Configuration Structural Design

Structural design of a satellite is a complicated iterative process that contains selection of configuration,
materials, design, analysis and testing. Structural design is dependent on the design requirements set by
the other subsystems like power, propulsion, communications and thermal. The design process starts at a
conceptual stage with design specifications which are based on mission requirements. In general the
specifications include the accommodation of payload and subsystems, launch requirements,
environmental protection, thermal and electrical paths, good stiffness, mass efficiency and high reliability.
The structural design process also provides an interface to each individual unit or equipment in order to
aid the integration sequence.
Methods of satellite design
Today, three separate methods exist within the field of satellite design. These practiced methodologies
are:
-Conventional subsystem by subsystem design, unique to each mission.
-Modular design for multiple missions.
-Low cost/high risk design
Conventionally, satellites are designed uniquely for each mission.
After defining the requirements and constraints of the mission, each one of the subsystems of the satellite
namely power, propulsion, attitude determination & control, thermal control, communications, command
& data handling, and the structure - are designed separately and iteratively. This method of satellite
design probably produces the most reliable spacecraft for a particular mission but also makes the
spacecraft most expensive.

Modular design for multiple missions

In the second methodology - modular designs for multiple missions- the satellite subsystems are
developed in the same manner as before. However, the requirements on which the designs made are not
for a single unique mission, but for an anticipated range of missions. Thus, the development costs are
significantly reduced because each satellite is not designed from the scratch. Each bus contains a nearly
identical
1) Modular power system
2) Command & data handling module
3) Attitude determination & control system
4) Modular structure
5) Payload interface. Only the payload instruments differ from mission to mission. The modular satellite
design provides the advantage of reducing the development costs at the expense of not providing the
most optimal design for a single given satellite mission.

Small satellites with low cost/high risk design

Small Sat Revolution a new satellite design methodology emerged to produce satellites with less
production cost and with a high-risk design. In addition to developing satellites weighing thousands of
kilograms and costing hundreds of millions of dollars, engineers began designing "smallsats" weighing
200 kg or less and costing only a couple million dollars.
The size of these small satellites also reduces the operational costs. This methodology asserts that
launching of many small, less capable, high risks, low cost satellites to perform a mission will in the long
run prove cheaper than launching a few large, highly capable, overly redundant, lower risks, and a very
high cost satellites. Therefore on the positive side, smallsats are cheaper than the conventional satellites
and afford the space flight opportunities for groups that would otherwise be unable to afford one aboard a
conventional satellite.
On the negative side, smallsats cannot carry as many instruments as, they have a shorter lifetime than,
and are more susceptible to single point failures than conventionally designed and sized satellites. In the
process of design and development of a micro-satellite structure within the specified envelope and also to
accommodate 40 numbers of subsystems a wide collection of existing spacecraft configurations, mass,
mission and structural concepts data was analyzed and the commonalities were identified. The idea
behind this is to identify the most common type of structure like central tube, truss, frame, equipment or
instrument box, equipment platform, solar array panel and antenna support structure that can be used in
the satellite for various missions, the advantages and disadvantages of various structural elements.
Primary structure design
Primary structures are designed using several criteria that depend on the mission requirements.
Conventional spacecraft incorporate 4 basic primary structural designs:
1) Skin-frame structures
2) Truss structures
3) Monocoque cylinders
4) Skin-stringer structures

Skin-frame structures
The skin-frame structural design uses an interior skeletal network of axial and lateral frames to mount
exterior skin panels using fasteners or rivets. The frames support bending, torsion, and axial forces. The
skin reinforces the structure by supporting the shear forces introduced by the interior member
connections. The skin is sometimes minimized to save mass, even though the thin skin leads to some
structural instability. When the skin buckles due to shear, it transfers all additional shear loads to in-plane
tension forces at 45 which must be supported by the connections. The buckling modes of the skin exhibit
large deformations that make it insufficient for exterior mounted components such as solar cells. The
buckling strength of the assembly is typically increased by adding intermediate members.

Truss structures
Truss structures use an array of members that can only support the axial loads. Truss members are
produced independently and arranged typically in an array of triangles for stability. The members are
manufactured using extruded tubes made of composite, metallic, or sheet metal materials. A stable truss
is statically determinate and has no excess members to introduce the alternate load paths. Trusses are
generally mass efficient when the members are configured into rectangular or triangular cross-sectional
assemblies. However, they become less efficient as the cross-section becomes more circular or
hexagonal. Also, the design of the structure creates an inherent stress concentration at the interface
mounting points, such as separation systems. Components may be mounted both internally and
externally and the absence of shear panels enables easy access to a payload.

