Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Robotic Mining of Astronomic Surfaces Megan Brown Hope Dormer [email protected] [email protected] Nick Eisele Orrin Kigner [email protected] [email protected]
Rachel Straub [email protected]
Abstract Inspired by the innovative practice of astronomical mining, the primary mission of the project was to design a robot capable of mining liquid methane from Saturn’s largest moon, Titan. Six robotic prototypes were built and tested to assess which could endure Titan’s harsh environment most successfully. The collected data was then analyzed to produce an optimal design. To finalize the design, research was conducted to survey which advanced features would best contribute to the robot’s performance.
1. Introduction Resources on Earth are diminishing as
the planet’s population grows. As a result, the proposal of extraterrestrial mining is appealing to engineers and scientists. The practice of mining astronomical surfaces has grown in popularity in recent years. Space contains an abundance of raw elements that are in short supply on Earth. Metals found in space are essential to the production of various luxury items including electronics, medical devices, and jewelry. Many extraterrestrial bodies also contain elements necessary for fuel.1
Organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),2 Deep Space Industries,3 and Planetary Resources1 are searching for alternate ways to secure critical resources, including extraterrestrial mining. NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission, which is set to
launch in 2019, will be one of the first asteroid harvesting missions. NASA plans to redirect a portion of a near-Earth asteroid into the moon’s orbit in order to isolate its precious metals.2 Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources emphasize that the future of mankind’s economy lies in asteroid mining. The companies expect space markets to emerge based on celestial resources.3 Various materials on asteroids, including water, hydrogen, oxygen, and precious metals, can either be brought back to Earth or used for further space exploration.
There are several factors that can inhibit robotic mining on astronomic surfaces. Extreme extraterrestrial conditions limit which surfaces are suitable for mining resources that are both commercially and industrially useful to humans.
An array of astronomical surfaces were researched in order to establish which are most suitable for mining. Additionally, various robots were built and modeled via computer aided design (CAD) software to determine which designs and features are most capable of withstanding extreme extraterrestrial conditions.
2. Decision Making Process
T he p roces s o f s e l ec t ing an astronomical surface began with compiling a list of twenty-three local planets, dwarf planets, moons, and asteroids originally selected based on relative size and general public awareness. Further research was then performed on the twenty-three surfaces,
resulting in a table comprised of the pros and cons of each astronomical body. After finalizing all preliminary research, a ranking system was devised and a decision matrix (Appendix A) was compiled. Five weighted categories were chosen: Environment, Resource S i gn i f i c ance , Backg round Knowledge, Travel, and Public Interest. The multiplicative weight of each category was determined in accordance with its importance to the overall mission.
The most heavily weighted category was “Environment” because it determined how easily each robot would be able to mine the body’s surface. The second most heavily w e i g h t e d c a t e g o r y w a s “ Re s o u r c e Significance,” which evaluated the demand and value of the body’s resources on Earth. The third most heavily weighted category was “Background Knowledge,” which took into account the current quantity of data available regarding each astronomic surface. In the fourth weighted category, “Travel,” the potential challenges encountered en route to the given body were analyzed, including fueling the rocket, targeting the body, and landing the robot safely. The least weighted category was “Public Interest,” in which the public’s general knowledge of the body was evaluated.
Once the categories were selected, each surface was ranked individually on a one-to-five scale over the five weighted categories. After this initial assessment, the top ten bodies were isolated and an augmented voting process was conducted on group members to decide which of the ten bodies would be the focus of this project. Titan ultimately won due to its methane lakes and high gravitational acceleration.4
Titan’s bountiful methane lakes were a paramount reason the surface was selected to mine. Titan’s methane cycle, which is analogous to Earth’s water cycle, occurs every few decades.5 Methane (CH4) is ideal for further space travel because new engine models are incorporating it as a fuel source.6
This hydrocarbon has proven to be an efficient fuel with a heat per mass unit ratio
of 55.7 kJ/g. Due to its weak intermolecular attractions, methane has a boiling point of -161.5° C and therefore exists naturally in a gaseous state on Earth; however, methane is sometimes cooled so that it can be stored in its liquid form, which is six-hundred times denser than its gaseous state, for easier transportation.7 8 Fortunately, methane is a nontoxic weak acid.9 It is highly unlikely that methane would corrode any materials on the robot.7
3. Existing Research 3.1 Titan’s Surface and Topology Titan’s atmosphere and distance from the sun keep its surface at a relatively consistent temperature of -178º Celsius. Compared to asteroids and other moons within our solar system, Titan has a fairly smooth surface due to the presence of its atmosphere.10 The consistency of the surface has been described as an external layer of crust with moist sand beneath.11 Titan’s relatively smooth surface is ideal for robotic mining because it allows for a less complex maneuverability system in the robot’s design.
