Conclusion

Improvement 1:

Anticipating mission 2A, our team attempted to place the rover in a 5' x 5' square to see if it could navigate within the boundary without contacting the walls. If the rover approached a wall at an acute angle, it would run into the wall as the ultrasonic sensor did not have a wide enough range to detect obstacles on both sides and directy in front of the rover. As a result, our team decided to use two sensors placed on opposite sides of the rover so that the sensor range was wider and could better detect obstacles on either side and the front of the rover.

Our team encountered a space limitation issue after the second mission as there was insufficient room for new devices like the GPS module. To address this, we implemented an extended dumping bed which provided the needed space for additional electronics. This design modification enabled us to optimize spatial constraints, meet weight requirements, and enhance overall mission capability with the accomodation of new devices.

Another design enhancement our team recommends is the use of an Arduino Mega instead of an Arduino Uno. The rover was unable to deliver the payload on several missions due to timer conflicts between the libraries used on the Arduino. For example, on mission 1B, there was a timer conflict between the library used to control the RF receiver and the servo, therefore, only one library could be used. The same happened on missions 3 and 4, however, it was due to conflicts between the servo library and the SoftwareSerial library which is used to receive GPS signals.

One key design enhancement that our team strongly recommends is the implementation of an adjustable frame for the rover, specifically focusing on the tracks. The rover encountered significant challenges in maintaining a straight trajectory, resulting in missed targets and decreased overall accuracy. By integrating adjustable components, we can maintain the desired level of tension and alignment to keep the rover driving straight.