation.

5. Section
2:
Literature
Review
The Lunabotics mining competition is designed to help NASA Space Exploration in
discovering new ways to mine Tritium from the moon. Tritium can be used to implement cold
fusion, which will act as an alternative energy source. Tritium is cleaner and more efficient than
coal. If NASA is able to harvest tritium from the moon’s surface, it will make this clean energy
cheaper in the future. (2)
The Lunabotics Mining Competition is a feasible project to do in the time span of one
year for our senior design project can be built, tested and competition ready within a one-year
time span. We will be able to build, test and be ready for the competition in May 2012 due to the
fact that it has been done in previous competitions. In 2010, the first Lunabotics Mining
Competition took place and teams were able to successfully complete the required tasks, which
include building the lunabot and entering the Lunabotics Educational Outreach Program.
Additionally the FIRST Robotics Competition teams have been able to design, build, and test
robots within a six week time period. (3)
In order to determine how to conceptually design the robot through the definition of
capabilities, the team performed a trade study on the robot designs from the 2011 NASA
Lunabotics competition. The top 10 teams scores and robot designs were analyzed to determine
the best-performing mining method, while the top forty teams’ excavation rates were evaluated
to determine the objective capability for the Florida Institute of Technology lunar simulant
excavation goal.
Team Excavated Mass
(kg)
Team Excavated Mass
(kg)
Laurentian 237.4 Virginia Tech 79
North Dakota 172.2 Colorado School of Mines 72
West Virginia 106.4 Alabama 63.2
Embry Riddle– Prescott 85.4 John Brown 50
Auburn 80 Southern Indiana 37.6
Two of the top three scoring teams’ robot designs were found to use a bucket method for
excavation, indicating that a bucket design had a high level of performance and should be
utilized in robot design. The team set a goal of placing in the top forty teams after examination of
the 2011 scores. It was determined that the objective for lunar simulant excavation should be 35
kg in 10 minutes.
Throughout research, the method of maneuverability has been one of the major issues of
the robot. Watching videos of other teams from the 2011 Lunabotics Competition, there were
two main designs utilized which either utilized wheels or track. The two drive train options were
investigated to determine which type of system should be implemented. Treads were found to
provide a high level of traction, however research of previous lunar vehicles concluded that
wheels offered better maneuverability and the capability of being able to completely seal the
moving parts of the robot. For these reasons, we chose to use a wheel based drive train.

6. Section
3:
Proposed
Approach
The design approach to create a robot to compete in the NASA 2012 Lunabotics
competition, utilized a linear systems life cycle to develop and construct a remotely operated
excavation robot to compete.
Figure 1: Linear Systems Life Cycle Diagram
The systems life cycle starts with the identification of the system need, then proceeds to the
generation of a conceptual design, a preliminary design, a detailed design, a
construction/production period, a system operation period, and concludes with the systems
retirement. In addition to following the system life cycle, a risk mitigation strategy was
implemented to increase the system functionality, while minimizing time and schedule costs.
Risk
Mitigation
Strategy
Throughout the development process of the system, there were inherent risks associated
with the robot design and construction, consisting of budget, technical, schedule, and labor risks.
Budgetary risks consist of spending monetary resources beyond the allotted budget. Technical
risks are the complexity of a component, subsystem, or program, which leads to the production
of a component falling outside allotted tolerances and/or failing to function. Schedule risks relate
to delays that occur in scheduled tasks that can prevent a product from being ready on time.
Labor risks are a shortage of labor-hours due to unforeseen consequences, such as a worker’s
personal commitments, health issues, or other excusable absences from working during a
scheduled period.

7. In order to minimize these risks, certain processes were incorporated into the life cycle
phases of the project as part of a comprehensive risk mitigation strategy. During the conceptual
design phase, funding was pursued so as to establish a working budget for the system,
minimizing budgetary risks. During the preliminary design phase, the team was machine shop
trained and certified and produced a safety plan to reduce technical and scheduling risks. The
team was also able to review inventory of potentially usable scrap materials, reducing budgetary
risks. The team’s conceptual design review formally outlined estimated needs for materials and
labor processes, allowing for the development of machine shop resource allocations through
preemptive scheduling, reducing schedule risk. During the detailed design and development
phase, a top-down design technique was implemented to distribute budgetary, weight, and
dimensional allotments to ensure each system and subsequent components were designed within
available resource limitations, reducing budgetary and technical risks. These designs were then
tested and validated to ensure components would perform at the required levels, minimizing
technical risk. This phase’s subsystem design process was governed by a work break down
structure (WBS) to schedule the timeframe and responsibilities of each subsystem design,
reducing schedule risk and labor risks. After the formal development of the system capabilities,
the systems requirements (SPEC A) were formulated, allowing for the definition of the
subsystem requirements (SPEC B), component requirements (SPEC C), and material
requirements (SPEC D) to be defined. The SPEC C and SPEC D requirements led to the
formulation of a bill of materials, formally outlining what materials and components were
necessary for the construction of the lunabot. Any usable scrap materials from the on campus
machine shop were claimed, while the rest of the components and materials were ordered before
robot construction, reducing budgetary and schedule risk. The purchased and claimed materials
were ordered and reserved to allow for at least ten percent of excess material to allow for the
fabrication of at least two spare parts, to minimize schedule risk, while at least two spare
components were ordered, where the budget allowed.
With completed construction of the mechanical system, the lunabot’s sub-systems
underwent testing to ensure the system functioned within the designated parameters. Any errors
that occurred during construction were corrected, minimizing potential failure risks. During the
time before competition, maintenance procedures and spare parts were fabricated to ensure the
lunabot would achieve the team’s objectives during competition. During competition, the lunabot
will undergo regular maintenance procedures to ensure the system performs reliably.
Conceptual
Design
After the need to design a robot to compete in the 2012 NASA Lunabotics Competition
was identified, the team for the Florida Institute of Technology was formed of mechanical and
aerospace engineers, each with a specific and unique skill set that encompassed the areas of:
CAD, systems engineering, optimization, ANSYS, drive train design, mechatronic design, and
project management. The team analyzed the Lunabotics Competition manual and performed a
trade study to formulate a capabilities development document. After completion of the
conceptual design and required capabilities, the team procured funding for the system’s
construction.

8. Creation
of
a
Skilled
Team
The core Lunabotics team was formed out of a diverse group of six students, each with
unique and valuable skillsets relative to the systems development and construction. The majority
of the team had experience with the FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC), which greatly
familiarized the team with the 6-week period allocated for design, construction, and testing of the
robotic systems. The team members had unique skill sets which allowed them to specialize in the
tasks of: project leader/project management, safety planning, CAD modeling and top down
design, mechatronic and electronics design, systems engineering, linear programming, and
ANSYS testing. The team was supervised by Dr. Gutierrez, a mechanical engineering professor
and expert in mechatronic systems, who served as an additional knowledge and technical
resource. Additional technical support and labor was provided through the Florida Tech Robotics
Club and the current Junior Design class.
In addition to the team’s knowledge and experience base, the team had access to a variety
of design software, as well as a fully equipped machine shop. Software packages available for
the system’s life cycle included: MATLAB, Pro Engineer Wildfire 5.0, ANSYS Workbench, and
the Microsoft Office Suite. The on-campus machine shop is well equipped with a 3-axis CNC
milling machine, TIG and MIG welding capabilities, as well as a wide assortment of traditional
milling machines, lathes, power tools, hand tools, presses, taps, dies, clamps, and a variety of
other equipment. The machine shop is overseen by three full-time machinists who assist and
provide advice for parts manufacture.
Trade
Study
In order to determine how to conceptually design the robot through the definition of
capabilities, the team performed a trade study on the robot designs from the 2011 NASA
Lunabotics competition. The top 10 teams scores and robot designs were analyzed to determine
the best-performing mining method, while the top forty teams’ excavation rates were evaluated
to determine the objective capability for the Florida Institute of Technology lunar simulant
excavation goal.
Team Excavated Mass
(kg)
Team Excavated Mass
(kg)
Laurentian 237.4 Virginia Tech 79
North Dakota 172.2 Colorado School of Mines 72
West Virginia 106.4 Alabama 63.2
Embry Riddle– Prescott 85.4 John Brown 50
Auburn 80 Southern Indiana 37.6
Two of the top three scoring teams’ robot designs were found to use a bucket method for
excavation, indicating that a bucket design had a high level of performance and should be
utilized in robot design. The team set a goal of placing in the top forty teams after examination of
the 2011 scores. It was determined that the objective for lunar simulant excavation should be 35
kg in 10 minutes.