4. Testing
4.1 Choosing the Robots After the extraterrestrial mining
surface was chosen, prototype robots were built to see which design aspects had the best chance of surviving the harsh conditions of space and Titan in particular. The robots tested were selected from a collection of online designs based on their varying movement systems. Ultimately, six predesigned robotic prototypes were chosen: R3ptar, Ev3rstorm, Spik3r, Gripp3r, Ev3meg, and Bobb3e (images in Appendix C). Each robot had unique elements to its design.
The first robot tested was R3ptar, an appealing option because of its flexible snake-like design. Ev3rstorm, the second robot built, was chosen because of its distinct humanoid ability to stand upright. Spik3r
resembled an insect and appeared to walk on six plastic legs; however, it was actually propelled by small wheels along the bottom. Gripp3r was an attractive design due to its triangular tread system and its large claw that protruded from the front of its base. Ev3meg was chosen because the robot moved via four large wheels. Bobb3e was chosen for its vertical lift mechanism, a feature no other design had.
4.2 Mobility Tests A series of tests were created to determine how efficiently each robot’s wheel system, resource collection mechanism, and overall design could function on various surfaces. Each robot, excluding the Bobb3e model, underwent three mobility tests: terrain s p e e d t e s t s , f l a t s p e e d t e s t s , a n d maneuverability tests. Bobb3e was not tested for mobility because it had a maneuverability system too similar to that of Ev3rstorm’s. The robots with effective carrying designs, Gripp3r and Bobb3e, underwent two resource collection tests as well. Each test was performed for three total trials per robot. The first test each robot faced was a terrain speed test on uneven soil that replicated the surface of Titan. Robots were timed as they traveled a pre-measured distance of five feet. Many robots experienced difficulty with the varied terrain, either tipping over or failing to move at all. Gripp3r, with its claw-like appendage closed, was the only robot to complete the terrain speed test without any errors. The second test was the flat speed test, which simply measured the time it took each robot to travel a pre-measured distance of five feet on a flat, linear path. The purpose of this test was to determine if there were any immediate issues regarding the robot’s balance or maneuvering skills. The last test each robot completed was the maneuverability test. This test required the robot to navigate around three cups, each placed 1.5 feet apart, as seen in Figure 4.2a. This test measured how long it took the robot to complete the course and the
resulting displacement of each cup. Gripp3r underwent the test twice, with its claw-like appendage both open and closed.
" Figure 4.2a: The robot model R3ptar’s maneuverability test
4.3 Resource Collection Tests Two robots, Gripp3r and Bobb3e, had the capacity to effectively hold materials; therefore, separate tests were created to examine this ability. These tests were designed to determine how the robots functioned while transporting resources. The robots were required to carry a plastic cup of lightweight packing peanuts, which represented a canister of liquid methane, through a maneuverability test (Figure 4.3a) and a terrain test.
" Figure 4.3a: The robot model Gripp3r completing the maneuverability resource collection test
5. Testing Results
5.1 Mobility Results Complete data for mobility tests can be found in Appendix A, and simplified, averaged data can be found in Appendix B.
5.1.1 R3ptar The R3ptar model was disadvantaged by its relatively thin wheels that were unable to function on uneven soil during the terrain surface speed test. This model also performed poorly on the flat surface speed test, as it could not travel linearly. However, it outperformed the other robots in the maneuverability test due to its ability to quickly change direction.
5.1.2 Ev3rstorm Although the Ev3rstorm model was able to move on terrain because of its treads, the robot had difficulty balancing due to its upright design that raised its center of gravity. Ev3rstorm handled the flat surface speed test without difficulty and navigated around the cups without error in the maneuverability test.
5.1.3 Spik3r The Spik3r model performed poorly during the terrain speed test, partly due to the fact that its legs only served aesthetic purposes and did not aid in propulsion. Spik3r performed well during the flat surface speed test, moving forward with no issues. However, its mobility was restricted during the maneuverability test because it could only turn clockwise when traveling backwards. Because of this, Spik3r completed the test slowly, significantly displacing the obstacles each time.
