Proceedings of the Bennett Conference on Mechanical Engineering April 20, 2012, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

LANDING GEAR DESIGN AND STABILITY EVALUATION OF A LUNAR LANDER FOR SOFT LANDING

Ahmet Sahinoz Mechanical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 asahinoz@andrew.cmu.edu

ABSTRACT A stable soft landing is crucial for a lunar roving mission to maintain structural integrity of the lander to enable payload operation as well as rover egress. This research develops legs and evaluates energy absorption methods for an 800kg lander to maximize landing capabilities for various touchdown scenarios. Four telescoping legs with aluminum honeycomb cartridges are utilized for energy absorption to limit the g-force experienced by the spacecraft, where legs support the lander structure and provide clearance to avoid impact with rocks. Full scale landing on the moon is dynamically similar to 1/6 scale on Earth due to similar acceleration/gravity ratios. Drop tests with a 1/6 scale model are performed in a motion capture room to verify stability and required honeycomb stroke. A good correlation is achieved between simulations and experiments. The design provides a stable landing under the worst case scenarios that are based on previous lunar missions.

Fig 1: Scaled model with Astrobotic Griffin lander (mock up legs) and Red rover The vertical velocity of the lander will be reduced nearly to zero as a result of the deceleration provided by the main engine during descent. Hazard detection identifies obstacles larger than a threshold value, and finds a landing site. A horizontal velocity component may be present due to targeting or hazard avoidance. The main engine cuts off at a predetermined altitude in the order of a few meters to prevent instability due to surface effects. The touchdown occurs following a short free fall phase. The resulting kinetic energy has to be dissipated over a finite distance while providing sufficient clearance and a stable landing [4]. A bottom-up design and test approach is utilized, starting with the characterization of energy absorption materials, proceeding with leg design and stability simulation, and concluding with scaled drop experiments.

1 INTRODUCTION Planetary landers require compliant legs to touchdown undamaged in a stable position, ready for operation. The proper understanding of the mission requirements, reduced gravity forces, lander mass properties, worst case touchdown scenarios and the stowing space limitations of the launch vehicle are of great importance in order to design an optimal landing system. Challenges are to design for uncertain landing conditions and to perform tests on Earth to simulate lunar gravity. Landing gear must cope with the expected mass, velocity and orientation of the lander at touchdown, in the expected range of terrains, and doing so with minimal mass and a margin of safety. Uncertainties include the mechanical properties of regolith, slope of the surface and rock distribution.

2 BACKGROUND The main configuration types are legged and pod landers. Pod landers are not viable for the moon because there is no atmosphere. Griffin lander utilizes four legs due to the geometry and available connection points of the primary structure. Energy absorption approaches include spring-damper systems, airbags, and crushable materials. Any system including fluids or gases would need hermetic sealing at vacuum. In this project, crushable materials are considered due to their rigid (no spring-back), simple, efficient and cost effective nature. Closed cell materials such as synthetic foams cannot be used since the air must escape from the crush material during flight as the atmosphere density rapidly decreases. Aluminum honeycomb and aluminum foam are available open cell crush materials, where honeycomb is directional and foam is isotropic. Crush materials can be incorporated into the struts of the legs, under the footpads and/or the base of the lander. Force-stroke characteristics can be adjusted to specific needs by stacking crushable materials with different densities or cross sections.

Table 1: Surveyor landing conditions summary [2]

Apollo utilized a cantilever leg design with aluminum honeycomb cartridges in all three struts of each leg. The main strut has a compressive stroke only, whereas lower struts incorporate a tensile stroke because they can experience both types of loading. Due to space restrictions, legs have a folding mechanism and they are stowed during launch and flight, and deployed after separation from the launch vehicle [3]. The cantilever design creates a torque on the telescoping interface that increases friction force and the design loads significantly. The inverted tripod configuration eliminates the bending torque, minimizing the design loads by creating almost pure axial forces on all struts, but increasing the length of the lower struts compared to cantilever design. Apollo used cantilever design to achieve compactness when the legs are stowed, due to the space restrictions of the launch vehicle [5].