9. The trade study also concluded two primary methods of drive train construction: treads
and wheels. The two drive train options were investigated to determine which type of system
should be implemented. Treads were found to provide a high level of traction, however research
of previous lunar vehicles concluded that wheels offered better maneuverability and the
capability of being able to completely seal the moving parts of the robot. For these reasons, we
chose to use a wheel based drive train.
Concept
of
Operation
After analyzing previous competition robots and the 2012 competition’s rules and
regulations, the team formulated a concept of operation to define how the system should function
on a basic level. After positioning the lunabot at a specified position on the field, the robot would
power up and a preinstalled sub-routine or the system user pilot the lunabot to the excavation
area and engage in its excavation procedures. After the bucket was filled to an optimal capacity
with lunar simulant, the lunabot would navigate back the collection bin to dump the excavated
lunar simulant into the collection bin. Determining the use of manual control over a fully
autonomous robot is dependent on time allowances during construction, as well as team ability.
The human operator will control all robot functions with a goal to function autonomously in the
future. If the team reaches autonomy, the operator will supervise the robot’s activities as a
failsafe. The mining cycle would continue until time runs out, the battery is exhausted, or a
failure requires mission abortion.
Figure 2: General Concept of Operations Diagram
Capabilities
Development
Document
(CDD)
After performing a trade study and analyzing the competition rules, a series of
capabilities the system were identified. The identified capabilities have two levels of satisfaction
associated with them. A threshold is the minimum acceptable level that must be met, and an
objective is the desired goal level of performance. If specific threshold and objective levels for a
capability are not directly stated, it is assumed that the listed capability threshold is equal to the
objective. The identified capabilities served as a guideline when determining the system
requirements. The use of the word “should” implies that the robot will need to meet the
capability to properly function, however the capability listing is not binding, due to potential
alterations when specific systems designs are proposed.
Table 1: Capabilities Development Document Summary Table

10. 1.0 The robot should conform to the construction constraints listed in the in the 2012 NASA
Lunabotics Competition Manual
1.0.1 The robot should conform to the physical dimensions and weight constraints listed in the
2012 NASA Lunabotics Competition Manual
1.0.2 The robot should have an electronics system that passes inspection and is equipped with a kill
switch
1.1 Threshold: The robot should be able to complete the required outlined competition objectives
Objective: The robot should compete and place within the top forty teams
1.1.1 The robot should have a battery life that lasts the length of competition at a minimum
1.1.2 Threshold: The robot should be able to consistently excavate at least 10 kg of regolith in 10
minutes
Objective: The robot should be able to consistently excavate at least 35 kg of regolith in 10
minutes
1.1.3 The robot should be able to transport the excavated regolith to the designated collection bin
1.1.3.1 The robot should be able to move around the arena in a time-efficient and stable manner
1.1.3.2 The robot should have the capability to transport collected regolith without significant loss
1.1.3.3 The robot should be able to quickly and effectively transport collected regolith from the
regolith excavation mechanism to the designated collection bin
1.2 The robot should be safe to operate remotely by a user and/or autonomously
1.3 The robot should be designable for construction in a 1.5 semester timeframe and within a
budget of $10,000.
1.3.1 The robot construction should maximize the use of standardized components
1.3.2 The robot construction should maximize the percentage use of ordered raw materials
1.3.3 The robot should be made to maximize the use of a modular design to simplify construction
1.4 The robot design should minimize its mass
1.5 The robot should be designed for component re-use after retirement
Funding
and
Sponsorship
Upon completion and approval of design of our lunabot from the team and our academic
advisors, a budget was created and funding was pursued. The College of Engineering at Florida
Institute of Technology was a major sponsor, contributing $6000 to the team budget.
Additionally, and the team also won a scholarship from the Missile Range and Space Pioneers
for an additional $4000.
Preliminary
Design
The team advanced the design to a preliminary level through the successful completion
of a preliminary design review (PDR). During the formulation of the PDR, formal design
requirements were outlined by means of a system requirements document. A rudimentary
subsystem design schedule was formulated, and construction materials were investigated. During
this phase, the team prepared for the detailed design and development phase and production
phase through training and certification in the on-campus machine shop. The team was prepared
to proceed to preliminary design through familiarization with the constraints, production
capabilities, and manufacturing tolerances of the machine shop equipment: ±.001 in. Before
working in the machine shop, the team was required to submit a live safety plan that reflected
proper safety procedures and practices for manufacturing and included Material Safety Data

11. Sheets (MSDS) for any potential materials that would be used in the robot’s construction, and
safety procedures and practices.
Systems
Requirements
Document
(SRD)
Upon completion of the capabilities development document, specific requirements were
documented to meet the identified capabilities. The identified requirements have two levels of
satisfaction associated with them as previously stated. The identified requirements served as a
guideline when determining the system specifications in the detailed design and development
phase. The use of the word “will” is binding, requiring the team to meet the specified
requirements however no specific method is required at this stage.
The definition of requirements begins at the system level (SPEC A) wherein requirements
for system functionality are defined. To meet the system function requirements, the subsystems
needed to meet the system functions identified with their requirements defined (SPEC B). Sub-
systems are an assemblage of purchasable components and manufactured parts. The
requirements for the sub-systems have been identified and the components and parts that are
needed to construct them are identified (SPEC C). Any part that is not able to be purchased must
be fabricated and the materials required for fabrication is then identified (SPEC D).
Preliminary
Design
Review
The preliminary design review was conducted during the 2011 fall semester and formally
summarized the progress of the system’s development. In addition to presenting the literature
review, trade study, and formal design capabilities, the document began the formulation of the
WBS, SPEC C, SPEC D, and required tool list, SPEC E. The basic tasks of the WBS consisted
of the following:
1. Generate system and subsystem specifications through specific designs of the: chassis,
drive train, bucket, arm, electronics/power system, program structure, user controls, and
video feed back system
2. Expand subsystem design options through use of optimization routines, to minimize
weight and cost, while maximizing subsystem performance
3. Construct major structural components and parts options in Pro Engineering Wildfire 5.0
and stress tests in ANSYS
4. Expand SPEC C and SPEC D requirements to develop a formal bill of materials (BOM)
5. Determine required fabrication processes for system construction
6. Determine dependent and parallel fabrication processes
7. Organize system construction process and assign tasks by expanding WBS
8. Determine system testing procedures and assign by expanding WBS
A summary of the SPEC C and SPEC D requirements, as well as the tool needs in sub-system
fabrication processes are identified below:
Table 2: SPEC C, SPEC D, and SPEC E Summary Table
Chassis Required Materials: Aluminum tubing (1x1 or 1x2 at 1/16th
or 1/8th
or 1/4th

