Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Executive Summary
Our Nano-Satellite was created Spring 2010 in AE 427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design as part of the University Nano-Satellite Program (UNP) with the intention of assisting in the calibration of the radars in the Space Surveillance Network (SSN) (Eagle Aerospace¶s RFP, 2010). Since 1957 the SSN has been monitoring objects in orbit around the Earth. The SSN is currently utilized to track and catalog all space objects which primarily consist of debris. Since the 1980¶s the number of objects orbiting in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is increasing at a rapid pace. Thousands of nuts, bolts, and other fragments caused by space missions form the space debris orbiting the Earth at speeds approaching 17,500 miles per hour (mph) (Britt, 2000). The increase in space debris can also be attributed to additional satellites being launched into space and not being properly disposed of. For example, China intentionally destroyed a satellite using a ballistic missile and created a massive increase in space debris. In fact there are more than 8,500 artificial objects orbiting the Earth; approximately 2200 of those objects are satellites and the remaining is space debris (STSC, 1999). These figures only account for objects larger than 5 cm. There are still thousands of objects smaller than 5 cm which cause hazards for space missions. For example in the last decade, a paint chip from a satellite caused a 0.25-in thick pit in a space shuttle window (Britt, 2000). The objective of Eagle Aerospace's Nano-Satellite is to eject and photograph five payloads to serve as calibration targets for ground-based radar and optical systems used in debris tracking and measurement (Eagle Aerospace¶s RFP, 2010). The Nano-Satellite¶s constraints put upon it by the UNP stated that the Nano-Satellite could not exceed 50 kg and cannot exceed dimensions of 50 cm by 50 cm by 60 cm. The Nano-Satellite was designed to be launched into space on a rocket chosen by the United States Air Force (USAF). According to the UNP the Nano-Satellite could be placed into orbit altitude range of 290-500 km and could have an inclination ranging from 28.5 -105 degrees. These ranges are based on the launch location that would be chosen by the USAF. Once the rocket and launch site were chosen, the Nano-Satellite was designed to be flown into LEO where the Nano-Satellite would then eject from the rocket using a Planetary Systems Corporation (PSC) Lightband Separation System, or a Orbital Picosat Automatic Launcher (OPAL), or a Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA). Once in LEO the batteries of the Nano-Satellite would charge to 50% via the solar arrays on the outer faces of the structure. After batteries are at 50% charge, Command and Data Handling (CDH) was designed to complete a subsystems check to ensure that the launch did not negatively affect any of the subsystems. Once all subsystems are checked, Attitude Determination and Control (ADC) would be designed to orient the Nano-Satellite¶s launch face away from the sun while keeping the communications antenna in the nadir direction at all times. At this time the primary mission would begin with CDH sending a command to the Electrical Power System (EPS) to engage power to the doors on the launch face so that the doors would open. Once the doors open, ADC would re-orient the Nano-Satellite so i

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

the launch face is facing away from the sun and so the Nano-Satellite is not spinning. Once the Nano-Satellite is re-oriented power was designed to be sent to the payloads to launch the 15-cm sphere from the center of the launch face. Following the 15-cm sphere, the 10-cm sphere and Cube-Satellite would be launched as a couple to reduce spin induced upon the Nano-Satellite; lastly, the high area-to-mass ratio object and second Cube-Satellite would also be launched as a couple. After each payload has launched, ADC would re-orient the Nano-Satellite so that the cameras can take pictures of the payloads. The pictures taken would be used to determine the tumble rates each payload experiences from the payload launch. These pictures would also be transmitted to ground stations around the world to be sent back to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Prescott Campus for analysis. After all payloads are launched, CDH was designed to send a command to EPS to close the launch face doors. At this point the USAF would take over control of the Nano-Satellite and the secondary mission would begin. The secondary mission would leave the Nano-Satellite in the hands of the USAF to do with as they wish until the Nano-Satellite re-enters the atmosphere and burns up. For further information on the preliminary analysis completed on the individual subsystems of the Nano-Satellite, refer to the Concept of Design report written during AE 427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design (Eagle Aerospace¶s COD, 2010). The design created by Eagle Aerospace in AE 427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design was descoped to include the design, manufacture and testing, i.e. static and vibration testing, of the Nano-Satellite structure and deployment boxes. These subsystems were chosen because completion of this project is feasible in the time allowed by AE 445: Spacecraft Detail Design, i.e. 16 weeks. The Structure Subsystem will design, analyze, manufacture and test a structure. The structure must be built as a universal hub for future space projects to use as their main housing. The structure must also be able to house deployment boxes as well as have room for other subsystems to be added at the discretion of the future projects using the hub. The structure will be tested to ensure the structure will hold form and will safely house subsystems during launch and during the missions through which the Nano-Satellite will progress through. The Deployment Subsystem will design, analyze, manufacture and test two (2) deployment boxes for the Nano-Satellite. The Deployment Subsystem must create a universal deployment box for the deployment of 10-cm objects. These deployment boxes must be able to hold either a single object or two (2) objects similar to the Cube-Satellite currently being designed in Fall 2010 AE427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design. This analytical document contains the following sections; Section 1.0 : Mission Analysis will consist of an overview of the mission including all phases through which the payloads will progress. Section 2.0 : Descope will explain the descoping of the preliminary project including which subsystems were chosen for further development and why those subsystems were chosen. Section 2.0 : Descope will also compare different design ideas defined by the chosen subsystems, Structure and Deployment. Section 3.0 : Structure Subsystem Analysis will detail the analysis completed by the Structure Subsystem while Section 4.0 : Deployment Subsystem Analysis will detail the analysis completed by the Deployment Subsystem. Finally, Section 5.0 : Recommendations will identify which idea for each subsystem is the better choice based upon the analysis complied and provide a rational of why that choice was best. Section 5.0 : ii

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Recommendations will also explain how the subsystems will be integrated together and include a project schedule and cost estimate for the overall project.

iii

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i 1.0 1.1 Mission Analysis .................................................................................................. 1 Original Mission Overview ............................................................................... 1 Phase I ....................................................................................................... 1 Phase II ...................................................................................................... 1 Phase III ..................................................................................................... 1 Phase IV..................................................................................................... 1 Phase V ...................................................................................................... 2 Phase VI..................................................................................................... 2 Phase VII ................................................................................................... 2 Phase VIII .................................................................................................. 2 Phase IX..................................................................................................... 2

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.1.7 1.1.8 1.1.9 1.2

New Mission Overview..................................................................................... 3 Structure .................................................................................................... 3 Deployment................................................................................................ 3 Possible Issues ........................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 2.0 2.1

Descope ................................................................................................................ 4 Subsystems ....................................................................................................... 4 Structure .................................................................................................... 4 Deployment................................................................................................ 4

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2

Structure Design Concepts ................................................................................ 5 Cube Concept............................................................................................. 5 Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept ..................................................................... 7

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3

Deployment Design Concepts ........................................................................... 9 Structure/Housing Concept......................................................................... 9 Door Control Concept ................................................................................ 9 iv

2.3.1 2.3.2

.............................................................................................4 4.................................................. 43 Structural Analysis .........................................................................1................................................ 30 3......................... 47 Release Mechanism: Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (LSMAA) ....................1 3....... 30 Cube ..................................................................... 32 Introduction..... 24 3................................ 29 3.. 17 3............. 48 v 4.........6 4..................................... 32 General Analysis ......................1 Deployment Subsystem Analysis ...............4.... 28 Hexagonal Cylinder ................................................................................................................ 9 Adjustable Spring Concept ......5 3................................................................................ 22 Hexagonal Cylinder .....................2 3................................ 47 4.................................................................................5............................................. 15 Vibration Analysis ................... 13 Structure Subsystem Analysis .........1 4.............................3 Equations ................3................................................................................................................2 4.......................................................................................... 15 Theory....1 ......................... 30 Hexagonal Cylinder .......5 Design Feasibility.... 34 Deployer Platform Analysis .................................4 2. 32 Structure/Housing .............3 2..........................4.......2 3........................................................1.... 19 Structural Analysis .0 3.....2 4..........1.....2...........Eagle Aerospace 2................................................................2 3........................0 4.....................1.............................. 22 Cube .........................................................3..........................................................3.................................................. 27 Cube ......................2 Door Control ............1 3..................................................................1.. 10 Pulling Springs..................................................3.......................................2 3....1 3.............5 4...............1 3.....................................................................................1 Anal ysis Report Simple Compression Spring Concept .....1........................................... 46 Feasibility of Operations ............................................................................ 44 Budget ....................................................................................3 4.... 15 Static Loading .....................................5...4 Budget........1..........................1.......................................................3....

..2................................1 5........................................ 68 Deployment............................ 70 Structure ...2 4...............................1...... 60 Mechanisms ± Pulling Spring Analysis.............................................................. 59 Feasibility of Operations ........................................1 5....................2 5....................1 4............4 4................ 71 References ...................1 4...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................0 Attributions ........2 4............................ 68 Structure ..............................2 6..................................................................... 56 Budgets ..............................................................1 Recommendations .....4...................................................... 70 5........ 67 4............................. 66 Feasibility of Operations ................................. 52 Mechanisms ± Simple Compression Spring ....................................3 Anal ysis Report Door Opener: Torsional Spring ...............................................2 5................................................0 5................................... 70 Deployment......................................2 5.................................... 68 Design Decisions........................................................................3 5............ 69 Preliminary Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................. 60 4.3.5 Mechanisms ± Adjustable Springs ............................................. 68 5..1.5..................3...... 73 vi ............................................... 69 Preliminary Cost Estimate ..............................................................0 7........................................................ 63 Budget ................4 Subsystem Integration ..5.......4..............Eagle Aerospace 4..........

................................................................... and Type ........1: Yield Strengths of Considered Aluminum Types ............. 23 Table 3............................................................. 28 Table 3....1: Timeline ........................7: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure ....8: Mass Estimate for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure .............................. 41 Table 4.....4: Bending Stresses of Stringers Based on Distance from Centerline................ 24 Table 3....... 42 Table 4......... 29 Table 4.......................................................................... 48 Table 4..........9: Spring Equation Constant Values .........3: Stringer Cross-Sectional Areas for Hexagonal Structure .... 57 Table 4.................... 29 Table 3..............................................2: Deployer Components......................................... Dimensions..................10: Wire Diameter and Active Coils ......7: Performance of Dash4 (MIGA) ...... 26 Table 3............................... 67 Table 5....................Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report List of Tables Table 3...............................12: Pulling Spring Budget .......6: Comparison of Release Mechanisms (MIGA) ..2: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials................................................... 65 Table 4............................................ 70 Table 5...........3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials ...........................1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys ..................................... 51 Table 4. 59 Table 4............................5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials ........................................................................................................... 69 Table 5.. Quantity Required................... 36 Table 4........ 71 vii .............................. 46 Table 4.......................... 45 Table 4..............................................6: Mass Estimate for Cubic Structure ........................................2: Stringer Cross Sectional Areas Based for Cubic Structure ...... 27 Table 3...................8: Cube-Satellite Launch Analysis Cases .................11: Analytical Results of Spring Designs ............5: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Cube ..................4: Inertia Tensor Matrix ... 28 Table 3.......................................3: Deployment Subsystem Budget ........................................... 59 Table 4...................

...........1: Cross-Sectional View of Deployer.............................5: MKIII P-POD (California Polytechnic)............. 6 Figure 2......................... p...... 2009....... 14 Figure 3..........3: Right-Isometric View of Deployer ......................7: Push Plate on Glide Rails...Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report List of Figures Figure 2...... p.............11: Coil Diameter vs Number of Active Coils. 12 Figure 2............ 10 Figure 2...................................... 92) .5: Dash4 Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (adapted from MIGA) .................................................2: Normal Stress on Prismatic Bar (Source: Gere & Goodno....................... 54 Figure 4............................ 364) .. 2009... 51 Figure 4........................6: Miga Analog Driver V5 (MIGA) ........ 13 Figure 2.......... 17 Figure 3........... 66 viii ..............4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform .........................................7: Torsional Spring at 360 Deg.............3: Utilized Area of Hexagon in Square ................................................. 12 Figure 2........................................8: Ground Spring (squared) ........... 2008) ...................1: Cubic-Structure Design Concept.... 52 Figure 4........................... 35 Figure 4....... Push Plate and Separation Plate ....... 16 Figure 3......1: Static Loading on Prismatic Bar (Source: Gere & Goodno............................................3: Compressive and Tensile Stresses (Source: Gere & Goodno.............. 8 Figure 2. 11 Figure 2.............................. 39 Figure 4............. p............................. 63 Figure 4........6: Launch Box.... 18 Figure 3.... 64 Figure 4.................... 40 Figure 4.......................4: Squared and Ground Spring ...........................9: View of Pulling Spring Concept .....2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Design Concept ................................................................. 50 Figure 4.................... 2008) ................10: Placement of Pulling Springs Attached to Push Plate ................................ Deflection (Spring Masters.... 43 Figure 4....................2: Longitudinal View of Deployer ........... 15 Figure 3..4: Vibrational Analysis Free-Body Diagram ...................9: Squared and Ground End Spring ............................................................... 23 Figure 4. 2009...........................................5: Force Acting on Structure Based on Orientation ... 8) ..............8: Torsional Spring Parameters (Spring Masters................................................................................... 7 Figure 2............

..««««««««««.To Be Determined TSN«««««««««««««««««««««« «««««..National Aeronautics and Space Administration OSC«««««««««««««««««««« ««.Poly Pico-Satellite Orbital Deployer PSC«««««««««««««««««««««....Two-Stage Nut UNP««««««««««««««««««««University Nano-Satellite Program USD««««««««««««««««««««««««« .Concept of Design DoD««««««««««««««««««««««««....Orbital Sub-Orbital Program Space Launch Vehicle P-POD««««««««««««««««««.Newton per Meter NASA«««««««««««««...Command and Data Handling CoD««««««««««««««««««««««««««..Finite Element Method GPa«««««««««««««««««««««««««« «««Giga Pascals LEO«««««««««««««««««««««««««««.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report List of Abbreviations ADC«««««««««««««««««««.United States Dollars ix ......Department of Defense EPS««««««««««««««««««««««« Electrical Power Subsystem ERAU«««««««««««««««««..Shape Memory Alloy Release Device SS«««««««««««««««««.Mechanism MPa««««««««««««««««««««««««««« «.Planetary Systems Corporation SMA«««««««««««««««««««««««««Shape Memory Alloy SMARD«««««««««««««««««.Attitude Determination and Control ANSYS««««««««««««««««««««««««««Analysis System CDH«««««««««««««««««««««.Orbital Sciences Corporation OSP-I««««««««««««....Low Earth Orbit LFN«««««««««««««««««««««««««« ««Low Force Nut LSMAA««««««««««««««««....Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator MECH««««««««««««««««««««« «««««««...Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University FEM««««««««««««««««««««««««..Mega Pascals N«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« ««Newton N/m««««««««««««««««««««««««««.Space Surveillance Network TBD«««««««««««««««««««««« ««««.Subsystem Space SSN««««««««««««««««««««««.

...Millimeters x ...Centimeters cm/s««««««««««««««««««««««««.Grams kg«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« .Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report cm«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««...Centimeters per second g«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« .Kilograms km««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« «Kilometers lbm«««««««««««««««««««««««««««« «Pounds Mass mm««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« .

......................................... 41 Equation 4..........................................................................................................................6 ..............................................7 .......................................................................................3 ........ 37 Equation 4............................................ 36 Equation 4........................5 .. 21 Equation 3........... 53 Equation 4..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 ...................................................................... 37 Equation 4...... 19 Equation 3....................................................................................................................................... Equation 4..... 19 Equation 3.............................................................................14 .5 ..................................7 ..............................................................................2 ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Equation 3............................................... 21 Equation 3........................................................................................ 22 Equation 4..........................................................................................3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................10 ...4 ................................ 20 Equation 3.15 ............................... 21 Equation 3........................................................................9 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 53 Equation 4..................................................................................................... 20 Equation 3.........................................................6 .................................................11 ...................8 ........................................................................ 21 Equation 3.............................10 ....................................... 46 Equation 4..... 20 Equation 3...........2 ............................................... 39 Equation 4..............................................................................9 ............1 ........................ 20 Equation 3..... 22 Equation 3.....................................................Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report List of Equations Equation 3........................ 21 Equation 3................................................1 .......13 ..................8 ............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined... 21 Equation 3...........4 .... 53 Equation 4.............................................................................. 54 xi ..................................12 ........................................................

..................................... 55 Equation 4..............26 ..........................16 .................................... 61 Equation 4....................................................................................................................................................... 57 Equation 4.....................14 ...........................................................................34 .......................................................................19 ............................................... 62 Equation 4............................................................................................33 .. 56 Equation 4............................... 54 Equation 4.....................25 .....................................................................................................................................................31 . 64 xii ............................................. 58 Equation 4...............................................................................................23 .....30 .............................................................................................. 58 Equation 4.......................................................................................................................................... 63 Equation 4.............................22 ................................................................................................................................. 55 Equation 4..................................... 62 Equation 4..........................................................................................................................17 .......... 62 Equation 4...................................15 .............12 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Equation 4........................................................................................29 .................................................................. 61 Equation 4.............................. 55 Equation 4....................................................35 ..................................21 ....28 ....................................................24 ............................................................. 56 Equation 4.... 55 Equation 4......................13 . 60 Equation 4...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 ............................. 55 Equation 4.................Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Equation 4........18 ............... 57 Equation 4............................................................ 56 Equation 4......................................................................................... 61 Equation 4..32 ...........................................27 ................................ 61 Equation 4....................................

.Applied Force«««««««««««««««.Angular Rotation Rate«««..Shear Force««««««««««««««««..««««««.Material Modulus of Elasticity«««««««««««GPa 4 I««««««««««« Mass Moment of Inertia««««««««««...mm g««««««««««««««.«««««««««kg «««««««««««««.MPa n «««««««««««««Normal tot «««««««««««..m/s n«««««««««««««Factor of Safety«««...««««««.Mass««««««««.««MPa Strength««««««««««««««MPa Stress««««««««««««««.««mm L««««««««««««««.««««.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report List of Symbols A««««««««««««Cross-Sectional Area««««««««««««...Minimum Thickness««««««.......«««««««....««««««««««««.mm ««««««««««......cm M««««««««««««««...«««««««.MPa Stress«««««««...Total Stress«««««««««««««««MPa Strength««««««.««««.Gravity«««««..N V«««««««««««««.mm.N ««««««««««««««Elongation«««««««««««««««....rad/s xiii ..Yield tmin«««««««««««..2 E««««««««««....Length««««.Bending Design«««««««««««Design Stress««««««««««««..MPa Ultimate««««««««««Ultimate y «««««««««««««.«««««««««««« -b ««««««««««. «..««««.

