These past two weeks have been very hectic in team ARC. We had our peer reviewed PDR presentation on Tuesday 10/7 and got some very valuable feedback from professors on our preliminary design. We also made a new block diagram to show our preliminary design in a more friendly way.
There are a few changes in this design compared to the previous block diagrams we have made. Firstly, the introduction of some new electronics. In the red is the Fiber Bragg grating system which is a complex temperature sensing system that can provide an accurate temperature field measurement. This temperature field will be used to determine when the flaps on the back would actuate and open up. Another new piece is the pink blocks. These blocks are a dampening system meant to protect the electronics during launch, orbit, and the beginning stages of re-entry to allow for all of the flaps to actuate before they demise. Additionally, its not a new electronics piece, but we re-designed the flaps to open past the end of the body to better influence the center of pressure whilst also being more friendly to design around.
We also narrowed down the electronic selection for the PDR and made a block diagram showing how distribution of power and control signals. This decisions are preliminary so we have some beginning power calculation, so parts may change in the future.
The next step for our team is our actual preliminary design report presentation at Honeywell Aerospace in Clearwater. This is in a few short days so the team is staying busy!
Hey folks! We’re almost there with our Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and wanted to give you a quick, behind‑the‑scenes look at what we’ve been chewing on this week.
We’re talking P‑frust (a new way to say “pyramidal frustum”)
Why the shape? Think of a pyramid with a short top. That gives us surface area to play with while keeping the center of mass stable. Plus, it’s a good canvas for our “flaps” that pop out to suck up drag when the vehicle slams into the atmosphere.
What’s in the flap‑drama? We’re testing how long they are, how far they lean out from the body, and how that changes the center of pressure/gravity and heat generation
Visually
3‑D CAD (SolidWorks): We modeled dozens of “what‑if” variants, each a slightly tweaked frustum or flap combo.
Heat‑Up Analysis (ANSYS): Those CADs are pulled into a simulation engine that tells us where the air‑fire hits hardest and how fast the heat preforms. We down selected our variables to focus on
Shape of the frustum (how vertex angle and weight distribution effects of COP, COM, and heat generation) 2.
The design of the flaps (how flap length and angle from frustum effects of COP, COM, and heat generation)
Later the material parameters will be defined and tested.
Brant Chart: This simple, graphic roadmap will line up the work for the next few weeks to keep us organized
The Crew & Their Missions
Who
Mission
Electrical Duo
Building the flap‑channeled wiring, control loops, and battery budget. +2 handle the tri‑state logic to keep the flap actuation smooth and ultra‑light.
Modeling Quintet
Each of us blocks out a new parametric “family.” We’ll push the parameters, run the heat‑flags, then hand off the best pairings to the electrical folks.
We’re split to keep things moving. The electrical and modeling workflows are now tightly intertwined – a bit of code‑first, a bit of geometry‑first.
Road‑Map & Next Tweaks
Lock the baseline shape in SolidWorks – we’re picking a prototype that balances drag and thermal load.
Run the first ANSYS thermal snapshot – get a quick heat‑flux map so we know where the “hot spots” sit.
Finalize the Brant Chart before the weekend – this ensures we joke about deadlines, not crisis.
Material deep‑dive next week – high‑conductivity, low‑density alloys (think aluminum‑silicon and lightweight composites). We’ll compare them by melting point, oxidation dance, and weight.
At the end of the day, it’s a lot of math, a lot of questions to explore down the road. But we’re getting there – the P‑frust is almost ready to spring into action, and the flaps are ready to give the drag a performing‑arts twist.
Stay tuned for the next update – we’ll share the ANSYS plot that will either blow us away or make us rethink the whole angle.
Above is our first SolidWorks model, a pyramidal frustum with flaps that open up to both increase surface area and stability during re-entry. One of the main issues of design for demise is how difficult it is to simulate re-entry conditions on Earth. There are three main things that make design for demise difficult to implement; 1. Re-entry processes such as fragmentation have not been fully understood and therefore is not possible to simulate at this time, 2. Simulating the conditions of low earth orbit re-entry on the ground is extremely difficult and costly, and 3. The dynamics of re-entering fragments is not fully understood and very difficult to simulate. This design helps to mitigate the effects of the third challenge. By having our design orient itself, the dynamics of the part can then be more accurately simulated.
Of course, all great ideas start from a basic sketch. Building off of an initial idea of a cube that could open, the pyramid shape was born. Cubes would be chaotic in re-entry, tumbling so fast that their dynamics would be near impossible to simulate. Pyramids on the other hand have a center of gravity ahead of the center of pressure, creating a restoring moment that should orient the part. The wings should also help with this as they further move the center of pressure back.
Also this week, we have been working diligently on our Preliminary Design Report (PDR). The PDR is a comprehensive document to be presented to our liaisons at Honeywell. The paper contains everything we have done so far as a team formatted into one digestible paper.
Furthermore, we have developed the end goal of our project a little further. Instead of creating one model for one scenario, we would like to develop multiple models for multiple scenarios and then use those models to create a machine learning model utilizing Kriging. We believe this is the best way to approach our solution, as one model does not nearly cover all of the possible variables of satellite missions. What if the satellite is made of steel? Aluminum? What if it is entering from geostationary orbit rather than low earth orbit? These are all variables we would like to account for in the model we develop.
During Thursday’s meeting, we sketched potential ideas for our prototype.
This week, our team finalized a few specific concepts to pursue based on our research. One of the most promising is a multistage opening system designed to control how the structure breaks down during re-entry. The idea is to use staged geometric changes that respond to altitude, temperature, vibration, or time, to maximize heat flux and ensure an even rate of demise.
We envision three stages:
Initial stage: The system remains closed as it first encounters re-entry conditions.
