CDR

On March 30^th some of our team got the privilege of meeting with Jim Jaax.  He is a former NASA engineer, K-State alumni, and a 2012 College of Engineering Hall of Fame recipient. Since he was on campus for the occasion, we had a chance to meet with him. He actually worked some of his career at JSC (where we are installing our reconfigurable habitat) and knew exactly of all the buildings we discussed.

He worked on the X-38 for NASA, which was a prototype of a wingless crew return vehicle from the ISS.  The vehicle got as far as parachute guided drop tests until budget cuts caused the project to be stopped.  What really struck home with us was how highly Mr. Jaax spoke of the Senior Design program we are currently going through.  He thought his X-38 project was comparable to our reconfigurable habitat project because of the group dynamics. The class depends so heavily on team work, and he really felt that was applicable to his work, and to our future careers.  Mr. Jaax was friendly and insightful, and we certainly benefited from talking with him.

Dr. Lease, Aaron, Mr. Jaax, Chris, and Adam.

As far as the project goes, we presented our Critical Design Review (CDR) on May 4^th.  The CDR follows a comparable format to the PDR, but the similarities end there.  The CDR is a final presentation, and is supposed to be the last review of the project ideas.  This was a chance for NASA to give us either a final yes or no for building and construction. Meaning, of course, that the design had to be fully detailed and explained.  On May 4^th we presented to Christie, who traveled to K-State’s campus for the occasion, and to other various contacts via conference call.

Let’s start with out design changes. 

 As seen above, our wall section assemblies have retained similar design traits.  We’ve decided to supply an “H” shape of internal mounting, instead of 3 panels. The wall also lost its depth and the poles/collars of the previous design. The cylindrical shape of the Flight Deck as a whole will be created by attaching these wall sections to each other at various angles. In the vertical configuration, this will be done using continuous hinges, as seen below.

In this way, the angle between the wall sections, and therefore the overall diameter of the cylinder, can be changed easily. The angles are locked using locking bars, back supports, and cross bracing. Both the minimum and maximum vertical assemblies are also shown below, in addition to a conceptual image.

 In the horizontal configuration, the wall sections will be attached to each other using brackets.

Since the horizontal configuration only needs to be one size, the brackets work to keep the only necessary angle locked. In addition, the locking bars and back supports are still used for additional structure.   The horizontal configuration is shown below, in addition to a conceptual image.

In the CDR we also researched and analyzed factors of safety for a number of different scenarios that were extremes in loading based on our requirements.  All these factors of safety were above the necessary 3 for yield and 4 for ultimate.  We also researched the purchasing and manufacturing of materials from a variety of vendors, and after making our choices found we were (barely) under budget.

 

The senior design team with Christie outside of Rathbone Hall.

The results: NASA gave us the go ahead to build!  We have purchased all of our materials and our manufacturer should be finished in the next couple of weeks.  We are building a trial run of our reconfigurable habitat when school starts this fall, and going down to Houston in September for installation.  In the meantime, we are working on an installation guide, and amassing any other documentation we need for materials and assembly.  All to come next post!