DEGREE PROJECT IN ENGINEERING PHYSICS,

SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2019

Dynamic Analysis of Sinusoidal,

Random and Shock Vibration
according to Launch Environment
for Small Spacecraft Development
to Asteroid 2016-H03

AKHSANTO ANANDITO

TRITA -SCI-GRU 2019:002

ISSN 1651-7660

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES
 Master Thesis
Dynamic Analysis of Sinusoidal, Random and Shock
Vibration according to Launch Environment for Small
Spacecraft Development to Asteroid 2016-HO3

Author: Supervisor

Akhsanto Anandito Mats Åbom

Industry Supervisor

Peter Rathsman

Examiner

Stefan Hällström

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science

in the

Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering

School of Engineering Sciences

TRITA-SCI-GRU 2019:002
ISSN 1651-7660

January 9th, 2019

i
Abstract

The investment of space commerce is skyrocketing and it is predicted to be a nascent business in the
future. The spacecraft demand has been growing not only for NASA and other space agency’s mission
but also collaboration business between small space industries, academia, and scientific community.
This glimpse brought an interest to a new investor, government, military, and manufacturing company
to deliver their objectives efficiently. Nowadays, many startups compete embracing innovation and
pioneering the novelty of space project beyond prodigious vision in an unprecedented way. Many
players foresee that decreasing size of the rocket is an important key to survive and succeed in the space
business. One of the efficient acts is lowering the launch cost. This can be achieved by designing a small
size, lightweight and affordable spacecraft. Within this context, a Beyond Atlas Spacecraft which will
be sent to Asteroid 2016-HO3, has achieved a wet mass of 20.85 kg with the size of 24.7 x 42.2 x 40.8 cm
in stowed mode and 84 x 399 x 40.8 cm in unstowed mode. However, the drawback being light and
small may lead to catastrophic failure due to resonance frequency events. According to past experience,
the gyro of the Swedish national satellite was damaged during ground testing and it was suspected due
to high amplification when the natural frequency coincides to the main structure resonance. Therefore,
this work is focusing on a spacecraft development and a non-destructive structural analysis. The
coupled-load analysis of a preliminary spacecraft design including sinusoidal, random vibration and
shock analysis are calculated using FEM. This effort can reduce the risk of component destruction before
laboratory testing as well as understand better the dynamic behavior of the spacecraft. The critical
frequency in each orthogonal axis with base input from launch environment of the LM-3A Launch
Vehicle was devised. The maximum stress, amplitude, and acceleration in accordance of qualification
test criteria were evaluated and discussed.

Keywords: spacecraft, resonance frequency, sinusoidal, random vibration, shock, FEM

ii
Sammanfattning

Investeringen av rymdhandeln är skyrocketing och det förväntas bli en växande verksamhet i

framtiden. Efterfrågan på rymdfarkoster har ökat inte bara för NASA och andra rymdorganisationens
uppdrag utan även samarbete mellan små rymdindustrier, akademin och det vetenskapliga samfundet.
Denna glimt väckte intresse för en ny investerare, regering, militär och tillverkningsföretag för att
effektivt kunna leverera sina mål. Idag konkurrerar många startups om att omfatta innovation och
banbrytande rymdprojektets nyhet bortom en fördärvad vision på ett aldrig tidigare skådat sätt. Många
spelare förutser att minskad storlek på raketen är en viktig nyckel för att överleva och lyckas i
rymdverksamheten. En av de effektiva handlingarna sänker lanseringskostnaden. Detta kan uppnås
genom att utforma en liten storlek, lätt och prisvärd rymdfarkost. Inom detta sammanhang har en
Beyond Atlas Spacecraft som skickas till Asteroid 2016-HO3, uppnått en våt massa på 20,85 kg med
storleken 24,7 x 42,2 x 40,8 cm i stuvningsläge och 84 x 399 x 40,8 cm i ostoppat läge. Nackdelen som är
ljus och liten kan emellertid leda till katastrofalt fel på grund av resonansfrekvenshändelser. Enligt
tidigare erfarenhet skadades gyroen i den svenska nationella satelliten under marktestning och det
misstänktes på grund av hög förstärkning när den naturliga frekvensen sammanföll med
huvudstrukturen resonans. Därför fokuserar detta arbete på rymdskeppsutveckling och en icke-
destruktiv strukturanalys. Den kombinerade belastningsanalysen av en preliminär
rymdfarkostkonstruktion inklusive sinusformad, slumpvibration och chockanalys beräknas med
användning av FEM. Denna insats kan minska risken för komponent förstörelse före laboratorietestning
samt förstå bättre rymdskeppets dynamiska beteende. Den kritiska frekvensen i varje ortogonal axel
med basinmatning från startmiljön för LM-3A-startkärlet utformades. Den maximala spänningen,
amplituden och accelerationen i enlighet med kvalifikationstestkriterierna utvärderades och
diskuterades.

Nyckelord: rymdfarkoster, resonansfrekvens, sinusformad, slumpmässig vibration, chock, FEM

iii
Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Beyond Atlas AB and OHB Sweden for allowing me to take a big leap towards my
passion by giving an opportunity to work on a degree project. The atmosphere of concurrent
engineering work has been amazing and giving me an insight on how to overcome a problem efficiently
in a multidisciplinary project with senior engineers of OHB Sweden and Swedish Space Corporation
(SSC). Besides experiencing the dynamics of space industry, I have also treasured a valuable lesson
about the forward driven attitude to escalate the career in the space industry and academic research.

The project has never been started without a short discussion with Project Manager of MIST satellite,
Sven Grahn and supervision from CTO OHB Sweden, Peter Rathsman. An important key to the success
of this work is learning the space career of each individual who involved in this project, especially from
the inspirational Swedish Astronaut, Christer Fuglesang. I also want to thank Professor of Sounds
Vibration, Mats Åbom for managing access of high-speed computer for the simulation, assessing my
degree’s project work and suggestion of tailoring this writing within business perspectives accordingly.

The dream team as well as supportive colleagues, Per-Erik Atterwall (Chairman), Robin Lilja (Satellite
Engineer), Krister Sjölander (System Engineer), Robin Larsson (Attitude Orbit Control System), Petrus
Hyvönen (System Communication) and Milan Battelino (Mission Analysis), thank you for involving me
as the mechanical engineer in this adventurous journey of Swedish Space industry.

This works could have never been done without partner an international collaboration in European
Space Industries: OHB Sweden, Swedish Space Corporation, KTH, Swedish Institute of Space Physics
(IRF), AÅC Microtec, ENPULSION, and DHV Technology.

Last but not least, thank you for everyone out there who always been my inspiration to pursue career
in space technology and beyond. This project has left a great motivation to not afraid facing more
difficult challenge and to write more scientific writing for a greater purpose.

Stockholm, 2019

Akhsanto Anandito

iv
Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures...................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................viii
List of Abreviations ............................................................................................................................. ix
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 New Space Age ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Literature review and history of spacecraft for Asteroid Mission ................................ 2
1.3 Beyond Atlas to 2016-HO3 .................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Load in Launch Vehicle ....................................................................................................... 3
1.5 The objective of thesis work ................................................................................................ 3
Theory and Method.............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Spacecraft Development ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Structural Verification.......................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Launch Requirement ............................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Static and Dynamic Loads ................................................................................................... 5
2.4.1 Static ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Modal ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.4.3 Sinusoidal ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.4 Random vibration ......................................................................................................... 8
2.4.5 Shock level ................................................................................................................... 11
Model and Idealization ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Spacecraft design ................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 Platform solid aluminum panel................................................................................ 14
3.1.2 Spacecraft Component ............................................................................................... 14
Calculation Setup ............................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Static ..................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Modal ................................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Sinusoidal ............................................................................................................................ 17
4.4 Random vibration............................................................................................................... 18
4.5 Shock .................................................................................................................................... 19

v
Simulation Results .............................................................................................................................. 20
5.1 Static Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Dynamic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 21
5.2.1 Modal ........................................................................................................................... 21
5.2.2 Sinusoidal .................................................................................................................... 22
5.2.3 Random Vibration ...................................................................................................... 26
5.2.4 Shock ............................................................................................................................ 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Appended Material ............................................................................................................................ 34
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 41

vi
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Asteroid 2016-HO3 orbit [Credit: NASA JPL] (left) and mission analysis (right) .... 2
Figure 1.2 Illustration inside the fairing ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 2.1 Structural design cycle ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3.1 Spacecraft design.............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3.2 Spacecraft orientation (0,0,0) .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3 Simplified FE setup (left) and component accommodation (right) .......................... 14
Figure 4.1 Fixed location 1-6 DOF .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.2 Sinusoidal vibration test specification with safety factor ........................................... 18
Figure 4.3 Random vibration test specification .............................................................................. 19
Figure 4.4 Shock spectrum (Q=10) ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5.1 Maximum Von-Mises (left) and static deformation (right) in bottom panel ........... 20
Figure 5.2 Effective mass & cumulative effective mass ratio directional (left) and rotational
(right) in 100 modes ........................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 5.3 Natural frequency on 1st - 4th mode ............................................................................... 22
Figure 5.4 Sin response X-direction (0-100 Hz) .............................................................................. 23
Figure 5.5 Sin response Y-direction (0-100 Hz) .............................................................................. 23
Figure 5.6 Sin response Z-direction (0-100 Hz) .............................................................................. 23
Figure 5.7 Random response X-direction (0-2000 Hz)................................................................... 27
Figure 5.8 Random response Y-direction (0-2000 Hz)................................................................... 27
Figure 5.9 Random response Z-direction (0-2000 Hz)................................................................... 27
Figure 5.10 Maximum stress on shock simulation......................................................................... 31
Figure 5.11 Maximum displacement on shock simulation ........................................................... 31
Figure A-1 Logarithmic sin response X-direction .......................................................................... 35
Figure A-2 Logarithmic sin response Y-direction .......................................................................... 36
Figure A-3 Logarithmic sin response Z-direction .......................................................................... 37
Figure A-4 Logarithmic random response X-direction ................................................................. 38
Figure A-5 Logarithmic random response Y-direction ................................................................. 39
Figure A-6 Logarithmic random response Z-direction ................................................................. 40

vii
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Deliverable project plan ...................................................................................................... 4

Table 2.2 Sine excitation at spacecraft base (Limit Loads) .............................................................. 8
Table 2.3 LM-3 qualification level ...................................................................................................... 9
Table 2.4 C-100 Clamp band shock level......................................................................................... 11
Table 3.1 Mass, coordinate and moment inertia of spacecraft component ................................ 13
Table 3.2 Structure and screw properties ........................................................................................ 14
Table 4.1 Sin input .............................................................................................................................. 17
Table 4.2 PSD input ............................................................................................................................ 18
Table 4.3 Shock input ......................................................................................................................... 19
Table 5.1 Static deformation, shear, principal and normal stress ................................................ 20
Table 5.2 Participation factor and effective mass ........................................................................... 21
Table 5.3 Equivalent stress on 1st - 4th mode ................................................................................... 22
Table 5.4 Principle stress on 1st - 4th mode ....................................................................................... 22
Table 5.5 Shear stress on 1st - 4th mode ............................................................................................. 22
Table 5.6 Sin response in natural frequency X-direction .............................................................. 24
Table 5.7 Sine response in natural frequency Y-direction ............................................................ 25
Table 5.8 Sin response in natural frequency Z-direction .............................................................. 26
Table 5.9 PSD response of resonant frequency in X-direction ..................................................... 28
Table 5.10 PSD response of resonant frequency in Y-direction ................................................... 29
Table 5.11 PSD response of resonant frequency in Z-direction ................................................... 30
Table 5.12 3σ-RMS stress of the screws ........................................................................................... 30

viii
List of Abreviations

ANTXN Antennae X Negative

ANTXP Antennae X Positive

ASD Amplification Spectral Density

B.LS Bracket Laser Range Finder

B.RW Bracket Reaction Wheel

B.ST1 Bracket Star Tracker 1

B.ST2 Bracket Star Tracker 2

BAT Battery package

CLA Coupled Load Analysis

CNSA Chinese Space Agency

EoM Equation of Motion

EPS Electrical Power System

ESA European Space Agency

ISRU In-situ Resource Utilization

IRF Institutet för Rymdfysik

JAXA Japanese Space Exploration Agency

JEM Japanese Experiment Module

J-SSOD JEM Small Satellite Orbital Deployer

KTH Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LS Laser Range Finder

MEO Middle Earth Orbit

MTRPY Motor Positive Y

MTRNY Motor Negative Y

NASA National Aeronautics Space Administration

NEO Near Earth Orbit

OBC On Board Computer

TCM Telecommunication Combined Memory

PA Payload

ix
PDR Preliminary Design Review

PPU Propulsion Unit

PSD Power Spectral Density

SA Solar Array

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SSC Swedish Space Corporation