1. The Nano-Satellite will then be placed on board either a Boeing Delta IV rocket or Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) Minotaur IV rocket (UNP 2009). OPAL.3 Phase III The Nano-Satellite will then orbit the Earth for a minimum of two (2) orbits to charge the internal batteries to 50% or greater via the solar cells.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 1 1. Additionally all appropriate software updates will be loaded for the launch inclination.4 Phase IV After all subsystems have been powered on and checked. or ESPA (UNP. ensuring that all subsystems will load and that all systems are registering. OPAL.1.2 Phase II The rocket that is chosen will travel through the Earth¶s atmosphere into LEO. 1. Eagle Aerospace¶s Nano-Satellite will separate from the primary payload via Lightband. The CDH subsystem will then power on and poll each of the subsystems electronic components to verify that they have engaged and are properly functioning.1 Original Mission Overview As previously stated. 1. 2010). The . 1. 2010). the ADC subsystem will orient the Nano-Satellite so that the launch-bay doors are facing away from the sun. deployment will occur within the ranges of 290-500 km and inclination angles between 28. AE 445 Spring 2010 Spacecraft Detail Design plans on designing a modular structure and deployer. a full software check will be completed. Following the description of Eagle Aerospace¶s Spring 2010 Preliminary Design project will be an overview of the Eagle Aerospace¶s Fall 2010 mission concept in Section 1.1 Phase I Prior to mounting the Nano-Satellite inside of either rocket.0 Mission Analysis Outlined in the section below is a description and timeline for Eagle Aerospace¶s design project from spring AE 427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design (Eagle Aerospace. In addition to software checks and updates the structure itself will be checked for any defects. As a continuation from AE 427: Spacecraft Preliminary Design.2 : New Mission Overview as adopted for AE 445: spacecraft Detail Design. According to the UNP. 1.1.5-105 deg. 2009). the section below will contain all nine (9) phases required for completion of Eagle Aerospace¶s final mission as per the Concept of Design (CoD) report (Eagle Aerospace.1. or ESPA as selected in Phase I. The NanoSatellite will be interfaced to the rocket with a PSC Lightband Separation System (Lightband). The phases are of the actual mission itself but the purpose of the mission is to launch objects that can help calibrate ground optical and ground based radars. 1.

14 states that any item put up into orbit must decay or be put into a higher orbit after 25 years. towards the Earth. Phase V begins with the CDH sending a signal to the EPS board.1. to supply power to open the launch-bay doors. Because the NanoSatellite launch face will point away from the sun. After each set of launches. 1.1.1. SSN 1740.1. Changing how the Nano-Satellite faces the Earth will allow the SSN to better determine the size.1.5 Phase V The primary mission initiates in phase V. The ADC system will then reorient the Nano-Satellite and stabilize before the next launch.14 (DoD. 1. Once the NanoSatellite's doors have opened. Burning up in the atmosphere will meet the requirements set forth by the SSN 1740. i.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 2 communications antenna will then be deployed so that it points in the nadir direction.6 Phase VI The payloads will be launched out of the face pointing opposite the direction of the sun. any remaining data will be sent in packets to an available ground station. the calibration targets can then be launched in order to complete the primary mission. the Air Force will have control of the Nano-Satellite so that they may reorient the Nano-Satellite for different view angles. trajectory. The payloads will be launched out of the deployer mechanism at 2 cm/s to 5 cm/s. This sequence will occur for every set of launched item(s). . and composition of other space debris based on the Nano-Satellite¶s Earth-facing profile. 1. the CDH subsystem will send a command to close the launch-bay doors. a status update will be sent to a ground station confirming a successful boot-up and that the Nano-Satellite is ready to begin the primary mission. the ADC system will stabilize the Nano-Satellite and then the two (2) Cameras will take a series of photographs of the objects. Once all data packets have been sent. the ADC subsystem will stabilize and orient the NanoSatellite so that the launch face is pointing away from the sun. 2010) for the Nano-Satellite. 1.7 Phase VII After all of the payloads have been launched. the secondary mission will be initiated in phase VIII. 1. Once the doors have closed.9 Phase IX The Nano-Satellite along with all of its components will burn up in the atmosphere. If possible. a total of three (3) times..8 Phase VIII During the secondary mission.e.

the RFP has been created by Eagle Aerospace and not an external client therefore. Prescott. 2010). and test a housing structure and a deployer for the purpose of housing all subsystem components and for launching calibration targets.2. build. The integrated structure will be the base for the following detail design teams at ERAU. Julio Benavides and the members of Eagle Aerospace. Eagle Aerospace is bidding for a launch sometime in 2012 (Benavides. These two (2) subsystems were determined at the beginning of the semester by Dr. they will then be built. the Fall 2010 semest er Eagle Aerospace will design. Once the components are integrated they will be tested as a system if there is sufficient funding to complete more testing. Because of the loss in the cross-sectional area it may become impossible to include the five (5) deployers that will be used during phase V as listed in the previous section. although the structure itself can withstand the launch conditions. The deployer will either be able to deploy one (1) cube or two cubes in one deployer mechanism. 1.2. 2010). 1. Section 2. Funding for the Fall 2010 AE 445 class is a maximum of USD 1000.1 Structure The Structures Team will provide a structure of modular design. Fortunately. and tintegrated. tested. . The structure will be designed to hold future subsystems required for the completion of the Eagle Aerospace¶s primary and secondary mission.2.3 Possible Issues An issue with Eagle Aerospace¶s hexagonal cylinder design from Section 2.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 3 1. the structure will lose a significant amount of volume and crosssectional area. A modular design will allow future teams to use as a base model.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept is that.3 : Deployment Design Concepts will go into further detail. The Structure Subsystem will store all mechanisms internally except for the solar cells which will be mounted to the outside. Conceptual ideas for the subsystems will be analyzed and then a final design will be chosen for each subsystem as described in this report. After the design has been finalized.2 New Mission Overview As a follow up to the Spring 2010 preliminary design project.2.2 Deployment The Deployment Team will design a modular system that launches a multitude of calibration objects. the RFP can be modified to account for only being able to launch four (4) payloads instead of five (5). If Eagle Aerospace was not able to include the five deployers then the requirements of the RFP would no longer be correct. 1. A modular deployer allows for future missions which will not be constrained by Eagle Aerospace¶s original Request for Proposal (Eagle Aerospace RFP. The Deployer Subsystem is the launching mechanism needed to launch the calibration targets stated in Phase V.

1kg and fit within the standard dimensi ons of 10 cm by 10 cm. The UNP structure requirements are maximum linear dimensions of 50 cm by 50 cm by 60 cm and a mass no more than 50 kg. Thermal Control. On-board computer. if needed.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 4 2. and Communication. the deployment subsystem will be designed to launch one Cube-Satellite at a velocity range from 1 cm/s to 1 m/s. 2. the Deployment Subsystem must be designed to withstand the gravitational loads and . and test these subsystems in one semester.1 Descope Subsystems Two systems have been chosen for analysis. In addition. For each subsystem at least two preliminary designs were analyzed and then filtered down to one for analysis in Section 3. The reason these specific subsystems have been selected is due to the feasibility of being able to design. The Cube-Satellite payload must be between 0. Payload. 2.0 2. The structure could potentially house the following subsystems: y y y y y y y Payload Deployment Subsystem. structurally.1 Structure The satellite Structure Subsystem will be the central hub for which all other subsystems could be housed. The deployment subsystem is also responsible for protecting payloads from the launch environment and providing a communications and power bus to the payloads. The structure subsystem will be designed and built to have a visible part of the NanoSatellite.51.1. analyze.2 Deployment The primary responsibility of the deployment subsystem is to launch all pertinent payloads once the Nano-Satellite has reached the proper orbit and orientation. A visible segment makes it very easy to visualize the mission. and To present to the industry advisory board. The Structure Subsystem will be designed and constructed for the following reasons: y y y To design a visible part of the Nano-Satellite.1.0 : Structure Subsystem Analysis and Section 4.0 : Deployment Subsystem Analysis. The Structure Subsystem will be designed to meet the UNP requirements. Electrical Power Subsystem. Attitude Determination and Control. To house all of the other subsystems.

In fulfillment of this requirement. 2. y Releases launching mechanism. y Attaches to Nano-Satellite structure. and y Provides required exit velocity. y Retains launching mechanism and payload. Door. Eagle Aerospace requires a structure in which to house and protect the various components of the proposed Nano-Satellite. Launching Mechanism.2 Structure Design Concepts In order to complete the assigned mission. will be comprised of the following components: y y y Structure. The cubic structure is attractive because it is simple to construct and provides a large amount of internal volume. y Deploys payload from Nano-Satellite.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 5 vibrations associated with spacecraft launch. The basic elements of the cubic structure concept are shown in Figure 2. while connecting to the Nano-Satellite using the provided mounts The completed Deployment Subsystem.1 Cube Concept The initial concept that Eagle Aerospace considered was a cubic structure. Concepts of the components that make up the Deployment Subsystem are described in the following subsections. both of which will be outlined in this section.2. . y Houses and protects payloads. y Prevents premature launch of payload. 2. Eagle Aerospace developed two separate structural design concepts. y Houses launching mechanism.1: CubicStructure Design Concept on the next page. y Provides protection from launch environment. called the deployer.

Any type of standard structural aluminum can be used for the stringers and skin. which support any axial loads or bending moments placed on the structure. which supports shear forces placed on the structure. the cubic structure will have dimensions of 50 cm by 50 cm by 50 cm. The cubic-structure concept very nearly matches the UNP's linear dimension constraints. The high stresses that the corners experience make them likely to fail sooner than the rest of the structure. which allows it to make use of most of the available volume. The . The cubic structure provides a great amount of internal volume.1: Cubic-Structure Design Concept. Both of these components will be made from aluminum alloys. which makes fitting the panels together very straightforward. The major features shown in the figure are the eight (8) stringers. First. Increased internal volume allows more components to fit easily within the structure and decreases the chance that the mounted devices will interfere with one another. above. in a cubic-structure design the sharp 90-deg corners create high stress concentrations. which were chosen so that the structure could fit within the maximum dimensions provided by UNP constraints (Eagle Aerospace RFP. and the skin. The cubic design as outlined would be very easy to fabricate. which provide enough strength for the loads that the structure is likely to experience and are relatively lightweight. 2010). All of the corners in the structure would be 90 deg. and standard L brackets would be used for the stringers.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 6 Figure 2. All of the skin panels would have the same square dimensions.1: Cubic-Structure Design Concept In Figure 2. Any devices that will be housed within the structure will be mounted directly to the interior surface of the skin. The cubic-structure concept has two primary drawbacks.

2 Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept Eagle Aerospace also considered a second design based on a hexagonal-cylinder shape.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Design Concept. depending on the mission. and six (6) skin panels. Many Nano-Satellite missions do not require the full volume offered by the UNP constraints. and are intended to support any axial loads or bending moments experienced by the structure. The stringers will have a custom H-beam design. mounting plates. The hexagonal-cylinder shape offers a significant improvement in strength over a simple cube and is still relatively simple to construct. These dimensions allow the hexagon to fit within the UNP size requirements while still allowing additional room to mount solar panels on the outside of the structure (Eagle Aerospace RFP. as shown in the figure. If excess volume is provided and not used. The mounting plates are aluminum plates that can be slid into place between the flanges of the stringers and are designed to allow . The second problem with the cubic structure is that.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Design Concept below: Figure 2. six (6) mounting plates. 2. The stringers must be able to accommodate the 120-deg angles at which the sides of the hexagonal cylinder meet. above. There are two reasons for the stringer¶s bent shape. The basic components of the hexagonal-cylinder design are shown in Figure 2. the hexagonal cylinder will have an axial length of just under 60 cm and a radius of approximately 45 cm. 2010). Also shown in the figure are examples of the hexagonalcylinder¶s stringers.2. The concept includes a total of six (6) stringers. the structure is not offering any benefit to the mission design but is instead hampering the mission by adding extra structural weight.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 7 stress concentrations thus cause the cubic structure to be weaker than it might otherwise appear. and skin panels. the structure may actually offer too much volume.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Design Concept In Figure 2. and the stringers must be able to hold the mounting plates in place between the flanges.

¢ £ ¢   ©   ¥ ¥     ¨ ¢¢ ¢£ ¥£ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥   ¥ ¢ ¡ ¥ £ ¥   £¢ ¥¢   £¨ £ £ ¥ £¥ £¢ ¢£ £   ¥ ¥ £ £   £ £ © ¢ ¢¢   ¥¢ © ¢¢ £ ¢ ¢ ¥ £ ¥£© ¥ £ ¢¢ £¢¢£   ¢£ ¢£ ¦  ¥  ¥£ ¥     ¥   £ ¥ ¢ ¢ £   ¥ ¢© ¢      ¢ £ £¨ £  ¢ ¥£ © ¢ ©    £ £¥     £  ¨ ¡ gure 2.3 zed rea o exagon n quare be o . or ano. Th hexagona -cy nder concep a pec ca y n ended o compen a e or he prob em o h gh re concen ra on ha he cub c de gn exper ence . he de mee e a 120-deg ang e . gure 2.ruc ure de gn.n ended o o her componen o be d rec y a ached o hem.3 quare. The ruc ure .3 zed rea o exagon n quare ¦ no her gn can dra back o he hexagona cy nder ha he hape doe no a o he ruc ure o make u u e o he max mum near d men on prov de by he d (Eag e ero pace .a e e m on n h ch he en re 50 cm by 50 cm by 60 cm vo ume prov ded by he no nece ary. bu no a a y a dra back. The ncrea ed comp ex y r nger ha be needed or he hexagona-cy nder. on ruc ng or ob a n ng a ben -beam h he d men on requ red may prove o be ome ha d cu . The k n o he ruc ure uppor any hear re e ha he ruc ure exper ence and pro ec he n erna componen rom rad a on. he hexagona cy nder o her ruc ure are mp y haped p a e h ch can be ea y made rom a um num hee . he hexagona cy nder ma er vo ume prove bene c a becau e here e a ed pace and ex ra ruc ura ma . ho he pace h n he prov ded near d men on ha canno be u ed by a hexagona cy nder. 2010). and k n o he hexagona cy nder a be made rom a um num a oy . and a er ou dra back o he hexagona -cy nder concep pre en ed. n ke n a cub c de gn. moun ng p a e . he de o he hexagona cy nder do no me a 90-deg ang e . he hexagonah and much grea er oad han he cub c. o ever. © ¥   ¢ ¥ £¢ £¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ £ £¢ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥¢ ¥ ¨ ¥ ¥¢ £ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ £ ¥ ¥¢ £    ¥ ¥ £¥ ¢ £   ¢ ¥   ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ £ ¥ ¢ £   ¥ ¢ ¢¢ ¥ £   ¥ ¥ ¥¢ £¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ © £¨ £ £¥ ¥ ¥ £ ¢ ¥   ¢ ¢ © ¥    ¢ £© ¥ ¥ ¥     £ ¥¢ ¥£© ¥ ¢¢ £   ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥¢   £¥ ¥ £ ©   ¥ ¥ ¢ £   ¢ ¢£ £ ¥     £¢ ¢¢ ¥ ¨ £¢ ¥¢  ¢ © £   ¢¥ £ £¢ £ ¢£ ¨ ¥ ¥     ¥   ¥ £ ¥ £ ¢£ ¥ ¥ ¨ ¥ ¥ ¥ £ ¢ ¥¢ ¥ ¨ ¢ ¢ ¥ £ ¢   £ £¥    ¢ ¥ ¥    ¢ ¥ ¥¢ ¥ £ ¥ ¥¢ ¥¥ ¥   ¥ ¥ ¢ ¢¢ ¨ £ £¥ £ ¥¢ £   ¥ ¢¥      ¢ £©    ¨ ¢¥ ¥ £   ¥ ¢ zed rea o exagon n The h e pace urround ng he hexagon n gure 2. y reduc ng he re concen ra on pre en a he corner . h ch grea y reduce he re concen ra on ha occur a he e jo n . The o n u ab e vo ume gn can . The hexagona cy nder concep be ome ha more comp ca ed o con ruc han he pr mar y cau ed by he ben -beam cub c ruc ure. . ho he pace ha be o by u ng a hexagona cy nder a oppo ed o a cube ©     ¥  ¥ ¢  ¥ £ £ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ £¢  ¨ ¥ ¢£ £ £     ¡ £   £ £¥    £ £¢ ¥ ¨ ¥ ¨ £ ¥¢   ¢    © £© ¥    ¨ ¦¤ ¥ ¥ £¨ £ ¥ ¢ ¢ £¢ ¥ ¡ ¥ ¢©   ¥¢ ¥ ¡ ¢ ¥ ¥   ¢£    ¨  § ¥ ¥ £¨¨£   £ £ ¥ £¢   ¥ ¦ ¥ ¥ ©  © £¥ ¢ ¥¢ ¢ ¥ ¥ £ © ¢ ¥  ¢ ¥ £   ¥ ¤ £ £     ¢ £ ¢     ¢£ ¥£ ¢   £   ¡ £   £¢ ¥   ¢ ¨ ¢ ¢ £¢ £ ¥ ¥ £ ¥ ¥¢ ¢ £© ¥    ¥ ¢¥ £ £¥    ¥ © ¥ ¥£© ¡ ¢ ¢ Eag e ero pace na y   ¥ ¢ ¥¢ ¢   epor age 8 £ £   £   £ ¢ £ ¥¢ £  . above. cy nder de gn ab e o even hen u ng he ame ma er a . In ead.

The major objective of the deployer includes surviving the flight en-route to space as well as keeping the components inside the deployer safe till deployment of the components has occurred. This method of opening the door meets UNP requirements as there are no pyrotechnics or compressed gasses involved and fulfills the mission of the Deployment Subsystem. The deployer has to house a Cube-Satellite. an analysis on the initial design specifications (dimensions. There are some numbers that are TBDs at this point. thus allowing the door to swing open by the potential energy of the torsional spring. The LSMAA exerts a linear force upon the bolt holding the door closed. materials used) for the deployer has been done and documented in this report. The spring is illustrated in Figure 2. pushing the bolt completely free from the door.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 9 2. a launching mechanism. thus releasing the Cube-Satellite payload.2 Door Control Concept This concept employs a Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (LSMAA) as a release mechanism and a torsional spring hinge to open the door of the deployer.3. and sufficient space to house adaptors of crucial subsystems to interface with the components of the deployer.3. compressed spring design uses a single compressed spring to push the payload out of the deployer structure. Recommendations are then made regarding the feasibility in both cost and time limit.3 Simple Compression Spring Concept The single.3 2. and therefore. an over-estimate for those numbers has been used in the initial analysis.3. Furthermore. The deployer is designed such that it is as light (in mass) as possible to fulfill the mission objectives of Eagle Aerospace and is within the team's budget.1 Deployment Design Concepts Structure/Housing Concept The structure of the deployer is a cubeoid with a square cross-section. This configuration works by first sending an electrical signal to heat up the Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) wires in the LSMAA. 2. . The spring will be initially compressed and situated in the geometric center of the housing such that when the door opens on the deployer structure the spring accelerates the payload out into space.4: Squared and Ground Spring on the next page. sliding rails called glide rails. 2.