Monocoque cylinders
Monocoque cylinders are axisymmetric shells that do not contain any stiffeners or frames. The shells are
manufactured by using metallic or sandwich panels with curved sections formed by rolling. Typically, two
or three curved sections are fabricated and assembled into the cylindrical configuration. The strength of
monocoque cylinders is usually limited by its buckling strength. The shells are most efficient when the
loads are distributed evenly throughout the structure. Components are typically mounted to the walls
using fasteners; however care must be taken not to overload the shell and cause local failures. The
monocoque cylinder design is applicable to spacecraft with body mounted solar cells and relatively
lightweight components.

Skin-stringer structures
Cylindrical skin-stringer structures are designed using axial and lateral frame members attached to an
outer skin. These designs are similar to skin-frame structures; however, this class of structures refers to
circular cylinder configurations. The skin is sometimes minimized to save mass, even though the thin skin
leads to some structural instability. The Post-buckling behavior of the skin transfers the additionally
applied shear loads to torsion by the diagonal tension phenomenon described above. The skin and
members must attach uniformly to enable the assembly to act as a continuous structure.
Typical connection methods include fasteners and/or rivets. Interior components are usually mounted to
the walls at locations along the stringer assembly. This method is more efficient than monocoque cylinder
component mounting at introducing local loads. The skin must be designed sufficiently stiff to enable
sound mounting of exterior entities such as body mounted solar cells.
The absence of shear panels in truss structures cannot be used for body mounted solar panels. The
monocoque cylinder structure is difficult to assemble and integrate as it is generally made of two or three
curved sections and components are mounted on the wall as it does not contain stringers or frames. The

interior components in the skin-stringer structure are usually mounted to the walls at locations along the
stringer assembly and hence difficult to mount more number of components. As the skin-frame structures
use interior skeletal network of axial and lateral frames to mount exterior skin panels using fasteners
which is further used to fix the body mounted solar panels. The axial and lateral skin-frame structures are
used to accommodate more number of subsystems than any other structures.

Conventional satellite structure

Sandwich Structures
Sandwich structures are often used in skin-frame designs. A sandwich structure consists of two thin face
sheets attached to both sides of a lightweight core. The design of sandwich structures allows the outer
face sheets to carry the axial loads, bending moments, and in-plane shears while the core carries the
normal flexural shears. Sandwich structures are susceptible to failures due to large normal local stress
concentrations because of the heterogeneous nature of the core/face sheet assembly. Component
mounting must therefore use potted inserts to distribute the point loads from connections. Sandwich
panel face sheets are commonly fabricated using aluminum or graphite/epoxy composite panels. The core
is typically fabricated using a honeycomb or aluminum foam construction. Honeycomb sandwich paneling
is the lightest option for compressive or bending loading specific applications. Honeycomb sandwich cores
are manufactured using thin strips formed into honeycomb cells. The honeycomb geometry is nonisotropic with greater stiffness in the longitudinal direction. However, the core acts nearly isotropically for
in-plane loads when assembled in a sandwich configuration. The disadvantages of using honeycomb
cores are the potted inserts required for mounting and the thermal inefficiencies. These inefficiencies
stem from the low thermal conductivity of the adhesive layers used in construction and make use of
honeycomb prohibitive in optical and mirror aerospace application.

Sandwich Panel

Multifunctional Structures
Multifunctional structure (MFS) technology incorporates several functions into the primary structure of a
spacecraft. The main goal of these members is to minimize unwanted mass by incorporating chassis,
cables, connectors and thermal control components into the satellite primary structural walls. The walls
are typically constructed out of fiber composites or sandwich panels, and the electrical components are
embedded during manufacturing. The design allows for an easily accessible, removable, and modular
electrical system. The benefits of this technology include a 70% reduction in electronic enclosures and
harnesses, a 50% reduction in spacecraft volume required for these conventional components, a
reduction in labor required for spacecraft assembly and an extremely robust system with wide
applicability to several mission.

External Shape Design

The geometrical shape of the external satellite structure is important in sending a small compact and
light weight structure into space and should have the capacity to contain all the subsystems required and
easy access to all the subsystems and instruments during the assembly and testing. It is also necessary
to design the external spacecraft geometry to keep the manufacturing cost as low as possible. The shape
and size of the external structure of the satellite are closely related to the solar cell mounts and is
required to attach solar cells to the main body. The cylindrical, spherical, cubical, hexagonal and
pentagonal shaped external structures.

For the design of the external spacecraft geometry, it is necessary to keep the manufacturing cost as low
as possible. This leads to the selection of flat surfaces only in order to avoid the growing of costs
necessary for tooling the curved surfaces.

Table advantages and disadvantages of micro-satellite external shape

configuration

Internal structural configuration

The internal mounting faces serve two purposes:

- As mounting surfaces for various components
- As additional structural support for the spacecraft. A strong internal structure is desirable which is
normally achieved at the cost of additional mass. Four concepts were considered for the internal mounts.