ST1 Star Tracker 1

ST2 Star Tracker 2

STTR Small Business Technology Transfer

SANY Solar Array Negative Y

SAPY Solar Array Positive Y

SSPA Solid State Power Amplifier

THS Thruster

TRANS Transponder

RW Reaction Wheel

USA United States of America

x
Nomenclature

𝐷 Displacement spectrum in each of global cartesian directions and rotation

𝐸 Young’s modulus

𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 Frequency maximum

𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 Frequency minimum

𝐹𝑎 Applied load vector / enforced excitation

𝐹𝑟 Reaction load vector

𝐺 Shear modulus (input 𝐺𝑥𝑦 )

𝐺𝑗 Modal loads

𝑀𝑒𝑓𝑓 Mass effective

𝑁 Number of element

𝑆 Slope

𝑆𝑑𝑖 Response PSD dynamic part

𝑆𝑠𝑖 Response PSD Pseudo-Static part

𝑆𝑠𝑑𝑖 Response PSD Covariance part

𝑆𝑝𝑖 Power spectral density for ith

𝑡 time

𝑢𝑓 Free displacement

𝑢𝑑 Dynamic displacement

𝑢𝑠 Pseudo-static displacement

Q Amplification factor

𝜔𝑖 Natural circular frequency at ith

𝛾𝑖 Participation factor

𝜓𝑖 the i Mode shape

𝜌 Density

Ω Input (imposed) circular frequency

ω Output (natural) circular frequency

𝜃 Angle of displacement

𝜙 Mode shape

xi
𝜁 Damping ratio

[𝐴] Spectral acceleration

[𝐶] Structural damping matrix

[𝐶𝑓𝑓 ] Structural damping fully correlated

[𝐶𝑓𝑟 ] Structural damping partially correlated

[𝐶𝑟𝑓 ] Structural damping partially correlated

[𝐶𝑟𝑟 ] Structural damping uncorrelated

{𝐹 𝑎 } Applied load vector / enforced excitation

{𝐹 𝑟 } Reaction load vector

[𝐾] Structural stiffness matrix

[𝐾𝑓𝑓 ] Stiffness fully correlated

[𝐾𝑓𝑟 ] Stiffness partially correlated

[𝐾𝑟𝑓 ] Stiffness partially correlated

[𝐾𝑒 ] Element stiffness matrix

[𝑀] Structural mass matrix

[𝑀𝑓𝑓 ] Mass fully correlated

[𝑀𝑓𝑟 ] Mass partially correlated

[𝑀𝑟𝑓 ] Mass partially correlated

[𝑀𝑟𝑟 ] Mass uncorrelated

{𝑢̈ } Nodal acceleration vector

{𝑢̇ } Nodal velocity vector

{𝑢} Nodal displacement vector

{𝜙}𝑖 Eigenvectors

{Γ} Modal participation factor

{𝑢𝑓 } Free displacement

{𝑢𝑠 } pseudo-static displacement

{𝑢𝑑 } Dynamic displacement

xii
Chapter I

Introduction

1.1 New Space Age

The space age is an era encompassing the activities of space exploration influenced by
different contemporary events. In late of 1950, the cold war between Russia and USA marked the
rising of space technology. The space age is thought to have officially begun on October 4th, 1957,
with the launch of Sputnik 1 by the Soviet Union – the first artificial satellite to be launched into orbit
[25]. The sign of Space 1.0 is symbolized by an attempt of human into outer space and the first trial
is achieved by Yuri Gagarin [26]. Afterward, a huge success of first landing to lunar surface Apollo
11 triggered an incredible growth in space activity. Another successful work followed by a
collaboration of International Space Station inspires an interest towards space to the world. Started
in the 21st century, the democratization of Space 2.0 arose when a few big private and small
companies appeared on the space market for telecommunication and military business.

The space component requires an advanced technology. Its research and development are
leveraged by an enormous budget and seemed impossible to achieve without involving
governmental support. However, after the successful launch and automatic landing of reusable
rocket Falcon 9 from a private company, SpaceX, the space business is becoming more optimistic
followed by appearance of many startups. This event marks a revolution as Space 3.0. Several
initiatives to bring space into business has been expanding globally, for instance, a program from
ESA Business Incubator Centre [13], NASA solicitation proposal and SBIR/STTR (Small Business
Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer) [14-15]. As Space 3.0 remains, the giant
business such as Mitsubishi enters a space business by giving a fund for lunar exploration [34]. These
events may influence the interest of investors shifting into space technology. One of the most popular
missions, the definite goal of sending human to Mars is a cornerstone to drive a new breakthrough
technology and may become an investment market, such as creating a settlement on Mars, In-Situ
resource utilization (ISRU), robotics, biotechnology, radiation protection and physiological studies
of human who lived in other than Earth [8-9]. These ventures require innovation from broad
scientific disciplines and indisputably enables a collaboration of multi-nations to work on space
projects [10-11]. Then, the dawn of Space 4.0 is just begun. However, the industry has an obstacle to
overcome because launch cost beyond LEO is still relatively expensive.

To generate high affordability, the mass of the spacecraft which proportional to the production
cost, and launch budget, becomes an import key at the beginning of new space age. Nowadays, many
businesses offer small spacecraft launch in different ways. Such as, JAXA offers a relatively
affordable price or collaboration for a small scientific payload less than 50 kg from JEM Small
Satellite Orbital Deployer (J-SSOD) “Kibo” Module in International Space Station [12]. A private
company, Zero to Infinity, is targeting commercialization of cheap launch from helium balloon [16].
A sounding rocket company, Rocket Lab stated that “Rockets are shrinking because satellites are
shrinking” [20]. These events infer that any object which sent to space is getting smaller within a
time. So, a major transformation of space business is near to this age and it will be promising for a
small spacecraft. Besides lowering the cost, a lighter spacecraft requires less energy for detumbling
which is more efficient to perform a complex mission such as docking to refuel a satellite. Therefore,

1
for future space endeavor, the justification and critical thinking skill of an engineer in lowering
weight and size of the robust small spacecraft are essential.

1.2 Literature review and history of spacecraft for Asteroid Mission

The asteroid mission is nowadays seen as an ordinary planetary exploration in near-Earth
orbit. Within fast growing technology and mature spacecraft development approach, it may enable
asteroid mining which eventually could transform into a space economy. The benefit of
understanding its origin also helps an early stage protection initiative against asteroid strike.

The first spacecraft which made a comprehensive scientific measurement of asteroid

composition was NEAR Shoemaker with wet-mass 805 kg (170 x 150 x 170 cm). The spacecraft was
designed by John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) NASA to study near-Earth
asteroid Eros [2]. The only spacecraft orbiting to the asteroid belt, Dawn with 1,217 kg (164 x 1970 x
177 cm) studied the surface of Asteroid Vesta and Ceres [35]. Hayabusa 2 with 590 kg (160 x 200 x
125 cm) has landed in Asteroid Ryugu in June 2018 and will send the first sample return of C-type
Asteroid in 2020 [36]. OSIRIS-REx with 2,110 kg (244 x 315 x 244 cm) arrived in Asteroid Bennu in
December 2018 and detected the chemical signature of water [37]. The cooperation between NASA
and JAXA for Hayabusa 2 and OSIRIS REx spacecraft is to reveal an evolution of materials of solar
system. The record of heaviest spacecraft held by the ESA’s Rosetta with 3,000 kg to study Lutetia
and 2867 Steins [38]. The lightest spacecraft record so far is PROCYON with 65 kg (150 x 150 x 55
cm) to investigate asteroid (185851) 2000-DP2017 [39-40]. Unfortunately, in the middle of mission,
malfunction of the ion thruster occurred, and the contact with spacecraft lost after Earth flyby [17].
This event illustrates that the small spacecraft needs to be accounted with extra attention in the future
mission.

1.3 Beyond Atlas to 2016-HO3

The aim of Beyond Atlas Project is to build a spacecraft to explore an asteroid 2016-HO3. This
asteroid is suspected as a small near-Earth object (NEO) with no more than diameter of 100 meters.
The unique fact of this asteroid is known as Earth's companion or quasi-satellite within 38 to 100
lunar distances from Earth as depicted in Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Asteroid 2016-HO3 orbit [Credit: NASA JPL] (left) and mission analysis (right)

The spacecraft is expected to launch into MEO (Medium Earth Orbit) using electric propulsion
in 2020. MEO is chosen because it is suited for a radiation perspective. The spectrometer inside the
spacecraft will identify a mineral in the asteroid. However, the hard landing plan to the asteroid is
not yet considered. The system and mission analysis were initiated by the individual space
enthusiast from OHB Sweden, KTH, SSC and IRF.

2
1.4 Load in Launch Vehicle

Figure 1.2 Illustration inside the fairing

The spacecraft is sent as a payload in rocket vehicle of LM-3A. Illustrated in Figure 1.2, it is
suspected that eight spacecrafts with the different mission will be aboard with Beyond Atlas
Spacecraft. As many types of loads occur randomly during the launch phase, a resonance frequency
each spacecraft must be addressed. In general, the load is divided into three types: Static/quasi-static
loads, dynamic loads and mechanical vibration loads [3,21]. The primary issue is often difficult to
predict due to the dynamic behavior of the excitation and structural response occurring in wide
frequency range [3-4]. If the base excitation aggregates to system’s natural frequency when the
external force from arbitrary direction connected to structure or base plane, it will lead to component
overloading. During resonant vibration, the stress response may increase until the structure suffers
buckling, yielding, fatigue, crack propagation and failure.

The vibration load can cause major or minor damage. The major damage is a highly
catastrophic problem which can lead to mission failure during the launch phase. The minor is an
undetected small breakage of the component but deteriorating. Therefore, all load circumstances in
a series of the event should be investigated intensively to deliver the mission successfully.

In rocket flight, there are a series of events that must be considered. The flight environments
that generate static and dynamic loads are specified as follows:

• The static acceleration generated by the different stages of the launch vehicle (quasi-static
acceleration event)
• The low-frequency dynamic response (0-100 HZ)
• The high-frequency random vibration environment, impingement from Launch Vehicle to
spacecraft/satellite/payload system in transient flight events (20-2000 Hz).
• The high-frequency acoustic pressure environment (20-8000 Hz)
• Shock events (100 -10KHz)

1.5 The objective of thesis work

The aim of this project work is to assess and evaluate the spacecraft design compliance and
give brief information by presenting in a single document with all relevant information about the
dynamic load analysis. The expected output of this work: proper justification of all equipment and
structure safety according to launch environment. Therefore, the mathematical calculation of
coupled load analysis (CLA) document can be presented to launch contractor.

3
Chapter II

Theory and Method

2.1 Spacecraft Development

The structural design, analysis, and verification process are in accordance with the
procedure given by OHB Sweden as well as referred to ESA ECSS E-32 "Structure". In this
case, Beyond Atlas Spacecraft has reached in Phase B based on deliverable project scope in
Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Deliverable project plan

2.2 Structural Verification

The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) starts from spacecraft structure analysis. A
flowchart of the methodology used to verify the structural design and analysis is depicted in
Figure 2.1. In the space industry, the load analysis is known as Coupled Load Analysis (CLA).
The limit load includes mass and size estimation. The mathematical analysis and proper
justification of CLA shall be presented to launch provider before laboratory test.