As the compressed spring expands to its free length the push plate moves out towards the open end of the housing. shows a single spring. Both ends of the spring are squared and ground to allow the maximum surface are in contact between the spring and the deployer structure as well as the spring and the push plate. by 10-cm.3. above. The MKIII P-POD is shown on the next page in Figure 2. The P-POD has been used in space by multiple University teams when deploying Cube-Satellites. There are three (3) versions of the P-POD currently. Since this design has been so well tested and proved Eagle Aerospace has redesigned a launcher based on the MKI design. The difference in the launchers is the quantity of Cube-Satellites that each can launch at a time.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 10 Figure 2. eventually replacing the door on the face. by 10-cm cubes known as Cube.4: Squared and Ground Spring Figure 2.or Pico-Satellites into orbit.4: Squared and Ground Spring. or three (3) 10-cm.5: MKIII P-POD as an example. 2. approximately 1. The P-POD launcher deploys one (1).4 Adjustable Spring Concept The single-spring concept is an idea based upon the Poly Pico-Satellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD). . MKII. the MKI. All three of the versions eject their payloads at high velocities.6 meters per second (California Polytechnic University 2010). two (2). and the MKIII. made by California Polytechnic.

The new design will allow for adjustable launch speeds for different weighted Cube-Satellites.6: Launch Box. Splitting the spring and changing how many coils of the spring are on each side of the plate will effectively change the force it exerts on the push plate.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 11 Figure 2. in Figure 2.5: MKIII P-POD shows the three (3) Cube-Satellite launcher designs. To achieve these velocities a variable force must be used for deployment. The deployer design takes the space-rated and space-tested Cube-Satellite deployment method from the P-POD and further develops it to better reach the lower launch speed goals of Eagle Aerospace. . The plate splits the area behind the push plate into two (2) sections the active and inactive coil sides. The new concept can be seen on the following page. Push Plate and Separation Plate. The push plate then guides the cube out of the launcher. The current P-POD design uses a spring that is fixed and set to apply a given force. Variable forces can be achieved by threading the spring through a fixed plate.5: MKIII P-POD (California Polytechnic) Figure 2.

In h re ea ed. Whn he aunch door e ejec he pay oad a he de red ve oc y. The pr ng orce decrea e a more o he pr ng hreaded o he nac ve de. u h a e and epara on a e ho he epara on p a e h hread hrough.a e e o be aunched a a de rab e rajec ory and reduce he chance o a jam occurr ng. gu de a ho e near he op here he pr ng ra . he orce rom he pr ng de gn he pu h p a e de a ong g de ra ha are coa ed h a o r c on ma er a .6 aunch ox. The ra a o or he ube.7 u h a e on de a above ho ho he p a e p aced u h aga n he g de ra .6 aunch ox. y p ng he pr ng and chang ng ho many c are ac ve y o h n a pec ed range ba ed on pu h ng on he ube. he auncher ruc ure. he orce can be var ed pr ng parame er .7 u h a e on de a be o !" $  " !" $"2 "  $ $ $ "$ $ % ! $  $" $ ! % ( "$ " 4 2   !" "$ $! $ !"  "4" $ "! ! " ! ! 2  $ !2 $"2 "' $ $ $ 4 $ " " $"2 $ ! " ! $ %   " $ $ ! $ "$ " ! ! $ $ !" $ !" $ "2 $ ! " 1 ! "2 " " !" $ 4 " $ % ! " 4 "$$" ! $  $  ! 4 ! % $" $ 1 $ " ! $ ! "! 0 "! ! 2 0 $  4 $  (2  ! 3 $ $ 4 $ ! 4 ! ) ( $ $ 2 " !" # "! $ $ ! "$ " !  "! !" "! " "5  "' ! " gure 2.a e e. and pu h p a e. u h a e and epara on ae @ 7 B B @8 de a ae uh 8A @ 8 9 Inac ve o 8 @ 7 B 7 7 A 8 @8 9 A c ve o 8 de ae & % $ # ! " !  7 6 ! Eag e  ero pace na y epor age 12 ae de E 8@D "5 "' "' "' $ $ .epara o n 8 u h C gure 2. The de red orce pre e pr or o aunch. de v e o he pu h p a e and g de ra canbe een n gure 2. To a ure an equa y d r bu ed $! "  $ " $!" "! ! 4 $   !"  $  !! $ ! $" $ 1 $ 2 " !2 ! 3 $ !" # 4 4 2  ! "5 "2 !" $ $ % ! % ( !" " $ !" # "5 $ % ! % ( gure 2.7 uh a e on de a $ % ! % !" # de a $ % "$ 1 $ % ! % 0 ) ( gure 2.

3.8 round pr ng ( quared) y  p r ng € p en End p r ng round q uared End ‚ € S R y Q P H I H F G H y H G QI Eag e F F ero pace na y epor age 13 Q H QIFF Q Y Q T F IQ IV IV IH H Q . n y one de o he pr ng a ground quared end. he pr ng have a d ame er u c en o quared grounded pr ng u ed n h concep o cover a mo he en re p a e. n mage o he concep o pu ng pr ng ho n n gure 2. Th adju ab e ve oc y auncher a concep ha or any ube a e e ha are o be dep oyed n o orb m ar o ha o he bu h more modu ar y. he pr ng he requ red eng h a o ng a orce o be app ed o he p y oad. ncrea e he amoun o area o he pr ng ouch ng he pu h p a e.8 round pr ng Q Q Q Q T IV I U F I ITT H Q HI Q I Q I I H Q F H HI H FFIU I I Q H H T I I H Q HI Q Q I I H H Q F H G Q T Q Q Q F T F Q F T IQ Q W H I Q QH Y Q Q IQ F F H X W I QHI T I gure 2.8 round pr ng ho ho quared grounded pr ng end a o or more area o be p aced a on he ur ace aga n h ch he pr ng be pu h ng on. pr ng be de gned uch ha n he r ree eng h equa o he r re ch o compre ed eng h. Th ype o pr ng can be een be o n gure 2.9 e o u ng pr ng oncep on he o o n g page. The dep oymen ac on a need o be re a ned by he door o he dep oyer and he pr ng u ed need o be a ened o bo h he dep oyer ruc ure and he aunch p a e.orce a ong he pu h p a e rom he pr ng. e dc 2.5 Pulling h gf ring i Th concep u e our n a y re ched pr ng o pu he pay oadou o he dep oyer ruc ure. mak ng he orce d r bu on more even a ong he p a e. h f h fh fr pp i h h h p h hg ppfr g h p ppfr h i h i h p gf h f g h g g h f p f h x p s g p i f h p p h h pp q f h h fpp w i h h f h g p h f h p fp h f h r fv u g h i g p gf h h h hg fg p hg i pp fhf f ft h f fr pp p ppfr r f h ig g g gf g g h h h h f p p q f h h gg f g h fpp ppfr hg i hg h Q a F ` QIU Q Q T U FF T HI Q b`RR I H Q H Q Q Q Q T FFIU I HI Q H I Q HI Q H FI Q Q IH QI I U QH I Q F QI H U F Q I HU H F H QH F H T H H I I HI Q Y Y HI Q Q FT I Q F Q X W X W gure 2. he o her end open o be hread hrough he epara on p a e. When a pay oad oaded n o he dep oyer.

and he range a ed n ec on 2.a e e.1. he pay oad e o ex he de gn. … • ˆ † ˆ † ˆ†” ˆ • ˆ ˆ† ” †“ ’ † ƒƒ†” … … ƒ … ˆ … ƒƒ ” • ˆ… … ˆ† †ƒƒ ƒ ˆ ˆ• ƒ … † ƒ ˆ †ƒƒ †ˆ † • ƒ † ˆ † ƒ … ˆ †…ˆ … … ˆ • †‘ ˆ† ˆ †ƒƒ †ˆƒ … ƒ † … † … •…†ˆ … ˆ ƒ ” ˆ†” † ˆ ” ˆ • … … … … ˆ ƒƒ†” ˆ • … ƒ• ˆ ˆ†” ˆ… ƒ ˆ † ˆ… …” … ƒ †ˆ ˆ†ƒƒ ˆ – … †… • …ˆ† ˆ… ˆ … ˆ … ˆ ˆ …… ˆ ˆ… ˆ ˆ ˆ†” ˆ†” ˆ † ˜ …… ƒƒ — •… … ƒ ƒ ƒƒ†” ˆ ƒ ˆ ™ ’ …† † ˆ ƒ… – ˆ… ƒ ƒƒ†ˆ… ˆ ˆ ˆ ƒ ˆ † ˆ • †ƒƒ ‰ • † †… ƒ †ˆ ˆ ˆ †ˆ † – ˆ † … ƒ ˆ ƒ ” †“ ’ … ˆ ˆ — † ƒ ƒ †… † ˆ†” ˆ †ˆ ˆ ˆ… ˆ†ƒƒ ˆ – ˆ ˆ † •• – †… ˆ • ˆ … ˆ ˆ ˆ †ƒƒ ‰ ƒ …ƒ† ƒ †… † † †‘ ˆ ˆ ˆ — † – †ƒƒ ‰ • ” †“ ’ gure 2. The u e o pu ng pr ng mean ha he ejec ng pay oad have o overcome any re u ng r c on rom he eave he ano. W h he pu ng pr n g ree.9 e o u ng pr ng oncep ho ho he pu ng pr ng be h n he dep oyer ruc ure.gure 2. The pr ng ho n n gure 2.a e e h a a ac ory ve oc y h n ra o he dep oyer.eng h.9 e o u ng pr ng oncep have a d advan age a hey ake up more n erna vo ume han o her de gn . mean ng he dep oyer ruc ure mu have an ncrea ed eng h and he gh . h a con nuou orce. h one end u h h he ou de a o he or en ed ano. e ec ve y ncrea ng he overa ma and co o he dep oymen ub y em. In he prev ou y de cr bed de gn .9 ƒƒ u er Wa … u ng pr ng † – e o u ng pr ng oncep  ‰ ˆ ‡ … † … ƒ „ … „ Eag e ƒ ero pace na y epor age 14 †‘ ˜ ˆ d †ƒƒ ‰ . he pr ng are ab e o pu h he pay oad comp e e y ou o he dep oyer. nce he pr ng canno compre pa dep oyer under he momen um ran erred o he pay oad.2 ep oymen .

as seen in Figure 3. a prismatic bar of length L subjected to a tensile force P. gradually increasing from zero to the maximum load value P. the load is assumed to be slowly applied. p.0 : Descope. both load and elongation will remain unchanged (Gere . 2009. The bar will gradually elongate as the load is continuously applied until it eventually reaches maximum elongation at the same time that the load reaches its full value P.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 15 3. as well as recommendations. from Materials of Mechanics. These requirements were taken into consideration for preliminary analyses. which is defined in the following sections. Provide mounting space for future subsystems. and Withstand launch conditions.1: Static Loading on Prismatic Bar): Figure 3. After maximum elongation and full load applied. 92) Loading on Prismatic Bar In Figure 3.0 Structure Subsystem Analysis The analyses outlined in this section have been done assuming those requirements stated in Section 2.1 Theory Static Loading Static loading analysis will be performed on the prototype structure to ensure the requirements outlined are met and that the prototype structure will survive the launch environment..1.1: Static Loading on Prismatic Bar. 3. The Structure Subsystem requirements are as follows: y y y Provide a modular structure.1: Static (Source: Gere & Goodno.1 3.g. Static loading is where there are no dynamic or inertial effects due to motion (e.

as illustrated in Figure 3. 2009).2 : Equations. . which requires the structure to actually be able to withstand 7.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 16 & Goodno. A special load experienced during launch is g-loading. 364) Whether the stress is positive. Because of the strengths of the Delta IV.2: Normal Stress on Prismatic Bar: Figure 3. bending stress. One type of stress experienced during launch is normal stress. tensile. defined in Section 3. normal stresses are stresses that act perpendicular to the cut surface as seen in Figure 3. Another type of stress experienced during launch is bending stress.5 g¶s. Again. The maximum expected loading will be 6 g¶s. 8) Stress on Prismatic Bar As seen in Figure 3. p. but it makes no sense as written. a prismatic bar is with a cut is shown. I know what you¶re trying to say. using a prismatic bar as shown in Figure 3. normal stress.1: Static Loading on Prismatic Bar. including g-loading. 2009. According to the Payload Planner¶s Guide the Delta IV is the strongest launch vehicle for Eagle Aerospace¶s purposes. acting in the same direction as the force applied to a prismatic bar. the stresses vary linearly with the distance y from the neutral axis«´ (Gere & Goodno. the prototype must meet the loading requirements for the vehicle. p. can be observed through the bending moment. but if the forces act in the reverse direction a compressed action occurs and this is called compressive stress (Gere.2: Normal (Source: Gere & Goodno. Bending stress is found using the flexure formula. compressive. G-loading is the acceleration experienced by an object due to gravitational forces that cause stresses and strains on the objects. the structure must be tested to at least 1.3: Compressive and Tensile Stresses on the next page. Also. 2009. The normal force. but according to the safety standards outlined in the Payload Planner¶s Guide for the Delta IV. acts perpendicular to the cut and in the direction of the force in this case. acting in the reverse direction. Static load testing will be performed to ensure the structure prototype will survive any static loads during launch. and yielding stress as described in the following paragraphs. Comment [OI1]: Retype this paragraph.2: Normal Stress on Prismatic Bar. this is called tensile stress. or negative.25 times the maximum expected loading. denoted by n. 2009). when the bar is stretched by the force P. According to Mechanics of Materials bending stress can be described ³«that stresses are directly proportional to the bending moment M and inversely proportional to the moment of inertia I of the cross section.

2009. or yield strength. The material deforms elastically until the yield point. The corresponding stress from the yield point of the material is yielding stress. introduces the basic theory behind static loading to better understand the equations used for structural analysis. the natural frequency of the prototype structure must fall outside the natural frequency range of the launch vehicle. p. 364) and Tensile Stresses As seen in Figure 3. resonance will occur. 2009). and (b) shows a tensile stress resulting from a negative bending moment where the bending stresses are negative over the part of the cross-section (y is negative) over the beam (Gere & Goodno.3: Compressive (Source: Gere & Goodno. and yielding stress. Each of the three possible launch vehicles. (a) shows a compressive stress resulting from a positive bending moment. Static loading is only the first of the two (2) analyses needed to be described and conducted for structural analysis. For the safest structure. where the material will then deform plastically and deformation will be permanent and non-reversible. described in the previous paragraphs. Resonance is a condition where the natural frequency of the prototype structure equals . G-loading. the Minotaur I and IV and the Delta IV Medium. will have a different range of natural frequencies. 3. bending stress.1.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 17 Figure 3. The main objective for vibration analysis is to determine the natural frequency of the prototype structure. normal stress. The last significant experienced during launch is yielding stress. If the natural frequency of the prototype structure falls within the natural frequency range of the launch vehicle. where the bending stresses are positive over the part of the cross-section (y is negative) over the beam.2 Vibration Analysis Comment [OI2]: Significant what? Vibration analysis will be performed in order to ensure the satellite structure will survive the launch environment.3: Compressive and Tensile Stresses.

The solid structure assumption is not a valid assumption because the satellite structure is hollow and not solid. A cantilevered beam is fully constrained at one end while unconstrained at the opposite end. There is not a numerical solution for determining a natural frequency of a hollow structure. To calculate an approximate natural frequency of the prototype structure.4: Vibrational Analysis Free-Body Diagram. the most accurate method to determine the natural frequency. Figure 3. a structure analysis computer program. Modeling the prototype structure as a single closed structure is extremely difficult and very time-consuming. However. The materials Comment [OI5]: What is ANSYS? . a structure shape must be finalized. before an FEM model can be built. An analytical solution implies that an equation has been derived. The shape of the st ructure will have a significant factor on how the loads are distributed on the structure. the structure will structurally break apart which would result in a mission failure. The assumptions for this method are the structure is cantilevered and the structure is solid. The free -body diagram utilized for this method is shown in Figure 3.4: Vibrational Analysis Free-Body Diagram As shown in Figure 3. I is the mass moment of inertia. If the two (2) frequencies exactly match. once the structure shape is finalized. above. and y and z are the axes directions. However. The cantilevered beam assumption is valid because the satellite structure could be mounted cantilevered to the launch vehicle. the following method will be used. Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis will be used instead of hand-calculated analytical methods. Moreover. An FEM ANSYS model will be built and the prototype structure's natural frequency will be calculated in the immediate future. only analytical solutions. the beam is mounted in a cantilevered position. E is the modulus of elasticity of the structure material. and FEM modeling will be completed in ANSYS. however.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 18 the natural frequency of the launch vehicle. A numerical solution implies that a solution has been approximated. materials used in the structure must be chosen. the following method will approximate the natural frequency relatively close to the exact natural frequency. L is the length of the structure.4: Vibrational Analysis Free-Body Diagram below: Comment [OI3]: What? Comment [OI4]: You have these two backwards. This method is.