12. thickness)
Required Tools: Band saw, chop saw, TIG welder, grinder, power drill, safety
glasses, welding mask
Drive Train Required Materials: 2 gear boxes, 4 wheels, 4 wheel hubs, 4 axils and
mounting assemblies, 8 bearings, 4 drive gears, 2 chains, 2 tensioner systems,
lubricant, wires, safety glasses
Required Tools: Hand tools, power drill, milling machine, lathe, grinder, band
saw
Bucket Required Materials: Aluminum sheet (1/32nd
or 1/16th
or 1/8th
or 1/4th
thickness), unidirectional carbon fiber fabric, muli-directional polyester mat,
resin
Required Tools: Metal sheet roller, grinder, jig saw, power drill, hand tools,
safety glasses, vacuum pump, plastic tubing, peel ply, infusion media, vacuum
bag
Arm Required Materials: Aluminum tubing (1x1 or 1x2 at 1/16th
or 1/8th
or 1/4th
thickness), large linear actuator (for arm movement), small linear actuator
(bucket movement), 2 axles, 4 bearings, lubrication, actuator mounts
Required Tools: Band saw, chop saw, TIG welder, grinder, power drill, safety
glasses, welding mask
Electronics Required Materials: 12 V battery, wiring, micro controller, motor controllers,
wireless transmitter/receiver, acrylic sheeting(for component mounting),
screws, wire wrap, miscellaneous components
Required Tools: Soldering iron, USB microcontroller interface, wire strippers,
wire cutters, pliers, band saw, hand tools, safety glasses
User Controls Required Materials: Joystick, buttons, transmitter, kill switch
Required Tools: Soldering irons, hand tools, safety glasses
Video
Feedback
Required Materials: Video streaming camera, video transmitter, video
receiver, monitor, cables, mounting screws
Required Tools: Soldering iron, power drill, hand tools, safety glasses
Machine
Shop
Training
and
Certification
After formulating the SPEC A, B, C, and D requirements and the tools needed for system
fabrication, the team went to train in the on-campus machine shop for certification and
familiarization with the tools required for the building process. The certification process was a
30 hour long course which instructed in the layout of the machine shop, the safety and operating
procedures for milling machines, lathes, grinders, band saws, taps, dies, calipers, micrometers, as
well as an assortment of hand tools. The team was also taught to identify machining tolerances
and the commercially available materials and tooling sizes, allowing the team to begin the
detailed design and development phase. The team was also able to communicate with the three
full-time machinists working in the shop, creating an active dialog in which component designs
were improved and manufacturing processes streamlined.

13. Safety
Plan
The team drafted a safety plan in order to obtain approval to manufacture their system in
the on-campus machine shop. The safety plan was a living document that analyzed the risks
associated with every process required to fabricate the robot. It provided risk mitigation
techniques to prevent user injury and minimize manufacturing errors. MSDS were also required
to for every material that the team used in the construction of the robot. The safety plan’s risk
mitigation was implemented in three steps:
1. Identify the risks
2. Identify the impact and likelihood of the risk
3. Identify methods to minimize risks
This process is exemplified in the following excerpt:
Risk III.C: Dump bucket failures can result from overloading the bucket with more weight than
it is designed to handle.
A material failure will occur if the pressure on the bucket exceeds the fracture strength of
the material, which can cause the bucket to fracture and/or delaminate. The probability of this
type of failure is dependent on the dimensions of the bucket and fracture strength of the material
that comprises it. Prevention of failure due to fracture will be to design within the material’s
limit by not exceeding the fracture strength.
In addition to a safety plan, safety margins were incorporated into selection of
components and the design of parts to prevent failure from fracture and/or plastic deformation
from unforeseen forces acting on the robot during use. During the design of each of these sub-
systems, a safety factor of 5 was incorporated to prevent system damage, and ensure to the robot
will always operate in a safe and reliable manner.
Detailed
Design
and
Development
The detailed design and development phase occurred after the approval of the PDR, and
lasted for the second half of the 2011 fall semester. During this phase, the team designed the
robot subsystems with manufacturing specifications through various forms of documentation, as
well as finalized the BOM and WBS. Several iterative and linear programming optimization
procedures were used to optimize the subsystem dimensions for weight and cost assuming
certain physical dimension, monetary, labor-hour, and weight constraints for each of the
subsystems. Once dimensions for a part or component were completed, a stress analysis was
performed using ANSYS to determine the minimum thickness that could be used safely for a
part of a given material type. Materials and components were then selected by through trade off
analysis, by comparing the labor hours to make the part, weight, and cost for each material
option. The lunabot was designed in British Imperial system, due to the availability of tools in
the on-campus machine shop. Parts for the robot were manufactured within a tolerance of ±.005
inches. The finalized specifications system and subsystem are outlined in the combined CAD
rendering of the robot and the electronics diagram, while the specifications for components and
raw materials were specified in the BOM. The specifications were presented for evaluation in the
form of a Critical Design Review (CDR) which, after approval, led to the
construction/production phase.

14. Since the system has a requirement to be recycled for following years’ competitions and a
requirement to be easily serviceable, the design of the robot is modular, allowing the robot to be
disassembled into its sub-systems and then further disassembled into its parts and components.
This modular design not only allows for a highly serviceable design, but also allows for entire
subsystems, like the chassis, as well as individual components to be recycled for use in later
years.
Parallel
Design
Process
Each of the team members was trained in a specific area during the preliminary design
phases, allowing them to specialize in certain tasks during the detailed design phase. These
specializations allowed the team members to complete several design processes in parallel,
expediting the design time. A top-down approach was used to determine the cost, physical
dimensions, mass of each subsystem, as well as the method by which the sub-systems interfaced.
Knowing the constraints an individual subsystem as well as their interfaces, the team was able to
implement a parallel design process. The independent design process allowed for the bucket,
drive train, programming, and electronics to be designed in parallel. After the determination of
the drive train and bucket dimensions, the frame and then arm were designed. Upon completion
of the drive train and electronics, the human interface was designed.
Figure 3: Sub-System Interface Diagram
Bucket
The bucket was the first subsystem designed for the robot, as its dimensions govern the
dimensions of the chassis and arm systems. From evaluation of the trade study and the system
requirements, it was determined that a front loading bucket design would be implemented;
however, the bucket shape, physical dimensions angle of attack needed to be determined with the