Second stage: At a predetermined trigger (altitude, temperature, vibration, or time), wings or flaps deploy to increase the exposed surface area, enhancing heat flux.
Final stage: The structure reconfigures into a specific geometry that both reorients the system and distributes heating more evenly, maintaining maximum heat transfer/flux and ensuring complete demise.
On Monday, we met with our liaisons at Honeywell. We reviewed the Product Design Specification (PDS) with them and addressed any concerns they had. We have now updated the PDS to reflect their critiques. We clarified the distinction between active and passive approaches to satellite demise. A passive system relies on natural re-entry forces (mostly heat generated by the atmosphere) to initiate structural failure without expending additional energy. An active system, on the other hand, uses sensors and actuators. This requires stored energy, such as batteries, to trigger the decomposition process. We compiled a list of system requirements and constraints:
Weight considerations: The system does not need to be strictly minimized in mass; instead, additional sensor-related components should remain within 15% of the total system weight
Vibration and shock: The design must meet random vibration and shock requirements (R10 level), ensuring it is robust enough to survive launch conditions. We will revisit what these requirements mean in detail at the next meeting.
Power: A rough estimate of power requirements is still to be determined.
We were reminded to include references to source documents (like the European Space Agency’s casualty risk statistics) in our appendix. This will strengthen the traceability and credibility of our design decisions.
Our tentative Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is scheduled for Tuesday, October 14th. All team members will need to submit site-visit forms and provide proof of U.S. citizenship. We are planning to follow up with the university regarding proper documentation.
In the upcoming week, we will finalize power requirement estimates, research and prepare a discussion on vibration/shock testing rationale, and submit site visit documentation in preparation for the PDR.
On Tuesday, we met with Dr. Lind and discussed Nichrome (nickel-chrome alloy) as an approach for the prototype. Nichrome is known for its high resistivity and ability to withstand elevated temperatures, which makes it a strong candidate for components that may experience extreme heating during re-entry.
Dr. Lind highlighted that Nichrome’s durability and controlled heating properties could make it an effective material for testing passive demise concepts. Its ability to generate and tolerate heat without melting too quickly may allow us to simulate or accelerate certain failure mechanisms in a controlled manner. This opens possibilities for integrating Nichrome into the design as part of a targeted trigger of a subsystem within the prototype.
The conversation also emphasized the importance of comparing Nichrome’s properties, like melting point, oxidation resistance, and weight implications, against other potential materials. This evaluation will help determine whether Nichrome can provide both functional reliability and alignment with the overall system requirements discussed earlier with Honeywell.
Going forward, we would like to conduct further research on Nichrome’s performance in aerospace or high-temperature applications, compare its material properties with alternatives to assess tradeoffs, and begin considering how Nichrome could be incorporated into prototype testing for re-entry scenarios.
This week, our team successfully finalized our logo and name. For the team’s name, we have agreed upon “A.R.C.”, which stands for Atmospheric Re-Entry Control. Furthermore, this week was the first time we met our Honeywell Liaisons through Teams and clarified our project scope and objectives. Initially, we were confused about the direction Honeywell wanted us to go and exactly what they wanted to gain from this demise project. But once we hopped off the call, our team had the “ah-hah” moment where a lightbulb was lit and a surge of motivation and inspiration was instilled in us.
We began working on our Product Design Specifications (PDS) and this has allowed us to start diving deeper into our solutions. We decided that to start we are going to be splitting into two different teams to brainstorm on different solution, we are splitting into a group working on an active approach and a passive approach so all the disciplines in our group get a chance to work in our desired areas. This will allow us to come up with two unique solutions and present them to our liaisons for them to help us decide what one to move forward on. We have started to learn about what design specifications we should start thinking about by researching industry standards.
Looking forward, our team has a lot to prepare for. Once our PDS is done and both groups start looking into specific design, we will need to decide which route to take. Our Preliminary Design Review (PDR) will be presented to Honeywell in 4 weeks. Before this we will need to explore both options, utilizing computer modeling, CAD models, and designing basic electronic systems. Our team is excited to figure out if a passive, active, or combination of approaches will be the best approach to this project.
Hey, my name is Edwin Feldman, and I am a Computer Engineering major with experience in FPGA design, embedded systems, and robotics. I am currently practicing Judo.
Andrew Griner:
My name is Andrew Griner, and I am an Electrical engineering student with a focus in electrical reliability, DSP, and linear control systems. My favorite hobbies are hiking and being outdoors.
Loi Park:
Hi everyone! My name is Loi Park and I am a Mechanical Engineer minoring in computer science at the University of Florida. I love innovating new things and testing the bounds of my creativity. My favorite hobbies are table tennis and meeting new people!
Michael Daher:
My name is Michael Daher, and I am an Aerospace Engineering major, currently pursuing a certificate in Engineering Project Management. I am passionate about making the world a better place by pursuing challenges previously unsolved. My favorite hobbies include ultimate frisbee and watching football.
Zach Arzt:
My name is Zach Arzt. I am currently a senior studying Mechanical Engineering at UF. I am interested in the automotive and defense industries. Outside of school, I enjoy working out, reading, and going to the beach.
Avery Hames:
I am a BioEngineering major with a specialization in BioSystems engineering. I’m very excited about getting on the Honeywell project and can’t wait to get to work. I’m a big outdoorsman so when I’m not in the lab this semester I’ll be out in nature around Gainesville hunting and fishing.
Benjamin Mellin:
My name is Ben Mellin, and I am a Materials Science and Engineering major with a focus on metallurgy. I love to watch sports, especially Tampa Bay teams as that is where I’m from. I am very much looking forward to working with Honeywell on this project and am excited to see what we can do!
We are all super excited for this opportunity and look forward to keeping everyone updated as the project progresses!