Eagle Aerospace has access to a shaker table at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ± Prescott Campus.2 Equations A static loading analysis was completed for the cubic and hexagonal cylinder designs using the equations outlined over the following pages. equation is shown in Equation 3. P. g.2 shows the equation for normal stress using the force.5 as outlined in g-loading in Section 3. is 50 kg as per the requirements of the University Nano-Satellite Program.1 shows the equation for calculating P using . that will be applied during testing is 7. and g.1 Equation 3. Once ANSYS modeling has determined a natural frequency of the prototype structure. and the area.1: Static Loading. P is the load applied on the structure. the test results in a success. 3. which helps simulate the launch environment. The standard way to complete vibration analysis is through the use of a shaker table. If the satellite structure survives the shake test without any damage. the test results in a failure. . A.2 Equation 3.8 . Earth¶s gravity. will be available from the company who operates the launch vehicle. acting on the design will be 9. The natural frequency range of the launch vehicle . If the satellite structure does not survive the test or structural damage occurs.1 below: Equation 3. . The shaker table will shake the prototype structure to the natural frequency range of the launch vehicle. is shown in Equation 3.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 19 properties used in the structure will determine how the load is distributed through the structure. which is not yet known. The equation for finding force. and A is the area of the design. denoted by m. equation is shown in Equation 3. Mass of the fully loaded design.3 on the next page: . The normal stress.1.2 below:  Equation 3. . The g-loading. m. The bending stress. with the numerical data gained from these equations outlined in Section 3. testing will begin. Structural Dynamics Laboratory and will perform the requisite test once a prototype structure has been constructed.3 : Structural Analysis. P.

equation is shown in Equation 3. The Forth-order differential equation having the general solution is shown below:  •‹ œ …‘• œ •‹Š œ  …‘•Š œ Equation 3.3. and I.6 through Equation 3. in terms of .15 are used in the method to approximate the natural frequencies of the structure. respectively.3 shows the equation for bending stress. The constant is shown in the equation below:   .5 Equation 3. D. Where is the bending moment found by multiplying the force.5 below:  Equation 3.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 20 Equation 3. The centroid is where the moment arm acts through the structure. and F are unknown boundary condition constants. above. .3 Equation 3.4 below: Equation 3.4 Equation 3.6 As shown in Equation 3.2 and Equation 3. I is the area moment of inertia.4 shows the equation for calculating the total stress by summing the normal and bending stresses found in Equation 3.5 shows the yield strength of the material. by the point where the moment acts through the centroid (d). V is the amplitude of vibration while B.6. and A is the minimum area of the stringer. The total stress. D. The yield stress equation to find the minimum area needed for the stringers is shown in Equation 3. P. P is the force applied on the structure. Equation 3.

above. E is the .7.7 As shown in Equation 3.7. the constant is calculated. In Equation 3. is the natural frequency. is the material density. A is the cross-sectional area. above. Equation 3.

and F equaling unknown boundary condition constants. Equation 3. above. The constant is calculated in Equation 3.12 yields C = . above. the following equations are obtained:  Equation 3. the second boundary condition equation is shown with B.12 and Equation 3.13.10 and Equation 3. D.8. The constant is calculated in Equation 3. C.  •‹   …‘•   •‹Š   …‘•Š  Equation 3.F and B = .13.12  …‘•  …‘•Š   •‹  •‹Š   Equation 3. dV/dz = 0 at z = 0.     Equation 3. the third boundary condition equation is shown with B.11. and I is the mass moment of inertia about the neutral axis of the cross section. above. and F equaling unknown boundary condition constants. above.11.14 on the next page is obtained: .10. below.9. and F equaling unknown boundary condition constants. C.9 As shown in Equation 3. D.13 Eliminating B and C from Equation 3. are obtained:  •‹  •‹Š   …‘•  …‘•Š   Equation 3.8 As shown in Equation 3. With F and D replaced in the above four (4) equations.D. D. above. By substituting the boundary conditions into the general solution. Equation 3. the first boundary condition equation is shown with C and F equaling unknown boundary condition constants. The constant is calculated in Equation 3.11 As shown in Equation 3. the fourth boundary condition equation is shown with B. The boundary conditions in this problem are: V = 0.10:  •‹   …‘•   •‹Š   …‘•Š  Equation 3. C.10 As shown in Equation 3. The solutions of Equation 3.15.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 21 material modulus of elasticity. d2V/dz2 = 0 and d3V/dz3 = 0 at z = L.12 and Equation 3.

14 Expanding Equation 3.5: Force Acting on Structure Based on Orientation on the next page.15 above solved numerically yields following results: 1L 2 2 = 1.15 below is obtained: …‘• …‘•Š  Equation 3. The force P is what all four stringers must equally support. Vibrational analysis will be calculated in ANSYS in the immediate future. These stresses are shown in Figure 3.1. the satellite structure will initially experience very high g-force loading. The result of this calculation is shown below: The type of stress that the satellite structure will experience is dependent on the way satellite structure is loaded into the launch vehicle. and g is 9. Vibrational analysis has not yet been performed because of the high levels of complexity and short time constraints. m. and realizing that sin L + cos L = 1 and cosh2 L ± sinh2 L = 1.875 2L = 4. Equation 3. . which is the gravitational acceleration of the Earth on an object which is on the Earth¶s surface. The mass.3 : Structural Analysis for analysis for the cubic and hexagonal cylinder designs.5 (from Section 3.1. The static loading analysis only consists of normal stress calculations and not bending stress calculations.1 Structural Analysis Cube Eagle Aerospace has only performed static loading analyses on the cube structure. gd is the g-force from the launch vehicle. When the structure is launched. Static loading is performed to ensure the structure will survive the launch environment. from the UNP requirements.855 These equations discussed in this section are used in Section 3.Eagle Aerospace •‹  Anal ysis Report •‹  …‘•  …‘•Š  Page | 22 •‹Š  •‹Š  Equation 3.8 m/ . is 50 kg.694 3L = 7. P is the total force that the stringers must support.15 Equation 3. The strongest forces will be the gforce load placed upon the structure by the launch vehicle. The gforce is 7. 3.3 3.3.1). above. The load that will be placed on the structure was calculated by Equation 3. Static loading analyses consists of g-force loading.14.

The minimum cross-sectional area can be calculated by dividing the mi imum stringer area n  h jg j s ~ ee ~~ s | | g | { ~ j s e ~ hj ~ } | g gg | { h h hj ~ j gh j | hj j e hgz e eehr e h ef ef s jg j gh j s ef g g eh s s h jo ge h g j j g j s h jg j y jg gg eh s e h j g h jg h jg s jg r e ef s s g j gg g j h r hj j g jg s hg jg j jg jo j t s j e hu n ef ef ef jg g j v jg e h j ef e jo j jg g j e jg jhr j g e hu n Tab e 3. and A is the tota cross sectiona area o a the stringers. r nger made o 6063 o y e d reng h .1 e d reng h o on dered um num Type be o j h g hj hg h ef s g hg g t s j g j h jo e e hu n j ss h e ruc ure are ho n n s js e j j j j j j hj j j g j j h q j gg h jg ee s e h r jg ehj j j j hj j h g p h gg h g h h q e jg g gh ge j j e j j j j h h jo e hj j s g p j gg ee eehr jg j jg e h q j jg hj g hj f j j gr e eehr j j g jo g p e h jg g e hg g m n hj j hj f j j j h j j jg t jo ee h hm j s m n j gr hj g hgg ehj j h hj f se gh gh e g r f j j hm g gf gh j h jg e h h h m n gure 3. standard assumption is compressive ailure happens at 70 o the yield strength. 7075T6 ha he h ghe y e d reng h.ec ona area o he um o a o he r nger ca cu a ed. When he ruc ure moun ed ver ca y.1 e d reng h o on dered um num Type . above. gh g ~ ng Equa on 3. he e . he r gh ha o he p c ure ho he ruc ure oaded can evered on o he aunch veh c e. 2024T6 and 6061-T6 repre en more mode op on or r nger ma er a becau e o a mode range 6063-T5 ha he o e y e d reng h. h and he ea amoun o re be ore a ure. ha o he p c ure ho he ruc ure oaded ver ca y n o he aunch veh c e. P is the tota compressive orce app ied. h ch mean ha r nger made rom h ma er a be ab e o h and he grea e amoun o re be ore hey a . ompre on mean he orce pu h ng do n on o he r nger . he r nger mu be ab e o uppor he u amoun o he orce n compre on.5 orce c ng on ruc ure a ed on r en a on . The r nger mu be ab e o uppor no on y norma re .5 orce c ng on ruc ure a ed on r en a on above.5 r orce c ng on ruc ure a ed on r en a on l k j i g h g e f g f h h h jg j Eag e e e ero pace na y epor age 23 jg jhr eehr e j r g g j j g j s e h j s g gf g gf h se h jg h jg s jg j e hm .5 he m n mum cro . above. In h equa on.1 e ed reng h o on dered um num Type nr e The d eren a um num ype cho en or con dera on n he Tab e 3. h r g j jg luminum y e 2024-T6 6061-T6 6063-T5 7075-T6 x w ef Yield trength (MPa) 345 276 145 503 ef g h ef hg t s ho n n Tab e 3. y is 70 o he yie d strength o the materia . ho n n gure 3. can evered moun ng me hod crea e a bend ng momen abou he hor zon a ax . Th bend ng momen ead o bend ng re n he r nger .ho n n gure 3. bu a o bend ng re .

the minimum stringer area is dependent of what type on aluminum is used. Not enough data have been collected to perform more detailed mathematical analyses of the concept. Dividing this outcome by four will result in the required minimum cross-sectional area of each stringer. e. the equation becomes:  The resulting area is the total required cross-sectional area for all four stringers in order to support the compressive load without failing.3. The minimum stringer area depends on the type of aluminum used.5 As shown in Table 3.75 9 2. some analyses are difficult to perform without making use of structural and material modeling software.75 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 24 by four because each stringer is assumed to equally carry the load.2: Stringer Cross Sectional Areas Based for Cubic Structure. Eagle Aerospace has only performed static loading analyses to determine the validity of the hexagonal cylinder concept.2 Hexagonal Cylinder To date. Al 2024 -T6 and Al 6061-T6 are close because the respective yield strengths of the materials are close to one another. If the stringers are made from Al 6061-T6.2: Stringer Cross Sectional Areas Based below: Table 3.g. 3. the structure will experience exceptionally high g-forces and the . Al 6063-T5 results in a larger minimum stringer area because Al 6063-T5 is the weakest of the studied aluminums. Al 7075-T6 results in the smallest minimum stringer area because Al 7075-T6 is the strongest aluminum.2: Stringer Cross Sectional Areas Based for Cubic Structure Aluminum Type Total Cross Sectional Area of All Stringers (mm2) Cross Sectional Area of Each Stringer (mm2) Al 2024-T6 Al 6061-T6 Al 6063-T5 Al 7075-T6 15 19 36 10 3. Additionally. The stringers are assumed to equally carry the load. During the launch phase. The primary purpose of static loading analysis of a structure is to determine the ability of the structure to survive the loads that will be placed upon it during the launch phase. ANSYS. above. The required cross-sectional areas for the aluminum stringers are shown in Table 3.

which means that stringers made from it will fail sooner than any other type of aluminum. However. Al 6063-T5. as larger stringers are heavier than smaller ones. Using stronger stringer materials allows the stringers to be made smaller. which saves both space and mass.1: Cube.5. For the hexagonal cylinder concept. However. the equation becomes: Comment [OI6]: Where did you get this value? .2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept to be a modified H-beam.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 25 members that support the structure must be able to carry many times the weight of the spacecraft without failing. If the stringers are made from Al 7075-T6.3. Aluminum is the material that has been selected for the stringers. The stringers must therefore be capable of supporting the maximum weight of the spacecraft at the maximum expected g-loading of 7. the type of stress that the structure will experience is dependent on the way it is loaded into the launch vehicle. the six (6) stringers will be the supporting members. but the weight that all six stringers must support together.3.1: Cube. the stress that the stringers will experience can be found. and size. the total size of all stringers made from a given material can be found. The required size for the stringers can be found based on the force that the stringers must support and the maximum stress they can handle. material. which was determined in Section 3. in Section 3. the yield stress only represents the maximum tensile stress that a material can take. this type of aluminum also tends to be very expensive. The yield strengths of the various types of aluminum that have been considered for use with the hexagonal cylinder concept are shown in Table 3. Al 6063-T5 also has the lowest yield strength. Using Equation 3. on the other hand. but there are several different types of aluminum under consideration. where y is 70% of the tensile yield strength of the material. The shape of the stringers has already been determined in Section 2. which makes it less desirable.2.1: Yield Strengths of Considered Aluminum Types. the compressive yield stress of a metal can be assumed to be about 70 % of the tensile yield stress. The amount of stress that a stringer can support is determined by the stringer's shape. tends to be very inexpensive. previously illustrated by Figure 3. Stringers made from stronger materials are capable of supporting heavier loads than stringers of the same size made from weaker materials.5: Force Acting on Structure Based on Orientation in Section 3. No property exactly describes the compressive stress that a material can withstand. and A is the total cross-sectional area of all the stringers. Of course. It is important to note that this value is not the weight that each stringer must support.3.5. The resulting force is 3675 N. which means that stringers made from this material will be able to withstand the greatest amount of stress before they fail. P is the total compressive force applied. From this force.2. Al 2024-T6 and Al 6061-T6 represent more middle of the road options for stringer materials. However. discussed in Section 2. However. in general. Al 7075-T6 has the highest yield strength.1: Cube. In order to avoid structural failure the stringers must be able to support both of these stresses.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept. How the g-force will act on the stringers depends on the orientation of the structure.

shows the required cross-sectional areas for stringers manufactured from each type of researched aluminum. Therefore. no matter which type of aluminum is chosen the stringers will be sufficiently large to withstand the compressive loading.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 26 The resulting area is the total required cross-sectional area for all six (6) stringers in order to support the compressive load without failing. the stringers will be sized to match the custom H-beam section described in Section 2. below. Dividing this result by six will result in the required cross-sectional area of each stringer. Equation 3. However.3-cm. replicated below.2. is used to determine the maximum bending stress that the stringers will experience: Mc was found by multiplying the total applied force by the moment arm of that force. Table 3. The equation then becomes:  . The stringers must also be able to withstand the bending stresses they will experience. the required size of the stringers varies greatly with the type of material used to make them.5 3.3: Stringer Cross-Sectional Areas for Hexagonal Structure. which has a cross-sectional area of 283 mm2.3: Stringer Cross-Sectional Areas for Hexagonal Structure. the distance from the centroid to the mounting point or half the length of the structure.2 6 As shown in Table 3.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept.3: Stringer Cross-Sectional Areas for Hexagonal Structure Aluminum Type Total Cross Sectional Area of All Stringers (mm2) Cross Sectional Area of Each Stringer (mm2) Al 7075-T6 Al 2024-T6 Al 6061-T6 Al 6063-T5 10 15 19 36 1.7 2. CATIA is then able to analyze the cross-sectional area of the shape and return the moment of inertia. Table 3.3. I was found by using a computer aided drafting program such as CATIA to model a hollow hexagonal cylinder with skin thickness of 1.

The analysis also shows that the hexagonal-cylinder structure. .5 0 -12. as shown in Table 3.4: Bending Stresses of Stringers Based on Distance from Centerline Distance From Centerline (cm) Bending Stress (MPa) 25 12.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 27 This result is in units of .4: Bending Stresses of Stringers Based on Distance from Centerline to the yield strengths of the various aluminums.594 0. and possible cost altering factors involved in constructing prototypes for each of the concepts described in Section 2. it can be seen that the bending stresses can easily be carried by the aluminum stringers no matter which aluminum is selected.4 Budget This section describes the selected materials. Negative stresses reported by the table are compressive stresses and must be compared to 70 % of the yield stress of the stringer material. Table 3.2 : Structure Design Concepts. below. Positive stresses reported by the table are tensile stresses and are compared to the yield stress of the stringer material. it will not fail. shows the bending stresses experienced by stringers based on their distance from the centerline.4: Bending Stresses of Stringers Based on Distance from Centerline.5 -25 0. 3. will be capable of withstanding the compressive axial loads and the bending moments that will be placed upon it. the result must be multiplied by the distance of that stringer's long axis from the long axis of the hexagonal cylinder. as described. Comparing the stress values in Table 3. Stringers that are along the centerline of the cylinder should experience no bending stress. the stringers will only be at distance of 0 cm. or 25 cm (the radius of the hexagon) from the centerline of the cylinder. associated costs.4: Bending Stresses of Stringers Based on Distance from Centerline. Table 3. the greatest stress that the hexagonal-cylinder structure will experience is during compressive axial loading. which is not a measurement of stress. If the resulting bending stress is lower than the yield stress of the stringer.594 Based on the hexagonal cylinder shape.297 -0.5 cm. To get the stress in a particular stringer. 12.297 0 -0. Based on the static loading analysis that was performed.

only about USD 420.10 236.10 420.21 As shown in Table 3. shows the expected mass of the components expected to be used in the cubic structure as well as the expected overall mass of the structure. the cubic-structure concept will require a total of six (6) aluminum sheets and two (2) aluminum bars to fabricate the prototype.6 16.5: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Cube. Table 3.54 cm by 0.1 Cube Anal ysis Report Page | 28 The cubic structure will be manufactured from an aluminum honeycomb material for the side panels and aluminum for the stringers. below. the low cost of the cubic-structure concept makes it very attractive.61 12. The table also shows that the total cost of fabricating a simple cubic structure is very low.20 As shown in Table 3.88 Al 6063-T5 Beams (Stringers) 61 cm by 61 cm by 0. The total mass of the cubic structure accounts for just over 32 % of the total allowable mass of 50 kg (Eagle Aerospace RFP.5: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Cube Material 6 cm by 2.6: Mass Estimate for Cubic Structure Component Mass (kg) 6 cm by 2.3175 cm Al 5086-H32 Aluminum Sheet (Side Plates) Total 3.64 cm by 182.4.5: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Cube below: Table 3. .64 cm by 182. The estimated costs of primary materials are shown in Table 3. the majority of the mass is accounted for by the side panels while only a small portion of the mass is accounted for by the stringers. Given that Eagle Aerospace has a current budget of USD 1000 to construct prototypes for both the Deployment and Structure Subsystems. 2010).54 cm by 0.Eagle Aerospace 3.3175 cm Al 5086-H32 Aluminum Sheet Amount Cost (USD) 2 Bars 6 Sheets Total 103.6: Mass Estimate for Cubic Structure.6: Mass Estimate for Cubic Structure. Table 3.88 Al 6063-T5 Beams 61 cm by 61 cm by 0. on the previous page.

above.7: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure Material 61 cm by 61 cm by 0. The estimated costs of the aluminum materials that Eagle Aerospace plans to use in the construction of the hexagonal-cylinder prototype are shown in Table 3.2 Hexagonal Cylinder Anal ysis Report Page | 29 The hexagonal cylinder will primarily make use of aluminum bars and aluminum sheets. The actual cost to acquire these materials will most likely be lower because many of the materials are already available to Eagle Aerospace and will not need to be purchased.3175 cm Al 5086-H32 Aluminum Sheet (Mounting Plates) 61 cm by 61 cm by 0.51 103.4. A final estimate on the actual cost to build the prototype will be made available in the near future.12 5.8: Mass Estimate for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure below: Table 3. The mass estimate for the hexagonal structure.3175 cm Al 5086-H32 Aluminum Sheet (Back Plates) 61 cm by 61 cm by 0. is shown in Table 3.88 Al 6063-T5 Beams Amount Cost (USD) 5 6 2 Total 275.64x182. shows the estimated cost of ordering sufficient prefabricated parts to construct the prototype.45 189.8: Mass Estimate for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure Component Mass (kg) 5.7: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Hexagon.10 568.3175 cm Al 5086-H32 Aluminum Sheet 61 cm by 61 cm by 0.7: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure.0 .64x182. based on the materials shown in Table 3.34 2.71 16.254 cm Al 5052-H32 Aluminum Sheet 6x2.88 Al 6063-T5 Beams (Stringers) Total 2.83 61 cm by 61 cm by 0.06 Table 3.Eagle Aerospace 3.254 cm Al 5052-H32 Aluminum Sheet (Skin) 6x2.54x0.7: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials for Hexagon below: Table 3.54x0.