4
 Figure 2.1 Structural design cycle

2.3 Launch Requirement

The requirement is provided in launch vehicle user's manual [1]. During the PDR phase,
the qualification and requirement were studied in accordance with the launch environment.
The critical series of events which could lead to catastrophic failure shall be considered
particularly in static and dynamic loads with the non-destructive method. The instances of
possible failure include component going astray, engine failure and explosion during ignition.

The primary condition which shall be fulfilled to prevent the spacecraft dynamic
coupling with corresponding the launch vehicle (LM-3A) includes:

• The recommended safety factor: 1.25.

• The structural natural frequency of the first-third mode > 20 Hz

2.4 Static and Dynamic Loads

The formula approach and its derivative are in accordance with ANSYS Documentation
[33]. To model the condition from fundamental approach, the equation of motion for the linear
structure as follows

[𝑀] {𝑢̈ } + [𝐶] {𝑢̇ } + [𝐾]{𝑢} = {𝐹 𝑎 } (2.1)

where mass matrix [M], damping matrix [C], stiffness matrix [K], nodal acceleration vector
{𝑢̈ }, nodal velocity vector {𝑢̇ }, nodal displacement vector {𝑢}, total applied load vector {𝐹 𝑎 }

5
2.4.1 Static
The static structural analysis is main requirement for all degrees of freedom (DOFs)
and fixed constraints 1-6 DOF were set in separation interface. The equilibrium equation starts
in form

[𝐾]{𝑢} = {𝐹 𝑎 } + {𝐹 𝑟 } (2.2)

where reaction load vector {𝐹 𝑟 }, and displacement {𝑢}. In this case, the load vectors are
modeled in form of component weight or applied gravity.

For finite element, the equation becomes

𝑁
(2.3)
[𝐾] = ∑ [𝐾𝑒 ]
𝑚=1

where number of elements N and element stiffness matrix [𝐾𝑒 ].

2.4.2 Modal
Modal analysis is used to determine a structure's vibration characteristics. A
component of the spacecraft can suffer a high amplification when its natural frequency
coincides to another part in one boundary condition. To avoid this phenomenon, mapping the
frequency envelope numerically can be a tool to account the dynamic behavior.

Eigenvalues and vectors

The structure stiffness matrix includes pre-stress effects from earth gravity force. To
extract eigenvalue and eigenvector, the formulation of mode-frequency and buckling are

[𝑀]{𝑢̈ } + [𝐾]{𝑢} = 0 (2.4)

Assume harmonic motion

{𝑢} = {𝜙}𝑖 sin(𝜔𝑖 𝑡 + 𝜃𝑖 ) (2.5)

{𝑢̇ } = 𝜔𝑖 {𝜙}𝑖 cos(𝜔𝑖 𝑡 + 𝜃𝑖 ) (2.6)

{𝑢̈ } = −𝜔𝑖2 {𝜙}𝑖 sin(𝜔𝑖 𝑡 + 𝜃𝑖 ) (2.7)

where an angle of displacement 𝜃𝑖 , eigenvectors {𝜙}𝑖 and natural circular frequency at ith 𝜔𝑖 .

(−𝜔𝑖2 [𝑀] + [𝐾] {𝜙}𝑖 ) = {0} (2.8)

This equality is satisfied if either n eigenvectors {φ}i = {0} or if det ([K] - ω2 [M]) is zero. The
first option is the trivial one and, therefore, is not of interest. The second one gives

|−𝜔𝑖2 [𝑀] + det[𝐾]| = {0} (2.9)

Equation 2.9 is an eigenvalue problem which may be solved for up to n eigenvalues 𝜔𝑖2 , and n
eigenvectors, {𝜙}𝑖 , which satisfies Equation 2.8, where n is the number of DOF.

Mode Shape
Mode shapes can be normalized to mass matrix

6
 {𝜙𝑖𝑇 }[𝑀]{𝜙}𝑖 = 1 (2.10)

Natural Frequency
Natural frequencies fi then can be calculated in (cycles/s) as
𝜔𝑖 (2.11)
𝑓𝑖 =
2𝜋

Participation Factor
The participation factors for base excitation are calculated by

𝛾𝑖 = {𝜙}𝑇𝑖 [𝑀] {𝐷} (2.12)

where D is assumed unit displacement spectrum in each of global cartesian directions and
rotation about each of these axes. This measures the amount of mass contributing in each
direction for each mode. The ratio is simply another list of participation and normalized to the
largest.

Effective Mass
The effective mass can be written as
𝛾2 (2.13)
𝑀𝑒𝑓𝑓 = [𝜙]𝑇[𝑀]{𝜙} = 𝛾𝑖2 if {𝜙}𝑇𝑖 [𝑀]{𝜙}𝑖 = 1
𝑖 𝑖

Ideally, the sum of the effective masses in each direction should equal the total of structure’s
mass and this depends on the number of modes extracted [29]. The ratio of effective mass to
total mass can be useful for determining an adequate number of modes extracted.

2.4.3 Sinusoidal
Sinusoidal (harmonic) or sine vibration usually occurs during the ignition, shutdown,
transonic flight and stage separation [1]. To withstand loads that vary sinusoidally
(harmonically) at different cycle and phase, detecting resonant response and avoid it are
necessary.

Considering the equation of motion, assume [F] and {u} are harmonic with input (imposed)
circular frequency Ω

{𝐷} = {𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑒 𝑖𝜓 }𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡 (2.14)

= {𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 (cos 𝜓 + 𝑖 sin 𝜓)}𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡
= {{𝐹1 } + 𝑖{𝐹2 }}𝑒 𝑖𝜓𝑡
{𝑢} = {𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑒 𝑖𝜓 }𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡 (2.15)
= {𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 (cos 𝜓 + 𝑖 sin 𝜓)}𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡
= {{𝑢1 } + 𝑖{𝑢2 }}𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡

where mode shape 𝜓, take two-time derivatives

{𝑢} = ({𝑢1 } + 𝑖{𝑢2 })𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡 (2.16)

{𝑢̇ } = 𝑖Ω({𝑢1 } + 𝑖{𝑢2 })𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡 (2.17)
{𝑢̈ } = −Ω2 ({𝑢1 } + 𝑖{𝑢2 })𝑒 𝑖Ω𝑡 (2.18)
Substitute and simplify:

7
 (−Ω2 [𝑀] + 𝑖Ω[𝐶] + [𝐾])({𝑢1 } + 𝑖{𝑢2 }) = ({𝐹1 } + 𝑖{𝐹2 }) (2.19)

Sinusoidal Level
Table 2.2 Sine excitation at spacecraft base (Limit Loads)

Test Load
Frequency [Hz] Acceptance Qualification
5-8 3.11 mm 4.66 mm
Longitudinal 8-20 0.8 g 1.2 g
20-100 3.0 g 4.5 g
5-8 2.33 mm 3.50 mm
Lateral 8-20 0.6 g 0.9 g
20-100 2.0 g 3.0 g
Sweep Rate 4 oct/min 2 oct/min

The limit load is shown in Table 2.2. To determine the sinusoidal input within
frequency 0-100Hz, the acceleration excitation is modeled as

𝛿𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (2𝜋 × 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑓 )2 (2.20)

𝑎𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑓 = ×
1000 𝑔

where g standard is 9.82 m/s2, 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑓 (upper and lower bound frequency) is obtained from limit
loads Table 2.2 (for this case only 5 Hz and 8 Hz).

2.4.4 Random vibration

The random vibration is transmitted internally into the rocket, mechanically causing
everything on board to vibrate. It may be dangerous for the thin section and a light component
such as solar arrays [19]. Random vibration is highly repetitive and non-periodic complex
vibration caused by an imbalance situation [18]. Random vibration can be represented in the
frequency domain with a Fourier transform or power spectral density function [18].

Power Spectral Density

Power spectral density (PSD) is a statistical measure defined as the limiting mean-
square value of a random variable. It is used in random vibration analyses in which the
instantaneous magnitudes of the response can be specified only by probability distribution
functions that show the probability of the magnitude taking a value. This analysis technique
calculates only the steady-state forced vibrations of a structure. By inputting PSD value, each
mode is calculated from eigenvector results by using the term of "Mode coefficient" [27] that
can be written as
1
𝜔𝑖 2 (2.21)
𝛾𝑖 𝜋
𝐴𝑖 = 2 (𝑆𝑝𝑖 𝜔 ( − 1) + ∫ 𝑆𝑝 𝑑𝜔 )
𝜔𝑖 4𝜁
0
Where damping ratio 𝜁, participation factor 𝛾𝑖 (Equation 2.12), Power Spectral density for i th
mode 𝑆𝑝𝑖 (obtained from input PSD spectrum at frequency fi and effective damping ratio).

8
PSD Input
The random vibration specification LM-3 for the PSD input is described in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 LM-3 qualification level

Frequency [Hz] 150 800

ASD / PSD [g /Hz]
2 0.11 0.11

The x octaves band from frequencies fupper and flower at 20 Hz and 2000 Hz is given by
𝑓
𝑥 in octave = 2 log ( 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 ) (2.22)
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟

The PSD at 20 Hz and 2000 Hz are given by

𝑃𝑆𝐷𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 (2.23)
𝑃𝑆𝐷20 𝐻𝑧 =
10𝑥g/10

𝑃𝑆𝐷2000 𝐻𝑧 = 𝑃𝑆𝐷𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 10𝑥g/10 (2.24)

where gain g is the ratio of the amplitude of the system response to the input signal.
The N in dB at 20 Hz and 2000 Hz can be written as
𝑃𝑆𝐷𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟
𝑁 in dB = 10 log ( ) (2.25)
𝑃𝑆𝐷𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟

The Slope is given by

𝑁
S in dB/octave = (2.26)
𝑥

The area for 20-150Hz, 150-800 Hz and 800-2000 Hz are calculated by

𝑃𝑆𝐷𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑆
A𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 10 log (2) ( )(𝑓𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 - 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 ) (2.27)
10 log(2)+𝑆 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 10 log (2)

𝑔𝑅𝑀𝑆 for qualification = √∑ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (2.28)

Random input
The random inputs can be full correlated, uncorrelated or partially correlated. The
procedure of calculation is based on computing statistic approach response and combining
between them. So, the complete equation of motions is segregated into free and DOF as

[𝑀𝑓𝑓 ] [𝑀𝑓𝑟 ] {𝑢̈ 𝑓 } [𝐶𝑓𝑓 ] [𝐶𝑓𝑟 ] {𝑢̇ 𝑓 } [𝐾𝑓𝑓 ] [𝐾𝑓𝑟 ] {𝑢𝑓 } {𝐹} (2.29)
[ ]{ }+[ ]{ }+[ ]{ }={ }
[𝑀𝑟𝑓 ] [𝑀𝑟𝑟 ] {𝑢̈ 𝑟 } [𝐶𝑟𝑓 ] [𝐶𝑟𝑟 ] {𝑢̇ 𝑟 } [𝐾𝑟𝑓 ] [𝐾𝑟𝑟 ] {𝑢𝑟 } {0}

Where 𝑢𝑓 (free DOF), 𝑢𝑟 (restrained) and {𝐹} is nodal force excitation activated by a non-zero
value. The free displacements can be devised into pseudo-static and dynamic as

{𝑢𝑓 } = {𝑢𝑠 } + {𝑢𝑑 } (2.30)

The pseudo-static displacement is obtained by replacing 𝑢𝑓 by 𝑢𝑠

9
 −1
{𝑢𝑠 } = −[𝐾𝑓𝑓 ] [𝐾𝑓𝑟 ]{𝑢𝑟 } = [𝐴]{𝑢𝑟 } (2.31)

−1
for [𝐴] = −[𝐾𝑓𝑓 ] [𝐾𝑓𝑟 ] where spectral acceleration [𝐴]. Substituting those Equations with
assumption light damping into EoM

[𝑀𝑓𝑓 ]{𝑢̈ 𝑑 } + [𝐶𝑓𝑓 ]{𝑢̇ 𝑑 } + [𝐾𝑓𝑓 ]{𝑢𝑑 } = {𝐹} + ([𝑀𝑓𝑓 ][𝐴] + [𝑀𝑓𝑟 ]){𝑢̈ 𝑟 } (2.32)

The term on the right-hand side represents the equivalent forces due to excitations. Then, the
modal loads 𝐺𝑗 (j=1,2,3...n) are defined by

𝐺𝑗 = {Γ𝑗 }𝑇 {𝑢̈ 𝑟 } + 𝛾𝑗 (2.33)

Further theory and reference can be found at Manual ANSYS Documentation set Chapter
17.7.10: Random Vibration Method [33].