Fig 2: Honeycomb, aluminum foam and synthetic foam Surveyor landers used an inverted tripod leg design with shock absorbers, where honeycomb under the footpad would reduce the load if the foot lands on a rock, and the block under the base provided extra energy absorption capability in case the shock absorber reaches its limit. The landed mass of Surveyor landers was about 300kg.

Fig 4: Apollo landing gear and main strut design Materials used in the design of landing structure are usually high grades of aluminum such as 6061-T6 and 7075-T6, or aluminum/titanium alloys. Although carbon fiber composite structures are available, the brittle nature of these structures may not be well suited for an application that requires compensation for uncertainty, possibly with plastic deformation. In addition, due to extreme temperature conditions, the difference between the thermal expansion coefficients of composite and metallic structures would have to be addressed.

Fig 3: Surveyor landing gear design (one of three legs) Deformation of the soil is an important aspect for footpad design. Size of the footpad and the bearing strength of the regolith determine the penetration distance. Surveyor had a 30cm footpad and penetrated 2 to 10cm with 1 to 4m/s vertical velocity. Landing conditions are listed in Table 1 [1, 2].

3 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The design problem is defined by the specific requirements for the mission, including lander properties and lunar conditions. Landed mass of the spacecraft is in the range of 650-850kg depending on the fuel leftover and payloads. The vertical acceleration limit of the structure is defined to be 10gs for Earth gravity (9.8m/s2). No strict limitation is put on the horizontal component. Dynamic envelope of the launch vehicle (Falcon 9) is 4.6 meters in diameter, which means the legs must be contained within this circle. The hazard avoidance system can detect rocks larger than 25cm with some error, so the minimum clearance required is selected to be 30cm. Therefore, the bottom of the lander is required to stand at least 30cm higher than the ground after the landing. Slopes that are larger than 10deg can be detected, so the lander may have a 10deg angle with respect to the ground during touchdown. Angular velocity is assumed to be negligible. Although nominal landing velocities are 2m/s vertical with zero horizontal component, to be conservative, the worst case scenarios are selected as 4m/s vertical with 1m/s horizontal velocity, considering Surveyor landings as a reference. Target mass for one leg is 5kg with a safety factor of 2 [6].

bottom ring. Rectangular plates near the bottom ring between the bulkheads alleviate stress concentration at the vertices where bulkheads are touching the lower cone. They also provide potential connection points for legs. Lunar gravity is 1.63m/s2, 1/6 of Earth. Temperature has a wide range from -100 to 120oC depending on the day time and the region. The effect of temperature is neglected in this study. Soil bearing strength increases with depth, starting from 0.2N/cm2 at 1-2mm and reaching 5.5N/cm2 about 5cm. Friction coefficient is reported being in the range of 0.3-0.7 [2, 3]. 4 LANDING GEAR Landing gear design concepts are evaluated starting from the simplest configuration and proceeding to more complex designs. Integrating crush material under the body is not feasible because the bottom ring is not wide enough to provide a stable landing. The simplest form of landing gear would be four rigid legs with crush material under the footpads. The novelty of this design is simplicity, strength and rigidity. Welded connections between the struts and the footpad eliminate the mass of any type of connectors and/or hinges.

Fig 6: Rigid leg with crush pad design Up strut is bolted to the lander via a welded plate at the tip. Lower struts from two different legs share a triangular bracket that is welded to them, and the bracket is bolted to the rectangular plates. 10g acceleration requirement for a 650kg lander results in an approximate total maximum force of 64kN, 16kN for each leg. The energy that needs to be absorbed is equal to the kinetic energy of an 850kg (upper limit) lander with 4m/s velocity, and the absorbed energy is equal to the integral of force-displacement curve of the crush material. Assuming constant force is applied during the crush, for an ideal vertical landing parallel to the ground, the stroke required to absorb the energy would be 10cm. The up strut is designed to be connected to the edge of the deck, coming straight down to the footpad, while lower struts connect to the rectangular plates. Thus, the base width is equal to 3.5m, the diagonal across the deck. The up strut transfers the 3

