ME 490 009 Robotics

Manatee Mining Systems

Lunar Regolith Excavation Competition 2011

Alternative Solution Study

Members:
Rafael Arndt

Jonathan Block

Zach Griffa

Mike Riley

David Swanson

Mike Varga

Ryan Waldmann

Eugen Zinn
 Objective

Explore possible solutions to the design problems. Analysis will be done on the system through
examination of the sub-systems. Possible solutions will be compiled into a morphological chart and then
evaluated through a decision matrix.

Overview

The system has several important functions that it must perform:

 Mobility
 Excavation
 Input/Output of regolith into the hopper
 Communications
 Sensing (hopper, part, and robot positions)

Before filling out the matrix for different systems, looking at some of the ideas on the morphological
chart, they can be eliminated based solely on feasibility. For movement, the rockets, wheels. and snake
design will be too expensive/unreasonable to work, and the wheels have proven to perform poorly in
the past. Even though the track system was decided upon, analysis for the spider system will be
considered. For excavation, the front end loader has proven to be ineffective in the past. For the
communications and sensing, all of the systems will pass the matrix, with the laser mapping equipment
being on the heavier side. For the hopper, the hammer, vibrations, and rotating shaft are all relatively
the same size and effectiveness, so they won’t be evaluated with the matrix either.

Design Spec 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible
/ Applicable
Weight
Mobility
Space Capable
Excavation
Collection
Dumping
Past
Knowledge
Table 1 Decision Matrix
 Mobility, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible
Spider / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge

Excavation, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Brushes / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge

Excavation, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Rotating Disc / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past x
Knowledge

Excavation, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Screw Drive / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past x
Knowledge
 Excavation, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible
Auger / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation x
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge

Hopper, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Conveyor / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge

Hopper, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Dump / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge

Hopper, 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

Buckets / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge
Figure 1: Concept 1 drawing consisting of a bucket style conveyor and a drop-out bottom style hopper system.

Concept 1 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

 / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge
Table 2: Decision Matrix of Concept 1

This design builds on last year’s design in that it utilizes the same track system and bucket style
excavator system. The main difference will be in the hopper design. The hopper will remain at a fixed
height. This allows for a stronger support system, and less calculations to perform on the excavator
system since the two systems will not be related. Having a drop-out bottom hopper will minimize the
dynamic forces on the structure during unloading as well.

Figure 2 Concept 2

Concept 2 5 – Exceptional 4 – Very Good 3 - Effective 2 - Lacking 1 - Poor 0 – Not Feasible

 / Applicable
Weight X
Mobility X
Space Capable X
Excavation X
Collection X
Dumping X
Past X
Knowledge
Table 3: Decision Matrix of Concept 2

This design uses one of the only other feasible methods of mobility, a spider-leg style walker.
For excavation it will use a brush system to sweep the material onto a conveyor which will take it up to
the hopper. To empty the regolith, the hopper it will rotate and dump the material. Once again the
hopper will be at a height of ~1 meter so it won’t need to be raised and use extra energy. This design
isn’t very good, however, because the legs will experience more strain once the hopper has a full load,
which may lead to issues with mobility.

Conclusion

Concept 1 is the best of the two designs, and is close to what was used last year, and will be
used this year. The hopper still needs to be finalized, but the track system and bucket conveyor will be
used for certain.