Mean Square Response

The mean square response of the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ free displacement is
∞ ∞ ∞
𝜎𝑓𝑖2 = (2.34)
∫ 𝑆𝑑𝑖 (𝜔)𝑑𝜔 + ∫ 𝑆𝑠𝑖 (𝜔)𝑑𝜔 + 2| ∫ 𝑆𝑠𝑑𝑖 (𝜔)𝑑𝜔|
0 0 0
2
𝜎𝑑𝑖 + 𝜎𝑠𝑖2 + 2𝐶𝑣 (𝑈𝑠𝑖 𝑈𝑑𝑖 )

where the closed-form solutions for linear PSD in log scale are utilized each integration [23,24]
as
𝑛 𝑛
(2.35)
2
𝜎𝑑𝑖 = ∑ ∑ 𝜙𝑖𝑗 𝜙𝑗𝑘 𝑄𝑗𝑘
𝑗=1 𝑘=1
𝑟2 𝑟2
(2.36)
𝜎𝑠𝑖2 = ∑ ∑ 𝐴𝑖𝜚 𝐴𝑖𝑚 𝑄̅𝜚𝑚
𝜚=1 𝑚=1
𝑛 𝑟2
(2.37)
2
𝜎𝑠𝑑𝑖 = ∑ ∑ 𝜙𝑖𝑗 𝐴𝑗𝜚 𝑄̇𝑗𝜚
𝑗=1 𝜚=1

Finally, the equivalent stress mean-square response [22] can be computed as

𝑛 𝑛
(2.38)
2
𝜎̇𝑑𝑖 = ∑ ∑ 𝜓𝑜𝑗 𝐴𝜓𝑖𝑘 𝑄𝑗𝑘
𝑗=1 𝑘=1

The GRMS can be computed as

𝑁 (2.39)
1
𝐺𝑅𝑀𝑆 = √ ∑ 𝑥𝑖2
𝑁
𝑖=1

where the number of element N, and displacement at i mode 𝑥𝑖

10
2.4.5 Shock level
The idea is inputting the shock level in boundary condition then review the maximum
displacement and equivalent stress. To determine the shock input, N is given by

𝑁 in dB = 𝑆𝑅𝑆(Q=10) 𝑥 (2.40)

Where Q is dynamic amplification factor which has been assumed for the generation of the
SRS and 𝑆𝑅𝑆(Q=10) (dB/octave) is obtained from clamp band (separation system) shock level in
Table 2.3. The x octaves band from frequencies fupper and flower can be calculated by Equation
2.22.

Table 2.4 C-100 Clamp band shock level

Frequency [Hz] SRS (Q=10)

100-1000 9.0 dB/octave
1000-5000 4000 g

To determine shock input into shock simulation, an acceleration input at 100 Hz is calculated
by
𝑎𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 (2.41)
𝑎100 𝐻𝑧 =
10𝑥/20

The equation for displacement response for each mode shape ith {𝜙}𝑖 can be computed by

{𝑅}𝑖 = 𝐴𝑖 {𝜙}𝑖 (2.42)

where mode coefficient 𝐴𝑖 can be obtained from Equation 2.21.

11
Chapter III

Model and Idealization

3.1 Spacecraft design

In the early stages, the project begins with a component/instrument identification. The
suitable components and scientific payload are decided based on objectives. The main
instrument includes propulsion module, solar array, reaction wheel, gyro, star trackers, laser
range finder, EPS, battery, TCM, OBC, EPXs, SSPA, and transponder. The components which
constitute stiffness and mass inside the spacecraft are depicted as follows in Figure 3.1 and
listed in Table 3.3.

Figure 3.1 Spacecraft design

The considered origin axis [0,0,0] of spacecraft aligning to solar panel axis is depicted
in Figure 3.5. The spacecraft was drawn by a parametric function depending on the location
of all components and its connection. Once whole parts are attached to the structure with an
appropriate integration in assembly process, the size minimization is considered and can be
adjusted based on requirement.

Figure 3.2 Spacecraft orientation (0,0,0)

12
 Table 3.1 Mass, coordinate and moment inertia of spacecraft component

No Equipment Mass Center of Gravity (mm) Principal Mass Moment

(kg) Intertia
2
from CoG (Kg.mm )

X Y Z Ixx Iyy Izz

1 Panel XP 0.311 114.349 2.113 -24.534 3960.667 2252.939 1711.413

2 Panel XN 0.32 -114.208 1.313 -21.94 4012.93 2243.017 1773.579
3 Panel YP 0.298 0 114.248 -22.037 2217.109 3699.018 1485.415
4 Panel YN 0.316 0.784 -114.381 -25.841 2325.521 3879.971 1558.277
5 Panel ZN 0.389 -2.823 2.503 -159.847 1858.648 1920.05 3770.755
6 Reaction Wheel 1.1 66.2 -45 40 1267.789 1365.65 269.813
7 Star Tracker 1 0.1 60.094 79.073 43.389 71.706 29.037 71.542
8 Star Tracker 2 0.1 -66.573 -45.911 -108.094 71.706 29.037 71.542
9 EPS 0.5 -92 0 39 8.333 8.333 8.333
10 Laser Range 0.033 -95.338 70.51 -50.696 4.233 6.894 9.063
11 OBC 0.13 -49.91 -103.99 -93.61 124.019 258.155 144.831
12 TCM 0.13 -49.91 -86.76 -93.61 124.09 258.507 145.124
13 Payload 0.95 -37.675 53.716 -108.819 2356.266 2368.939 2214.016
14 Battery 1.068 -49.5 0 21.5 2922.362 680.55 2602.103
15 Transponder 1.3 49.141 17.315 -89.805 4477.067 2402.526 3013.315
16 SSPA 1.1 97.006 17.001 -90.747 3724.792 1653.635 2236.687
17 Propulsion unit 8 0 0 171.3 47835.194 47835.194 76791.214
18 EPX 1 0.035 87.42 -92.19 -62.43 4.012 7.151 4.125
19 EPX 2 0.035 87.42 -105.4 -62.43 4.013 7.152 4.126
20 EPX 3 0.035 87.42 -92.19 -102.05 4.014 7.153 4.127

21 EPX 4 0.035 87.42 -105.4 -102.05 4.015 7.154 4.128

22 Motor PY 0.395 0 51.05 0 254.472 29.24 254.547

23 Motor NY 0.395 0 -51.05 0 254.472 29.24 254.547

24 Bracket RW 0.018 109.85 -44.333 40.529 51.842 26.054 25.843

25 Bracket ST1 0.029 85.349 79.309 43.298 31.485 26.347 25.958

26 Bracket ST2 0.028 -66.5 -46 -132.016 22.995 23.511 30

27 Bracket Ls 0.062 -84.017 69.629 -40.556 19.595 24.561 28.945

28 SA YP 1.519 -1.866 165.613 1.442 12289.923 16585.926 5835.704

29 SA YN 1.519 -1.866 -165.613 1.442 12289.923 16585.926 5835.704

30 AnT Xp 0.3 121.75 0 -38 3250 2250.625 1000.625

31 AnT Xn 0.3 -121.75 0 -38 3250 2250.625 1000.625

Total 20.85 4.361 0.648 47.171

13
3.1.1 Platform solid aluminum panel
The structure platform side panels (MX, MY, PX, PY) and bottom panel (MZ) 24 x 24
x 42.4 cm are assigned with the material of machined Aluminium 6082-T6 - the thickness of 1
mm and with rib thickness of 2 mmThe structure and screw properties are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Structure and screw properties

Material AA-7075-T6 SS-304 Screw Unit

Density 2800 9640 Kg/m3
Modulus Elasticity E1 71.7 193 GPa
Shear Modulus in plane G12 26.9 81 GPa
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.33 0.28 -
Yield Strength 380 262 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength 460 505 MPa
Allowed stress 328 - MPa
Safety factor desired 1.4 - -

3.1.2 Spacecraft Component

For simplification, all components were modeled as a cube connected to
concentrated mass. To simulate parts of the structure not explicitly modeled, the components
are represented as a concentrated mass in Figure 3.3. The inertia values and center gravity of
masses used in the analysis can be found in Table 3.1. Considering the boundary condition,
the panels were connected by beam Rigid Body Element (RBE2) represented as screw M4
ranging length from 10-26 mm and all contact regions were assumed as frictionless.

Figure 3.3 Simplified FE setup (left) and component accommodation (right)

Reaction Wheel
The three-axis integrated micro flywheel generates the reaction torque by adding and
decelerating the wheel body to control satellite posture precisely. Micro flywheel components

14
include digital control circuit, drive motor, wheel, and cable (100 x 116 x 115 mm). It has design
life for more than 1 year. The maximum level of sine vibration is 10g and random is 14.33grms.

Star Tracker
The star tracker consists of a sensor with refractive optic, focal length 25 mm and baffle
(32 x 32 x 90 mm). Star tracker 1 is pointing in X+ direction and Star tracker 2 is pointing to Z-
. The exclusive angle is 35 deg towards the sun and 250 towards Earth. It supports an
autonomous attitude determination, nominal attitude tracking, and photographic function. It
has a design life of 3 years, environmental tolerance 13g for sine and 13.5 grms for random
vibration.

Laser Range Finder

The Laser range finder consists of apertures, mounting and electrical data interface
(44 x 33.5 x 50 mm). It operates at the “eye-safe” wavelength of 1.55 μm and is not visible to
night vision equipment. It has environmental tolerance of 1500g for shock vibration.

OBC and TCM

The OBC and TCM consist of PCB and aluminium casing (each 90 x 95 x 17 mm).
These have environmental tolerance sin 15g (21-60 Hz), sin 6g (65-100 Hz), 0.05 g2/Hz (100-
300 Hz) 5.3 grms and 200g for a shock. These have sensitivity against resonant frequency
below 100 Hz.

Payload
The payload consists of spectral imager, regular camera and spectrometers (100 x
100 x 110 mm). It performs asteroid capture imaging with wavelength range 500-900 nm and
spectral resolution 5-15 nm.

Battery
The battery box is a Li-ion cell for electrical power storage (165 x 75 x 45 mm). It
supplies an amount of electric power to instruments. It consists of a graphite-based anode and
lithium cobalt oxide-based cathode.

Transponder and SSPA

Transponder (Transceiver) consists of a band-limiting, communication device,
oscillator and power amplifier (180 x 130 x 66 mm). It converts the frequency of the signal
received and transmitted through antenna. SSPA (Solid State Power Amplifier) is attached in
the transponder. These two devices have acceptance of environmental tolerance sine 10g (15-
100Hz), 10.13 grms, 1.25 g2/Hz (100-600 Hz) and 1200g for shock test.

Propulsion Unit
The propulsion unit is using Field Emission Electric Propulsion (FEEP) and chemical
thruster containing indium (240 x 240 x 119 mm). It propels to perform orbit changes and
provides highly accurate thrust ranging from 10 – 1500 μN.

15
EPX
EPX is antenna switch device which capable of handling low to medium radio
frequency power (41 x 34 x 13.2 mm). There are four EPX attached and one component consists
of solder terminals and female connectors. It has acceptance criteria sine tolerance of 10g, 10
grms for random vibration and 500 g for shock vibration.

Motor
The Motor (stepper motor) is an actuator device to activate the releasing system for
solar panel (102 x 26 x 26 mm). The nominal power consumption has been calculated taking
into consideration a rotated angle of 180 degrees and a rotational speed of 1.333 rpm.

