Design of a CubeSat Separation

Mechanism
Click to edit Master title style
Project 04-17-06

Team Members: Gregory Bosma

Andrew Drummond
Ross Hiller
Faculty Mentor: Dr. Koorosh Naghshineh
Industry Mentors: Dr. Kristina Lemmer
Nagual Simmons
Sponsor: Western Aerospace Launch Initiative (WALI)
Additional thanks to: Mike Konkel

1
Outline

• Background
Click to edit Master title style
• Design Requirements
• Design Options
• Option 1: Linear Actuator Pin-puller
• Option 2: Ejector Release Mechanism
• Simulations
• Fabrication & Assembly
• Testing
• Conclusion
• Recommendations

2
Background on CubeSats

• CubeSats are small spacecraft

usedClick
for:to edit Master title style
• Research
• Broadcasting
• Space exploration:
• Missions around the moon
• Missions to Mars
• Their standardized geometry
allows for production of off-the
shelf components
• This significantly reduces cost
of the spacecraft

3
Project Scope
• An upcoming experiment requires a CubeSat capable of splitting into two
bodies.
• For Click
this project: design,
to edit Master title simulate,
style prototype, and test a mechanism
capable of separating a CubeSat while in orbit
• NOTE: The satellite is in a very early design phase

4
Design Requirements

• Design volume of 211.8 x 100 x 60mm

Click
(8.339 intox edit
3.937Master title style
x 2.362 in) maximum
• Acts as one face of each CubeSat
• No debris created by separation
• Maximum mass of 0.7 kg (about the
weight of a basketball)
• Maximum separation velocity of 8
cm/s
• Minimize rotation caused by
separation
• Utilize redundant systems
• Comply with CubeSat structural
requirements

5
Design Options:

• Developed two designs utilizing different release devices

Click to edit Master title style
• Option 1: separated by a linear actuator releasing a pin
connection between the plates
• Option 2: incorporates an off-the-shelf aerospace release
mechanism between the structural baseplates

Option 1 Option 2

6
Features in both options:
Baseplates
• Act as main structure for
Click to edit Master title style
the mechanism Option 1 Option 2
• Mounts to rest of satellite
structure
• Act as one face of each
satellite

7
Features in both options:
Alignment Legs
• Designed in a cup-and-cone
Click to edit Master title style
configuration
• Minimizes risk of binding
• Allows two satellites to stay
aligned before separation

8
Option 1: Pin-Puller Design

Click to edit Master title style

9
Features of Option 1:
Pin Connections
• One of the simplest methods of
Click to edit
connecting andMaster title style two
disconnecting
bodies
• Easily resettable

10
Features of Option 1:
Linear Actuators
• Intended to pull pin and allow
Click to edit Master title style
separation
• To actuate, a stepper motor
rotates to drive a leadscrew.
• Selected Haydon Kerk Part #
19343-05-A16
• Minimizes cost
• Vacuum-rated
• Wide operating temperature range
• Minimizes electrical energy
consumption

11
Features of Option 1:
Chain Link
• Allows two different pin
Click to edit
connections toMaster title style
be used
• Only one pin must be
pulled to separate
• If one pin cannot pull, the
other pin may be used

12
Features of Option 1:
Springs
• Springs push satellites
Click
apart onceto edit Master title style
disconnected
• Selected custom spring
plungers from cubesat.org
• Will not create debris
• Used in many previous
CubeSat missions
• Tested springs for force
vs. travel to find closest
matching pair
• Test data also used to
adjust separation velocity

13
Option 2: Design using off-the-shelf
Ejector Release Mechanism (ERM)

Click to edit Master title style

14
Features of Option 2:
Ejector Release Mechanism (ERM)
• Built-in latching system
Click to edit Master title style
• Built-in spring
• Has been used in many
similar applications
• Extensive testing done by
supplier
• Much higher cost than
linear actuators

15
Comparing Options:
Option 1 (with pin connections) Option 2 (with ERM)
• Much lower cost than option 2 • Has been used in many similar
Click to edit Master title style applications
• Meets all mission requirements
• Requires extensive testing to • Fewer components than option 1
become qualified • Benefits manufacturability
• Reduces amount of failure points
• Extensive testing done by
supplier

16
Fabrication and Assembly:

• Fabricated both designs on

Click to edit Master title style
campus
• Baseplates are CNC
machined
• All other components are
machined with manual
lathe and mill

17
Simulation and Testing Methods

• Finite Element
Click to edit Master title style
Analyses:
• 35G static loads
• Frequency analysis
• Random vibration
loads
• Pendulum testing:
• Intended to test
mechanism as if it
were in orbit
• Used to validate
calculations

18
Static Simulations

• Simulating loads
Click toduring
expected edit Master
launchtitle style

• Run using finite element

analysis software.
• Simulated 35G
acceleration in X, Y, and
Z directions
• Pin constraints at all
points mounted to
structure (shown in
green in above picture)
• Bolt preloads added to
simulation.

19
Frequency Simulations

• Found natural frequency &

modeClick to edit Master title style
shapes
• Constrained mechanism at
bottom
• Lowest natural frequency
found is 502Hz
• Well above minimum
frequency of 100Hz

20
Random Vibration Simulations

• Constrained at bottom of
Click to edit Master title style
mechanism
• Added vibrational loads to
bottom of mechanism
• Found RMS stresses:
• 21.65 MPa maximum in all cases
• Well below failure limit of
73.33MPa

21
Pendulum Test: Setup

• Each satellite is suspended

Click to edit Master title style
independently
• Actuation is triggered remotely
• This allows us to see the mechanism in
action
• Each test is recorded on video
• Separation velocity is measured through
frame-by-frame analysis

22
Pendulum Test Video

• Pendulum length is
5.13Click to edit Master
m (16.83 ft) title style

• Alternate masses
are used to validate
the test setup:
• E-Sat mass of 2098
grams
• D-Sat mass of 524
grams
• Since satellites are
lighter than
expected, they will
go faster than 8cm/s
• Expected velocity:
30.09cm/s
23
Pendulum Test: Results

Relative Distance vs. Time

• Distances were 8
Click to edit Master
measured in first 7 title style
frames (0.2 seconds) 7
y = 29.251x - 38.496
R² = 0.9906
after separation
Relative Distance (cm)
6

• Expected separation 5
velocity from
calculations: 30.09 4

cm/s 3

• Experimental 2
separation velocity:
29.25 cm/s 1

• Percent error: 2.79% 0

1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6
Elapsed Time (seconds)

24
Conclusion

• Two separation mechanism designs were created

Click to edit Master title style
• Option 1 (using pin connections)
• Option 2 (using off-the-shelf mechanism)
• Simulations of both designs show they can both withstand expected loads
• Option 2 is highly recommended
• Option 1 requires much more testing to be qualified for space
• Both designs were fabricated.
• Option 1 functions as working prototype
• Option 2 is incomplete; need to order ERM

25
Recommendations

• Re-run pendulum tests:

Click to edit Master title style
• Set springs for a predicted velocity of 8cm/s
• Use camera with higher resolution and frame rate for higher accuracy
• If pendulum test cannot provide accurate measurements, switch to air
table testing.
• If WALI decides to use Option 1:
• Optimize the design for weight reduction.
• Run random vibration, shock, vibration, thermal, and vacuum chamber tests

26
Questions?

Click to edit Master title style

27