5.1.4 Gripp3r On the terrain speed test, the Gripp3r robot’s results were affected by the state of its claw-like appendage. When the appendage was in its open position, the robot had difficulty balancing itself, frequently tipping over. When the claw was in its closed position, Gripp3r’s center of mass shifted, and the
robot was able to hold itself upright all three trials. Gripp3r had a relatively fast speed on both the flat surface speed test and maneuverability test.
5.1.5 Ev3meg In both the terrain speed test and the flat surface speed test, Ev3meg had the fastest times primarily due to its large wheels. Ev3meg had the second fastest time during the maneuverability test and did not displace any cups.
5.2 Resource Collection Results
5.2.1 Gripp3r During the terrain resource collection tests, the Gripp3r robot tilted the cup toward its body, causing the peanuts to move backwards in the cup. This resulted in balance issues, shifting the center of mass away from the front of the robot. During its second trial, the Gripp3r model was unable to complete the course because it tipped over three times. However, Gripp3r’s claw did not noticeably affect its ability to maneuver around the obstacles, as no cups were displaced.
5.2.2 Bobb3e The Bobb3e model performed better in the maneuverability resource collection test when its lifting device was lowered rather than raised. Keeping the device lowered allowed the robot to guide the cup along the course rather than having to balance the cup within its lifting device. This method proved ineffective during the terrain resource collection test. The lifting device was unable to grip the cup and prevent spillage. Therefore, during the terrain testing, the lift was raised. The robot had difficulty balancing in its first attempt because of this parameter; nonetheless, the robot was able to complete the course.
6. Final Design
The various test results were analyzed
and compiled to produce a final conceptual design for the robot. The data collected demonstrates that large wheels are most suitable for maneuverability on Titan and a claw-like appendage is the optimal apparatus for resource collection. 6.1 Sensors Research A variety of sensors that each serves a unique purpose will be integrated into the robot. An atmospheric sensing package will be incorporated in order to provide the robot with awareness of Titan’s environment. This package includes tools that measure temperature, atmospheric pressure, and wind speed on Titan.12 An inertial measurement unit will also be included to assist the robot with maneuverability. This unit consists of an accelerometer, which measures acceleration, and a gyroscope, which measures the speed at which the spacecraft is turning.13 Additionally, star trackers will be utilized to permit the robot to determine its location through an image comparison technique. The robot will take a picture of the sky and compare the photo to a database of images with known locations.13 Two identification sensors will be included in the design to detect methane: a synthetic aperture radar and an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer. A synthetic aperture radar has the ability to discover liquids by sensing refraction. After the liquid is discovered, an X-ray f luorescence spectrometer will determine the liquid’s identity. It examines the substance’s composition by illuminating the unknown liquid with an X-ray that excites the atoms and thus causes photons to be emitted. The characteristics of these photons are analyzed to determine the identity of the unknown substance.14 If the substance is characterized as methane, the robot will then proceed to mine.
6.2 Materials Research Research was performed to determine which materials are typically used to construct
spacecraft. Further investigation was conducted to ensure the materials could withstand Titan’s environment. It was concluded that carbon fiber polymer, titanium, aluminum, and stainless steel are the most viable candidates for materials to construct the robot from. Carbon fiber polymer is strong and lightweight, ideal characteristics for spacecraft materials. Its nonreactive nature and ability to endure extreme temperatures make it a prime candidate to tolerate Titan’s conditions.15 Due to its durability and temperature endurance, carbon fiber polymers were used as the outer coating of space shuttles. Titanium is also a practical material because it is lightweight and chemically stable. Titanium is capable of withstanding extreme conditions, and was integrated into the Mars Rover. Aluminum is strong, lightweight, and thermally resistant. Stainless steel is strong and generally non-reactive, important qualities of spacecraft materials.16
6.3 CAD Testing Computer aided design (CAD) models, found in Appendix D, were generated for both the claw and wheel system with the software Inventor® to determine the durability of each material. The four selected materials were applied to the CAD models and underwent a Von Mises finite element stress analysis and displacement test under Titan’s gravitational acceleration and surface pressure. The stress analysis test showed the amount of force being exerted on all points of the designs. The displacement test revealed the changes in position experienced on each area of the designs when force was applied.