5.5 Design Feasibility While Eagle Aerospace developed two separate structural concepts. the actual cost to build the structure will likely be lower than the given estimate because many of the materials are already available for use in the fabrication of . given the high stress concentrations and possibility of unused internal volume the cube design will not be feasible. The high mass of these components is caused by the fact that a large amount of material is needed to make them.3. The static loading analysis performed in Section 3.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 30 As seen in Table 3. The cost of building a prototype structure from prefabricated components is relatively low. The reason not many.1 Cube The basic concept of the cube design is a simple but not favored design.1: Cube showed that the concept is capable of withstanding the loads that the structure will experience during launch. 3. if any.3. In order to determine which concept would be fabricated and tested.5. The static loading analyses performed in Section 3.2 Hexagonal Cylinder The basic concept of the hexagonal cylinder is a proven design. 2010). The bending stresses that the structure will experience are small in comparison to the compressive stresses. and the stringers will be able to withstand the applied bending moments. 3. the mounting plates and skin contribute most heavily to the overall mass of the prototype. These stress concentrations will cause structure fatigue and possibly failure. The total mass of the prototype will account for approximately 32 % of the total allowable mass of 50 kg (Eagle Aerospace RFP.2: Hexagonal Cylinder showed that the concept is capable of withstanding the loads that the structure will experience during launch. The hexagonal-cylinder concept does not experience the same problems with stress concentration that the cubicstructure concept does and is still relatively simple to fabricate. If the large amount of internal volume isn't fully utilized by the other subsystems the cubic structure will serve only to add excess mass. The high stress concentrations at the corners are caused by the way load is distributed on the structure and the sharp 90-deg corner angles.8: Mass Estimate for Hexagonal-Cylinder Structure. The cross-sectional area of the proposed H-beam stringers for the hexagonalcylinder concept far exceeds the minimum required area for the stringers to withstand the compressive loads the structure will experience. cube designs have flown in space is the presence of high stress concentrations at the corners of the structure. a prototype can only be built and tested for one of the concepts in the time allowed. the feasibility of both concepts was analyzed. Furthermore. Both the normal and bending stress analyses showed the structure is capable of withstanding the loads that will be placed on the structure throughout the mission. Nevertheless. the internal volume is excessive. Moreover. on the previous page. 3.

the mathematical analysis performed in support of the design. the hexagonal-cylinder concept appears to be the more feasible option. Of the two concepts that were developed by Eagle Aerospace. The materials needed for fabrication should therefore be well within the ability of Eagle Aerospace to acquire without exceeding the allotted budget of USD 1000. the hexagonal cylinder design appears feasible.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 31 the prototype structure. . and the factors affecting the cost of the design. The Structure Subsystem will therefore pursue the further analysis and eventual fabrication and testing of a prototype hexagonalcylinder structure. Given the relative simplicity of the design.

y Should withstand a shaker table test (i. The deployer should meet the following requirements (Eagle Aerospace. Cube-Satellite).. a test that measures the resistance of a structure to intense vibration) that simulates loading conditions experienced during launch. Exit velocity range from 1cm/s to 1 m/s.1 Structure/Housing Introduction The deployer needs to be designed in such a way that it can successfully meet the mission objectives of the Deployment Subsystem.e.5 kg to 1. y Should house a payload (i. and subsystems required for future Cube-Satellite projects.. Provide power and communications to payload. i.e. y Should encompass smooth (e.1 4. Attach to Nano-Satellite structure subsystem mounts. Launch mass of 0.g. 4. The following sections include the results of analysis and recommendations to be considered. y Should be spacious to accommodate more complex subsystems for future teams to interface with the payload.1 kg. . Teflon-coated) rails for the successful deployment of the payload. a launching mechanism... y Should be made with a material that is space-rated.1. designed by the Structure Subsystem. and thus.0 : Descope. Those basic requirements are as follows: y y y y y y Launch of one Cube-Satellite. the objectives of Eagle Aerospace. and Withstand gravitational loading and vibrations induced by launch. These requirements have been taken into consideration in the preliminary analysis done on the deployment subsystem. 2010): y Should be compatible with the Nano-Satellite.e. the material retains its material properties in space and has been successfully used in previous space missions.0 Deployment Subsystem Analysis The following analyses have been conducted assuming those requirements stated in Section 2.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 32 4.

the EPS subsystem may be used to provide power to open the door of the deployer. and Crosslink) program for similar missions. the P-POD¶s design configurations are approved by both NASA and DoD for conducting low-cost space missions (California Polytechnic State University. y The outer surfaces of the payload will be hard anodized with aluminum to prevent any wear or tear due to friction during deployment. y Tolerances of 0. Teflon-coated glide rails minimize scratches to the solar panels attached along the faces of the payload and also guide the payload's trajectory during deployment. y Aluminum 7075-T3 will be used for the interior components of the deployer. Attitude. the P-POD is very flexible in terms of its design. Furthermore. for example. be used to send commands to open the door of the deployer during deployment. The CDH subsystem may. Based on the requirements mentioned in the bulleted list above. as mentioned by the manufacturer of the P-POD launcher. y The payload's center of mass will be within 2 cm of the geometric center of the deployer for the predicted deployment to be achieved. 2010). and therefore.36 cm on each side of the payload with respect to the walls will be present for the successful deployment of the payload. Teflon was chosen for Eagle Aerospace's mission. Relnav. y Aluminum 7075 or 6061-T6 will be used to build the exterior components of the deployer.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 33 Some examples of the complex subsystems mentioned in the bulleted list above include the CDH and EPS subsystems. Additionally. The following presents a list of constraints on the mechanical and physical design of the deployer and its related components: y The total mass of the payload will be no more than 1. 2010). as noted from the materials used for the P-POD (California Polytechnic State University. Teflon as mentioned in the bulleted list above has been used by other university projects such as University of Texas¶s FASTRAC (Formation Autonomy Spacecraft with Thrust. Therefore. The previous statement means that basing the design of the deployer on the P-POD would make the deployer efficient since it will be capable of housing different types of launching mechanisms because of space allowances present. provides tolerances for payloads of different dimensions (California Polytechnic State University.1 kg due to UNP requirements and due to design constraints (University Nano-Satellite Program. the deployer's basic design has been based on the design of the P-POD. as noted from the materials used for the P-POD (California Polytechnic State . Likewise. 2010). The main reason for the previous decision can be primarily attributed to the fact that the P-POD launcher is space-rated. 2010). Furthermore.

Furthermore.2 General Analysis Based on the two (2) ideas proposed by the members of the Deployment Subsystem. . Additionally. One of the two (2) aluminum alloys mentioned in the bulleted list above will be used for the exterior components of the deployer. Although the hexagonal structure can house four (4) deployers. Furthermore. The prior aluminum alloy will be finalized and discussed later in this section of the report after considering their respective costs.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 34 University. the outer surfaces of the payloads will be hard anodized with aluminum to prevent any wear between the glide rails and the Cube-Satellite during deployment. Figure 4. y A maximum pre-deployed spring length of 10 cm is to be used in designing the springs for the launching mechanism due to design constraints. the Nano-Satellite is designed such that it can house four (4) deployers each of which launches a Cube-Satellite. The main reason for choosing aluminum for both the exterior and interior of the deployer with different heat treatments is because of aluminum's light weight.1: Cross-Sectional View of Deployer reveals the probable design of the deployer. 2010). All the dimensions and materials listed in the preceding bulleted lists have been previously referenced with respect to the P-POD design specifications to estimate the dimensions of the deployer. 4. The following section presents the general analysis done on the deployer. 2010) because of its lower thermal expansion coefficient than Aluminum 6061-T6. as explained later in this section of the report the current mission only requires the deployment of two (2) Cube-Satellites (Eagle Aerospace. aluminum's high thermal expansion coefficient by volume and weight allows the structure to withstand the extreme temperature variations of space.1. y A maximum coil diameter of 9 cm is to be used in designing the springs for the launching mechanism due to design constraints.

.ectional ie o eployer and are also tabulated in Table 4. There ore.1 ross. Therefore the push plate . The prior is because the space allo ances (i. The design ith " .ectional ie o eployer ƒ   ‚ ‚ ‚  € € Eagle erospace nal ysis eport age 35 „ . if the spring proposed by the launching mechanism is replaceable. n the other hand.ush late lide ails second design hich varies rom igure 4.e.1 ross. a strip o metal (i.1 ross.. will not fall off during deployment since the spring will hold it back due to the previous types of attachment and the rails will guide the push plate during deployment.2 eployer omponents. The metal strip will be riveted along the center o the push plate because the spring has a lat sur ace. The dimensions o the cross -sectional vie o the deployer are sho n in igure 4. and Type in the budgets section. tolerances) ill no longer be available to accommodate solar panels on the ube atellite aces. oreover.ectional ie o eployer has " .ectional ie o eployer. urthermore.1 ross. luminum 7075 -T3) ill be attached vertically along .  Š ‰ Š ‰ Š Š Ž € Š Š Š Š Š Š „ ‰ ‰ ‡ Š ‹ Š † … ‰ Š ‡ ‰ ˆ ‰ † „ ‰ ‡ ‰ ‰  † … ‹ Š Š  ‰ ‰ Š ‡ Œ ˆ „ ‰ Š ‹ ‡ Š Š † … ‰ † „ ‹ Š ‰ ‹ … Š ‰ ‰ ‡ Œ € ˆ ‹ Š ‰ ˆ ‡ † … igure 4.haped" rails ill require a longer side than the design ith glide rails. the center o the push plate This metal strip ill be used to connect the spring between the push plate and the back ace o the deployer. uantity equired. The spring will be riveted between the strip o metal and the back ace o the deployer if the spring proposed by the launching mechanism is permanent.haped" rails instead o the glide rails hich are sho n in igure 4. the design ith glide rails ill be used or the deployer.e. the spring will be bolted between thepush plate and the back face of the deployer to form a temporary connection. imensio ns. thus increasing the total size o the deployer.

Table 4. the 7075-T3 alloy is stiffer.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 36 the push plate will be made as thin as possible with perforations present along its surface area to reduce its mass. Table 4.9 71.5)*(5 kg + 1.5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials located in the budgets section).1: Static Loading.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys (Source: Aerospace Specification Metals. the point in a body through which the gravitational force acts) is calculated by Equation 4. the deployer must be designed so that it can withstand a force of 450 N. The following process was used to determine the minimum wall thickness required of the deployer such that it can withstand the anticipated loading conditions experienced during launch. and g is the gravity of Earth.2 is used to calculate the design (or limit) stress for the deployer. m is the total mass of the deployer and the CubeSatellite (as mentioned in Table 4. The team members of Eagle Aerospace will use the appropriate data from Table 4.e.e.1 F = (7. The deployer must be able to withstand the limit stress during launch to avoid failure conditions.1 kg)*(9. The force (F) that will be experienced by the deployer through its center of gravity (i.. and therefore is stronger than the 6061-T6. temper). (ksi) Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) Tensile ield Strength (MPa) ‘ Modulus of Elasticity.1:    Equation 4. 2003) AlloyTemper Shear Modulus. . as specified by the Structure Subsystem in Section 3.. E (GPa) 6061-T6 7075-T3 68. G. and therefore.5 at launch from the Delta IV rocket. n is the load factor. the mass of the deployer. Equation 4.7 3770 3900 310 572 276 503 As seen from Table 4.1.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy provides the mechanical properties of Aluminum alloys with different heat treatments (i. Therefore.1.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy to perform structural tests on a prototype of the deployer as well as to calculate the minimum thickness of the walls required to withstand the loading conditions during launch. The deployer must be able to withstand a load factor of 7.81 m/s 2) F = 450 Newtons (N) In Equation 4.

3 is then re-arranged.2: Deployer Components. The force (F) will be distributed along the thickness and perimeter of the rectangular face because the rectangular face can be modeled as a plate with no spars to support the reaction forces generated as a result of the force (F) by the structure of the deployer. This calculated value for the design stress ( will be used to calculate the minimum thickness (tmin) required for the walls of the deployer during launch. Dimensions.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 37 Factor of Safety (n) of 1. Quantity Required.2. = ‡•‹‰ ‡•‹‰  = 0.2: Deployer Components.3 is then used to calculate the minimum thickness (tmin) required for the wall to withstand the loading conditions during launch: = Equation 4. Equation 4.7 MPa (Ultimate Tensile Strength) for the Aluminum-6061-T6 alloy is In Equation 4. Assuming that the force (F) acts as a distributed load along the rectangular plate of the deployer and no lateral force acts on the deployer during launch. Quantity Required.24 m + 0. The area (A) is given as the product of (tmin) and (L).3 is of the rectangular face of the deployer about which the force (F) acts. Dimensions.006 mm . taken from Table 4. Equation 4. where (L) is the perimeter of the rectangular face of the deployer about which the force (F) acts and is tabulated in Table 4. and Type.5 has been used to calculate the design stress for non-human space-rated missions. the area (A) of the rectangular face can be calculated as shown below: A = tmin*(2*(0.2 = =  = 206. This calculation for (tmin) is illustrated below: tmin =  Comment [OI7]: Retype as an equation. and Type located in the budgets section.3 The area (A) in Equation 4. n= Equation 4. Therefore.1162 m)) The previous dimensions are tabulated in Table 4.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy presented on the previous page.

and I is the moment of inertia that is calculated as 88.3 from Section 3. The previous dimensions for the length (L) and width (W) of the push plate were calculated. after considering the space allowances present between the glide rails and the Cube-Satellite:   Comment [OI8]: Check the formatting in this paragraph.4 cm will be enough for the deployer¶s push plate to withstand Eagle Aerospace¶s speed limit of 1-m/s as noted from the bending stress analysis..4 cm for the deployer was used from the P-POD specifications (California Polytechnic State University.1. Therefore.86*t (cm4) along the neutral axis of the cross-section. c is defined as 5.1 cm (W) by 0. Also.05 cm) A spring rate (k) of 0. all numerical expressions should be in equation form.1 cm (L) by 10. The previous dimensions are shown in Figure 4.8 cm is used in the P-POD. Since the tmin is much smaller than the tWOD chosen for the deployer. a wall thickness (tWOD) of 0. buckling as well as any lateral loads that may be experienced by the deployer at launch is accounted for in the design. as shown in Error! Reference source not found. The previous statement means that there should be no failure conditions for the proposed design for the deployer. and SCube-Satellite is the length of each side of a Cube-Satellite as stated in Error! Reference source not found.1: Cross-Sectional View of Deployer in Section 4. The calculation for the bending moment (M) is shown below: M = (k*5. Thus.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 38 A tPush Plate (thickness of push plate) of 0. The push plate will have a square cross-section with dimensions of 10. which is designed to withstand a speed of 1-m/s. the minimum thickness is calculated as 3.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys above. The thickness (t) is that of the push plate.    Where SPush_Plate is the length of each side of a square cross-sectional push plate.2: Equations has been used to perform the previous analysis as shown below: Where M is the bending moment produced by the spring.05 cm for the cross-section of the deployer. .. a thickness of 0.472 x 10 -5 cm.        ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡‘Ž‡”ƒ…‡ …   … … Comment [OI9]: Use equation editor for these expressions. Additionally.2: General Analysis. 2010) so that the deployer can withstand the loading conditions during launch.375 N/cm is used as provided by the launching mechanism team. Therefore. The minimum thickness of an aluminum sheet that can be machined at the ERAU Machine Shop is 0. the is defined as the ultimate tensile strength of Aluminum 6061-T6 from Table 4. This value for the thickness is the minimum Equation 3.32 cm.8 cm (t).

respectively.4 is used to determine the initial cross-sectional dimensions of thedeployer • ¡ Ÿ     ” “ ’ › ’ Eagle erospace nal ysis eport age 39 .1 Introduction. noted in ection 4.‹†‡  –   • ƒ…‡    Equation 4. the cross-section of the deployer will be a square with dimensions 11. of the deployer with glide rails .4 is the tolerance between the wall of the deployer and the ubeatellite.62 cm. igure 4.3 ightIsometric iew of eployer show the longitudinal and right isometric views . use equation editor for these expressions.4 ‹†‡  … ‹†‡ ˜—  … …  … Comment [ I 0 ]: Comment [ I ] : nce again.2 ongitudinal iew of eployer and igure 4.1. Therefore.62 cm by 11. ££ ¢ ¤ £ ¢ pace´ in Equation 4.2 ongitudinal iew of eployer – Equation 4. Ÿ š › ž  ž  œ š › ™ š ˜ ˜ ush late lide ails ž  œ š igure 4.

atellite.32 cm and are located at 0. product shown in igure 4. These values for the tolerances were design specification ( alifornia olytechnic tate referenced with respect to the niversity. 2010) such that the deployer can withstand the loading conditions during launch. The previous dimensions are used so that the ube atellite can slide in a guided and unobstructed manner during deployment. all six (6) faces t including the door will be assembled with nuts and bolts following the specifications laid out in the drawing package of the assembly partthat is T . ube.atellite is 0.05 cm on each side. u Equation 4.35 cm with a thickness of 0. 2010). uantity equired. imensions. The ush_ late from Error! eference ource not found. Tolerances are necessary to minimize any frictional wear between the edges of the push plate.ush late lide ails Two (2) glide rails will be machined longitudinally for each of the four(4) rectangular faces of the deployer (excluding the square door and square back face with the final ) . and Type located in the budgets section. th push e plate will be placed almost exactly along the rails of the deployer with the previous tolerances.2 eployer omponents.5 is used to determine the initial longit dinal dimensions of the deployer and related components: » ¹ ½ » º ¼ º ¸ ¿¾½ ½ · » º ¶ ¶µ À § µ ¯ ´ ¬®§ § ³ ² ¹ ¬ ª ® ¬± ¬ « ¦ ­ ª ° © ¬ ¯ ¬ « ¦ ª igure 4.01 cm on each side of the push plate with respect to the rails. The tolerance between the push p late and the ube. The glide rails will each have a width of 0. The previous dimensions are referenced with respect to the design specifications ( alifornia olytechnic tate niversity.3 ight-Isometric iew of eployer ¨ Á  ½ ½ § ¦ ¥ © ¥ Eagle erospace nal ysis eport age 40 .35 cm from the long end of each rectangular face. and rails during deployment. is calculated with a tolerance of 0.2 ongitudinal iew of eployer nce all the faces have been machined with their respective dimensions as specified in Table 4. Therefore. and the chosen launching mechanism has been insalled in the deployer. nother important reason for tolerances to be present is to account for thermal expansion of the materials when exposed to extreme temperature variations of space.