15. goal of maximizing the robot’s excavation performance. A sponsoring professor aided in the
decision of material selection for the bucket, by donating the materials and allowing the use of
tools required to fabricate the bucket out of carbon fiber. The decision of material choice
determined the thickness (t) of the bucket, setting it at t= .11 in. Since the bucket would be
comprised a compilation of carbon fiber, matting, and resin, the material density (pmat) was
taken to be an unknown constant and set at pmat = 1.
The bucket shape was the first obstacle to overcome in the bucket design as there were
two considerations: should the bucket be rounded or rectangular, and should the bucket’s top
face be open or should the bucket be of a closed design? A design tradeoff study was performed
with the following findings:
Table 3: Bucket Design Trade Study Summary Table
Advantages Disadvantages
Rectangular
Shape
-Easy to design with simple geometry
-Straightforward construction method
-Larger contained volume of regolith
for size
-Heavy design with at least 4 distinct sides
-4-5 pieces need to be cut instead of 3
-Regolith may stick to corners
-Composites have higher risk of delamination
with distinct corners
Rounded
Shape
-Low weight to contained volume
design
-Made of only three components
-Center piece must be sent off to be rolled
-Smaller regolith containment for physical
volume
Open
Design
-Lightweight
-Less work to manufacture
-Structurally weaker than closed design
-Possibility of regolith loss during robot
transport
Closed
Design
-Structurally strong
-More effective at containing regolith
-Higher weight design
-More labor-hours to manufacture
Based on the findings of the tradeoff study, a rounded shape bucket with an open top was
implemented. Given the bucket shape, the bucket angle of attack, the angle at which it contacts
the flat plane that represents ideal ground was determined through a literature review. It was
determined that an angle of attack of six degrees provided the greatest rate of granular flow [1].
The relations between granular flow, angle of attack, robot velocity, and bucket width were
determined as in the following diagram, and gave an estimate for the volumetric collection rate
of the bucket design.
Figure 4: Angle of Attack Calculation Diagram
Assumptions:
§ Bucket is initially level to the surface of the regolith
§ Pivot point for angular displacement is measured from surface of the regolith
§ Ground surface is level

16. § No resistance to granular flow from inside bucket
Volumetric Flow Rate Cross Sectional Area of Flow Depth of Penetration
∀= 𝐴 ∗ 𝑣 𝐴 = 𝑦 ∗ 𝑊 𝑦 = L ∗ sin 𝜃
Table 4: Bucket Angle of Attack Variable Definitions
Variable Definition Variable Definition
∀ Volumetric Flow Rate W Width of bucket
A Cross sectional area of flow L Bucket length
v Velocity of Bucket Ѳ Bucket angle relative to field
y Depth of bucket penetration
After determination of the regolith volumetric flow rate model, the bucket dimensions
were determined through the formulation of a non-linear optimization problem solved using
MATLAB. The optimization problem was designed to determine what bucket dimensions would
lead to the production of a bucket design that maximized granular flow and containable regolith
while minimizing mass. However, the capacity of the bucket was set at a minimum of 40 kg of
regolith to meet SRD 2.1.3.3.1. The density for the collected regolith was assumed to be 93.65
lbf/ft^3.
The optimization routine was formulated to determine the length (L), width (W-2t),
radius (r), as well as the granular flow constant (G), volume of regolith (V), bucket mass (M)
dimensions for the pieces comprising the bucket. The formulation of the optimization routine is
seen below:
Figure 5: Bucket Optimization Diagram
Table 5: Bucket Optimization Formulation
Objective Function 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒: 2𝑉 + 𝐺 − 𝑀
Volumetric Capacity V = .5*3.14159*(r^2)*W + .5*2*r*L*(W-(2*t))
Granular Flow Coefficient G = (W- 2t)*L*sind(6)
Bucket Mass M = pmat*t*(A1 +2*A2)
Area of Piece 1 A1 = L*W + (3.14159*r*(W-2*t))
Area of Piece 2 A2 = .5*3.14159*(r^2) +.5*L*2*r
Area 2 = Area 3 A2 = A3

17. Table 6: Bucket Decision Variable
Chassis
After the determination of the bucket dimensions, the chassis was designed. The chassis
design was modeled after successful and proven FIRST robotics robot frames, wherein the frame
consists of a rectangular outer frame with inner crossbeams that serve as supports for mounting
and increase the robot’s rigidity. A dimensional allotment was given to the chassis of 75% of the
width and length constraint to allow for a preliminary design, with adjustment made after the
bucket dimensions were determined.
The frame was designed to be made of 1x2 in thick Aluminum 6061 tubing. Many FIRST
robotics frames are built using this type of tubing due to its weight-to-strength and cost-to-
performance ratios. Little ANSYS testing was needed to confirm that the tubing would not fail
under loading, as experiences from FIRST robotics have shown that frames made of this type of
material endures 120-lb robots impacting them at 12 ft/s with minimal damage. Since the NASA
Lunabotics mining competition does not allow robot-to-robot contact, the only impacts that can
occur happen due to robots colliding with objects in the field or robot tipping. Both forms of
impact are less forceful than what is experienced in FIRST competitions and therefore the tubing
selection was deemed adequate.
The frame’s dimensions are designed to lower and center the robots center of mass as
much as possible to minimize tipping moments. The space allotted for the drive train places the
wheels as far apart from each other as possible, while utilizing the robot’s width to minimize
weight imbalances. The robot arm was designed to be positioned at the back of the frame, to
distribute its weight and the loads of collected regolith, and minimize tipping moments while the
arm is in motion. To prevent regolith particle buildup in the electrical and mechanical
components, the frame design uses of lightweight acrylic sheets to enclose all unsealed electrical
and mechanical components. The enclosure of sensitive components prevents particle build-up,
which can cause electrical components to short out or overheat, and mechanical component
joints to cease functioning.
Arm
Upon determination of the bucket and chassis dimensions, enough data was available
proceed with designing the arm. The function of the arm is to change the height of the bucket
into the four required positions; the arm must be able to allow the bucket to intersect the plane of
the playing field surface at the designated AOA, raise the front edge of the bucket 0.5 meters
over the collection bin while it is at 90° incline to allow it to dump excavated materials, and
travel with the bucket at a height that minimizes the tipping moment when traveling with a
Volumetric Capacity Constraint V ≥ 315 in^3
Variable Range Increment
Radius of Bucket 0.125 ≤ r ≤ 7.00 (in) 0.125 in
Width of Bucket 0.125 ≤ W ≤ 24.5 (in) 0.125 in
Length of Bucket 0.125 ≤ L ≤ 15.0 (in) 0.125 in
Material Thickness t = 0.110 (in) n/a
Material Density pmat n/a

18. loaded bucket. The arm also needed to be rigid enough to maintain the forces and moment
generated while the bucket was excavating and while transporting a load of regolith across the
field.
To minimize the technical complexity of the arm, while maximizing its strength, a three
link system was chosen as the general design for the arm, where welded supports rising up from
both sided of the frame served as the grounded link, the arm served as a slider, and the liner
actuator served as a liner crank. All three links were connected by revolute joints; as the linear
actuator moves the angle of the arm relative to the frame increases, increasing the height of the
bucket relative to the playing field surface. Since the containable volume of regolith was known,
the maximum load of the bucket on the arm could be determined. By analyzing the load of the
bucket, it was determined that two 12 inch stroke linear actuators, each generating a force of 100
lbf, would be utilized to create a double three bar linkage system.
The next design step was to determine the design of the arm linkage itself. Two designs
were considered: a one piece thick walled tube arm and a parallel two main length tube arm with
cross bracing, where two of tube ran the length of the arm, and three cross braces connected
them to add rigidity. To ensure the arm would be stable, the parallel two main length tube arm
with cross bracing was chosen as it provided a higher level of rigidity, as well as allowed for
easier mounting of the bucket and actuators. Using the dimensions of the frame and arm, and
range of motion required for both, an iterative graphical solving known as dimensional synthesis
was utilized to determine the length of the arm, height of its mounting, and placements of the
linear actuators to move the arm and bucket respectively. Multiple runs were conducted for each
placement determination, and an optimal solution was found for the respective dimensions. Once
the dimensions were determined, the tubing that comprised it needed to be selected. A variety of
aluminum tubing was tested in ANSYS, until the lowest weight and most cost effective tubing
construction was found that would not deform. The placement of the cross braces for the arm
was iteratively determined using ANSYS. Parts were created in Pro-Engineer to ensure the range
of motion generated met the requirements, and then tested in ANSYS to ensure they would not
plastically deform.
Drive
Train
The drive train is a subsystem with a high degree of technical risk associated with its
design and construction due to the number of components and parts involved in its construction.
In order to determine the type of drive train to move the lunabot, a trade study was performed,
comparing the use of a wheel based drive train against that of a tread based system.
Table 6: Drive Train Trade Study
Advantages Disadvantages
Tread Drive Train -Large surface area in contact with
ground, creating good grip
-Minimal chance of getting stuck
-High technical risk
-High lost
-Takes a lot time to fabricate
- Unable to be fully sealed
Wheel Drive Train -Cheap compared to treads
-Low level of technical risk
-Less components than treads
-Less labor-hours to construct than
-Less grip than treads
-Potential for multiple wheels to
loose grip of regolith surface