6.3.1 The Resource Collection Device Test The Gripp3r robot’s claw was more
stable during the tests when the claw was closed, and therefore it was decided the final robot would travel in a similar fashion. In order to simulate realistic tests on the CAD model of the claw, Titan’s gravity and surface pressure were integrated into the software. An external force of 100 N was applied to all
surfaces of the claw, which represented the force that a canister of methane could exert on it. Then, a Von Mises finite element stress analysis and displacement test were run for each material. The stress analysis test revealed that the weakest spot of the claw was always the site where the claw attached to the rest of the system. The displacement test revealed that the greatest deformation was always at the end of the claw, as demonstrated by Figure 6.3.1a. After testing, it was determined that carbon fiber polymer is the most suitable material for the claw.
" Figure 6.3.1a: Carbon fiber polymer’s claw displacement test
6.3.2 The Maneuverability System Test The wheel CAD tests were conducted in a similar fashion as the claw test. A CAD of the wheel system was generated and various materials were tested for both Von Mises finite element stress analysis and displacement values. The stress analysis test revealed that the weakest areas of the model were the locations at which the wheels attached to the rest of the system. The displacement test indicated that the area of maximum displacement was the front-center region of the system, as shown in Figure 6.3.2a. After testing, it was revealed that titanium is the optimal choice for the wheels.
" Figure 6.3.2a: Titanium’s wheel Von Mises test
6.4 Power Systems It is common practice for spacecraft to possess both a primary and several back-up power systems. The primary system would be a methane engine, which would vacuum methane for fuel. The secondary power system would rely on heat released during the radioactive decay of Plutonium-238. The tertiary method would use solar cells to power the robot; however, this method is not ideal because of Titan’s thick atmosphere and distance from the sun.
6.5 Methane Collection System A centrifugal pump has been selected as the methane collection device. The device vacuums methane by creating a pressure difference that causes the liquid to be suctioned into the pump.17
7. Future Goals Future tests can be performed to successfully complete the design of the entire robot instead of just the key components. Once the entire robot was completed, CAD tests could be performed to examine the durability of the entire robot. A rocket that carries the robot to Titan and a deploy system could also be designed. However, a time span greater than four weeks is necessary to complete all of these goals. Future projects should take into account the substantial amount of time necessary to research, build, design, and test the robots.
8. Conclusion The research conducted showed Saturn’s moon Titan is suitable for mining, primarily due to its methane pools and extensive background information. Regarding the robot design, large wheels without treads proved most effective on the terrain speed tests in comparison to smaller, thinner wheels and treads. The Gripp3r model’s claw-like appendage was chosen for the final robot because it demonstrated proficiency in resource collection. CAD testing proved the strongest materials for the wheels and claw are titanium and carbon fiber, respectively. After the various data sets were compiled, a robot was designed to effectively mine an astronomical surface, thus completing the original mission of the project. Although it has been demonstrated that mining astronomical bodies may be feasible in the near future, it is an endeavor that will require considerable planning.
Acknowledgments The authors would first like to extend their thanks and appreciation to Nicholas Ferraro, their mentor and Residential Teaching Associate, for his leadership and guidance as they explored an abstract topic. They further extend their gratitude to The Governor’s School of Engineering & Technology and its sponsors: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; Rutgers School of Engineering; the State of New Jersey; Silver Line Windows and Doors; Lockheed Martin; South Jersey Industries, Inc.; Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and NJ Resources. Furthermore, they thank Director Dr. Ilene Rosen and Associate Director Dean Jean Patrick Antoine for hosting the 2015 session of the Governor’s School of Engineering & Technology. Lastly, they thank their counselors and fellow scholars for providing a creative environment that invited the refinement of ideas and enrichment of engineering-related interests.
References
1. “Planetary Resources Home Page”, P l a n e t a r y Re s o u r c e s , 3 Ju l y 2 0 < h t t p : / /www.planetaryresources.com> (18 July 2015).
2. J. Wilson, “What is NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission”, NASA, 14 July 2015 , <ht tp ://www.nasa .g ov/content/what-is-nasa-s-asteroid-redirect-mission> (18 July 2015).
3. “Deep Space Industries Home Page”, Deep Space Industries, 14 July 2015, <http://deepspaceindustries.com> (18 July 2015).