Fig 5: Lander primary structure (from above and below) The primary structure of the lander consists of a deck (3x3 meters), upper cone, lower cone and bulkheads illustrated in gold. A rover sits on top of the upper cone; fuel tanks are located within four holes on the deck; weight of the tanks is transferred to the bottom ring through bulkheads, and the lander is connected to the launch vehicle with a clamp band from the

vertical force from the deck to the honeycomb where lower struts provide stiffness in the lateral plane. Each footpad is located 30cm below the bottom ring, providing the required clearance. The material used in design is AL 6061-T6 due to availability. Legs are analyzed in Solidworks for static yield and buckling.

force, honeycomb with crush strength of 15psi (~0.1MPa) must be used. This is one of the lowest crush strength honeycombs available in the market. It is inefficient to use low strength honeycomb because the specific energy absorption (energy/mass) increases with crush strength [9]. This design is also sensitive to the rock distribution. If the footpad lands on a 20cm rock, the engaged cross-section is smaller, and loss of absorption capacity will be more than 50%. These uncertainties increase the required stroke from 10cm up to 25cm. There are two potential issues if the footpad diameter is decreased to use a higher strength material for efficiency. First, increased penetration into the soil cuts from the clearance. Second, as the honeycomb gets taller in height and smaller in diameter, it becomes prone to breaking off from the footpad. The achieved mass for one leg was 4.5kg with the crush angle limited to 20deg which is combination of the orientation and the angle of the velocity vector.

Fig 7: Solidworks static, buckling, modal analysis results There are two options for materials, aluminum foam and aluminum honeycomb. Detailed characteristics of these materials and formulations are illustrated in [7, 8, 10]. Aluminum honeycomb is a directional lightweight energy absorption material which provides constant force during the stroke. It can compact as much as 70-80% of its original length. Since the force is constant, the absorbed energy is equal to the crush force times the stroke. The major disadvantage of honeycomb is the drastic loss of strength with increasing crush angle. When incorporated under the footpad, the energy absorbed heavily depends on the horizontal velocity, and the orientation of the lander which determine the crush angle. The advantage of aluminum foam is its isotropic structure, but the energy absorption efficiency is much less than honeycomb which makes the foam significantly heavier [10, 11].

Fig 9: Illustration of lander parameters vx (horizontal velocity), vy (vertical velocity), planar landing scenarios (2-2 and 1-2-1), center of mass height (h), base width (b), stability triangle (), and sample velocity vectors v1 and v2 The higher the ratio between the base width of the landing gear and the height of the center of mass, the more stable the lander is against toppling over in the presence of horizontal velocity and orientation errors. The additional honeycomb height due to uncertain conditions increase the height and decreases stability, which will also lead to a higher stance after the landing, requiring the ramps to be longer to provide a safe rover egress angle. For the rigid leg design, a rough stability criterion is defined to give a baseline. The worst case is the pads getting stuck to the soil. Defining the origin of the velocity vector as the center of mass, if the vector lies within the stability triangle illustrated in Fig 9 as v2, the landing is stable. If the vector is aligned with the side of the stability triangle, the vehicle is critically stable. If it is above the triangle (v1), the tailing leg would lift from the ground. The energy required to reach tip over angle is calculated from the resulting increase in center of mass height due to the motion. If the energy from

Fig 8: Honeycomb strength vs. crush angle [7] Considering the bearing strength of the soil, diameter of the footpad is chosen to be 45cm. In order to achieve 16kN of crush 4