Table 4.2: Deployer Components. presents the components that would be required to build the deployer. Quantity Required. and Type.32 10.5 ‘‰‹–—†‹ƒŽ‡‰–Š  …  …   … …  …  … ‘‰‹–—†‹ƒŽ‡‰–Š Where SCube-Satellite is the length of a side of the Cube-Satellite as reported in Section 4. The number of total adaptors required for the current mission is TBD at this point. an extra 0.1: Cross-Sectional View of Deployer.4 23.62 by 0. The previous decision was made as a safety measure to account for any inaccuracies in the analytical results for the dimensions.2: Deployer Components.2: Deployer Components. and Type Component Name Rectangular Faces Back Face Teflon-Coated Glide Rails Pushing Plate Bolts/Screws Nuts Comment [OI12]: Equation editor.62 by 11.0 : Deployment Subsystem Analysis. Table 4. ³Subsystem Space´ is a value which provides space for adaptors from the Electrical Power Subsystem (EPS). and Type is used to provide drilling space for bolts as well as serve as a connection to the door along the front face of the deployer.35 by 0.3 cm is incorporated along the longitudinal length of the deployer to account for any emergency space required because the longitudinal length used is 24 cm as opposed to the calculated value of 23. Dimensions. The back face of the deployer has the same dimensions as that of the cross-sectional view of the deployer. Quantity Required. Dimensions. Furthermore. excluding the door. Quantity Required. The walls will be perforated to include adaptors so that the deployer and the Cube-Satellite located along the push plate of the deployer can interface with the entire structure. Dimensions.79375 (Size#20) 0.3 by 0.1 by 10. LSpring is the maximum compressed length of the spring in the pre-deployed configuration.4 11.7 cm. namely that of the figure shown in Figure 4. Dimension(cm) (L) by (W) by (t) 24 by 11.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 41 ‘‰‹–—†‹ƒŽ‡‰–Š     ‡‰–Š‘ˆ„‘Ž– Equation 4.4 0. Command Data and Handling (CDH) to interface with the Cube-Satellite and also the door of the deployer.79375 (Size#20) Quantity 4x 1x 8x 1x TBD TBD Type of Component Exterior ± Main Structure Exterior ± Main Structure Exterior ± Main Structure Interior Exterior/Interior Exterior/Interior .62 by 0. and ³Length of bolt´ as tabulated in Table 4.1 by 0.

the price for the Aluminum 6061-T6 is more than that of Aluminum 7075. Table 4. above.2 USD/lb 7.2 USD/lb USD 50 or Free USD 0. Furthermore. the exact number of bolts and nuts required are TBD at this point. Table 4. The next section presents the analysis performed on the platform that will be placed between the deployer and the structural housing.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 42 Based on Table 4.2: Deployer Components. Furthermore. Both types of aluminum are readily available in the market and can be purchased as plates or sheets that can be machined in the ERAU Machine Shop to satisfy the dimensions of the components required. . Dimensions. Aluminum 6061-T6 will be used for the exterior components of the deployer.T6 is used where appearance and better corrosion resistance with good strength are required. therefore since cost is a driving factor for this design.1.1.1: Introduction.3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials.3062 per piece or Free As seen from Table 4. The prior decision is based on the requirements set forth by the Deployment Subsystem on the deployer in Section 4.3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials Type of Component Exterior ± Main Structure Exterior ± Main Structure Interior Interior Exterior/Interior (Bolts and Nuts) Material Name Aluminum 7075 Aluminum 6061-T6 Aluminum 7075-T3 Teflon Stainless Steel Cost 13.3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials.151 USD/lb 15. Aluminum 6061. It would be advisable to use Aluminum 7075-T3 for future structure of the deployer because of thermal expansion reasons as discussed previously. presents the costs for the materials required to build the components of the deployer as seen on the following page. Additionally. Teflon and bolts/nuts may be acquired for free from the ERAU Machine Shop as mentioned in Table 4. It should be noted that Aluminum 6061-T6 will be used for the push plate for the final product of the deployer because of the tight budget set forth for the Deployer Subsystem by Eagle Aerospace. which is advantageous to the team's environmental conditions. as specified in Section 4. The prior is because the Deployment and Structure Subsystems have not yet finalized as to how the structures of the respective subsystems interface with each other. Quantity Required. and Type.3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials. the type of component has to be specified for each component name so that the proper material can be selected.1: Introduction.

24 cm as noted from Table 4.36 cm such that the available length would increase by 1. Therefore. The image depicted in Figure 4.1. housing two (2) Cube-Satellites side by side on each platform.52 cm in length.4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform shows the use of the platform.3 Anal ysis Report Page | 43 Deployer Platform Analysis The Nano-Satellite hexagonal structure will include two (2) platforms that will allow a total of four (4) deployers to be housed inside the Nano-Satellite. effectively increasing the length to accommodate two (2) deployers. Dimensions.Eagle Aerospace 4. Figure 4.4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform with the above dimensions is such that the hexagonal structure will now be capable of housing a total of four (4) deployers: two (2) along one wall and two (2) along the opposite wall. which effectively raises the deployers off the hexagonal side and increases the available length. The purpose of the platform is to raise the two (2) deployers off the 20.36 cm on each side.4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform shows the dimensions of the previously described platform.52 cm hexagonal side of the hexagonal structure to which they will be attached. the height of the platform would have to be at least 2. Quantity Required. and Type while one (1) side of the hexagonal structure is 20. Platforms are necessary because the combined length of two (2) deployers is 23. there will be approximately 7. Furthermore.4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform. Part A of Figure 4.2: Deployer Components. shows the overlap issue.4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform.56 cm in the middle of the .4: Structure Subsystem and Deployers With and Without Platform In Figure 4. This statement means that a platform will be placed on each of the two (2) opposite horizontal sides of the hexagon. Part B of Figure 4. the hexagonal structure subsystem is represented by the large hexagons while the deployer subsystem is represented by two (2) squares placed along the side of the hexagon. where the length of two (2) deployers is longer than one side of the hexagon. The design shown in Figure 4.

7 from Section 3. The prior value for ³L´ is the perimeter of the rectangular face as calculated in the previous paragraph.24 m + 0. and 3 are 5. This design was developed to take advantage of the amount of space being used within the Nano-Satellite.1. the perimeter of the rectangular face of the deployer is 35. Equation 3. Additionally.18. shown later in this section. In addition.4 Structural Analysis The method described in Section 3. the platform will be riveted to the hexagonal structure for a permanent attachment and the Cube-Satellites will be bolted to the platform for a temporary attachment so that the deployer can be made universal by changing its orientation satisfying the needs of the mission.05.2: Vibration Analysis. Furthermore. respectively. Dimensions. Additionally. The analysis for the platform has been done by the deployment subsystem integrator. The results obtained for the three (3) modes for the constants 1. Quantity Required. 13.1.26.1.e. Therefore. this method is only sufficient to give an approximate number for the natural frequency of the deployer using analytical means. The structural analysis for the platform will be performed after the need for a platform has been finalized by the members of Eagle Aerospace.3562 m. Equation 3.2: Vibration Analysis can be further reduced by using ³L´ as 0. The major assumptions incorporated into this method are that the deployer is cantilevered and is solid.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix: .1162 m). the inertia tensor matrix for a deployer is shown in Table 4. this design will allow future AE 445: Spacecraft Detail Design teams to develop a mission for up to four (4) payloads per face.62 cm as noted from Table 4. and Type located in the budgets section and is calculated as 2*(0.2: Deployer Components.2: Vibration Analysis.1.7 is used to analytically determine the resonant (natural) frequency (i. The prior three (3) values for ( ) will eventually result in the calculation of the three (3) values for the natural frequency of the deployer.7 The solution of Equation 3. the deployer is not completely solid.  Equation 3. 2. 4. and 22. the frequency at which small driving forces would produce large amplitude oscillations in a system) of the deployer. Although the deployer will be cantilevered when housed in the Delta IV rocket.7 is the governing equation that was used for the analysis performed in Section 3. The next section presents the structural analysis that has been performed on the deployer..Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 44 structure to accommodate for subsystems interfacing with the deployers and their payloads.

The matrix in Table 4.7 to calculate the natural frequency for the first mode of vibration.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy located in the budgets section.168 In Table 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Table 4. ³E´ is the modulus of elasticity as listed in Table 4.162 =0 = 39.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix Page | 45 = 24.7 are as follows: ³ ³ is the density of aluminum (  ‰ … .784 = 0 = 0 =0 = 44. and I is the moment of inertia (in kg*m2) along the  neutral axis of the cross-section (. The constant for the first mode ( 1) is substituted into Equation 3. The shear modulus for the previous material is listed in Table 4.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix. The variables in Equation 3.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix are given in lb*in2.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloy. Table 4.e.805 =0 = -6.013502 m 2). ³A´ represents the crosssection area of the rectangular face of the deployer where the load is being applied (0. Aluminum 6061-T6) used for the deployer. G is the shear modulus of the exterior material (i.. The previous values have to be converted to (kg*m2) for further calculations.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix will be used to calculate the resonant frequencies for the deployer at different modes as shown later in this section. The units for the values in Table 4.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix was obtained from CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) for a deployer.

The above values for the angular frequencies ( ) will be used to find the natural frequency of the deployer (f). ‰  taken from Table 4.6 below: ˆ  . This process is then repeated again to find the other two (2) modes of natural frequencies for the deployer.96 . Equation 3.4: Inertia Tensor Matrix.99 . the results obtained for the three (3) modes of vibration for the angular frequency 1.49 . and 34. The natural frequency is found by Equation 4. respectively.7 can further be simplified using the process in the preceding paragraph to:  Thus. 2. Therefore. 12. and 3 are 1.

is then converted to pounds mass (lbm) so that the cost of the respective material can be calculated using Table 4. .43 kg is for the mass of a deployer excluding the launching mechanism.5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials Component Name Rectangular Faces Back Face Teflon Coated Glide Rails Pushing Plate Quantity 4x 1x 8x 1x Total Mass (grams) 1205 55 57 111 Total Mass (lbm) 2.152 22.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 46 Equation 4.121 0.1. and f 3 are 0. the estimated cost for building a deployer (excluding the door) will be approximately USD 22. in grams.8653 0. The calculated mass of 1. a Cube-Satellite and the platform since the team has not decided if the Cube-Satellites will be launched together or separately.317 Hz. The following section explains the budgets for the deployer. The prior means that the need for a platform is not confirmed yet. The analysis using ANSYS (ANalysis SYStem) for the deployer still has to be performed to determine the deployer¶s exact natural frequency and verify the analytical results for any buckling conditions.5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials presents the estimated cost budget for the deployer: Table 4.5 Budget Table 4. 1.126 0.752 Total 1428 3. the mass of the respective components made from aluminum are calculated by multiplying the density of aluminum with the volume of the respective component.5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials. f2.54 As seen from Table 4.02 0.66 0.245 Cost (USD) 19. The mass. Also. the results obtained for the three (3) modes of the resonant frequencies from Equation 4. 4.6 for f1. and 5. respectively The previously calculated vibrational frequencies in Hz are the three (3) modes that will make the deployer resonate.3: Cost of Deployer Components and Materials and Table 4.9010 1.99 Hz.54 assuming that the prices of the materials used do not change.56 Hz.5: Estimated Cost of Components and Materials.6 Using this equation.

The door control consists of a release mechanism and a door opener. y As small as possible to meet requirements set forth by the Structure Subsystem Team. Comment [OI13]: Read the last sentence in the last paragraph and then read the bulleted list.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 47 Furthermore. The release mechanism holds the door secure during launch. Space rated (proven to function properly in space). the cost to build a deployer (with proper components) is USD 18 since two (2) deployers can be built out of a 2 by 2 (feet) by (1/8) inch thickness Aluminum 6061T6 plate. 4. the torsional spring will hold the door open. The door opener is the device which physically opens the door completely (to 180 degrees).1.2 Door Control The door control needs to be designed such that it can successfully meet the mission objectives of the Deployment Subsystem Team and that of Eagle Aerospace. y Reusable so as to test the deployer several times. The prior price tag was noted from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Company. The release mechanism must initiate when an electrical signal is sent to it. Eagle Aerospace¶s mission is quite feasible in terms of both the cost and to complete the project within the time limit constraints of the semester. Reliable as to ensure mission success. The necessary modifications will be made to the current design of the deployer as more constraints and requirements arise from the Structure Subsystem or from further study of space environment regulations. and will not release the door of the deployer until signaled to do so. The next section presents the analysis completed for the door control of the deployer. It shall also be in compliance with the UNP. y As light as possible (in mass) to accommodate for more stringent mass requirements of future missions. therefore. 4. Once the door is open. the team can build more deployers if necessary. so as to stay within the projected budget. . The Door Control shall meet the following requirements: y y y Compatible with the deployer and the overall structure of the Nano-Satellite.6 Feasibility of Operations The Deployment Subsystem team believes that the chosen design for the deployer is a reasonable starting point in fulfilling the mission of Eagle Aerospace. Additionally. Does the grammar make sense? Rewrite accordingly. the estimated budget of USD 18 per deployer is well under the team¶s budget of USD 1000. y Have the most value for the least amount of money possible. The following section summarizes the feasibility of the current design for the deployer.

This method of releasing the door was chosen after scrupulous research of this and other possible release mechanisms as described in brief in Table 4.6: Comparison of Release Mechanisms (MIGA) on the following page.2. thus setting free the Cube-Satellite. .Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 48 The release mechanism design concepts are discussed in the following sections. 4. The LSMAA will release the bolt securing the door shut during launch.1 Release Mechanism: Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (LSMAA) The Deployment Team has decided that LSMAA will release the door.

uncontrollable output.Eagle A erospace Analysis Report Page | 48 Table 4. produces small displacements only Expensive. computers. appliances Washing machines. reusable. consumer electronics. many failure modes. very small & lightweight Ejection seats. hundreds of vendors. large & heavy due to permanent magnets. works in hostile environment Linear output or motion Cons Many parts. noisy Force decreases dramatically with stroke. automatic sprinklers. design non-scalable Many parts. few moving parts Specialized movements in scientific instruments Satellite mechanisms Pyrotechnic LSMAA Ignition of power Heating of SMA wire leads to change in state of material and release of force Large force Reliable. non-proprietary design. emergency systems All of the above . noisy Expensive. inexpensive. scalable movement. few moving parts. fast acting. threatening failure modes One usage New device Principle Use Toys. manufacturing Piezo-Electric (PZT) Wax Actuator Large force in small package Large force. Reliable. suited only for rotary motion unless additional hardware is added. suited only for rotary motion unless additional hardware is added. many failure modes. operation dependent on thermal environment. few simple parts. non-proprietary design. slow response for wax to heat.6: Comparison of Release Mechanisms (MIGA) Device DC Motor Theory of Operation Permanent magnets and alternating polarity of rotor Oppositely charged electromagnet plunger repelled by permanent magnet Same as DC Motor but rolled linearly Material changes shape in electric field Wax expands when heated to produce force Pros Reliable. long lasting. car trunk openers Solenoid Linear Motor Assembly lines.

quick actuation time. LSMAA is a linear shape memory alloy actuator. After analyzing all of the pros and cons from the table. electric current. and the deployment of the Air Force Academy FalconSat spacecraft from the Sub-Orbital Program Space Launch Vehicle in January 2000. and a relatively low power draw. it possesses a low yield strength crystallography referred to as Martensite. Once a type of release device was determined. and have a quick actuation time which implies a fast time to release the initially closed door. The Low Force Nut and the Two-Stage Nut by Lockheed Martin and the Ejector Release Mechanism (of various models) by TiNi Aerospace Inc. They have already been tested on the Shape Memory Alloy Release Device experiment on MightySat I in May 1999. Unfortunately. As for Lockheed Martin products. The shape memory effect is caused by a temperature dependent crystal structure. in which a linear actuator is a mechanical device for moving or controlling a mechanism or system. were the primary choice. mainly because of their direct design in releasing a bolt in a door-hinge configuration. SMA release devices are space rated. The budget for this entire project is a mere USD 1000. For the smallest. This phenomenon can be harnessed to provide a unique and powerful actuator (TiNi Aerospace Inc. was quoted at USD 5000. The stroke arm is the part of the LSMAA releasing the payload. pricing for these exceeded our budget substantially.. showing the validity for use of SMA. When heated above this temperature. and converts that into linear motion. Both of these experiments were a success. The low budget and the accessibility were the deciding factors. and purchasing information could not be acquired. few parts. large displacement of load.00. the most likely SMA release mechanism to be used in this design is the Dash4 by the MIGA Motor Company as seen in Figure 4. or liquid. less power draw. small size. The principal of operation is that a bolt is threaded into a coupler section of the actuator and used to secure a spacecraft deployable. Therefore. This model was not the primary choice either.5: Dash4 Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (adapted from MIGA).Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 49 Table 4. While in this state. The new shape is retained provided the material is kept below its transformation temperature. weakest model by TiNi Aerospace Inc. This particular model has a stroke arm positioned on the side rather than the . high cycle life. It takes energy. the material can be deformed into other shapes with relatively little force. 2001). Also. the Deployment Subsystem Team decided on a specific model to implement into the design. a LSMAA is an ideal device to release the door of the deployer. the material reverts to its parent structure known as Austenite causing it to return to its original shape. high load carrying. SMA¶s have a relatively low mass. usually transported by air. LSMAA appears to be the best choice to fulfill all of aforementioned requirements. specifications.00. All of these models can sustain a high load. and a better design of the stroke arm (when integrating with the deployer and the overall structure). The NanoMuscles line by MIGA Motors fit the criteria better because they were of smaller size. contact information. Shape memory alloy refers to a group of materials which have the ability to return to a predetermined shape when heated. When an SMA is below its phase transformation temperature. no magnets to interfere with electronics on board.6: Comparison of Release Mechanisms (MIGA) on the previous page.

This design will require more parts to release the payload. Exact configurations to this with the Dash4 are still to be determined. Analysis will be done of the chosen SMA release device with the door to ensure the reliability and security of possible configurations. and of which the Deployment Subsystem Team is awaiting reply from MIGA Motors. When the power is removed. Figure 4. are wire segments which form a series-resistive electrical circuit. the wire must be cooled to return to its original position.5: Dash4 Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (adapted from MIGA). Some of the specifications of the Dash4 can be seen in on the next page: .Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 50 front as in the NanoMuscle models. An input current heats the wire segments (made of nickel and titanium) which begin to contract at a certain temperature. instead of a bolt release directly from the SMA release device itself. These temperature values are unknown.5: Dash4 Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuator (adapted from MIGA) Within the Dash4 as seen Figure 4.

