High-Level Project Summary
The team’s goal is to design a reusable mechanical device that is small, lightweight, and reliable to create a low shock event when separating a reefing line. It should withstand around 4000N of launch load.It separates the two ends of a reefing line to expand the parachute using a spring system, air pressure, pistol, hollow tube, and latch. It has lower shock than existing techniques, non-pyrotechnic, and reusable; so it can be tested before lunch to ensure a safe descent of a spacecraft into the atmosphere. Two devices can be used on the same reefing line as a backup in case one of them fails to operate.
Link to Project "Demo"
Link to Final Project
Detailed Project Description
The device separates the two ends of a reefing line to allow the parachute to open fully in stages without producing high shocks or any explosions, and having an internal timer system to help with deployment. The device has 3 cylinders that are layered one inside the other. The outer cylinder is metallic and is attached to the parachute. The middle cylinder has 3 fins attached to its top with pivots. The fins are equidistant and hooked to the outer cylinder. The inner cylinder has a piston pushing against the fins. The force is supplied by the piston acting against the pressure of the compressed air in a chamber underneath. The compressed air chamber has a hole at its bottom with a pin that goes through the hole and has a spring on the outside of the chamber. The pin itself has a hole on it to let the air out of the compressed air chamber. Another spring is attached to the middle cylinder to push the pin in. A rod is placed between the pin and the spring keeping the system in equilibrium. Once the rod is removed, the pin will be pushed inside the air chamber, the air will move from the chamber inside the pin and then be released through the hole in the pin. The release of the air will free the spring and the piston; allowing the fins to pivot from the force applied to them. The pivots will let the fins move inward, releasing the interior device, which includes the middle of the inner cylinder, from the external cylinder. The reefing line is attached to the interior device; therefore it will be separated from the other end. The other end has the same device attached and both will be released simultaneously as a failsafe, causing the parachute to expand to its full diameter in several stages.
This device has a reusability advantage. In addition to the lack of explosions and high shocks.
Brainstorm & design a contraption to cut the reefing lines of a parachute-- without pyrotechnics! And the team hopes that the design could potentially spark ideas for engineers at NASA and to hopefully contribute a little to a very important aspect of sending/returning things from Outer Space!
The team used Inventor to draw a 3D model of the design.
Space Agency Data
Before the competition started, the team read through the provided documents on the Space Apps website to familiarize ourselves with the concept. Further studying of these documents yielded a general understanding of current systems and mechanisms and inspired us to think differently. The document helped with the understanding of parachute and reefing lines. That deep understanding helped with generating ideas
Hackathon Journey
The team considered many possible ideas that could be put into physical use. We applied knowledge of physics to an engineering aspect and consider the best solution to the problem of cutting a reefing line and letting go of a parachute. In terms of the software, the interface was user-friendly and provided sufficient details necessary to start our challenge.
The team has improved its collaboration skills, Learned what a reefing line is, current methods of separation during space flight, analytical/methodical thinking.
The team felt it was a challenging project to tackle; the way parachutes are designed and how they are released is complex itself; it is a significant engineering problem that needs refinement & bringing light to this issue can help generate more ideas for a better-rounded design. It was a real challenge that the engineers faced and the team wanted to help find solutions and give more ideas to the industry.
The team followed the engineering design process. Then, started brainstorming, generating, and eliminating many ideas. The best idea was chosen and the team kept working on developing and improving it until the final idea was generated.
Setbacks: understanding reefing lines and pre-existing devices as well as the short time frame that we decided to participate in this competition.
Challenges: brainstorming a design we could use that would work with other various environmental factors and fully comprehending the challenge (rockets, atmosphere, forces/tension/heat ..)
References
Craig, James R. “Development of the MC3133 Reefing Line Cutter.” Sandia Laboratories,https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5374211 Sept. 1977.
“Earth Landing.” NASA, https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM12_Earth_Landing_Subsystem_pp93-98.pdf. Accessed on 2 Oct, 2021.
Vincze, John. “Gemini Spacecraft Parachute Landing System.” NASA Technical Note, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19660020968/downloads/19660020968.pdf, July 1966.
Tags
#hardware, #reefinglines, #letitgo, #reefing, #parachutes, #springs, #Orion, #rockets, #recovery, #pilots, #innovative, #design, #engineering
Global Judging
This project has been submitted for consideration during the Judging process.