For selecting a suitable crossed internal structural configuration a preliminary free vibration analysis was
made for some 11 possible options without subsystems. The shape, the mass and the natural frequency
for the first three modes of all the possible options are given below.
Option 1
Full-length vertical cross webs between the top deck and the bottom deck with a height of 600mm.

Option 2
Full-length vertical cross webs between the top deck and the bottom deck with a height of 450mm.

Option 3

Framework cuboids of 600*600*600 mm, a bottom deck, a middle deck and a top deck connected by
angle sections between them and without any cross.

Option 4
The structure consists of a deck plate placed in-between the top deck and the bottom deck exactly at the
center, two cross webs passing between them along X-direction and one cross web passing full length
along Y-direction. The overall dimension of the structure is 600*600*600mm. In the same way there are
two cross webs passing along X-direction and one cross web passing full length along Y-direction between
the middle deck and he bottom.

Option 5
The structure consists of top deck and bottom deck placed at a distance of 600mm with the middle deck
placed in-between them at the center. There are diagonal cross webs between top deck and middle deck.

Option 6

The structure consists of diagonal cross webs between bottom deck and middle deck and vertical cross
webs passing full length between middle deck and top deck. The overall dimension of the structure is
600*600*600mm.

Option 7
Full diagonal cross webs pass between the bottom deck and middle deck and half Diagonal cross webs
between middle deck and top deck.

Option 8
Half diagonal cross webs between bottom deck and middle deck, also between the middle deck and top
deck. The overall dimension of the cuboids is 600*600*600 mm.

Option 9

Half vertical cross webs between bottom deck and middle deck and also between the middle deck and
top deck. The overall dimension of the cuboids is 600*600*600 mm.

Option 10
Full vertical cross webs in between bottom deck and middle deck -half vertical cross webs in between
middle deck and top deck. The overall dimension of the cuboids is 600*600*600 mm.

Option 11
This configuration consists of bottom deck, middle deck having a small hole at the center and the top
deck as the dimensions mentioned in options 10. The vertical cross webs between the bottom deck and
the middle deck have cutouts at the top and the bottom. These cutouts, holes are provided for the
purpose of integration. Also it has 4 numbers of half-length vertical cross webs between the top deck and
the middle deck.

On the basis of mass, stress and first three frequency values a study was made on the eleven possible
structural configurations for the micro- satellite considered with body-mounted solar panels. The
structural configurations with very high mass were rejected first and further the configurations with very
low frequency values and high stress values were also not considered because of their low stiffness and
low strength values. Then the remaining configurations were considered to find out whether they
accommodate all the possible subsystems and also provide easy integration.

Mass Estimation
Although a significant design process is required to determine the attributes of a spacecraft structure, for
a preliminary design the critical output is the structures mass, and that can be estimated from other
preliminary results. Inputs into the mass estimation include the various mission design parameters and
outputs from the other subsystem analyses.

Configuration Structural Design

Typical Loads Time-Line Profile

Configuration Types LEO Stellar Pointing

Configuration Types GEO Nadir Pointing

Configuration Types HEO

Configuration Types Misc

Structural Examples

Modular Assembly

Anatomy Of S/C

Attaching Distortion Sensitive Components

Cost
The cost of a satellite shows the value and expense in the construction of a satellite. In 1971 the average
overall costs for launching, developing, maintaining, and operating a single application satellite in orbit
over a period of 5-10 years usually exceeds 10 million a year.
The manufacturing and development costs in industry of Earth satellites are proportional to their weight.
"With the coefficient of proportionality lying between $100,000 and $160,000 per kg., depending upon
various factors. These factors are past experience of contractors which is often all sub-systems already
developed that can readily be adapted. The design complexity, "spinning satellites with body mounted
solar cells can be expected to be near the lower value, and 3-axis stabilized satellites near the higher.
Payload complexity, "costs increase rapidly with the complexity of payload instrumentation" . Even when
this does not influence the simplest design of a satellite. Project duration is when fast developments are
likely to cost much less than long ones but they are also connected with higher risks of delays. The last
factor is overall weight which is a second order of tendency that exists, "nevertheless, towards a decrease
in specific costs per kg. With increasing spacecraft weight, because several sub-systems are little affected
by satellite size" .MCI came away the winner of a Federal Communications Commission Auction. Also the
worth of a global sensory organ has a cost of operating. It can cost up to more than 50 billion.

Reference
-Rodger Farley (NASA GFC) Satellite design, Febraury 2003
-Chapter 10 (LM-3 Series Launch Vehicle Manual), Satellite Design Requirements
-Design Techniques for Small satellite Structure (M. Madey and R.C. Baumann), Goddard space flight
center NASA, July 1979