horizontal velocity is larger than this value, the landing might be unstable. Assumptions include infinite friction and no rotational energy absorbed by crush pads which is not realistic. But since the crush of honeycomb depends on the angle, the system cannot be evaluated in a realistic way with a simple model. Issues such as the inefficiency of low strength honeycomb, high sensitivity to landing conditions and footpad diameter being tied to the crush force, led to the exploration of other design options. A telescoping leg design with honeycomb insert in the main strut is an option that enables the use of high strength efficient honeycomb. It also constrains the honeycomb to be crushed along its main axis, eliminating all the variables that affect the crush angle. The mechanical difference of this configuration from the rigid leg is introduction of moving parts. The main strut consists of two parts sliding in each other, has pin joints at the top and bottom, with a bushing and a honeycomb insert incorporated inside the upper part. The material for the bushing is plastic and the structure is AL 6061-T6. For the lower struts to rotate about the same axis, pin joints with a 15deg bend are utilized, and they are connected to the rectangular plates on the lander. Lower struts are welded to the footpad. All connections at the strut ends are plugs, and these are designed to be bonded to the struts with space approved adhesives. Fig 11: Footpad, lower strut hinge connection, main strut honeycomb integration and cross section sketch Center part of the footpad is thicker to keep three struts connected to each other while the rest of it deforms. The top section of the footpad is a dome, providing remarkable strength with the same mass compared to a flat surface. A high strength honeycomb is placed under the dome and a thin sheet of aluminum is bonded at the bottom of the honeycomb to minimize penetration and friction. The honeycomb stays intact if the landing is on regolith, but partially deforms if there are rocks on the contact surface, creating a deformable structure.

Fig 12: Footpad cross sections (w/o honeycomb) Kinematic analysis is performed to determine the required honeycomb stroke and crush force to produce a vertical resultant force of 16kN and a displacement of 10cm for each footpad. The stroke is only related to the leg geometry. But the crush force is also dependent on the friction coefficient because as the honeycomb crushes, legs move outward and this creates a horizontal force, a resistance to the outward movement. The acceleration experiences by the lander increases with friction. Honeycomb should provide sufficient energy absorption at the minimum friction expected and the acceleration should be kept below 10g at the maximum expected friction. The inside diameter of the main strut is set to be 63.5mm which provides the desired forces with 750psi honeycomb, one of the highest strength values available. It is 5 times more efficient than using a low strength honeycomb under the footpad. This telescoping leg configuration enables the footpad design to be independent from the energy absorption design, and the system is less sensitive to the uncertainties. Assuming that the lower struts provide sufficient stiffness in the lateral plane, the main strut is under pure axial loading. The connection of the main strut to deck is shifted towards the tank to because when the deck is loaded at the edge, it acts as a cantilever beam starting from where the bulkhead ends. Thickness of the strut is reduced to

Fig 10: Telescoping leg design (transparent main struts) Previous missions either used crush materials inside, or load limiters at the ends of the lower struts to limit horizontal accelerations. The footpad is designed to be deformable in order to absorb impact if excessive side loadings are present, for example hitting a rock while sliding on the ground.

0.6mm since the welding consideration does not exist, and the overall design is optimized to 4.5kg with a safety factor of 2. 6 STABILITY Tip-over stability and honeycomb stroke are investigated for telescoping legs in a motion simulation program, Working Model 2D. The honeycomb crush depending on the crush angle could not be simulated, but honeycomb inside the strut is modeled utilizing a constant force spring which displaces under compression and doesnt extend. Two separate models are created to simulate 2-2 and 1-2-1 scenarios, as shown in Fig 13.

Fig 13: Working Model 2D simulations (2-2 and 1-2-1) The structure is rigid and the ground is an anchored block with adjustable slope and position. Leg geometry is the same as the lander. Mass, center of mass and rotational inertia of the block are defined. The trick to imitate the behavior of honeycomb is the combination of spring, rope and rod elements that are available in the program with the right activation conditions. The spring provides constant force during flight where the rope holds the leg in place under tension. As long as a leg hits the ground, spring is decompressed by some amount, but it should stop acting as a spring as soon as the crush is over to prevent bouncing. To do that, a rod element overrides the spring at the instant when the length of the spring is below its initial length and the velocity crosses zero and enters into the extension region. The limit is tuned to be 0.05m/s because setting it very close to zero causes chattering due to numerical 6