Antennae
The antenna (X-Band patch array) consists of rectangular transmission and reception
patch (200 x 300 x 3.5 mm). The patch array antenna has a high gain of 24 dBi for X-band.

EPS (Electrical Power System)

The EPS consists of a PCB power board and casing (210 x 110 x 40 mm). It supports
power management system for all electrical equipment in the spacecraft, which includes the
electrical propulsion unit, solar deployer mechanism, reaction wheel, payload, TTC and star
tracker.

Solar Panel
The one panel for one side has a dimension of 0.33 x 0.214 x 0.0011 m. The solar array
has eight panels connected between two kinds of hinges and the deployment mechanism is
activated by motor stepper rotation. With deployed solar panel and antennae, the dimension
of the spacecraft becomes 24 × 400 × 42.4 cm.

16
Chapter IV

Calculation Setup

4.1 Static
For static loads conditions, the applied forces are defined by standard gravity
parameter (9.82 m/s2) to each solid element and concentrated mass. The constraint X, Y, and Z
direction were defined at triangular separation interface where located at the edge of the
bottom panel towards Z- the direction in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Fixed location 1-6 DOF

4.2 Modal
For dynamic loading conditions, the material behavior must be treated as linear. The
pre-stress load output from the static analysis is used to calculate natural frequencies and
mode shapes. For this case, the damping is assumed zero and set of natural frequency is
ranging between 1-100 modes.

4.3 Sinusoidal
The idea is to calculate the structure's response in steady state (frequency domain) with forced
vibrations (sine input) of at 0-100 Hz and obtain a graph of some g response. Once "Peak"
responses are identified on the graph, the acceleration (g) is then reviewed at those specific
frequencies. The results of conversion from displacement into acceleration (g) were obtained
after performing the calculation of Equation 2.20. Given the distance of the lowest peak to the
highest peak at qualification level 4.66 mm between 5-8Hz, the acceleration input can be
defined in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2.

Table 4.1 Sin input

Frequency [Hz] 5 8 8 20 100

Longitudinal [g] 0.313 0.800 0.8 3.0 3.0
Acceptance
Lateral [g] 0.234 0.599 0.6 2.0 2.0
Longitudinal [g] 0.468 1.199 1.2 4.5 4.5
Qualification
Lateral [g] 0.352 0.901 0.9 3.0 3.0

17
 10

Acceleration [g]

0,1
1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]

Acceptance Longitudinal Acceptance Lateral

Qualification Longitudinal Qualification Lateral

Figure 4.2 Sinusoidal vibration test specification with a safety factor

For this project, a focus is narrowed to qualification level in longitudinal directional excitation.

4.4 Random vibration

Given the qualification criteria of PSD/ASD for 150 Hz and 800 Hz is 0.11 g2/Hz, the
PSD input from Equation 2.21 is shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3. The idea is reviewing
acceleration in the peak response, GRMS each component and 3σ-RMS stress of the screws
with the frequency domain between 0-2000 Hz. The gain of +6 dB at 20-150 Hz and -3 dB
at 700-2000 Hz are obtained from ECSS [3].

Table 4.2 PSD input

Gain [dB] 20 150 800 2000

ASD / PSD [g2/Hz] 0.002 0.11 0.11 0.05
Octaves * 2.91 2.42 1.32
dB * 17.44 0.00 -3.97
Slope [dB/Octave] * 6.00 0.00 -3.00
Area * 5.62 73.13 82.60
Total [gRMS] 12.70

18
 0.001

PSD [g2/Hz] 0.000

0.000

0.000
20 200 2000
Frequency [Hz]

LM-3 Qualification level Equipment Qualification Test Level

LM-3 Acceptance level Equipment Acceptance Test Level

Figure 4.3 Random vibration test specification

4.5 Shock
Given the separation clamp shock levels; the slope reference between 100Hz and
1000Hz is 9 dB/Oct, the shock envelope can be defined in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.4. The SRS at
100 Hz was calculated using Equation 2.40-2.41. The SRS at 1000 Hz and 5000 Hz were
obtained from environmental test standard [1].

Table 4.3 Shock input

Frequency [Hz] 100 1000 5000

SRS (Q=10) [g] 127.995 4000 4000

10000
SRS (Q=10) [g]

1000

100

10
100 1000 10000
Frequency [Hz]

Qualification Level +6 dB -6 dB

Figure 4.4 Shock spectrum (Q=10)

19
Chapter V

Simulation Results

The mesh geometry (618,070 elements) was modeled with tetra 2 mm and 0.5 mm in zone interest.
To increase the results accuracy, the mesh was preserved in the zone interest where the maximum
stress occurs. The zone interest is in the ribs around the payload connection and separation
interface. The calculation was solved using ANSYS 18.0 and post-processed by MATLAB.

5.1 Static Analysis

For static analysis, the Equivalent Stress (Von-misses), Normal stress and Shear stress
results were far off from criterion of yield strength, ultimate shear and compressive stress of AA-
7075. These maximum/minimum values are an indicator of zone interest where the sizing or
optimization may be considered.

Table 5.1 Static deformation, shear, principal and normal stress

Equivalent Total Deformation Deformation Deformation

Stress Deformation X Y Z
Minimum 4.3e-004 MPa 0. mm -0.013 mm -0.008 mm -0.123 mm
Maximum 29.356 MPa 0.182 mm 0.022 mm 0.138 mm 0.003 mm

Principal
Shear Stress Normal X Normal Y Normal Z
Stress
Minimum 2.4e-004 MPa -9.699 MPa -19.309 MPa -22.421 MPa -17.596 MPa
Maximum 14.892 MPa 8.245 MPa 8.238 MPa 6.388 MPa 7.755 MPa

The small deformation in Figure 5.1 shows that all joints and B.C were correctly defined. This
condition must be fulfilled because the pre-stress load results are used as an input of dynamic
response calculation. The highest stress of 29.356 MPa occurred at rib around separation interface
indicates no plastic deformation.

Figure 5.1 Maximum Von-Mises (left) and static deformation (right) in the bottom panel

20
5.2 Dynamic Analysis
5.2.1 Modal
Frequency domain of modal simulation results in X, Y, and Z direction were a plot in Figure 5.2-
5.3 and Table 5.2 - 5.5.
(tonne)

(tonne)

Figure 5.2 Effective mass & cumulative effective mass ratio directional (left) and rotational
(right) in 100 modes

Table 5.2 Participation factor and effective mass

Frequency Participation Factor Effective Mass (tonne)

Mode (Hz) X Y Z RX RY RZ X Y Z RX RY RZ
1 20.291 1.21E-02 0.117 -0.0279 -16.4 1.74 0.354 1.47E-04 0.0138 7.77E-04 268 3.01 0.126
2 21.874 0.115 -1.13E-02 8.96E-04 2.02 15.4 -0.451 0.0132 1.27E-04 8.04E-07 4.06 236 0.204
3 42.990 2.38E-02 -5.51E-03 2.59E-04 -1.46 2.13 -7.98 5.69E-04 3.04E-05 6.69E-08 2.14 4.53 63.6
4 43.012 -9.76E-03 7.24E-03 8.08E-03 0.614 -2.19 4.87 9.53E-05 5.24E-05 6.53E-05 0.377 4.78 23.8
5 43.676 2.31E-03 1.33E-02 2.36E-02 0.769 -0.543 0.409 5.34E-06 1.76E-04 5.56E-04 0.591 0.295 0.167
6 47.563 5.27E-03 -6.94E-03 -1.45E-02 -6.51E-02 -1.6 1.24 2.77E-05 4.82E-05 2.10E-04 4.23E-03 2.57 1.54
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
100 1648.100 -0.0025 0.0045 0.0018 0.7260 0.2360 0.2380 6.35E-06 2.02E-05 3.12E-06 5.27E-01 5.56E-02 5.64E-02
Sum 0.01945 0.02027 0.02052

Recalling a rule Equation 2.13, by comparing the cumulative extracted effective mass to real mass
(93.3 - 99.7%) illustrates that 100 modes are adequate for this simulation. The high value in
directional/rotational axis indicates the mode will be excited in that axis. From Table 5.2, the first
and second highest participation factor in Y-direction is on first mode (20.291 Hz) while X-
direction is on second mode (21.874 Hz). The first mode is slightly close to frequency limit
requirement (>20Hz).

21
 Figure 5.3 Natural frequency on 1st - 4th mode

From Figure 5.3, the deflection is decreasing within the mode and largest one occurs in the second
mode. In Table 5.3 – 5.5, the Von-mises, principal stress and shear stress from 1st mode to forth
exceeded the yield limit of the material.

Table 5.3 Equivalent stress on 1st - 4th mode

Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Stress Equivalent

Stress Mode 1 Stress Mode 2 Mode 3 Stress Mode 4
Maximum 855,29 MPa 2524,3 MPa 4074 MPa 2630,9 MPa
Minimum 0,030 MPa 0,015 MPa 0,096 MPa 0,041 MPa

Table 5.4 Principle stress on 1st - 4th mode

Principal Stress Principal Stress Principal Stress Principal Stress

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
Maximum 429,32 MPa 2980,1 MPa 5008,6 MPa 3314,1 MPa
Minimum -271,94 MPa -687,53 MPa -1007,2 MPa -603,21 MPa

Table 5.5 Shear stress on 1st - 4th mode

Shear Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4
Maximum 433,92 MPa 1400,1 MPa 2264,6 MPa 1460,8 MPa
Minimum 0,015 MPa 0,008 MPa 0,051 MPa 0,024 MPa

5.2.2 Sinusoidal
Frequency domain simulation results of sine vibration X, Y, and Z direction were plot in Figure
5.4 – 5.6 and Table 5.6 – 5.8.

22
Figure 5.4 Sin response X-direction (0-100 Hz)

Figure 5.5 Sin response Y-direction (0-100 Hz)

Figure 5.6 Sin response Z-direction (0-100 Hz)

23
 Table 5.6 Sin response in natural frequency X-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 44 47 60 64 79 85 98 Limit

2
No Equipment Mass (kg) G Amplification (9,8 m/s )
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 0.74 4.07 2.03 2.98 7.37 34.80 17.76 10
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 0.12 1.35 0.52 2.31 0.07 37.24 11.02 13
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 0.03 0.16 0.32 1.21 2.06 5.03 1.577 13
4 EPS 0.5 0.03 2.34 0.83 0.72 0.40 5.08 4.037 -
5 Laser 0.033 0.42 1.34 0.71 1.19 1.82 25.92 2.633 -
6 OBC 0.13 0.22 0.31 0.91 1.37 1.59 15.20 1.461 6
7 TCM 0.13 8.05 0.73 1.20 2.98 2.22 12.35 1.655 6
8 Payload 0.95 0.02 0.24 0.11 4.31 56.33 8.72 0.663 -
9 Battery 1.068 0.02 2.05 0.65 0.53 0.30 6.27 3.993 -
10 Transponder 1.3 0.14 0.94 0.11 1.16 0.85 7.39 7.758 10
11 SSPA 1.1 0.14 0.94 0.10 1.15 0.84 7.24 7.679 10
12 Thruster 8 0.43 0.39 2.16 0.54 0.86 7.15 0.68
13 SA PY 1.519 0.93 0.75 14.80 2.23 0.92 4.00 0.862 -
14 SA NY 1.519 0.48 0.02 9.50 6.79 0.82 10.51 2.492 -
15 EPX1 0.035 0.34 0.77 1.21 4.37 1.02 18.37 1.347 10
16 EPX2 0.035 0.28 0.20 1.17 1.11 0.77 22.55 1.735 10
17 EPX3 0.035 0.20 1.08 0.94 3.09 0.97 10.51 0.596 10
18 EPX4 0.035 0.17 0.36 0.78 0.84 0.34 13.47 0.98 10
19 Motor PY 0.395 1.33 1.50 12.96 6.12 8.21 101.33 0.478 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 1.40 0.44 13.78 4.74 6.65 89.80 4.127 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 0.74 4.11 2.03 3.01 7.42 34.80 17.86 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 0.11 1.33 0.52 2.30 0.10 37.45 10.92 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.64 1.08 2.68 0.832 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 0.40 1.51 0.72 1.18 1.99 28.16 2.781 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 0.69 15.92 0.27 9.10 2.16 12.24 4.243 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 10.20 2.93 0.63 6.45 1.37 8.05 2.452 -
Maximum 10.20 15.92 14.80 9.10 56.33 101.33 17.86 13.00
Minimum 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.48 0.48 6.00

Sin response in g amplification tells which component that contribute the most to overall
structural response during the high peak in resonant frequency. The sin response was reviewed
to avoid high amplification event in resonant frequency.