19. treads
-All moving parts can be fully
protected
It was decided that a four wheel drive train was preferable to the tread system due to the
budgetary and schedule limitations of the team. To overcome the potential problems of gripping
the regolith surface of the field, 10 inch diameter solid tires were chosen as part of a four wheel
drive train, that allow the robot more surface area to grip the field surface. In order to minimize
drive train costs, CIM motors and Victor Motor Controllers were recycled from older senior
design project, allowing funding to be directed towards other purchases. CIM motors by
themselves have a high rate of revolution, but did not provide sufficient torque and horse power
to power the drive train in a reliable manner. To adjust the output of the motors, gearbox systems
were implemented to adjust the output to the wheels. The calculations for the gearing ratios were
made using a free Excel calculation tool, to create gearing for the robot to travel at a velocity of 9
ft/s.
After the construction of the gearboxes, the drive train consisted of two CIM motors
attached to the two gearboxes using a fixed joint. The gears were engaged using a revolute joint.
Each gearbox interfaced with the frame by fixed joint and the gear train rotated a sprocket using
a revolute joint. This turned a chain under tension which rotated two wheels affixed to the frame
by revolute joints that also possessed sprockets. This independent double sided drive train is
commonly known as a tank steering system, and allows the lunabot to individually rotate the two
wheels on each side of the robot at different velocities and in different directions, creating the
advantages of a small turning radius and high level of motion control.
Electronics
All of the mechanical sub-systems rely on the electronics system to direct and regulate
the motions of the motors that power them. The electronics sub-system is the compilation of the
components included on the robot that regulate the motion of the mechanical by powering and
controlling them and the camera that serves as the video feedback system. The electronics are
controlled by the user controls through the use of a wireless XBee transmitter and receiver.
Commands received by the receiver are processed by the Arduino Mega 2560 which utilizes the
motor controllers to regulate the power to the motors and linear actuators, effectively controlling
their motion. As a safety measure, an emergency kill switch is positioned on the frame to
immediately cut power to the robot in the event of an emergency.

20. Figure 6: Electronics Function Diagram
The electronics sub-system was designed to minimize the use of power and data by
minimizing the use of components. The data transmission was further reduced by simplifying the
complexity of the code transmitted to the robot. Costs were minimized by recycling Victor speed
controllers to regulate the CIM motors. Each victor requires a 3-wire PWM input where the
nominal voltage for these speed controllers is 12 Volts. The linear actuators are controlled by a
VNH2SP30 high-power motor driver, which uses PWM input to control the direction of the
linear actuator. These motor drivers also have the ability to send potentiometer data to the user
by means of the Arduino Mega using the wireless XBee system.
User
Controls
Due to the competition rules stating the driver must remotely operate the robot from a
room away from the Lunarena competition the driver controls were developed to use Wi-Fi to
serially transmit data using a set of XBee Wi-Fi modules.
The Arduino Uno functions as the microprocessor for the driver control interface. Inputs
from joysticks and various buttons control the actions of the robot. The driver will have the
ability to control the motion of the robot’s drive train using two joysticks, each controlling one of
the two motors, mounted on opposite sides of the frame. Buttons control the adjustment of the
angle of the arm and the angle of the bucket. Additional presets will be set up to move the arm
and bucket to preset configurations.
Coding/Programming
The coding required to control the robot, uses two microcontroller scripts, one for the
Arduino Mega and one for the Arduino Uno. Both programs are coded using Arduino code are
streamlined to minimize the data transfer between the user controls and the robot. The coding on
the Arduino Uno takes the user inputs and translates them into instructions which are serially
transmitted across the wireless network to the Arduino Mega. The Arduino Mega’s coding

21. interprets the inputs sent across the network and performs an output action, allowing the robot to
properly function.
Production
and
Construction
After the completion of the detailed design phase, the formal specifications for
subsystems and components were outlined and materials were ordered. The tasks required to
construct the subsystems, assemble the system, and test the system were identified and scheduled
in order of prerequisites. Each of the tasks was assigned to a team member to evenly distribute
the work load.
Design
Margins
During the construction process, the mechanical sub-systems were completed in the on
campus machine shop, by first constructing required parts and modifying purchased components
for the various sub-systems until a sub-assembly could be created. Part dimensions were listed in
technical drawings based off CAD models. Each part and assembly had a specific drawing
associated with it documenting dimensions and tolerances. The tolerances for the on campus
machine shop equipment are ±.002 in, which was the basis for the tolerances of all moving
mechanical components. Parts requiring welding, or parts that did not move, but were required to
be of a certain minimum or maximum size were manufactured within ±.01 in. The low
manufacturing tolerances for the moving parts and components ensure that the mechanical
system interfaces have tighter fits, decreasing potential buildup of vibrations, which in turn
increases the reliability of the of the lunabot.
Testing
Throughout the design process, ANSYS and Pro Engineer were used to verify the
adequacy of material selections and part dimensions. The majority of physical systems tests were
performed during the construction/production phase of the systems life cycle. Testing was an
important part of the construction/production design process, as it allowed for verification that
parts and components were made within spec and that sub-systems functioned properly, which is
crucial for ensuring system reliability.
Functionality of each subsystem was verified through physical testing. The bucket’s
volumetric capacity was measured by filling it with known volumes of flour, also indicating any
potential leaks. The proper dumping angle was then tested by measuring the angle of the bucket
relative to the floor at which all the visible flour was no longer present in the bucket. After
confirming the volumetric capacity and dumping angle, the bucket was affixed to the arm, where
the ranges of motion of the arm and bucket were tested. The electronics were tested by manually
running power to the various devices to ensure they worked, and then iteratively tested with the
Arduino programming. Before installing the XBees, serial communications were tested using a
tether between the two Arduinos. The communication between the robot and user electronics
then was tested and fine-tuned by sending user inputs across the Wi-Fi network. After the
electronics and user controls were proven functional. After the robot was assembled, the
combined systems were tested to ensure the entire robot was functional.