errors. Rods are coincident with the springs, and the ropes are connected to the body for 2-2 and to the deck for 1-2-1. Variables including the slope, initial velocity of the lander, mass, inertia, friction coefficient and the spring force can be altered. In 2-2 configuration, the springs provide 32kN force as they are the combination of two legs. The middle leg of 1-2-1 is also modeled with a 32kN spring, and ropes are placed in a way that resembles struts. Single legs have 16kN springs. Run time of each simulation is about 10 seconds at 1000Hz and 0.001m accuracy. In the simulation environment, linear and rotational position, velocity and acceleration of each element, normal and friction forces acting at the contacts, and reaction forces at pin joints can be measured and recorded. These values can be exported to a file which can be imported into Matlab for post processing. The simulations provided valuable insight on the kinematics and dynamics of the problem. The lander is proven to be stable in the worst case conditions, and it is shown that the honeycomb strokes are sufficient, but physical testing is required to validate the results. A full scale test is the most realistic option but it requires extensive use of resources. Creating a scaled drop test platform is representative and viable. An Apollo era study proved that the free body drop tests of a 1/6 scale model on Earth produces dynamically similar results with a full scale landing on the moon. This similarity is achieved by adjusting the results from the experiments with scaling factors (Appendix A). The reason behind the perfect match of the results is the similarity of acceleration/gravity ratios of each scenario [12]. Drop tests with a 1/6 scale model of the lander is a feasible method to validate simulation results. The parameters that must be considered are leg geometry, total mass, center of mass height and rotational inertia. The inner diameter of the scaled main strut is equal to 12.7mm in which the crush material must be inserted. For this purpose, samples from three different materials are prepared and crushed with an Instron compression tester to obtain the force-displacement curves. A total number of 9 samples, three from each material are tested for statistical significance.

Fig 14: Instron tester and crush samples

Materials are 360psi and 690psi aluminum honeycomb from Plascore, and 215psi Rohacell foam. Honeycomb samples have a small number of unit cells, 7 cells for 690psi and 3 cells for 360psi. The foam is tested to use it as a backup plan if the honeycomb samples crush inconsistently. Samples are inserted in a piston and the speed of the tester was set to 20mm/min. Test results showed that the 360psi samples crushed with an average constant force of 325N (400N expected) and the 690psi samples crushed with 650N (700N expected), both by 70% of their initial length (31.75mm) before the force increases rapidly. Foam crushed with an average force of 185N (240N expected) with a 60% stroke. Other plots are located in Appendix B.

stroke is 45mm. The top part of the main strut is threaded onto the clevis plug for quick honeycomb reload.

Fig 17: Scaled lander leg parts and assembly Preliminary drop tests are done with springs, foam and honeycomb. After the telescoping legs are proven to be strong enough and the crush material is sufficient for energy absorption, a counterweight is designed and positioned to achieve desired mass properties.

Fig 15: Force-displacement plots of pre-crushed samples The time frame of the landing is about 10ms for the scaled drop with 690psi honeycomb cartridges that are equivalent to 10g on the full scale lander. To extend the time period of crush for the purpose of having more data points with a finite resolution measurement method, 360psi honeycomb is chosen which would create about 5gs on the full scale lander.

Fig 16: Scaled lander sketch and Solidworks model The scaled lander is designed to satisfy the desired mass property values within 20% error. Legs and the body are made of aluminum with bronze bushings and plastic footpads. The body is a 275x275mm square which corresponds to the height of the deck. Center of mass should be located 2cm above the top surface of the body. The lower struts are solid rods that are bolted to the footpad. The maximum available honeycomb 7 Fig 18: Scaled lander (first version) with real lander Desired mass properties of the scaled lander are calculated with the scaling factors presented evaluated in Solidworks. Large diameter holes are drilled to the body of the lander to achieve desired inertia values with a total mass which falls between 3-4kg that corresponds to a 650-850kg landing mass.

There are venting holes at the top of the main strut plug which lets the air escape to minimize the force increase due to viscous damping. After the counterweight is mounted, the total mass is measured. The final form of the prototype is 4kg. Other properties are evaluated only in Solidworks.