1 amps. The door opening mechanism is discussed in further detail in the following section.8 906 0. A MOSFET is a device used for amplifying or switching electronic signals. The Dash4 is powered by the Miga Analog Driver V5 (MAD-V5) by MIGA Motors as seen in Figure 4. 0.95 (excluding tax and shipping & handling).6: Miga Analog Driver V5 (MIGA) below: Figure 4.25 s Holes for 2 X 2-56 screws 3-Pin header on 0. excluding tax and shipping & handling) Value 5.7: Performance of Dash4 (MIGA) above.254 cm pitch -29 to 60 29. It functions by sending voltage on the oxide-insulated gate electrode to induce a conducting channel between the two other contacts called source and drain.05 10 2.2 2.6: Miga Analog Driver V5 (MIGA) MAD-V5 is a simple metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) switch designed to safely power the Dash4 across a wide range of speed or input voltages. the criteria stated earlier in Section 4. The rest of the specifications are ideal because they are all minimal. .7: Performance of Dash4 (MIGA) Specification Stroke (mm) Output Force (N) Actuation Time (s) Weight (g) Thickness (mm) Resistance 7V Actuation Mounting Electrical Operating Temperature Range (°C) Cost (USD. This is beneficial in creating the rest of the future subsystems of NanoSatellite.2 : Door Control are met. The MAD-V5 is USD 13.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 51 Table 4.95 As shown in Table 4.8 3.

The reason for these self-imposed criteria is so that the door does not adversely affect the launch velocity and/or path of the Cube-Satellite. One leg. of the torsional spring is to find the mass of the door.Eagle Aerospace 4. The door will be flush against the outside surface of the Nano-Satellite. which decreases the spring coil diameter. space rated. To simplify analysis. This configuration works well because the spring will keep the door open. is attached to the deployer¶s ceiling. reliable. the frictional force upon the Cube-Satellite from the rails in the housing is assumed to be approximately zero. The torsional spring will be mounted on top of the housing (on the outside) since there not enough space inside so as not to interfere with the deployment of the Cube-Satellite. The torque required by the door is the minimum values that the torsional spring must provide to ensure the door will open at a faster rate than the CubeSatellite being launched. and will keep the door open at the spring¶s equilibrium state. Deflection (Spring Masters.2. The spring is in tension when at a deflection because this is winding or tightening the spring. The door is assumed to be a rectangular plate made of Aluminum 7075 -T6 Comment [OI14]: What is Newton¶s Second Law? . the torque of the door must be found. once released by the LSMAA. The Cube-Satellite is being launched by a linear spring behind it.2 Anal ysis Report Page | 52 Door Opener: Torsional Spring The Deployment Subsystem Team has decided that a door hinge with a torsional spring will be opening the door of the housing. easily obtainable. The spring is set at 360 deg.7: Torsional Spring at 360 Deg. 2008) The first step in deriving the torque (the tendency of a force to rotate an object about a picot). (part of the spring that is not a full coil or circle of wire). This was found by Newton¶s Second Law. The spring is small. thus releasing the Cube-Satellite. because a greater deflection of the spring produces more torque. and the other leg to the door. The deflection of the torsional spring in tension is set at 360 deg. This will decrease problems with ADC and EPS future subsystems.7: Torsional Spring at 360 Deg. (see Figure 4. Deflection (Spring Masters. which means the door will be flush to the Nano-Satellite¶s outside wall of the structure. In order to figure out what characteristics the torsional spring will have. 2008) below) and when in equilibrium is at 180 deg. This mechanism is a relatively cheap monetary decision. Figure 4. The torsional spring is in tension when the door is closed and in equilibrium when it is open.

Then the force on the door was found by applying Newton¶s Second Law again.8 below.8 The torque of the door is due to the force on the door and the distance away from the pivot point in which the force is acting. but this time with an acceleration of the door as seen in Equation 4.81 m/s^2). Equation 4.7 Where (m) is mass. moment arm is equivalent to lever arm and (P) is equivalent to the force.8: Torsional Spring Parameters (Spring Masters.1. Therefore. The acceleration of the door is equal to that of the acceleration of the Cube-Satellite because this value is the minimum acceleration the door must open at to ensure the Cube-Satellite does not hit the door when launched. Equation 4. The torque of the door may be found by using Equation 4. and (g) is Earth¶s gravitational constant (g = 9. The force of the Cube-Satellite is derived from the force of the fully extended linear spring onto the Cube-Satellite. (F) is the force. (W) is the weight of the door.2: General Analysis The weight of the plate was given by the manufacturer.9: Equation 4. 2008) below.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 53 since this is the material most likely used for the housing as stated in Section 4. In Figure 4. and (r) is the lever arm.9 Where (T) is torque.7 gives the mass of the plate as seen below: Equation 4. .

These are important because this affects the torsional properties of the spring and the dimensions of the spring need to be taken into account in the integration of the design.11: Equation 4. For design. The diameter of the wire may be found using a form of Hooke¶s Law shown in Equation 4. (T) is torque. This may be found from Equation 4. and (Def) is the angular deflection of the spring in units of radians. 2008) above). this is assumed to be 75 percent of the minimum tensile strength of the chosen material. This wire is assumed to be of circular cross-section because this type is more common and accessible than rectangular or others.10 Where (d) is the wire diameter. (T) is torque.11 Where (kT) is the torsional spring constant. Equation 4.8: Torsional Spring Parameters (Spring Masters.12: .Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 54 Figure 4. Subsequently.10. the torsional spring constant or rate may be found by Equation 4. This is the diameter of the coil from the center line of the wire. After that. the torsional spring¶s parameters may be found (reference to Figure 4. and (S) is a trial value of maximum design stress. This value can be found from a table of material properties. the mean coil diameter of the spring can be found.8: Torsional Spring Parameters (Spring Masters. 2008) Next.

16: Equation 4.12 Where (D) is the mean coil diameter.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 55  Equation 4. (IDt) is the inside coil diameter when in tension. the number of active coils in the body (coils in tension.15 and Equation 4. (D) is the mean coil diameter. and (T) is torque of the spring. A small mean coil diameter generates a greater force. and (T) is torque of spring. (d) is wire diameter. This value may be found from a material properties table.13:  Equation 4. the higher the spring¶s strength. (D) is mean coil diameter. is the all the coils in the spring except for the legs) may be found using Equation 4.14 Where (N) is number of active coils. the diameter clearance of the spring needs to be checked. Modulus of Elasticity is the material¶s tendency to deform elastically. (D) is mean coil diameter.16 Where (ID) is the inside coil diameter. Then the Spring Index may be found from Equation 4. (E) is Modulus of Elasticity. but the greater the bending stress and fatigue. and (d) is the wire diameter. This can be found from Equation 4. must be of small enough diameter so as not to interfere with the spring when it is in tension. and (F) is the force on the door. (Def) is deflection of spring. (T) is torque. A spring is designed with a spring index no greater than five. This generates a strong amount of force with a small amount of travel. . Then. The fewer active coils. The rod in which the spring is around.13 Where (c) is the spring index. the spring¶s diameter decreases when it is in tension. (d) is wire diameter. Remember. Next.15  Equation 4. A ten percent clearance is sufficient for design. (N) is the number of active coils.14:  Equation 4.

resulting in flat surfaces on opposing ends of the spring. 4. Pitch of the spring is the distance measuring vertically along the spring body from one coil to another. Modulus of Elasticity.17: Equation 4. Finally. and space rated.18: Equation 4. Torsional springs are easily attainable in desired parameters and material. This must be checked to ensure there is enough room for the spring to function as intended. The flattening results in a surface perpendicular to the length of the spring.19 Where (p) is pitch. the longer and more extensively formed the arms. The "squared" feature of the spring refers to the fact that the last coil in the spring i s flattened rather than maintaining the same angle in the helix as the rest of the spring. Before a decision can be made. and cycle life. However.17 From this. This must have a ten percent clearance. the past tense of grind) is the fact that the material at the end of the spring . the higher the cost. relatively cheap. further analysis of material types needs to be accomplished. The spring is designed to have both ends squared and ground.3 Mechanisms ± Simple Compression Spring The simple. Different materials have different ultimate tensile strengths. a spring can easily be determined. The single spring will initially be compressed within the housing. (BL) is body length. This can be found from Equation 4. small. From the above analysis of the torsional spring. The "ground" aspect of the design of the spring (i. compressed spring design uses a single spring to push the payload out of the deployer. lightweight. behind the push plate.19:  Equation 4. the last parameter of a torsional spring to be determined is the length and form of the legs.e. for a more evenly-distributed load. a body length of the spring may be found using Equation 4. These are chosen based on particular integration design. the body length clearance of the spring in tension must be checked by employing Equation 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 56 Next.18 Where (BLt) is the new body length when the spring is in tension. The flattening also results in the entire end of the spring maintaining contact with the surface it is pushing against. and (N) is number of active coils.

21 below:  Equation 4.e.675 Table 4. The equation used to calculate the kinetic energy (KE) is given in Equation 4. KE is the energy of an object in motion.5 1. as well as the maximum and minimum speeds for analysis: Table 4.20    Equation 4. and PE is energy stored in an object (i. At the point where the Cube-Satellite leaves contact with the push plate the spring is at its equilibrium position since this is the point of maximum . The kinetic energy associated with each case is shown above and is ultimately the value relevant to the design of the spring.20 below. Since in the initial position the spring is stretched but not moving.375 0. Grinding down the material at the ends of the spring creates flat surfaces to contact the surfaces the spring is affixed to.0000375 0. The primary way a system can lose energy in this deployer scenario is through friction. and the Conservation of Energy equation relating KE and potential energy (PE) is in Equation 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 57 is removed to increase the amount of surface area perpendicular to the length of the spring.8: Cube-Satellite Launch Analysis Cases pairs each launch speed with each mass showing the different configurations a spring must be designed to handle. refers to energy lost from the system through other means. the equation simplifies further. The mission of the deployer is to launch an object at a previously-selected speed. Assuming friction is neglected.1 Speed (cm/s) 1 1 100 100 Kinetic Energy (joules) 0.0000675 0.8: Cube-Satellite Launch Analysis Cases Mass (kg) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 0.8: Cube-Satellite Launch Analysis Cases illustrates the maximum and minimum masses of the Cube-Satellites in launch cases for analysis. Table 4. compressed spring).1 0. the effects of friction can be greatly minimized. the KE at a maximum and the PE is zero. However assuming that tolerances in the fabrication of the design are sufficient. and proper materials are used.21 The Conservation of Energy equation states that all energy into a system is equivalent to all energy out of the system. rather than the rounded surface of the rest of the wire that comprises the spring.5 1. The last term.

therefore.8: CubeSatellite Launch Analysis Cases to determine the parameters of the springs required for launching each case due to the relationship of the spring rate to the PE stored in a spring as seen in Equation 4.22 was used in conjunction with the KE values illustrated in Table 4.24 In Equation 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 58 velocity in the simple harmonic oscillation of a spring. and is the number of active coils. every coil is active with the exception of those that form the end surfaces of the spring. x is the difference between the stretched length of the spring and the unstretched length of the spring.9: Spring Equation Constant Values on the next page . The spring rate required by a given application can be achieved by varying several physical properties of the spring. k is the resulting spring rate. Active coils are the coils of wire in a spring that contribute to the force the spring exerts. Springs are being used because of their ability to exert a force linearly proportional to the difference between their current length. The displacement.24 were held constant. These physical properties as they relate to the spring rate are illustrated in Equation 4. Several of the values in Equation 4. the KE is at a maximum but the PE is zero. G is the shear modulus of the material used to create the spring.22 as seen below:  Equation 4.23 The spring rate. Therefore. k is a property of a spring that relates the force a spring exerts to its displacement from its unstretched length.22 Equation 4.24 above. D is the coil diameter.23 below:  Equation 4. the spring rate is a numerical representation illustration the purpose of a spring. and their values are listed in Table 4.24 below:  Equation 4. d is the wire diameter. In a squared and ground spring. and their unstretched length. Therefore the equation simplifies to Equation 4.

illustrates the varied parameters. It is possible to design a spring that fulfills the launch requirements outlined for analysis in Table 4. including Table 4. The value of the coil diameter.10: Wire Diameter and Active Coils and using the values from Table 4.8: Cube-Satellite Launch Analysis Cases.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 59 Table 4. was held constant for simplicity across all designed springs. wire diameter. Additionally. Finally.9: Spring Equation Constant Values the shear modulus.10: Wire Diameter and Active Coils as well as the values in Table 4.2 kg. . the standard helix design with squared and ground ends is not complicated in the context of manufacturing.01 Active Coils 38 34 19 11 The values in Table 4. Table 4.9: Spring Equation Constant Values Name Shear Modulus Coil Diameter Compression Variable G D x Value 80 GPa 0. Furthermore. G. calculated by estimating the volume of the spring multiplied by the density of the assumed material. below. and shipping based upon purchase prices for similar springs. and active coils necessary to achieve the kinetic energies listed in Table 4. 4.10: Wire Diameter and Active Coils. The above analysis.0012 0. D. manufacturing. was held constant because the type-316 stainless steel material was assumed to be used for all designed springs to standardize material.10: Wire Diameter and Active Coils Wire Diameter (m) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 0.09 m 0.3.00 including material.01 0. Without getting a direct quote from a manufacturer it is a reasonable assumption to state the cost of the single spring would be under USD 20.9: Spring Equation Constant Values illustrates the feasibility of the design. x.8: CubeSatellite Launch Analysis Cases as seen below: Table 4.9: Spring Equation Constant Values define the physical parameters required to accelerate the given objects to the given speeds. the total mass of the spring would be less than 0. the compression displacement.0014 0.1 Budgets The only element necessarily for this design is a single spring.01 m In Table 4. was also held constant due to the assumption that a larger coil diameter would result in more even application of the load exerted by the spring onto the push plate surface.

These assumptions were based upon similar past missions. The first assumption.4 Mechanisms ± Adjustable Springs When analyzing the single spring configuration there were many assumptions made. the minimum and maximum forces that will be required to reach the desired velocities can first be calculated using kinematics as shown in Equation 4.1 Kg and at minimum 0.2 Feasibility of Operations The design concept defined is the simplest proposed solution to launch a known object at a known velocity. 4. However there is a configuration created by duplicating this concept with the second spring in tension rather than compression. By placing one spring with a smaller coil diameter inside the center of the other. However the derived values coming from the analysis are near the limits of what can be analyzed and produced.26 below: Equation 4.25 .25 and Equation 4. is simple and feasible enough to be implemented in the confines of the class as well as the timing confines of the semester. though they are not negligible either. and there are several modifications to this concept to make it more feasible and therefore well within the grasp of the semester. the opposing springs could have much higher wire diameters.5 Kg. friction is negligible. 4.3.3. With these assumptions. The difference in the spring rates would need to be the same as in the analysis above. but much larger wire diameters could be used in the two springs to achieve this difference in a feasible means.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 60 Neither of these values should be considered to have a great impact on the total budgets. Further analysis on this design is needed before drawing the conclusion that this design change would be optimal over the simple compressed spring. from the manufacturing of the component.3: Simple Compression Spring Concept. Every aspect of the design. to installing it into the housing for the deployment mechanism. stated earlier in Section 2. The critical value in the physical properties of the spring that is nearing its limit is the wire diameter required in the analysis above due to the fact that it is approaching a value potentially too small to manufacture. is that due to the lack of gravity and the use of glide rails. Second it is assumed that the weight of a Cube-Satellite is at max 1.

There is a lower limit to what velocity can be chosen.27 F is the force created by a mass traveling at a given acceleration. so solving the two equations for acceleration and time yields the fastest launch time and the highest acceleration. Initial position and velocity are known to be zero and are therefore neglected.28 then solves for K in terms of F and .24 and Equation 4.24 and solving for gives Equation 4.1 kg.29. and the acceleration solved for in shows the max force required to launch at the velocity used in Equation 4. The coil diameter (D) is assumed to be 9 cm. Maximum displacement of the spring is assumed to be the full distance from the separation plate to the door. The spring for best force distribution is a large coil diameter squared closed end spring.28 below are then used to determine the ratio of coil gage (d) to active coils ( ) as shown in Equation 4. Plugging the new k value into Equation 4.27 below: Equation 4. Distance from separation plate to the door will also be assumed for max later. At maximum displacement the velocity.29 below: Equation 4.24 shows how the spring parameters define the spring rate. of 1. v will be maximum.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 61 Equation 4. and t is time. Equation 4.28 Which show the ratio to be: Equation 4. by definition of a Cube-Satellite. current structural designs allow 12 cm.26.. Type 316 stainless steel is chosen since it is a fairly common spring material as well as space-rated. which is large enough to fit the push plate and remain within the guide rails. Assuming the maximum mass. This material has a shear modulus (G) of 81. A spring is required that will distribute force across the push plate evenly and constantly. coil diameter can be chosen to get a reasonable amount of active coils Na. for (m). and final velocity is the desired velocity.4 GPa. a is acceleration.26 Where X is final position. Equation 4. With this ratio. V is velocity. for this distance. A small force requires a spring that has very thin and has many coils. With this acceleration maximum force can be found through Equation 4.29 Equation 4. The spring rate is also known as the spring stiffness. These values and limits are still to be . somewhat like a Slinky®. since at lower speed the force from the spring needs to be very small. The shear modulus is a measure of how stiff of flexible a material may be.