From Table 5.6, many amplification events occurred at 85 Hz. The response exceeded the criteria
for reaction wheel, star tracker 1 at 85 Hz and 98 Hz. The response of OBC, TCM, EPXs, Motors
surpassed the limit criteria at 85 Hz. Stepper motor has the highest amplification of 101.33G at
frequency 85 Hz.

24
 Table 5.7 Sine response in natural frequency Y-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 43 47 51 58 64 78 85 98 Limit

2
No Equipment Mass (kg) G Amplification (9,8 m/s )
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 3.02 2.31 1.84 0.64 1.73 21.94 28.98 8.57 10
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 3.13 3.46 3.38 1.28 4.26 1.64 5.51 21.02 13
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.58 0.95 3.06 0.89 13
4 EPS 0.5 2.54 2.04 2.69 0.59 5.2 10.71 58.57 3.38 -
5 Laser 0.033 1.63 1.27 2.17 0.35 0.07 6.97 48.27 3.51 -
6 OBC 0.13 0.51 0.55 4.14 2.75 11.94 6.13 7.43 0.79 6
7 TCM 0.13 0.51 0.55 4.14 2.75 11.94 6.13 7.43 0.79 6
8 Payload 0.95 0.05 0.1 0.19 0.14 2.57 3.87 3.56 0.79 -
9 Battery 1.068 2.72 2.2 2.57 0.68 5.06 14.18 35.51 4.06 -
10 Transponder 1.3 1.74 0.2 1.38 0.1 1.68 13.27 23.78 9.41 10
11 SSPA 1.1 1.53 0.74 1.33 0.26 2.04 14.59 31.33 6.24 10
12 Thruster 8 0.09 1.07 1.15 0.22 4.07 9.86 22.86 1.15
13 SA PY 1.519 0 1.22 11.94 3.84 30.31 20.61 33.57 4.82 -
14 SA NY 1.519 0.33 10.11 2.65 6.98 34.59 29.18 35.71 0.73 -
15 EPX1 0.035 1.57 1.84 2.61 2.8 9.23 5.16 7.21 0.95 10
16 EPX2 0.035 1.57 1.84 2.61 2.8 9.23 5.16 7.21 0.95 10
17 EPX3 0.035 0.96 0.67 1.93 1.76 5.84 2.37 4.79 0.72 10
18 EPX4 0.035 0.96 0.67 1.93 1.76 5.84 2.37 4.79 0.72 10
19 Motor PY 0.395 0.09 0.75 11.33 3.59 27.65 18.27 27.35 4.15 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 0.37 9.25 2.78 6.57 31.63 25.92 29.59 0.77 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 2.65 0.83 2.23 0.14 3.32 17.76 39.49 2.13 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 2.9 1.5 2.86 0.63 3.92 7.28 16.02 12.55 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.32 0.48 1.72 0.48 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 1.8 1.19 2.42 0.27 0.57 8.02 46.12 4.15 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 1.92 0.96 1.73 0.2 0.05 15.61 34.8 4.55 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 1.65 1.55 2.01 0.51 0.89 6.51 56.02 2.75 -
Maximum 3.13 10.11 11.94 6.98 34.59 29.18 58.57 21.02 13.00
Minimum 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.48 1.72 0.48 6.00

From Table 5, many amplification events occurred at 64, 78 and 85 Hz. The response of reaction
wheel, OBC, TCM, SSPA, and Transponder exceeded the criteria at 78 and 85 Hz. The response
for star tracker 1 exceeded the criteria at 98 Hz. The first and second highest response occurred
in EPS and Antenna X negative directional at 85 Hz.

25
 Table 5.8 Sin response in natural frequency Z-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 47 51 64 78 80 85 98 Limit

2
No Equipment Mass (kg) G Amplification (9,8 m/s )
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 2.12 0.49 12.86 22.55 12.86 16.22 1.86 10
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 1.83 1.06 18.27 15.1 8.83 42.86 1.44 13
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 0.15 0.03 0.85 1.18 0.68 3.28 1.08 13
4 EPS 0.5 1.03 0.49 11.53 8.76 4.82 21.53 8.26 -
5 Laser 0.033 0.59 1.01 15 7.09 4.91 4.82 7.83 -
6 OBC 0.13 0.16 0.64 2.13 3.42 1.87 8.74 0.94 6
7 TCM 0.13 0.19 1.75 5.63 5.34 2.54 6.09 0.72 6
8 Payload 0.95 0.17 0.12 2.43 4.2 0.07 2.8 0.65 -
9 Battery 1.068 1.74 0.69 11.94 9.15 5.02 24.49 8.14 -
10 Transponder 1.3 1.71 0.92 15.61 18.78 10.71 38.57 9.11 10
11 SSPA 1.1 1.35 0.67 14.59 17.04 9.68 33.57 4.07 10
12 Thruster 8 0.95 0.45 11.63 10.15 5.71 19.9 3.06
13 SA PY 1.519 23.47 6.22 10.51 15.51 7.94 30.1 6.07 -
14 SA NY 1.519 17.24 11.53 1.83 5.44 1.84 7.66 0.15 -
15 EPX1 0.035 1.05 0.07 1.02 0.78 1.19 22.65 1.76 10
16 EPX2 0.035 0.4 0.02 0.19 2.08 1.73 22.14 1.68 10
17 EPX3 0.035 0.39 0.76 1.89 0.6 1.14 22.24 1.74 10
18 EPX4 0.035 0.17 0.27 0.13 2.05 1.72 21.84 1.67 10
19 Motor PY 0.395 21.02 8.49 33.27 14.49 9.11 25.51 7.6 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 17.96 11.84 1.29 5.89 2.12 7 0.04 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 1.19 0.16 11.84 17.76 9.83 28.27 2.95 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 1.61 1.04 17.65 15.2 8.92 38.88 1.38 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 0.15 0.03 0.85 1.18 0.68 3.28 1.08 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 0.78 1.03 14.9 7.56 5.25 2.14 7.71 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 0.05 0.66 12.86 16.22 9.19 30.1 2.83 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 0.88 0.46 10.71 8.29 4.6 19.29 8.05 -
Maximum 23.47 11.84 33.27 22.55 12.86 42.86 9.11 13.00
Minimum 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.60 0.07 2.14 0.04 6.00

From Table 5, many amplification events occurred at 64, 78, 80 and 85 Hz. The response of the
reaction wheel and Transponder exceeded the criteria at 64, 78, 80 and 85 Hz. The response of
star tracker 1 and SSPA surpassed the criteria at 64, 78 and 85 Hz. The response of OBC and TCM
have surpassed the criteria at 85 Hz. The highest amplification of 42.86G occurred in star tracker
1 at 85 Hz.

5.2.3 Random Vibration

Frequency domain simulation results of random vibration and GRMS each component X, Y, and
Z direction were plot in Figure 5.7 – 5.9 and Table 5.9 - 5.12.

26
Figure 5.7 Random response X-direction (0-2000 Hz)

Figure 5.8 Random response Y-direction (0-2000 Hz)

Figure 5.9 Random response Z-direction (0-2000 Hz)

27
 Table 5.9 PSD response of resonant frequency in X-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 78.82 335.1 479.9 513.28 657.7 706.9 Limit
2
No Equipment Mass (kg) GRMS (G) Limit (G) Response PSD (G /Hz)
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 13.15 14.33 5.04E+00 4.45E-01 2.74E-01 1.11E+00 1.88E-04 2.14E-02 -
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 18.13 13.50 1.46E-02 3.89E-01 6.86E-01 6.25E+00 4.23E-02 8.95E-02 -
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 41.03 13.50 1.14E-01 2.65E+01 1.22E-02 1.80E+01 1.65E-01 4.35E-01 -
4 EPS 0.5 8.61 - 9.29E-03 3.71E-02 2.82E-01 8.25E-01 2.63E-02 5.82E-01 -
5 Laser 0.033 32.12 - 3.45E-01 4.24E-01 1.58E+01 6.28E+00 2.23E-01 5.56E-01 -
6 OBC 0.13 15.76 5.30 2.68E-01 1.17E-03 1.31E-01 2.49E+00 1.25E-01 7.33E+00 5.00E-02
7 TCM 0.13 42.72 5.30 5.33E-01 9.29E-02 1.03E+00 2.95E+01 9.97E-01 5.11E+01 5.00E-02
8 Payload 0.95 9.65 - 4.70E+01 4.00E-02 3.20E-05 1.96E-04 1.21E-05 3.80E-04 -
9 Battery 1.068 8.81 - 5.58E-03 2.35E-02 2.74E-01 8.86E-01 3.39E-03 3.07E-02 -
10 Transponder 1.3 8.54 10.13 4.86E-02 4.45E-01 7.16E-04 5.74E-03 4.06E-05 5.70E-03 1.25E+00
11 SSPA 1.1 8.60 10.13 4.69E-02 4.33E-01 1.02E-03 1.11E-02 1.67E-05 4.05E-03 1.25E+00
12 Thruster 8 2.69 - 7.97E-02 3.13E-04 4.62E-03 8.23E-02 5.16E-04 1.08E-02 -
13 SA PY 1.519 5.62 - 7.67E-02 1.42E-02 1.40E-02 1.05E-01 5.40E-04 2.13E-02 -
14 SA NY 1.519 6.27 - 6.63E-02 8.78E-02 3.04E-03 3.97E-02 1.79E-02 2.11E-01 -
15 EPX1 0.035 47.28 10.00 1.36E-01 5.64E-02 6.05E+01 2.64E+01 1.24E+01 9.68E+00 -
16 EPX2 0.035 18.07 10.00 6.12E-02 7.62E-03 8.10E+00 2.00E+00 1.43E+00 3.18E+00 -
17 EPX3 0.035 52.51 10.00 1.15E-01 4.41E-02 1.15E+01 1.28E+01 5.45E+01 3.28E+01 -
18 EPX4 0.035 19.27 10.00 1.23E-02 1.15E-03 1.64E+00 9.58E-01 7.97E+00 2.87E+00 -
19 Motor PY 0.395 17.11 - 7.02E+00 4.03E-02 1.65E-01 1.86E+00 5.83E-02 1.41E-01 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 17.31 - 4.59E+00 4.07E-01 5.25E-03 7.99E-02 3.16E-02 1.28E+00 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 13.09 - 5.12E+00 4.35E-01 2.64E-01 1.03E+00 1.77E-04 2.07E-02 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 18.06 - 1.65E-02 3.83E-01 6.75E-01 6.15E+00 4.22E-02 9.05E-02 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 21.99 - 3.17E-02 7.39E+00 3.55E-03 5.16E+00 4.54E-02 1.53E-01 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 31.86 - 4.09E-01 1.99E-01 9.15E+00 5.84E+00 1.07E+00 1.54E+00 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 4.47 - 3.12E-01 1.14E-02 1.13E-03 4.20E-02 5.11E-04 3.40E-02 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 3.51 - 1.71E-01 6.84E-02 5.42E-04 1.94E-02 5.17E-04 2.51E-02 -
Maximum 52.51 14.33 4.70E+01 2.65E+01 6.05E+01 2.95E+01 5.45E+01 5.11E+01 1.25E+00
Minimum 2.69 5.30 0.005584 0.000313 3.2E-05 0.000196 1.21E-05 0.00038 0.05

PSD response results illustrate what excitation frequencies contribute the most to overall
structural response. The random response was reviewed to avoid high amplification event in
resonant frequency.