4. “Solar System Exploration: Saturn: Moon: Titan”, NASA, 13 January 2015, <ht tp ://so la rsys tem.nasa .g ov/p l a n e t s / p r o f i l e . c f m ?Object=SAT_Titan&Display=OverviewLong> (18 July 2015).
5. K. Munsell, “Cassini Solstice Mission: About Saturn and Its Moons”, NASA JPL , 17 Ju l y 2015 , <ht tp ://s a t u r n . j p l . n a s a . g o v / s c i e n c e /index.cfm?SciencePageID=75> (18 July 2015).
6. “Methane Blast”, NASA, 1 July 2015, <http://science.nasa.gov/science-n e w s / s c i e n c e - a t - n a s a /2007/04may_methaneblast/> (18 July 2015).
7. “Methane”, PubChem, 16 April 2015, <http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/methane#section=Vapor-Density> (18 July 2015).
8. “What is LNG”, Shell Global, 16 May 2015, <http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/natural-gas/liquefied-natural-gas/what-is-lng.html> (18 July 2015).
9. F. Bordwell, “Equilibrium acidities in dimethyl sulfide solution,” Accounts
of Chemical Research 21 (12), 456 (1988).
10. “The moon Titan”, The Time Now, 15 J u l y 2 0 1 5 , < h t t p : / /www.thetimenow.com/astronomy/titan.php> (18 July 2015).
11. “Saturn’s Moon Titan Has Soft Surface With Thin Crust, ESA’s Huygens Probe Finds”, Huffington Post, 22 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2 , < h t t p : / /w w w. h u f f i n g t o n p o s t . c o m /2012/10/15/titan-saturns-moon-s o f t - s u r f a c e - c r u s t -huygens_n_1966516.html> (18 July 2015).
12. “Spacecraft Instrument Description Mission to Eliot”, 6 December 2014, <http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro11/eliot/instruments.html> (18 July 2015).
13. “Sensors”, NASA JPL, 6 April 2015, <ht tp ://mars.nasa .g ov/mro/mission/spacecraft/parts/gnc/sensors/> (18 July 2015).
14. J. Guthrie, “Overview of X-ray Fluorescence”, Archaeometr y Laboratory, 11 December 2014, < h t t p : / /a r ch a e o m e t r y. m i s s o u r i . e d u /xrf_overview.html> (18 July 2015).
15. “How carbon fiber is made”, How Products are Made, 24 April 2015, <ht tp ://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Carbon-Fiber.html> (18 July 2015).
16. T. Bell, “Metal on the Mars Rover Curiosity”, About Money, 6 April 2015, <http://metals.about.com/od/metalworking/a/Metals-On-The-Mars-Rover-Curiosity.htm> (18 July 2015).
17. “How a Pump Works”, Robinson’s Hardware, 6 December 2014, <http://www.robinsons1874.com/H o n d a / p u m p s /Honda_pumps_principles.html> (18 July 2015).
Appendix A: Data Tables
Astronomical Body Decision Matrix
Astronomical Body Environment
Resource Significance Background Travel
Public Interest ...
Multiplicative Weighting Factor 5 4 3 2 1 ...