Fig 21: Drop rig with the scaled lander attached The experiments are conducted in CMUs Motion Capture Room, equipped with 15 high speed infrared cameras distributed around the room that can track coordinates of the markers on the lander at 480fps with 0.1mm resolution. Cameras can be seen in Fig 22 as blue light emitting objects. The shiny surfaces of the lander are covered with a blue tape to eliminate reflections. Bolt heads are also covered to prevent errors because the system is trained to detect spherical surfaces.

Fig 19: Scaled lander final version (w/o holes on prototype) The drop rig consists of a stand with an adjustable height, and a four bar mechanism with pitch adjustment to give an initial angle and a horizontal velocity to the lander while keeping the orientation the same throughout the swing. An electromagnet with a switch is attached to the four bar swing as a quick release to drop the lander.

Fig 22: CMU Motion Capture Room (MOCAP) Friction coefficient on the ground is measured by dragging the lander with a spring scale. It is 0.5 on the ground and 0.3 on plywood. The floor of the lab is plastic and has compliance. Structural elasticity is present, different from the simulation. 8

Fig 20: Four bar illustration

9 markers are placed on the lander: 4 on each footpad, 4 at the corners of the body and 1 on the counterweight in an asymmetric position. Legs on the lander are named on the blue tape from I to IV in a clockwise order.

The markers on the footpads are used to determine the contact instant since they instantly stop when they hit the ground. Markers on the body is utilized to extract the height, velocity and acceleration of each corner, and to calculate the center of mass accelerations by taking the average. Although the center of mass is located 2cm above the surface of the body, this method provides very close results and is sufficient. The marker on the counterweight is used to identify the orientation of the lander, and it can be used to calculate accelerations around the rover if desired.

Fig 23: Marker locations (note the asymmetry on top) Honeycomb cartridges are pre-crushed to a desired length in order to eliminate the peak load (Appendix B) and achieve a tight fit. They are inserted into the main struts and the strut is threaded onto the clevis plug which can be seen in Fig 24 as a part sticking out diagonally from the corner of the deck. Fig 25: Leg view, crushed honeycomb samples, a marker Pitch angle is calculated from two markers on the body using the height difference and the known distance, between the footpads (different for 2-2 and 1-2-1 orientations). Angular velocity and acceleration are derived from the pitch angle with a finite difference method. Presence of roll and yaw angles due to the imperfect structure of the drop mechanism are neglected in all calculations for practical purposes. A total number of 10 landing scenarios with different configurations, velocities and pitch angles are tested. Pitch angles are disturbed at release due to the imperfection of the swing mechanism. The predetermined angles are different than real values. Thus, experiment results are generated, and pitch angle and velocities are imitated in the simulations to compare the results. Scenarios listed in the table below show the actual touchdown conditions of five selected experiments. Table 2: Landing conditions achieved in experiments

Fig 24: Honeycomb reloading into the main strut Honeycomb inserts are crushed with variable heights as can be seen in Fig 25, depending on the landing configuration (2-2 or 1-2-1), velocity and orientation. A few of the cartridges crushed significantly less than the expected value during the experiments. The presumed reason is the lack of pre-crush.