In Table 5.9, the GRMS for reaction wheel, star trackers, OBC, TCM, transponder, SSPA, and EPXs
exceeded the limit criteria. The highest and lowest grms did occur in EPX 3 and thruster. The
response for OBC and TCM surpassed the maximum limit PSD criteria. The highest PSD response
of 6.05e-1 G2/Hz occurred in EPX 1 at 479.9 Hz.

28
 Table 5.10 PSD response of resonant frequency in Y-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 64.4 263.7 335.1 513.3 659 707 Limit
2
No Equipment Mass (kg) GRMS (G) Limit (G) Response PSD (G /Hz)
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 12.06 14.33 1.78E-01 9.35E-02 2.33E-01 3.26E-01 3.34E-03 2.07E-02 -
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 29.43 13.50 6.40E-01 4.26E-01 2.45E+00 2.10E+01 9.84E-02 9.80E-01 -
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 27.34 13.50 9.33E-03 4.85E-02 3.56E+01 6.44E+00 2.32E-02 3.07E-01 -
4 EPS 0.5 11.88 - 1.01E+00 2.34E-03 3.83E-03 7.75E-02 9.41E-02 5.55E-01 -
5 Laser 0.033 20.83 - 1.36E-02 6.97E-02 6.70E+00 3.47E-01 1.07E-01 3.42E-01 -
6 OBC 0.13 42.48 5.30 4.31E+00 2.14E-03 1.04E+00 3.22E+01 7.70E-01 4.41E+01 5.00E-02
7 TCM 0.13 42.48 5.30 4.31E+00 2.14E-03 1.04E+00 3.22E+01 7.70E-01 4.41E+01 5.00E-02
8 Payload 0.95 15.10 - 2.01E-01 4.91E-02 1.19E+01 9.60E-03 2.45E-03 2.80E-03 -
9 Battery 1.068 11.33 - 9.53E-01 5.27E-03 5.64E-02 4.27E-01 4.63E-02 1.61E-02 -
10 Transponder 1.3 10.19 10.13 6.95E-02 1.81E-02 2.64E-01 5.81E-02 2.23E-04 2.70E-02 1.25E+00
11 SSPA 1.1 9.68 10.13 1.06E-01 6.43E-03 3.27E-01 1.36E-01 3.77E-03 7.97E-03 1.25E+00
12 Thruster 8 4.68 - 6.45E-01 1.39E-04 2.42E-03 4.40E-03 4.98E-05 5.03E-05 -
13 SA PY 1.519 10.42 - 2.98E+01 4.12E-04 1.04E-02 9.38E-02 4.71E-03 2.16E-01 -
14 SA NY 1.519 14.01 - 3.81E+01 1.52E-02 2.18E-02 7.51E-01 4.17E-02 1.21E+00 -
15 EPX1 0.035 35.06 10.00 2.77E+00 3.40E+01 1.35E+00 6.93E-01 1.44E+01 1.05E+01 -
16 EPX2 0.035 35.06 10.00 2.77E+00 3.40E+01 1.35E+00 6.93E-01 1.44E+01 1.05E+01 -
17 EPX3 0.035 44.03 10.00 1.10E+00 1.93E+01 8.76E-01 1.71E+01 1.92E+01 3.09E+01 -
18 EPX4 0.035 44.03 10.00 1.10E+00 1.93E+01 8.76E-01 1.71E+01 1.92E+01 3.09E+01 -
19 Motor PY 0.395 10.96 - 2.47E+01 2.11E-05 7.26E-05 1.10E-01 3.69E-02 9.08E-01 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 14.02 - 3.18E+01 5.00E-04 1.51E-04 4.09E-01 3.81E-02 8.03E-01 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 9.04 - 4.45E-01 2.13E-03 4.04E-03 1.28E-01 4.93E-05 1.33E-03 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 18.22 - 5.68E-01 1.40E-01 7.80E-01 7.70E+00 2.33E-02 2.19E-01 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 14.44 - 2.89E-03 1.33E-02 9.68E+00 1.83E+00 6.99E-03 8.87E-02 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 26.76 - 3.37E-02 8.21E-02 6.83E+00 1.38E-01 1.81E-01 6.27E-01 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 16.83 - 1.25E-02 5.77E-03 3.60E-01 2.60E-01 2.80E-02 5.87E+00 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 19.39 - 5.85E-02 3.49E-02 3.21E+00 3.49E-01 1.49E+00 1.70E-01 -
Maximum 44.03 14.33 3.81E+01 3.40E+01 3.56E+01 3.22E+01 1.92E+01 4.41E+01 1.25E+00
Minimum 4.68 5.30 0.002886 2.11E-05 7.26E-05 0.004401 4.93E-05 5.03E-05 0.05

In Table 5.10, the GRMS for star trackers, OBC, TCM, and EPXs exceeded the limit criteria. The
highest and lowest did occur in EPX3-4 and thruster. The response for OBC and TCM surpassed
the maximum limit PSD criteria. The highest PSD response of 4.41e+1 G2/Hz occurred in OBC
and TCM at 707 Hz.

29
 Table 5.11 PSD response of resonant frequency in Z-direction

Frequency Resonance (Hz) 64.3 79.4 85.5 163.8 334 700 796.2 Limit
2
No Equipment Mass (kg) GRMS (G) Limit (G) Response PSD (G /Hz)
1 Reaction Wheel 1.1 11.52 14.33 4.99E+00 1.41E+01 1.69E+00 2.72E+00 1.61E-01 3.14E-01 3.64E-03 -
2 Star Tracker 1 0.1 24.55 13.50 1.02E+01 6.87E+00 5.05E+00 2.84E-01 4.04E+00 1.96E+01 1.80E+00 -
3 Star Tracker 2 0.1 35.27 13.50 1.75E-04 1.05E-04 3.17E-05 1.63E-05 1.16E-04 2.01E-08 9.99E-10 -
4 EPS 0.5 12.77 - 1.46E-02 3.25E-03 1.25E-03 7.58E-04 1.47E-07 2.93E-07 5.78E-09 -
5 Laser 0.033 21.69 - 2.49E-02 2.87E-03 1.53E-04 2.11E-04 1.44E-05 1.29E-07 7.63E-09 -
6 OBC 0.13 21.24 5.30 5.50E-04 3.87E-04 1.98E-04 9.62E-06 8.55E-07 8.71E-07 3.43E-08 5.00E-02
7 TCM 0.13 23.87 5.30 3.47E-03 8.18E-04 9.38E-05 9.15E-06 1.32E-06 8.11E-07 6.07E-08 5.00E-02
8 Payload 0.95 49.62 - 7.60E-04 4.16E-06 2.45E-05 4.72E-05 1.02E-03 4.59E-09 1.31E-09 -
9 Battery 1.068 14.77 - 1.58E-02 3.58E-03 1.60E-03 2.00E-03 1.48E-09 1.44E-08 3.46E-10 -
10 Transponder 1.3 11.93 10.13 2.68E-02 1.55E-02 5.36E-03 8.06E-05 5.77E-08 1.86E-08 1.24E-10 1.25E+00
11 SSPA 1.1 12.69 10.13 2.35E-02 1.27E-02 4.03E-03 6.30E-05 2.37E-07 2.25E-07 1.01E-08 1.25E+00
12 Thruster 8 8.83 - 1.50E-02 4.32E-03 1.28E-03 8.88E-08 2.89E-08 1.79E-07 4.46E-09 -
13 SA PY 1.519 11.15 - 1.25E-02 8.58E-03 3.05E-03 5.43E-04 3.71E-08 1.01E-07 3.96E-09 -
14 SA NY 1.519 27.43 - 6.25E-04 7.30E-04 2.56E-04 8.92E-06 6.95E-07 1.03E-06 2.20E-08 -
15 EPX1 0.035 38.70 10.00 2.20E-04 2.67E-04 8.66E-04 9.09E-06 9.99E-07 5.58E-08 4.42E-07 -
16 EPX2 0.035 26.51 10.00 8.77E-05 4.57E-04 8.09E-04 8.34E-06 1.05E-06 3.54E-07 9.62E-08 -
17 EPX3 0.035 27.11 10.00 4.96E-04 2.55E-04 8.31E-04 9.02E-06 2.18E-06 1.09E-06 3.80E-08 -
18 EPX4 0.035 24.16 10.00 8.21E-05 4.54E-04 7.85E-04 8.25E-06 1.49E-06 1.33E-06 1.51E-08 -
19 Motor PY 0.395 29.61 - 1.22E-01 1.04E-02 2.87E-03 1.19E-03 1.22E-07 1.64E-06 8.55E-09 -
20 Motor NY 0.395 85.19 - 6.89E-04 8.31E-04 9.54E-05 1.60E-05 2.61E-06 3.56E-07 1.80E-07 -
21 Bracket RW 0.018 14.53 - 1.51E-02 1.31E-02 3.02E-03 1.52E-04 8.06E-07 1.77E-07 2.11E-08 -
22 Bracket ST1 0.029 15.81 - 3.44E-02 1.08E-02 4.97E-03 1.55E-05 1.04E-05 1.20E-06 7.12E-08 -
23 Bracket ST2 0.028 35.28 - 1.75E-04 1.05E-04 3.16E-05 1.63E-05 1.16E-04 2.01E-08 1.00E-09 -
24 Bracket LS 0.062 30.37 - 2.48E-02 3.25E-03 8.80E-05 2.00E-04 1.82E-05 2.37E-07 2.23E-08 -
25 ANT XP 0.3 16.27 - 1.82E-02 1.14E-02 3.27E-03 7.22E-05 2.07E-07 3.59E-07 3.08E-08 -
26 ANT XN 0.3 16.09 - 1.27E-02 2.93E-03 1.01E-03 3.16E-04 3.03E-07 7.80E-07 1.25E-08 -
Maximum 85.19 14.33 1.02E+01 1.41E+01 5.05E+00 2.72E+00 4.04E+00 1.96E+01 1.80E+00 1.25E+00
Minimum 8.83 5.30 8.21E-05 4.16E-06 2.45E-05 8.88E-08 1.48E-09 4.59E-09 1.24E-10 0.05

In Table 5.11, the grms for star trackers, OBC, TCM, Transponder, SSPA, and EPXs exceeded the
limit criteria. The highest and lowest grms did occur in Motor +Y and thruster. The response for
OBC and TCM are below the maximum limit PSD criteria. The highest PSD response of 1.96e+1
G2/Hz occurred in star tracker 1 at 700 Hz.

Table 5.12 3σ-RMS stress of the screws

3σ Stress (MPa)
PX+ PX- Y+ Y- RW ST1 EPS LS MTRY+ MTRY- OBC EPX PA ST2 THS
Screw 1 114.57 81.845 51.048 27.421 44.621 47.461 43.306 56.223 56.544 382.87 67.226 65.637 286.8 23.086 118.26
Screw 2 45.195 77.457 46.894 205.54 63.718 40.279 62.061 33.754 296.17 314.71 35.866 47.075 420.71 89.611 199.77
Screw 3 122.05 88.412 53.334 44.621 106.06 25.191 104.13 27.183 156.95 247.15 95.423 53.277 - 54.248 86.755
Screw 4 56.616 43.587 - - 131.36 24.194 66.666 56.544 235.7 289.2 86.77 73.58 - 19.856 109.24
Screw 5 36.983 34.494 - - - - 37.545 - - - - 68.343 - - 114.31
Screw 6 48.258 34.169 - - - - 59.255 - - - - 51.262 - - 76.917
Screw 7 59.357 61.38 - - - - - - - - - 53.879 - - 50.404
Screw 8 40.333 31.69 - - - - - - - - - 63.952 - - 76.096
Screw 9 44.602 45.587 - - - - - - - - - - - - 60.813
Screw 10 46.971 34.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 79.761
Screw 11 80.881 38.088 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102.03
Screw 12 52.372 33.628 - - - - - - - - - - - - 85.728
Screw 13 35.829 31.643 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Screw 14 69.663 57.647 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Screw 15 53.058 96.908 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Screw 16 66.205 80.574 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Screw 17 56.369 102.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Table 5.12, “Three-sigma” criterion stands for multiply the simulation output by three. From
probability and statistic theory, alternating values between +3σ and -3σ occur 99.7% of the time.
In this context, -3σ-stress was not drawn.