22. Operation
Use
and
System
Support
Upon competition of the robot construction and testing procedures, maintenance
procedures were established and practiced, to ensure to team was familiarized how to
disassemble, repair, and assemble the lunabot system. Spare parts were also created out of
remaining materials or purchased. The spare parts, in combination with the maintenance
procedures, will ensure the reliability of the robot during competition. In addition, the robot users
gained experience controlling the robot on a practice playing field to become familiar with the
controls and develop strategies to maximize their performance. Factors such as excavation
patterns, were tested to see what would yield the highest rate of material excavation
Retirement
After the completion of the 2012 NASA Lunabotics Competition, the system will be
deactivated and placed on display in the Florida Institute of Technology Olin Engineering
Complex senior design display room, until a senior design team or the Florida Institute of
Technology Robotics team formalizes plans to compete in a subsequent competition. The
deactivation process will consist of first cleaning the robot to remove any excess dirt, then
removing the battery and locking the wheels, arm, and bucket joints in a stationary position to
prevent the robot from moving. The system’s physical components, CAD drawings, and
supporting documents will be given to the team to allow for parts harvesting. In addition to
physical component recycling, the system’s supporting documents will allow subsequent teams
to improve upon any of the robot component designs, allowing for component optimization for
subsequent competitions, reducing labor and maximizing a new system’s performance.
Section
4:
Objectives
The table below summarizes the SPEC A and SPEC B requirements, which serves as the
design objectives for the senior design project
Table 7: SPEC A and SPEC B Requirements Summary Table
2.0 The robot will conform to the construction constraints listed in the in the 2012 NASA
Lunabotics Competition Manual
2.0.1 The robot will be designed to be less than or equal to the maximum allowed height,
width, length, and mass, as listed in the 2012 NASA Lunabotics Competition Manual
2.0.2 The robot will have an electronics system that passes inspection and is equipped with a
kill switch
2.1 Threshold: The robot will complete the required outlined competition objectives
Objective: The robot will complete the required objectives and place within the top forty
teams
2.1.1 The robot will use one or more 12 V batteries and power distribution system that allows it
to function for at least 20 minutes
2.1.2 Threshold: The robot will be able to consistently excavate at least 10 kg of regolith in 10
minutes
Objective: The robot will be able to consistently excavate at least 35 kg of regolith in 10
minutes
2.1.3 The robot will be able to excavate regolith and transport it to the designated collection bin

23. using an arm and front loader bucket
2.1.3.1 The front loader bucket will be connected to the arm by means of revolute joints
2.1.3.2 The arm will be connected to the chassis by means of revolute joints
2.1.3.3 The bucket design will be optimized to maximize the rate of excavation
2.1.3.3.1 The bucket will be designed to contain at least 40 kg of regolith at any given time
2.1.3.4 The front loader bucket with have an adjustable an adjustable angle of attack (AOA) and
height
2.1.3.4.1 The bucket angle of attack will be adjustable by means of two linear actuators
2.1.3.4.2 The arm will adjust the height of the bucket by means of two linear actuators
2.1.3.4.3 The bucket’s height will be adjustable to allow robot to fit in startup dimension constraint
2.1.3.4.4 The bucket will be adjustable to have at least four function configurations
2.1.3.4.4.1 The bucket will have a startup configuration, so robot will fit inside start up dimension
constraints
2.1.3.4.4.2 The robot will have a configuration to excavate lunar simulant
2.1.3.4.4.3 The robot will have a configuration to transport excavated lunar simulant that minimizes
loss of material
2.1.3.4.4.4 The robot will have a configuration to dump excavated lunar simulant into the designate
collection bin
2.1.4 The robot will utilize a wheel based drive train
2.1.4.1 The drive train will allow the robot to pass over potential obstacles placed in the field
2.1.4.2 The drive train will make use of at least four wheels
2.1.4.3 The drive train will allow the robot to travel at a velocity of at least 2.13 m/s
2.1.4.4 The drive train will be mounted to the chassis
2.1.5 The robot sub-systems will be housed within a rigid chassis
2.1.5.1 The chassis will be designed to survive the force of the robot tipping on any of its sides
without failure, and prevent damage to sub-systems
2.1.5.2 The chassis will be powder coated to prevent oxidization
2.1.5.3 The chassis will be visually interesting
2.1.5.4 The arrangement of sub-systems within the chassis will be designed to minimize potential
tipping moments
2.1.5.4.1 The robot will have a center of mass that rests at a low height relative to the field
2.1.5.4.2 The robots will have a center of mass that is centralized within the robot chassis
2.2 The robot will be constructed, programmed, and controlled by means which allow it to
be operated in a safe manner
2.2.1 Threshold: The robot will be remotely operable by one or more users
Objective: The robot will have autonomous capabilities, with user overrides
2.2.2 The user will have the ability to remotely deactivate the robot at any given time
2.2.3 The robot will have its mechanical and electronic components enclosed to prevent utilize
mechanical and electronic failures from lunar simulant
2.2.4 The robot will be able to utilize a camera to relay visual information about the robot’s
position and configuration on the field to the user/s operating it, if necessary
2.2.4.1 The shielding will be minimal in weight
2.2.4.2 The shielding will be affixed to the chassis
2.3 The robot design will be feasible for construction within the allotted schedule and budget
2.3.1 The robot will be designed for construction within a 1.5 semester timeframe

24. 2.3.1.1 The robot will maximize the use of a modular design to simplify construction
2.3.2 The robot will be constructible within a budget of no greater than $10,000
2.3.2.1 The robot construction will maximize the use of standardized components
2.3.2.2 The robot construction will maximize the percentage use of ordered raw materials
2.4 The robot design will utilize optimization techniques to maximize robot functionality and
minimize mass
2.5 The robot will have a sustainable and maintainable design
2.5.1 The robot will utilize scrap and reclaimed materials and components where applicable
2.5.2 The robot will be designed for disassembly for component reuse by future teams
2.5.3 The robot will be disassembled for maintenance after use
Section
5:
Methods/Tasks
The methods identified in the proposed approach were implemented by through the
assigning of tasks to the Lunabotics team members, seen in the following tasks list:
Task Group Sub Task
Start Date End Date Status Allison
Metzger
Jennifer
Mori
Matthew
Goldstein
Michelle
Little
Rafi
Ahmed
Brittany
Essink
Systems
Engineering
Paper Paper Outline
1/9/2012 1/13/2012 DONE
X
Locate Systems Engineer to
review documents
1/9/2012 2/3/2012
X
First Paper Draft 1/13/2012 2/3/2012 DONE X
First Paper Review 2/6/2012 2/10/2012 DONE X
Second Paper Review 3/5/2012 3/9/2012 DONE X
Third Paper Review 4/2/2012 4/6/2012 Done X X X X X X
Paper Submission 4/9/2012 4/13/2012 X
Youth
Outreach
Program
Contact scout groups about
program insterest
1/13/2012 1/18/2012 DONE
Research Scout badges
focusing on science
1/13/2012 2/2/2012 DONE
X
Create teaching plan
focusing on specific age
groups
1/13/2012 2/2/2012 DONE
X
Creat powerpoint
demonstrating
engineering/robotics/lunar
1/23/2012 3/2/2012 DONE
X
Order materials 2/1/2012 3/2/2012 DONE X X
Reserve room on campus
for program
2/2/2012 2/2/2012 DONE
X X
Run programs for
approximately 60 4th and
5th grade students
2/25/2012 3/18/2012 Done
X X X X X X

