Mission Design for the CubeSat OUFTI-1

Mission Design for the CubeSat OUFTI-1 Mission Design for the CubeSat OUFTI-1

leodium.ulg.ac.be
from leodium.ulg.ac.be More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

CHAPTER6STRUCTURE AND DEPLOYMENTA CubeSat is a 10 cm cube with a mass up to 1 Kg: the structure’s shape iscompulsory and its mass has to be reduced at most. Furthermore, the OUFTI-1schedule is really challenging as the foreseen development time varies betweentwo and two and an half year. For these reasons, we chose to buy an off the shelfstructure. If on the one hand developing our own structure would have helpedin reaching the educational goal which characterized the project, on the otherhand it would have required a great amount of time and resources not availableat the moment and the result would have probably been less successful.As mentioned in paragraph 4.1, being a CubeSat impose some precise characteristics( for more details see [AD4]). Furthermore, the European SpaceAgency add in its Call for proposal [RD2] a precise requirements: two separationswitches are compulsory on Vega.There are actually on the market two CubeSat structure developers: Pumpkinand ISIS. Both the two structures have their advantages and drawbacks thatwill be exposed in the following paragraph. After an accurate analysis we chosethe structure of Pumpkin as it better fits our requirements not only in terms ofstructure performances but also in terms of provided services.Concerning the antennas deployment system, they have to be folded duringlaunch and deployed once in orbit. To this end, they will be wrapped aroundcontact points and maintained in this configuration using the deployment mechanism.57

CHAPTER6STRUCTURE AND DEPLOYMENTA <strong>CubeSat</strong> is a 10 cm cube with a mass up to 1 Kg: <strong>the</strong> structure’s shape iscompulsory and its mass has to be reduced at most. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> <strong>OUFTI</strong>-1schedule is really challenging as <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>eseen development time varies betweentwo and two and an half year. For <strong>the</strong>se reasons, we chose to buy an off <strong>the</strong> shelfstructure. If on <strong>the</strong> one hand developing our own structure would have helpedin reaching <strong>the</strong> educational goal which characterized <strong>the</strong> project, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rhand it would have required a great amount of time and resources not availableat <strong>the</strong> moment and <strong>the</strong> result would have probably been less successful.As mentioned in paragraph 4.1, being a <strong>CubeSat</strong> impose some precise characteristics( <strong>for</strong> more details see [AD4]). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> European SpaceAgency add in its Call <strong>for</strong> proposal [RD2] a precise requirements: two separationswitches are compulsory on Vega.There are actually on <strong>the</strong> market two <strong>CubeSat</strong> structure developers: Pumpkinand ISIS. Both <strong>the</strong> two structures have <strong>the</strong>ir advantages and drawbacks thatwill be exposed in <strong>the</strong> following paragraph. After an accurate analysis we chose<strong>the</strong> structure of Pumpkin as it better fits our requirements not only in terms ofstructure per<strong>for</strong>mances but also in terms of provided services.Concerning <strong>the</strong> antennas deployment system, <strong>the</strong>y have to be folded duringlaunch and deployed once in orbit. To this end, <strong>the</strong>y will be wrapped aroundcontact points and maintained in this configuration using <strong>the</strong> deployment mechanism.57

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!