The high stresses dominantly occurred in stepper motors with 4 screw connection. The highest
stress of 420.71 MPa in the payload within the connection of 2 screws was identified. The stresses
of 17 screws in panel X and 3 screws each in panel Y did not exceed the yield limit of Aluminium
6082-T6.

30
5.2.4 Shock
The maximum stress and displacement were plot in Figure 5.10 and 5.11.

Figure 5.10 Maximum stress on shock simulation

Figure 5.11 Maximum displacement on shock simulation

The maximum stress of 460.56 MPa was found in rib connected to payload screw. This exceeded
ultimate tensile strength of AA-7075-T6. The highest displacement was detected in thruster
interface panel Y positive and negative. Respectively, the large displacement caused by the
reaction force from solar arrays and stepper motors.

31
Chapter VI

Conclusion

The spacecraft was designed and an adjusted size minimization depending on the parametric
input of component’s location was performed. The Beyond Atlas Spacecraft has achieved a wet
mass of 20.85 kg with the size of 24.7 x 42.2 x 40.8 cm for stowed mode and 84 x 399 x 40.8 cm for
the unstowed mode. The unstowed mode is measured with deployed solar arrays and antennae.
For a commentary, it is still possible to attain much lighter Aluminium structure weight (current
1.634 kg) by shrinking the size of the spacecraft. However, since this project is still in a preliminary
design phase, the placement of cable harness approximately 4% of the dry mass and a scenario of
having redundant hardware notably haven’t yet included/considered.

The analysis from the simulation results of static, modal, sine, random vibration and shock were
presented in accordance with the qualification of the launch environment.

1. For static analysis, the maximum stress of 29.36 MPa around the payload screw connection
indicates that the structure can handle a carrying load capacity of 1g without any plastic
deformation.

2. From extracted mode, the frequency obtained in the first mode is 20.5Hz. Based on an author
knowledge, the real value from laboratory testing could shift approximately +/- 1-3 Hz.
Therefore, to anticipate the avoided frequency (<20 Hz), the higher frequency in the first
mode should be higher and it can be attained by increasing the stiffness. In general, this can
be done by increasing the thickness of rib and number of the ribs around the connecting
screw holes of the structure.

3. The resonant frequency for sine and random vibration which should be avoided were
devised. The most critical natural frequency in term of sine vibration was found at 85 Hz
because it occurs in x, y, and z-direction. In terms of both sine and random vibration, the
response in X-direction is dominantly higher than in the Y and Z-directions. This
phenomenon corresponded to the unideal location of COG in x-axis which has a shift of
+4.37 mm from the zero origin coordinate. This proves that the imbalance situation has an
impact of much higher amplification. The condition also suggests that the center of mass is
recommended nearly to the center of the spacecraft [x,y]=[0,0]. In random vibration, the PSD
response can be used to identify overall structural characteristics and Sub PSD from PSD
response can be an input for the real test laboratory. The high 3σ RMS stresses in the
connection screw of payload and solar array were found. To mitigate the issue of high
stresses, a bolt connection of the payload and the solar array connected to the structure
should be added to prevent exceeding stress against the yield strength of Aluminium 6082-
T6. The highest and lowest grms occurred in EPX and thruster. The stress value corresponds
to GRMS representing a statistical approach of occurred vibration. As it can be observed that
the thruster has 12 screws and the EPX has 4 screws connected to the structure, this illustrates
that increasing number of connection screws can make the component less sensitive of high
vibration. Moreover, since vibration is a repetitive load, it will be an interesting approach
for future work if the frequency domain is combined with a time domain analysis to predict
a life cycle.

32
4. According to the shock simulation, the maximum displacement results is 1 mm. So the
minimum margin reference between the spacecraft to another spacecraft shall be more than
1 mm. The maximum stress of 460.56 MPa around the payload illustrates exceeding stress
against the material yield limit (380 MPa). Therefore, the possible solution to prevent
exceeding stress is adding the rib’s thickness and number around the critical location.

Overall, the amplification responses for most of the components are exceeding the limit
requirement. This can be a reference to anticipate the overloading event during the ground
testing. An efficient way to mitigate a high amplification response, the damper should be
included in the critical zone such as in the separation interface. The lesson learned from Vega
Rocket [3] that to avoid such a resonant event in the particular natural frequencies, notching
scenario can be considered. Moreover, for future work, to obtain the optimal weight in the desired
frequency, the constraint parameter of above 20 Hz should be set for topology/topography
optimization.

33
Appendix A

Appended Material

34
 Figure A-3 Logarithmic sin response X-direction

35
36
Figure A-4 Logarithmic sin response Y-direction
 Figure A-5 Logarithmic sin response Z-direction

37
38
Figure A-6 Logarithmic random response X-direction
 Figure A-7 Logarithmic random response Y-direction

39
40
Figure A-8 Logarithmic random response Z-direction
Bibliography

[1] Zheng CEN et al, “LM-3A Series Launch Vehicle User’s Manual”. China Academy of
Launch Vehicle Technology, pp. 3.1–3.36. ISSN: 1973-9478, 2011.
[2] L Prockter et al., “The NEAR Shoemaker Mission to Asteroid 433 EROS”, Applied
Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, El-Sevier 51.1, pp. 491–
500, 2002.
[3] A Calvi et al, “Spacecraft Mechanical loads analysis handbook (ECSS-E-HB-32-26A)”,
European Space Agency, 2015.
[4] Himelblau Harry et al, NASA Technical Handbook “Dynamic Environmental Criteria”
(HDBK-7005), National Aeronautics Space Administration, 2001.
[5] Yokoyama, T., "Vibrations of a Hanging Timoshenko Beam Under Gravity", Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 141, No. 2, pp. 245-258, 1990.
[6] Przemieniecki, J. S., “Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis”, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1968.
[7] Reddy Vishnu, “Earth's New Buddy Is Asteroid, Not Space Junk” UA Lunar and
Planetary Laboratory https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/earths-new-buddy-
asteroid-not-space-junk Last accessed: 07-11-2018.
[8] Drake Bret G, Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0
(NASA/SP-2009-566), NASA Headquarters, 2009.
[9] Tripathi, R. K., & Nealy, J. E., Mars Radiation Risk Assessment and Shielding Design
for Long-Term Exposure to Ionizing Space Radiation, NASA Langley Research Center,
2007.
[10] Guerster M, Anandito A, Arquilla K, Dinc E, Frommelt M, Gilleron J, Gloder A, G
Gutiérrez, Just G, Kozawska A, Luis D, Margaritis A, Merkle D. Monteiro J,
Palmetshofer P, Sànchez M, Soundararajan B, Stamat L, Timakova E, “Permanent
Crewed Mars Base by 2030 – Outcomes of An Interdisciplinary Multinational Student
Workshop”, IAC–18–E2.3-GTS.4.9, 69th International Astronautical Congress,
Bremen, 1-6 October 2018.
[11] S Marius, D Gisela, R Ewald, Conceptual Design of a Manned Platform in Martian
System, IAC-17-A5.2.2, 68th International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, 25-29
September 2017.
[12] JEM Payload Accommodation Handbook- Vol. 8 - Small Satellite Deployment
(Interface Control Document) JX-ESPC-101133-C, Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA), http://iss.jaxa.jp/kiboexp/equipment/ef/jssod/images/jx-espc-
101132-c.pdf Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[13] Naulais Bruno, ESA Business Incubation Centres
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Business_Inc
ubation/ESA_Business_Incubation_Centres12 Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[14] Garza Andrew, NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation,
NASA Research and Education Support Services,
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/ Last accessed: 10-11-2018.

41
[15] Hall Loura, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) / Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR),
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/sbir_sttr/index.html Last accessed:
10-11-2018.
[16] Mariano José, Zero to Infinity: Simplifying to Space, http://www.zero2infinity.space/
Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[17] Lakdawalla Emily, “Due to ion engine failure, PROCYON will not fly by an asteroid” ,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2015/05081421-procyon-
failure.html Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[18] Webinar 4 Random Vibration, directed by: Tom Irvine, 2014, Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYm7bVxKbqI Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[19] Sven Grahn, Project Manager MIST Satellite “Discussion about master thesis”,
personal interview by the author, Stockholm, September 1, 2017.
[20] Chang Kenneth, “Rocket Lab’s Modest Launch Is Giant Leap for Small Rocket Business”,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/science/rocket-lab-launch.html Last
accessed: 10-11-2018.
[21] Wijker J.J, “ECSS E-32 “Structures” ECSS E-32 Sub-Course "Structures“, European
Space Agency, 2015.
[22] Segalman, D.J., Reese, G.M., Fulcher, C.W., and Field Jr., R.V., "An Efficient Method
for Calculating RMS von Mises Stress in a Random Vibration Environment",
Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference, Santa Barbara,
CA, pp. 117-123, 1998.
[23] Chen, M.T. and Ali, A., “An Efficient and Robust Integration Technique for Applied
Random Vibration Analysis”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 785–798,
1998.
[24] Harichandran, R.S., “Random Vibration Under Propagating Excitation: Closed-Form
Solutions”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 575-586,
1992.
[25] William Matt, “What Is The Space Age?”,
https://www.universetoday.com/45969/space-age/ Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[26] G Ionin Andrey, Space 1.0: “How it all began”,
https://room.eu.com/article/Space_10_to_Space_30_from_Gagarin_to_market_gro
wth Last accessed: 10-11-2018.
[27] Vanmarcke, E. H., "Structural Response to Earthquakes", Seismic Risk and
Engineering Decisions, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam-Oxford,
New York, (edited by C. Lomnitz and E. Rosemblueth), pp. 287-337, 1976.
[28] Training Manual: Introduction to ANSYS Mechanical Chapter 4, “Static Structural
Analysis”, ANSYS Inc, July 2009.
[29] Training Manual: ANSYS Mechanical Dynamics Chapter 2, “Modal Analysis”,
ANSYS Inc, July 2009.
[30] Training Manual: ANSYS Mechanical Dynamics Chapter 3, “Harmonic
Response”, ANSYS Inc, July 2009.

42
[31] Training Manual: ANSYS Mechanical Dynamics Chapter 4, “Response Spectrum”,
ANSYS Inc, July 2009.
[32] J. Wijker, Random Vibrations in Spacecraft Structure Design, Springer, New York,
2009.
[33] Documentation for ANSYS, ANSYS Inc (Package Edition for University and
Research)
[34] Nikkei, Japanese lunar lander to be built by Mitsubishi Electric
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Japanese-lunar-lander-to-be-built-by-Mitsubishi-
Electric Last accessed: 14-12-2018.
[35] Greicius Tony, The Legacy of NASA’s Dawn, Near End of Mission
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/the-legacy-of-nasa-s-dawn-near-end-of-mission
Last accessed: 14-12-2018.
[36] Hayabusa2 Project team, Hayabusa2 Information Fact Sheet
http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/en/enjoy/material/factsheet/FactSheet_en_v2.31s.p
df Last accessed: 23-12-2018.
[37] Brown Katherine, NASA’s Newly Arrived OSIRIS-REx Spacecraft Already
Discovers Water on Asteroid https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-newly-
arrived-osiris-rex-spacecraft-already-discovers-water-on-asteroid Last accessed:
23-12-2018.
[38] ESA int, Rosetta Factsheet,
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_factsheet Last
accessed: 23-12-2018.
[39] Kobayashi Yuta, “X-Band, 15-W-Class, Highly Efficient Deep-Space GaN SSPA for
PROCYON Mission“, IEEE Vol 52. No. 3 June 2016.
[40] JAXA, Ultra compact deep space explorer PROCYON (プロキオン)
https://www.space.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nlab/PROCYON_public_jp_150115.pdf Last
accessed: 24-12-2018.

43
TRITA -SCI-GRU 2019:002
ISSN 1651-7660

www.kth.se