Total Score Rank
Moon 5 4 5 5 1 67 1
Venus 1 1 5 4 2 34 11
Titan 3 4 4 3 4 53 3
Europa 3 3 4 3 5 50 4
Callisto 3 2 3 3 3 41 6
Io 1 2 4 3 4 35 9
Mimas 2 1 3 3 4 33 12
Tethys 2 1 3 3 3 32 15
Triton 1 2 4 3 4 35 9
Enceladus 3 1 2 3 2 33 12
Iapetus 3 1 2 3 2 33 12
Phobos 1 1 4 4 1 30 18
Deimos 1 1 3 4 1 27 21
Hyperion 1 1 2 1 1 18 23
Dione 1 1 1 3 1 19 22
Rhea 2 2 2 3 2 32 15
Ceres 4 1 4 2 2 42 5
Ganymede 5 3 4 3 4 59 2
Pluto 2 2 4 2 5 39 7
Eris 2 2 2 1 4 30 18
Haumea 1 4 1 1 5 31 17
Makemake 2 3 1 1 2 29 20
Asteroid 1 3 3 3 5 37 8
Mobility Tests
Robot Model
Flat Speed Test
Terrain Speed Test Maneuverability Test (weave around cups)
R3ptarTrial Time 1 6.6s 2 6.6s 3 6.8s Avg 6.7s
Trial Time Notes 1 0 Could not move 2 0 Could not move 3 0 Could not move Avg 0
Trial Time 1 8.0s 2 7.4s 3 7.1s Avg 7.5s
Ev3rstormTrial Time 1 6.2s 2 6.4s 3 5.9s Avg 6.2s
Trial Time Notes 1 19.8 Got stuck twice 2 24.5 Got stuck once 3 15.1 Got stuck once Avg 19.8s
Trial Time 1 13.3s 2 13.1s 3 14.8s Avg 13.7s
Spik3rTrial Time 1 7.5s 2 7.2s 3 7.3s Avg 7.3s
Trial Time Notes 1 0 Could not move 2 0 Could not move 3 0 Could not move Avg 0
Trial Time Notes 1 23.9s Knocked all 3 cups off table 2 52.1s Displaced 2nd cup 1 foot Displaced 3rd cup 1 inch 3 47.3s Displaced 1st and 2nd cup a lot Displaced 3rd cup 1 inch Avg 41.1s
Gripp3rTrial Time 1 6.8s 2 6.8s 3 6.9s Avg 6.8s
Open Claw Trial Time Notes 1 0 Fell at 2.5ft 2 6.8s 3 0 Fell at 2.5ft Avg 6.8s
Closed Claw Trial Time Notes 1 7.4s 2 7.6s 3 7.1s Avg 7.4s
Trial Time Notes 1 14.1s 2 10.7s Minimal displacement of cups 2 & 3 3 10.8s Avg 11.9s
Ev3megTrial Time 1 6.2s 2 5.1s 3 5.1s Avg 5.5s
Trial Time 1 5.6s 2 5.4s 3 5.9s Avg 5.6s
Trial Time 1 8.3s 2 9.5s 3 8.3s Avg 8.7s
Resource Collection Tests
Robot Model
Maneuverability Test (weave around cups while holding cup of packing peanuts)
Terrain Test (proceed in straight line while holding cup of packing peanuts)
Bobb3e Lifting Trial Time Notes 1 29.5s Lost 1 peanut Minimal displacement of cups 2 & 3 2 26.4s Lost 5 peanuts 3 25.4s Lost 1 peanut Minimal displacement of cups 1 & 3 Avg 27.1s Lost an avg of 3 peanuts
Pushing Trial Time Notes 1 19.8s 2 21.9s 3 20.7s Avg 20.8s
Lifting Trial Time Notes 1 0 Dropped cup and all packing peanuts 2 22.4s 3 18.8s Avg 20.6s
Pushing Trial Time Notes 1 0 Pushed over cup and all peanuts 2 0 Pushed over cup and all peanuts 3 0 Pushed over cup and all peanuts Avg 0
Gripp3rTrial Time 1 20.9s 2 18.0s 3 15.7s Avg 18.2s
Trial Time Notes 1 7.2s 2 0 Fell over three times 3 8.2s Avg 7.7s
Appendix B: Average Data Tables
Average Completion Time of Speed and Maneuverability Tests
Average Completion Time of Resource Collection Tests
Appendix C: Robot Model Images
"
Bobb3e
"
Ev3meg
Spik3r
"
Ev3rstorm
"
Gripp3r
"
R3ptar
Appendix D: CAD Files
"
Aluminum Claw
"
Aluminum Claw Displacement Test
"
Aluminum Claw Von Mises Stress Test
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Claw
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Claw Displacement Test
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Claw Von Mises Stress Test
"
Stainless Steel Claw
"
Stainless Steel Claw Displacement Test
"
Stainless Steel Claw Von Mises Stress Test
"
Titanium Claw
"
Titanium Claw Displacement Test
"
Titanium Claw Von Mises Stress Test
"
Aluminum Wheels
"
Aluminum Wheels Displacement Test
"
Aluminum Wheels Von Mises Stress Test
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Wheels
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Displacement Test
"
Carbon Fiber Polymer Von Mises Stress Test
"
Stainless Steel Wheels
"
Stainless Steel Wheels Displacement Test
"
Stainless Steel Wheels Von Mises Stress Test
"
Titanium Wheels
"
Titanium Wheels Displacement Test
"
Titanium Von Mises Stress Test
" Applied Forces on Wheels
"
Applied Forces on Claw
