Design and fabricate a rover constrained to CubeSat dimensions (10×10×20 cm) capable of autonomously deploying extremophile samples onto a simulated planetary surface and retrieving them via an electromagnet-based pickup system. The mission context: testing whether extremophiles could survive on a newly discovered planet, as a potential path toward off-Earth agriculture.
Chassis dimensions: 10×10×20 cm (CubeSat compliant)
4-wheel drive, dual DC motor configuration
Stepper-motor-driven rotary drop-off wheel for sample deployment
Linear actuator + electromagnet for autonomous sample retrieval
Enclosure: laser-cut acrylic chassis, 3D-printed PLA structural components, TPU tires
$500 material budget; final build completed for $327.08
Led chassis architecture and overall mechanical layout
Performed motor torque analysis and identified single-motor drive as insufficient and drove the redesign to dual motors
Built and ran the FMEA, including RPN calculations and model-based risk mitigation
Contributed to Design for Assembly redesigns (chamfered holes, filleted motor holder, stepper motor integration)
CAD modeling in Onshape
Concept generation began with a functional decomposition tree and morphological chart, producing three rover concepts scored against a weighted decision matrix benchmarked against NASA's Perseverance and Curiosity rovers and CMU's Iris rover. Our final concept scored highest (+5 vs. +2 and -1) by eliminating external moving parts, with no exposed arm, no extra mechanical structure, which best satisfied the CubeSat fit and mobility requirements.
Each team was issued the same package of DC motors, and before any parts were designed I ran a torque check to confirm they could actually drive the vehicle. Sizing against the 2.66 kg mass limit, rolling resistance came out to 0.52 N, which required 0.0157 Nm of total wheel torque at a 3 cm wheel radius. Split across all four wheels, that is 0.0039 Nm per motor against the 0.002 Nm the supplied motors produced, roughly half of what was needed even in the most generous drive configuration. The result also exposed a coupling I had not expected: the kit motors were only viable if all four wheels were driven, but the motor shield provides four DC channels and the stepper driving our sample drop-off mechanism consumed two of them. Driving four wheels would have left no channels for the mechanism that made the rover more than a chassis. I presented the calculation and the channel conflict to the course faculty, who then lifted the restriction on sourcing our own motors. We moved to higher torque geared DC motors, committed to a two wheel rear drive layout, and made mass reduction an explicit design priority from that point forward. The final build came in at 820 g, well under the limit the analysis had been sized against.
Won the end-of-semester design competition, judged by faculty, TAs, and NASA judges on uniqueness/creativity, complexity, functionality, and robustness. Out of 8 teams, only 4 rovers achieved locomotion, and ours was one of just two to demonstrate a second mechanical function (sample deployment/retrieval) in addition to driving.