Fig 26: Result comparison for Landing 5 The time scale of the experiment is multiplied by 6, the linear accelerations and the angular velocity are divided by 6, and the angular acceleration is divided by 36 due to scaling factors in order to correlate with the full scale simulation results. Results are plotted, the continuous line being the experiment where the discrete line shows the simulation results. The comparison of simulations results to the drop test for Landing 5 is illustrated above. Comparison values include pitch angle (deg), angular velocity (deg/s), angular acceleration (deg/s2); horizontal velocity (m/s) and acceleration (m/s2); vertical velocity (m/s) and acceleration (m/s2). The acceleration values are lightly filtered in MATLAB to reduce cripples. A full list of drop experiment landing conditions and the results of other selected scenarios are in Appendix A. 7 CONCLUSION Two landing gear configurations are designed, analyzed and evaluated. Telescoping legs are preferred to rigid legs due to energy absorption efficiency and robustness against uncertain landing conditions. Stability of the landing is investigated by a 2D motion simulation. The lander is stable and the honeycomb strokes are sufficient in worst case conditions. A scaled model of the lander is prototyped and drop tests are conducted with various landing conditions to verify the simulation results. Pitching motions, center of mass velocities and accelerations were in good agreement. The scaled prototype adequately reproduces 2D landing dynamics and it is suitable for detailed studies. Future work includes scaled drops on a lunar simulant with high velocities to determine the bounds of stability. The effect of structural elasticity could also be investigated. Manufacturing full scale legs and performing drop tests with the real lander would verify the structural integrity of the landing gear. 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Red Whittaker, Uriel Eisen, Justin Macey, Steve Huber, Kevin Peterson, Jason Calaiaro, William Pingitore, Jason Hallack, Eric Benson, Kevin Fulton and Katy McKeough for their support. REFERENCES [1] A. Ball, J. Garry, R. Lorenz and V. Kerzhanovich, 2007, Planetary Landers and Entry Probes, Part I, Chap. 7. [2] NASA, Surveyor Program Results, pp. 141-163 [3] Bryan, C., Strasburger, W., Lunar Module Structures Handout IM-5, NASA LSG 770-154-10, May 1969 [4]Buchwald, R., Witte, L., Schroder, S., Verification of Landing System Touchdown Dynamics, IAC-11.A.3.1.3, 2011 [5] Rogers, W.F., Apollo Experience Report - Lunar Module Landing Gear Subsystem, NASA TN D-6850, June 1972 [6] Astrobotic Technology, System Definition Review, 2010 [7] Hexcel, HexWeb Honeycomb Energy Absorption Systems Design Data, March 2005 [8] Hexcel, Honeycomb Attributes and Properties, 1999 [9] Plascore, 2012, Crushlite Lightweight Energy Absorption, http://www.plascore.com/pdf/Plascore_CrushLite.pdf [10] ERG Aerospace, Duocel Foam Energy Absorption, http://www.ergaerospace.com/Energy-Absorbtion.html [11] Chu, B., Jetson, O., Parkhurst, N., Crash Absorption Structure for Formula Ford, Use of ROHACELL in Motosport Crash Worthiness [12] Blanchard, U., Evaluation of a Full-Scale Lunar-Gravity Simulator by Comparison of Landing-Impact Tests of a FullScale and a1/6-Scale Model, NASA TN D-4474, June 1968

APPENDIX A: SCALED DROP EXPERIMENT Table 3: Scaling factors [2]

= Geometric model scale, = Gravitational ratio

Table 4: Lander parameters (1/6 scale model, corresponding full scale, real lander values)

11

Table 5: Landing scenarios of all drop tests (pitch angle is affected by drop rig)

Test Results

- Accelerations are filtered; this enables the reader to see clear output, but decreases correlation at peak points - Flat tests do not show correlation at angular and horizontal plots (on the left hand side) due to low signal/noise ratio - Oscillations occur in real experiment due to compliance of ground and structure, simulations are rigid - Position and height are shown as a reference, not compared with simulation

Fig 27: Landing 1 (Flat, = 0.5, Vx = 0, Vy = 3.3m/s)

12

Fig 28: Landing 2 (Flat, = 0.3, Vx = 0, Vy = 3.3m/s)

Fig 29: Landing 3 (Configuration: 2-2, Pitch = 7.5deg, = 0.5, Vx = 0, Vy = 3.25m/s)

13

Fig 30: Landing 4 (Configuration: 1-2-1, Pitch = 7.5deg, = 0.5, Vx = 0, Vy = 3.25m/s)

Fig 31: Landing 5 (Configuration: 2-2, Pitch = 11deg, = 0.5, Vx = 0.4, Vy = 3.25m/s)

14

APPENDIX B: CRUSH MATERIALS

Fig 32: Representative aluminum honeycomb behavior [9]

Fig 33: Representative aluminum foam behavior [10]

15

In-strut Crush Test Results

Initial length: 31.5mm

Units: Force (N), Displacement (mm)

16

17