25. Write summary of program 2/27/2012 4/1/2012 30% X
Submit PDF of program and
summary to Lunabotics
3/23/2012 4/23/2012
X
Bucket Update Drawings in CDR 1/9/2012 1/27/2012 DONE X
Update Bucket Drawing in
CAD
1/9/2012 1/13/2012 DONE
X
Order Mounting Bracket 1/9/2012 2/3/2012 DONE X
Cut bucket main length
piece
1/17/2012 1/19/2012 DONE
X
Send off pieces of bucket to
get rolled
1/19/2012 1/24/2012 DONE
X
Determine Bucket Angle of
Attack to maximize granular
flow
1/23/2012 1/27/2012 Done
X X
Build bucket sides 1/24/2012 1/26/2012 DONE X
Weld Bucket 1/26/2012 1/31/2012 DONE
Attach Bucket Mounts 2/2/2012 2/21/2012 70% X X
Weigh Bucket Assembly 2/5/2012 2/15/2012 DONE X X
make bucket out of carbon
fiber
2/10/2012 2/12/2013 DONE
X
Frame
Structure Modify CAD Frame Design
1/9/2012 1/16/2012 DONE
X
Measure and Cut 2x1 Al
Tubing
1/17/2012 1/26/2012 DONE
X X
Drill all mounting holes for
tubing
1/17/2012 1/27/2012 DONE
X X
Press Bearings into frame 1/17/2012 2/24/2012 done X X
Weld Frame 1/24/2012 1/31/2012 DONE
Drive Train
Design bracket for wheel
hub
1/9/2012 2/9/2012 DONE
X
Build Gearbox for Drive
Train
1/24/2012 2/21/2012 30%
X X X
Mount Gearbox to Frame 2/9/2012 2/23/2012 X X
Manufacture Wheel Hub
Bracket
2/9/2012 2/16/2012 80%
Assemble Drive Train
(sprockets, chain, wheels,
bearings, shafts,)
2/14/2012 2/23/2012 30%
X X X X X
Mount Wheel Hub Bracket 2/21/2012 2/28/2012 40% X X
Arm Modify Arm Design in CAD 1/9/2012 1/17/2012 DONE X
Design Brackets for
Mounting Linear Actuator
1/9/2012 2/9/2012 DONE
X X
Measure and cut Arm
structure
1/17/2012 1/26/2012 DONE
X X

26. Weld arm structure 1/24/2012 1/31/2012 DONE
Press Bearings and placings
Shafts into Arm Structure
2/7/2012 2/16/2012 DONE
X X
Manufacture Mounting
Brakcets
2/9/2012 2/16/2012 DONE
Mount Linear Actuator 2/21/2012 2/28/2012 95% X X X X X
Electronics Design wiring diagram 1/9/2012 1/16/2012 DONE
Confirm validity of Xbee
Wifi
1/12/2012 1/19/2012 DONE
X
Determine total required
current
1/12/2012 1/27/2012 DONE
X
Order battery 1/12/2012 1/28/2012 DONE X
Order parts 1/16/2012 1/29/2012 DONE X
Programming/wiring for
nunchucks
1/19/2012 2/26/2012 80%
X X
Wire/program speed
controllers/motor
2/2/2012 2/26/2012 90%
X X
Wire/program linear
actuator control
2/2/2012 2/20/2012 DONE
X X
Test and modify drive train
speed control
2/9/2012 3/1/2012 DONE
X X
Test and modify arm
controls
2/16/2012 3/26/2012 75%
X X
Connect Xbee wifi 3/1/2012 3/26/2012 X X
Install emergency off
buttons
3/1/2012 3/26/2012
X X
Test and modify wireless
connection to robot
3/27/2012 4/5/2012
X X
Get feedback from
potentiometers
3/28/2012 4/6/2012
Test Victors 2/9/2012 2/13/2012 DONE X X
Test Motors 2/9/2012 2/13/2012 DONE X X
Powder
coating Powder Coating the robot
2/6/2012 2/15/2012 done
X
Assembly Attach Arm to Frame 2/23/2012 3/8/2012 90% X X X X X X
Attach Bucket to Arm 2/23/2012 3/8/2012 60% X X X X X X
Attach Electronics to Frame 3/8/2012 3/29/2012 X X X X X X
Testing
Test and modify whole
robot
4/1/2012
X X X X X X

27. Section
6:
Results
Requirements
Flowdown
Checklist
CDD SRD Verification process
1.0 2.0
Physical model weighted and measured
1.0.1 2.0.1
1.0.2 2.0.2 Electronics system, user controls, and programming testing
1.1 2.1 Lunabot system testing
1.1.1 2.1.1 Electronics system testing
1.1.2 2.1.2 Lunabot system testing and excavation rate testing
1.1.2
1.1.3
2.1.3 Lunabot system testing, arm and bucket testing
2.1.3.1 Physical construction parameter, range of motion testing
2.1.3.2 Physical construction parameter, range of motion testing
1.1.2
1.1.3
2.1.3.3 Bucket optimization script
2.1.3.3.1 Bucket optimization script constraint
2.1.3.4 Physical construction parameter, range of motion testing
2.1.3.4.1 Bucket range of motion testing
2.1.3.4.2 Arm range of motion testing
2.1.3.4.3
Testing lunabot system preset configurations
2.1.3.4.4
2.1.3.4.4.1
2.1.3.4.4.2
2.1.3.4.4.3
2.1.3.4.4.4
1.1.2
1.1.3
2.1.4 Physical design parameter
2.1.4.1 Lunabot system testing
2.1.4.2 Physical design parameter
2.1.4.3 Drive train testing
2.1.4.4
Physical design parameter
1.1.2
1.1.3
2.1.5
2.1.5.1 ANSYS stress testing
2.1.5.2 Physical design parameter
2.1.5.3 Peer review of robot aesthetics
2.1.5.4
CAD center of mass simulation2.1.5.4.1
2.1.5.4.2
1.0
1.2
2.2 Physical design parameters, sub-system testing
2.2.1
Electronics testing, lunabot system testing
2.2.2
2.2.3 Physical design parameters, gap testing of shielding
2.2.4 Physical design parameters, electronics testing
1.2 2.2.4.1 Physical design parameters, weight assemblage

28. 1.4 2.2.4.2 Physical design parameters
1.2 2.3 WBS, BOM, risk mitigation strategy implementation
1.3
2.3.1 WBS
2.3.1.1 Design parameter
2.3.2 BOM
1.1.3 2.3.2.1 BOM
1.3.2 2.3.2.2 BOM
1.4 2.4 WBS
1.3.3
1.5
2.5 Physical design parameters
2.5.1 Checking machine shop scrap shed for available materials
2.5.2
Physical design parameters, maintenance procedure creation
2.5.3
Section
7:
Conclusions/Recommendations
Future
Design
Improvements
During the system’s life cycle, the system was designed with limited time and resources,
preventing all subsystems and components of the system from being optimized. While the
designs provided for a robot with a high potential for performance, there are subsystems that can
be improved to optimize future Lunabotics Competition robots. The following is a list of
potential optimization design projects that were identified, but which were not able to be
optimized within the given time frame:
§ Minimization of electrical power consumption and maximization of system response time
by simplification of electrical system and streamlining of microcontroller coding
§ Optimization of arm design to improve maximum quantity of excavated regolith per trip
§ Tubing path and material selection for optimized frame design
§ Design of suspension for wheel based drive train to improve system’s ability to handle
obstacles
Section
8:
References
Referenced
Sources
[1] Optimization of Bucket Design for Underground Loaders, Master’s Thesis, Jonas
Helgesson, Department of Product & Production Development, Chalmers University of
Technology Sweden 2010
Additional
Sources
1. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/centers/kennedy/technology/lunabotics.html
2. http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/humanexplore/exploration/exlibrary/docs/isru/06energy.htm

29. 3. http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/content.aspx?id=478
4. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4839304
5. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MarsGlobalSurveyor/index.html
6. www.google.com images (Lunabotics mining competition 2010)
7. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4839303&isn
umber=4839294
8. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5354067&isn
umber=5353884F
9. Iizuka, K.; Kunii, Y.; Kubota, T.; , "Study on wheeled forms of lunar robots for
traversing soft terrain," Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2008. IROS 2008. IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on , vol., no., pp.2010-2015, 22-26 Sept. 2008
doi: 10.1109/IROS.2008.4651219
URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=465121
9&isnumber=4650570
10. Nishida, S.-I.; Wakabayashi, S.; , "A mobility system for lunar rough terrain," ICCAS-
SICE, 2009 , vol., no., pp.4716-4721, 18-21 Aug. 2009
URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=533434
0&isnumber=5332438
11. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18001-500000-treasure-dug-up-in-lunar-soil.html
12. http://www.teamwaldbaum.com/2009-lunar-regolith-excavator
13. http://surreylunarrover.wordpress.com/
14. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/robotic-arm.html
15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdPzjjFcUVo
16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShREDN8yASA
17. http://www.trossenrobotics.com/linear-actuators.aspx
18. Dr. Adrian Peter’s SYS 5310 Course Lecture Slide Show Presentations from Fall of 2010
Appendix:
Team
Member
Contributions
Allison
Metzger
Presentation and Competition Tasks
-Set up weekly team meetings, kept track of team budget, and robot schedule
-Helped in the brainstorming sessions for the robot basic design
-Part of the teams that researched what parts to order for the robot
-Order all robot parts
-Pick up robot parts
-Order tee shirt
-Help design Senior Design Showcase poster
-Submitted paper work for Lunabotics (Video, Rule 31, Outreach presentation, team roster )
-Created the power points for the Missile Space and Range and Pioneers Dinners and the
National Space Coast Lunch
- Presented at all Functions (Dinners, Lunch in, and Girl Scout Community Day)
-Assisted in writing Senior Design Final Paper

30. Manufacturing Tasks
frame along with various other components such as the gear box, the regolith proofing shield
designs and the wheels -Machined Blocks for robot arm
-Cut out robot frame with Michelle
-Helped make carbon fiber bucket
-Assisted in robot assembly robot assembly (for example: gear box, robot shields, and wheels)
-Assisted in design meetings in order to help all components function properly
-Helped trouble shoot electronics
Matthew
Goldstein
Systems Engineering and Presentation Tasks
-Systems Engineering Paper
-All systems engineering figures
-Granular flow calculation
-Systems engineering presentation
-Bucket optimization routine
-Testing and design section from CDR
-Assisted in final report writing for Senior Design
-Section 31 Report
-Generated primary judge question list to practice answering questions about lunabot for Senior
Design Showcase
-Present at all fundraising events
Design and Construction Tasks
-Creation of electromagnet exercise and electromagnet design in community outreach project
-Wheel hub design
-Bucket design and construction
-Angle of attack determination
-Excavation rate calculation
-Battery cage design and construction
-Control box design and construction
-General labor on all parts fabrication
Michelle
Little
For senior design this semester, my main tasks were manufacturing parts in the machine shop,
assembling the frame along with various other components such as the gear box, the regolith
proofing shield designs and the wheels. I also organized the entire outreach program which
consisted of working with the Girl Scouts of Citrus Council to register the girls for the program,
reserve a room on campus (which proved harder than I thought), research and develop activities
for the event, prepare a “Women in Engineering” power point, purchase all the materials, and

31. help to create the patch that was given to the girls. This outreach project also required a five page
written paper to be submitted to NASA Lunabotics. I helped to edit the systems engineering
paper and went on numerous supply trips during the course of the semester. In addition to the
above tasks, I also helped to create the video required as part of the rules for the competition.
Brittany
Essink
When I joined the team this semester, the frame was made, but wasn't put together, and almost
no progress on electronics had been made except for some research on how to use wii nunchucks
as joysticks.
For the mechanical side of things, in the beginning of the semester, I helped make the
carbon fiber bucket at Dr. Reichard's composites company. Throughout the semester I also
worked on whatever machining was needed at the time including cutting the steel for the bucket
edges, machining hex shafts to the correct length on the lathe, and cutting and gluing acrylic dust
protection pieces for the electronics.
On the electronics, I worked to get the Victors, DC motors, H-bridges, and actuators all
functioning individually. I then worked on the Arduino code to get them working with the
microcontrollers, and once that was completed, worked on interfacing with joysticks and buttons.
I helped with the serial communication program between the two Arduinos for all motor and
actuator control. I got the wireless communication using XBees to work, and then proceeded to
help move all the electronics over to solder boards. I assisted in moving all the electronics to the
robot, and got it working in time for the senior design showcase. When the solder kept breaking
on the boards, I resoldered the wires numerous times, and eventually helped move most of the
electronics back to the breadboard in order to make the video. After getting the robot working
again in time for the Missileers dinner, I worked to dustproof the robot, perform testing for actual
use of the robot in the video, and record the video for submission.
In addition to the building and coding, I also helped the team at the Girl Scout outreach
event we held for the competition. For the systems engineering paper, I edited and contributed to
the document, and submitted it online.
I can honestly say that I am very proud of what we have accomplished and I am
extremely glad that I joined this team. After finals week/graduation is over, I will continue to
work on the robot to move the electronics to a more reliable wiring system for competition,
switch to wifi XBees, work with proximity sensors for the obstacle section of the competition,
and run the additional testing needed for the robot before the competition.
Rafiuddin
Arif
Ahmed
I was created all of the Pro/E drawings of the robot. This includes the placement of joints,
calculations for the gearbox, and machinability of all parts. I made all the machine drawings for
the mechanical components of the robot except for the bucket. I helped in coordinating the
overall machining of the robot. I was involved with the fabrication and assembly of the
mechanical components. I helped out with the community outreach event. I was involved in
troubleshooting the final stages of the electronics.

32. Jennifer
Mori
I started by creating a basic wiring diagram which Brittany improved later. The first
electronic system I worked on was the drive train controls with victors and CIM motors.
Because victors act like servos in how they are controlled by Pulse Width Modulation, I was able
to use a library for servos in the Arduino program. This system was controlled by the y-axis
potentiometers in a PC joystick, which Larry helped me to wire. I then mapped the analog in
readings from the joysticks to the analog write in the servo library which then controlled the
movement of the CIM motors.
Next I set up the h-bridges to control the linear actuators, with Brittany’s assistance, and
the programmed the Arduino to turn on the pairs of actuators together while a button was
pressed. I programmed the Arduino so that two smaller actuators are controlled by the pink
buttons while the larger ones are controlled by the blue buttons. I have a plan to create two
presets for the arm; one will set the arm to the starting position while the other will move it to the
dumping position.
The next step we took was to separate the controls from the robot’s system. To do this
we used serial communication between the Arduino Pro Mini and the Arduino Mega 2560. I had
no prior experience with serial communication, so a graduate student helped me to understand
the process I needed to go though to make the communication work. Once the controls were
successfully separated from the on-board electronics, we were able to replace the tether with
Arduino shields and XBEEs for wireless communication. It took patience, but Brittany and I
were successful in upgrading our Lunabot to run wirelessly.
Once we knew the systems worked as we had planned, we transferred the electronics to
solder boards. I worked on the board that holds the h-bridges while Brittany did the other one.
We also spend about an equal amount of time fixing the solder joints that broke and stripping
then crimping wires.