31 Determining above will allow for Equation 4.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 62 determined.30 and Equation 4. reducing . This concept seems very feasible for Eagle Aerospace to achieve. Another option for low launch speeds is to induce friction.31 below: Equation 4. After the spring is designed for the maximum speed the minimum speed of the same spring must be found.28. The task of making the force from the spring variable becomes increasingly more difficult with lower launch speeds and wider ranges. The only thing to be purchased would be the metal separation plate and the spring. The spring¶s minimum speed can be found by applying as shown in Equation 4. therefore. This method will lead to the proper choice based on mission parameters. 2008): Equation 4. The minimum then defines how much can be reduced.30 Where is the length of a single coil. Problems with low launch speeds are being analyzed by inducing friction to allow for higher forces from the spring. The reduction in force is because.31.30 to be solved. Once d is known Equation 4. The problem with low launch speeds is finding a spring that can be used in space that will have a much larger modulus of elasticity so that the solid height or compressed height is not too large for the launch structure. Excluding the structure of the deployer.30 will reduce the Equation 4. The spring must be compressed to exert a force. There Equation 4. leaving the compressed length to be far too long.32 shows the relation between are an infinite number of possibilities for speeds and springs. This concept is relatively inexpensive. Reducing force output from the spring. the only mass is from the separation plate and spring totaling approximately 50 g. A known and controlled friction on the launch plate by the glide rails will increase the force needed to achieve the same speed. keeping the total budget low. approximately USD 40.30 can be used to relate the change in active coils to the change in force applied by the spring (Soutas-Little. Higher launch speeds use the above calculations to design the necessary spring.32 shown on the next page:    Equation 4. Inducing friction is similar to the . the must be greater than zero in Equation 4. can be determined using Equation 4.00.32 and the number of inactive coils . With current calculations a single spring would need to have too small of a coil diameter for the desired launch speed. reduces the more than it effectively increases the value of K in Equation 4.

d is the wire diameter of the spring. An image of a squared and ground end spring is shown in igure 4. quared ground end springs are preferred for this launching mechanism because they provide a near circular base that can be attac ed to a mounting device in a h Í Ì Î Ï quared round Ends Æ Å Ä Ã Ã Eagle erospace nal ysis eport age 63 Í Ì .5 Mechanisms ± Pulling É È È ring nalysis As mentioned in ection 2. flat rather than angled as the other coils in the spring. This is demonstrated in Equation 4. Importan these ends do not add tly.33. The active coils are those that will provide the needed spring rate while still adding to the number of total coils. to the number of active coils of the spring. which are used to determine the effective spring rate. e yond low launch speeds this analysis will provide a spring and a range of possible speeds for the chosen spring for this method of speed variation.33 below: Equation 4.9: quared and round End pring above shows the ends of a spring.9: quared and round End pring below: Í Î Ì Í Ê Ì Ì Ë igure 4. this concept uses four springs to pull the payload out of the deployer. pri gs are designed to be initially compressed with a pitch equal to n zero. due to the presence of extra material The total .33 In Equation 4. essentially calculating the total height of several wires stacked upon each other with some thickness represented by the wire diameter. n is the total number of coils.0 : escope. Ç Ã 4. similar analysis for a pulling spring concept is shown in the following section. or this section. meaning that they will have a free length equal to their solid height. but does not affect the number of active coils in any way. which are .9: quared and round End pring Í Í Î Î Í Í igure 4. r om this relationship it can be seen that the overall length of the spring is directly related to the wire diameter and the total number of coils in the spring. number of coils is important for physical dimensions and mounting purposes. and 0 is the un-stretched length of the spring.controlled braking of a elevator. which increases the total number of coils by two (2). the spring being modeled will be assumed to have squared and ground ends.

the equivalent sprin g rate is a function of the sum of the spring rates of the four(4) springs performing the launching action.simpler manner than other types of ends. the slide rails would need to change their position or design. k1 . With the energy method. mass.10: lacement of ulling prings Attached to ush late below: Ó Ñ Ñ Ô Ñ Ó Ñ ulling prings Ö eployer Walls igure 4. The springs in their launch position with the push plate back. which is dependent on design limits. so as to not interfere with the slide rails that the push plate uses during launch. the four (4) springs used will have the same spring rate. This simplification allows the equivalent spring rate to be solved for m uch more easily. k.34 In Equation 4. while allowing for a more even distribution of the force applied prior to launch o a payload.10: lacement of ulling prings Attached to ush late the placement of the springs is shown on the walls of the deployer structure. and deflection and a variable. and k4 are the individual spring rates from the four (4) springs used.e. using energy methods. i. k3.. With this design.20 and Equation 4. and initial displacement of the spring. The equivalent spring force resulting from this configuration can be calculated per Equation 4.10: lacement of ulling prings Attached to ush late Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ Ó Ó Ñ Ñ Ñ Ñ Ô . the main equation used to determine the exit velocity of the payload relates the spring rate to the exit velocity. olving these equations for the spring rate results in a relationship between the predefined values of launch speed. while keq is the equivalent spring rate. mass. f ince this spring design requires four(4) springs pulling in unison. as shown in Equation 4. The equation relating a spring¶s rate Ö Õ Õ Õ Ò × Ñ Ð Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis eport age 64 Ô Ø . k2. The spring rate is also dependent on the physical characteristics of the spring that has been designed.34 below: Equation 4. is indicated in igure 4.34.23. In igure 4. If these springswere to be placed in the corners of the deployer structure. assuming a payload is loaded. k1 k2 k3 k4.

found by solving for D Equation 4. 25 cm/s.24.11: Analytical Results of Spring Designs.01 cm to 1 cm. assuming that all springs used share the same physical characteristics.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 65 to its physical characteristics.0 2. was used to determine these design limits.29.4 0. more reasonably sized springs can be used for the higher launch speeds. was set as an array of numbers.20 and Equation 4. ranging from 0.1 kg was also assumed. The wire diameter.4 N/m 305. the pulling spring rate has been found assuming exit velocities of 1 cm/s.1 90 42 38 Comment [OI15]: Good. as designed.76 19. To satisfy the requirements placed on the deployment subsystem.11: Analytical Results of Spring Designs makes the point that smaller. while low launch speeds tend to have an issue with larger coil diameters. may have issues if there is any friction associated with the deployer prior to payload launch.0 1.6 N/m 0. thinner wires. The initial displacement is not over 10 cm as it is with other springs because the pulling springs will not be able to act upon the payload for as long as a pushing spring.11: Analytical Results of Spring Designs below: Table 4. Results of the analysis for finding the size of the springs needed to provide the correct velocity shows that the coil diameter is inversely proportional to the cube root of the number of active coils.0076 4. The slower pulling springs. and 1 m/s.4 2. the coil diameter is minimized so as to not take up extra space in the structure of the Nano-Satellite. and number of active coils have been determined.85 1. 31 From the parameters shown in Table 4. shown in Equation 4. Table 4.031 N/m 19.11: Coil Diameter vs Number of Active Coils on the next page: .29. The maximum payload mass of 1. It should be noted that the individual spring rate is actually 1/4th of the equivalent spring rate.1 76.29. All calculations also assumed the use of type 316 stainless steel wire with a shear modulus of 80 GPa. and many active coils.5 0.11: Analytical Results of Spring Designs Launch Speed Equivalent Spring Rate (N/m) Individual Spring Rate (N/m) Wire Diameter (mm) Coil Diameter (cm) Number of Active Coils 1 cm/s 25 cm/s 50 cm/s 1 m/s 0. Here. 50 cm/s. wire thickness.2 8. due to the constraints set by Equation 4. being a function of the free length and the number of active coils per Equation 4.1 N/m 76. with an initial spring displacement of 6 cm. A graphical representation of the coil diameter as a function of a varying number of active coils is shown in Figure 4.0 3.23. A summary of the analysis is shown in Table 4. as determined by Equation 4. values for the springs coil diameter.

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Page | 66

Figure 4.11: Coil Diameter vs Number of Active Coils As shown in Figure 4.11: Coil Diameter vs Number of Active Coils, the horizontal axis represents the number of active coils while the vertical axis shows the resulting coil diameter required. Importantly, a high number of coils is required to accomplish a reasonable coil diameter, meaning that the wire diameter has to be very small. While it is possible to have such thin wire, having so much material present could significantly increase the weight of the springs, and thus the mass of project. One solution could be to have a material with a higher shear modulus, as that would effectively shift the curve depicted in Figure 4.11: Coil Diameter vs Number of Active Coils down and to the left, although the difference would have to be quite large, on the order of 200-300 GPa, to accomplish such a task. With these analysis parameters, budgets for the mass and price of the springs needed can be found.
4.5.1 Budget

Using a type 316 stainless steel for fabrication, the cost for one (1) spring is estimated at USD 5.00, include the price of the raw material and any manufacturing costs from the provider. A more accurate quote will be provided once a final design is selected. Individual springs used in this design have been calculated to weigh anywhere from 0.9 to 8.0 grams, depending on the coil diameter and wire thickness. A summary of the expected total cost for this design is shown in Table 4.1: Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys on the following page.

Eagle Aerospace Table 4.12: Pulling Spring Budget
Item Larger Springs Smaller Springs

Anal ysis Report

Page | 67

Quantity 4 4

Mass (grams) 31.4 3.94

Price of 4 Springs (USD) 20 4

As shown in Table 4.12: Pulling Spring Budget above, the mass of the spring mechanism should not greatly affect the overall mass of the deployer, nor should it take a large portion of the allotted budget of 50 kg. Factors that could increase the cost associated with the springs include manufacturing and shipping and handling costs. As mentioned previously, these parameters have been generalized for the purposes of this table. Results of the budget forecast and preliminary analysis done on this concept were taken into consideration for the feasibility of the pulling spring launching mechanism.
4.5.2 Feasibility of Operations

Looking at the numbers displayed in the budget for the pulling spring mechanism, the impact on the entire subsystem budget should be small. The low budget forecast is ideal for the constraints as it allows more room for other systems to be more advanced and potentially better. Budgetwise, the pulling spring concept should be an attainable launching mechanism that will perform as needed per the requirements for the deployment subsystem. However, the pulling spring method is not the best choice because of the physical dimensions required and the space available for the launching mechanism. Although a preferred exit velocity can be reached, the space required for these spring is not ideal. The springs will need to have a larger deployer structure to allow room for the payload to fit between the springs, limiting the modularity of the deployer. Additionally, the slide rails needed for the payload to exit on will have to have their size increased so they may reach past the coil diameter of the pulling springs. The increase in slide rails and extra room needed for springs means the structure would have to increase at least 1-cm on all sides, assuming the smallest diameter spring is used. This increase in area will increase the volume of the deployer as well as its mass, which negatively impacts the budget and the size constraints set by the Structure Subsystem. The final negative point brought about with pulling springs is the fact that the springs cannot act upon the payload during the entire launch process. There is a point at which the springs reach their free length, which leaves the payload to exit under its own momentum. If there is any friction associated with the launch, the exit velocity may be reduced, which would negatively impact the mission of the Nano-Satellite. Preliminary analysis for each subsystem and each concept as well as their associated budgets have been taken into consideration in the following section.

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Page | 68

5.0
5.1

Recommendations
Design Decisions

Section 2.0 : Descope included all proposed designs for the Structure and Deployment Subsystems which were seriously considered and analyzed in Section 3.0 : Structure Subsystem Analysis and Section 4.0 : Deployment Subsystem Analysis. The resulting analyses allowed each subsystem to determine the best design to iterate upon.
5.1.1 Structure

The hexagonal design is the design decision because of the following reasons:
y y y

Greater structure strength, Utilizes more internal volume, and Lower cost.

The hexagonal design has greater structure strength by reducing high stress concentrations at its edges. The hexagonal design has two more stringers than the cubic design which will greatly help divide the load through the structure. Since the hexagonal design has less internal volume than the cubic design, the volume will be utilized more efficiently. The cubic design has a large amount of surface are which results in a high cost to build, and the hexagonal design has less surface area which results in a lower cost to build.
5.1.2 Deployment

The Single Compressed Spring deployment mechanism design outlined in Section 2.3.3: Simple Compression Spring Concept was determined to be the best design option to use in the Deployment Subsystem due to its:
y y y

Simplest design, Lowest cost and mass, and Most feasible.

The Single Compressed Spring deployment mechanism was the simplest design considered to launch an object from the universal deployer. The Single Compressed Spring design included a single spring operating uninhibited to push the plate pushing the object out of the deployer. Other proposed designs used multiple springs, or springs that required modifications to their properties to adjust to different launch conditions. The Simple Compressed Spring design was also the simplest to analyze. The Single Compressed Spring design required the least material and possessed the least mass and would require the lowest cost to produce compared to the other proposed designs. Furthermore, the design with the single compressed spring is the simplest design to deploy the payloads with in regards to both concept of operation and manufacturing. It has analysis to show it fulfills the deployment subsystem¶s goals, and meets the low level requirements placed upon it. Though there are issues with the wore

Eagle Aerospace

Anal ysis Report

Page | 69

diameter at low launch speeds, few of the problems other proposed designs encounter are shared by the single compressed spring design, leaving it as the best design to incorporate into the Deployment Subsystem.

5.2

Subsystem Integration

The structure subsystem will be designed to have a modular interface. The six walls of the hexagonal structure will support mounting plates internally for internal subsystems to mount to. The mounting plates will be made of Aluminum and will contain ten (10) rows of five (5) holes, all equally spaced. The holes in the mounting plate will allow subsystems to bolt to the mounting plate for structural rigidity. The Deployment Subsystem will interface with the Structure Subsystem in accordance with the parameters set forth by the Structure Subsystem. The deployers designed by the Deployment Subsystem will possess brackets so as to mount to the mounting plates designed by the Structure Subsystem. The mi nimum number of mount points will be used that can still be shown to provide adequate support to survive all phases of the mission. To connect to the Power Subsystem and the Command and Data Handling Subsystem the Deployment Subsystem will feature access ports. Requirements will be published with specifications so these subsystems will be able to successfully interface with the Deployment Subsystem.

5.3

Preliminary Schedule

The preliminary schedule for Eagle Aerospace is outline in Table 5.1: Timeline as seen below Table 5.1: Timeline
Milestones
Preliminary Design Review Analysis Report Critical Design Review Product Structure, Budget, Requirements, and Test Plans Subsystem Final Build Integrated Final Build Test Report Release Document Conformity Inspection Pre-Shipment Readiness Review

Due Dates
September 28, 2010 September 30, 2010 October 12, 2010 October 17, 2010 October 30, 2010 November 13, 2010 November 20, 2010 November 30, 2010 December 30, 2010 December 12, 2010

83 m Al 6063-T5 H-Beam 61 cm x 61 cm Al 6061-T6 Plate 6 Sheets 2 Beams 3 Plates Total 791.68 1056.52 Comment [OI16]: What?!?! This has been updated. Other materials may also be purchased through EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University at a reduced price.5 cm x 61 cm x 0.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 70 The timeline set in Table 5. The estimated costs of the aluminum and carbon fiber materials that Eagle Aerospace plans to use in construction are shown in Table 5. Many of the materials are already available to Eagle Aerospace and will not need to be purchased.3: Deployment Subsystem Budget on the following page.1 Preliminary Cost Estimate Structure The hexagonal cylinder will primarily make use of aluminum bars. will also be used to build the prototype structure.2: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials above.159 cm Carbon Fiber 1.2. including adhesives and bolts.4 5. right? As shown in Table 5. While the estimated cost of the materials nearly consumes the entire budget for both the structure and deployment subsystems. the estimated cost of ordering sufficient prefabricated parts to construct the prototype. the cost of these components will be minimal compared to the cost of the aluminum and carbon fiber materials.2 Deployment The initial cost estimate for the Deployment Subsystem is shown in Table 5. While other types of material and hardware. A large number of sheets must be ordered because the carbon fiber sheets are unidirectional. .1: Timeline is the approximate schedule that Eagle Aerospace will adhere to barring any major catastrophes. and as such the sheets will need to be layered over one another to create the multidirectional sheets described in Section 2. the actual cost to acquire these materials will be significantly lower. 5.20 214. aluminum sheets. A final estimate on the actual cost to build the prototype will be made available in the near future. and carbon fiber sheets. 5. The carbon fiber sheets have such a high cost simply because of the number of sheets that woul d need to be ordered.2: Hexagonal-Cylinder Concept.4.2: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials Material Amount Cost (USD) 30.4.2: Estimated Cost of Primary Materials below: Table 5.64 23.

Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 71 Table 5.1: Attributions below: Table 6.4 Adjustable Spring Concept Serena Vinai Merrick David/Jeremy Jeremy Prince Jessica Dom Angelo Dom Prince Dom Greg Greg Vinai Merrick/Dom Prince Merrick . The combination of cost from Structure and Deployment Subsystem comes to USD 1246.00 As shown in Table 5.3 Simple Compression Spring Concept Section 2.2.00 that will be allotted for this semester.00.1 Structure/Housing Concept Section 2.00 20. no material is assumed to be available in-house.52 which is above the USD 1000.3.00 30. Unfortunately the cost only reflects for one build item of each structure. All parts are assumed to be purchased and shipped.00 190.2.0 Descope Section 2.3: Deployment Subsystem Budget Material Deployer Housing Housing Door Release Mechanism Simple Spring Total Cost (USD) 130.1: Concept: Cube Section 2.0 Attributions The responsibilities in authoring and editing this report were distributed according to Table 6.0 Mission Analysis Section 2.3: Deployment Subsystem Budget. above.2: Concept: Hex Cylinder Section 2.3. with a total subsystem cost of USD 190. 6.00 10.1: Attributions Sections Author Editor Executive Summary Section 1. the projected costs of the Deployment Subsystem.3. The budget also does not take into account of material already on hand.3.2 Door Control Concept Section 2.

2: Hexagonal Cylinder Design Feasibility Section 4.1 Door Control Section 4.5: Design Feasibility Section 3.4 Mechanisms ± Adjustable Springs Section 4.1: Cube Budget Section 3.1: Analysis: Cube Section 3.1: Cube Structure Analysis Section 3.2: Equations Section 3.4.5 Mechanisms ± Pulling Spring Analysis Section 5.2: Hexagonal Cylinder Structure Analysis Section 3.3.2: Hexagonal Cylinder Budget Section 3.3 Mechanisms ± Simple Compression Spring Section 4.1: Cube Design Feasibility Section 3.Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 72 Sections Author Editor Section 2.5.5.3.0: Structure Analysis Section 3.5 Pulling Springs Section 3.2: Analysis: Hex Cylinder Section 3. .4.0 Recommendations Figures Merrick Samantha Samantha David Sam/David David Jeremy Sam/David Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy Prince Merrick Jessica Dom Angelo Merrick Dom Team Angelo Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Greg Vinai Dom Merrick/Dom Prince Merrick Angelo David Serena Table 6.3.3.3. is a list generated by the subsystem team leads for responsibilities for writing and editing each respective section.3 Deployer Platform Analysis Section 4.1.1 Structure/Housing Section 4.1: Attributions above.

Mechanical Vibrations. 2010 TiNi Aerospace.com/FreeSite/metals/316_scrap/316scrap. Retrieved from http://tiniaerospace. D.html on Sep. New York. (2008). Inman. Canada Thompson Learning Corporation. 10.com on Sep. Accessed on Sep. R. Inc. & Dorling Kindersley Publishing Inc. Spacecraft Mission Analysis and Design . Space Junk..Eagle Aerospace Anal ysis Report Page | 73 7. 2007. 10. (2000. Great Britain: Elsevier. P.0 References Aerospace Specification Metals. 12. (1999). Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students .space. 2010.metalprices.com: Stainless Scrap 316.. Spring Masters (2008). S. Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics.. (1999). J. Spring Masters Coil Springs Manufacturer . Toronto. 7th ed. October 19). H. Patparganj.com/DesignStandards/springs/spring_design. Dehli.asp?bassnum=MA6061T6 Britt. from http://asm. James R. (2009).R. 10. Soutas-Little. Inc (2010). Larson.efunda. 2010 Wertz. Springer . Accessed on Sep. Megson. Inc.html Eagle Aerospace (EA). 2008. D. T. 2010 from http://www.com/search/SpecificMaterial. Technical Report on Space Debris. Boston: PWS Publishing Company. & Wiley J. G. Mechanics of Materials. Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (STSC). 4th ed. Gere.. Retrieved from http://www. 2010 from http://www. (2010) Concept of Design. S.matweb. Inc. Balint.com/torsion-springs/index. Ontario. M.springmasters. ASM Material Data Sheet . Metalprices. Retrieved from http://www. R.com/spacewatch/space_junk. New York: United Nations. Timoshenko. India: Pearson Education. TiNi Aerospace.asp#Tables Mechanical Design Guidelines for Springs: Spring Design And Analysis.. (2001). NY. Retrieved September 9.cfm Rao.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful