Veronica Bash Bush Thesis

Characterization of the Internal and External Environments of the CubeSat P-POD and
Test Pod
A Master’s Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering
by
Veronica Bashbush
January 2004
1
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS
I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis or any of its parts, without further
authorization from me.
Signature
Date
2
APPROVAL PAGE
TITLE: Characterization of the Internal and External Environments of the CubeSat P-
POD and Test Pod
AUTHOR: Veronica Bashbush
DATE SUBMITTED: January 20th, 2004
___________________________________________ ________________________
Advisor Signature
___________________________________________ ________________________
Committee Member Signature
___________________________________________ ________________________
___________________________________________ ________________________
3
ABSTRACT
Characterization of the Internal and External Environments

of the CubeSat P-POD and Test Pod
By Veronica Bashbush
The P-POD deployer was built and designed to provide an inexpensive, compact, and
common interface between a launch vehicle and student designed pico-satellites
(CubeSats). The California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly), located in San Luis
Obispo, has been at the forefront of this research. In June 2003, a Russian Eurockot
launch vehicle launched the first two P-PODs into orbit. Both P-PODs successfully
deployed their respective CubeSats, but several CubeSats failed to transmit after their
deployment. It is Cal Poly’s goal to ensure that no satellite failure is attributed to the P-
POD. The Test Pod was built to perform vibration tests on individual CubeSats and to
qualify them for launch. The 2003 launch provided an opportunity to reevaluate the
current hardware used to test the individual CubeSats. Furthermore, the launch let
CubeSat developers see whether the hardware correctly simulates the environment inside
the P-POD. The purpose of this thesis is to further characterize the internal and external
P-POD environments and compare them with those of the Test Pod. This thesis will also
investigate whether the Test Pod is a viable means to qualify satellites. It will conclude
whether or not the P-POD was responsible for the failure of the satellites in the Eurockot
launch. The revised testing and assembly procedures developed during the course of this
investigation significantly improve the reliability and safety of the testing and
certification process.
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and support this year.
This thesis is dedicated to them and to my friends at Cal Poly, who made my experience
here a great one.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF
FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………..vii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………………...xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND: CUBESAT PROGRAM............................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: TESTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 9
2.1 TESTING OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3: TEST POD ................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 TEST POD IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 TEST POD HEAD PLATE .............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Previous Results ................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Characterization of the Test Pod Head Plate ....................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Conclusions for Unloaded Test Pod Head Plate .................................................................. 22
3.2.4 Loaded Head Plate ............................................................................................................... 23
3.2.5 Conclusions for the Loaded Test Pod Head Plate ................................................................ 32
3.3 INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 32
3.3.1 Conclusions for Test Pod Internal Environment .................................................................. 39
3.4 TEST POD EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................... 49
3.4.1 Conclusions for Test Pod External Environment.................................................................. 43
3.5 CP1 TESTS ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.5.1 Conclusions For CP1 Tests .................................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER 4: P-POD ...................................................................................................................... 49
4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 49
4.2 P-POD TEST FIXTURES: PRO-MECHANICA RESULTS ................................................................. 49
4.3 CHARACTERIZING THE UNLOADED P-POD HEAD PLATES ......................................................... 53
4.4 LOADED HEAD PLATES .............................................................................................................. 58
4.4.1 Small Head Plate .................................................................................................................. 58
4.4.2 Large Head Plate.................................................................................................................. 71
4.5 INTERNAL P-POD ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 78
4.5.1 P-POD X-axis ....................................................................................................................... 80
4.5.2 P-POD Z–Axis ...................................................................................................................... 83
4.5.3 P-POD Y-axis ....................................................................................................................... 86
4.6 P-POD EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 89
4.6.1 Explanation of Tests ............................................................................................................. 89
4.6.2 Testing .................................................................................................................................. 93
4.6.3 Conclusions for External P-POD Environment.................................................................... 96
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 98
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 98
5.1.1 Internal and External P-POD Environment ......................................................................... 98
5.1.2 Test Pod ................................................................................................................................ 99
5.1.3 P-POD and Test Pod Comparison...................................................................................... 100
5.1.4 Test Fixtures ....................................................................................................................... 100
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 103
5.3 FUTURE WORK ......................................................................................................................... 105
REFERENCES...………………………………………………………………………………………….10
7
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………….108
6
7
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: CUBESAT P-POD.......................................................................................................................... 2

FIGURE 2: CUBESAT SIZES: (A) SINGLE, (B) DOUBLE + SINGLE, (C) TRIPLE ................................................... 2
FIGURE 3: LINE CUTTER ASSEMBLY WITH ELECTRONICS .............................................................................. 3
FIGURE 4: TEST POD ...................................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 5: POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY PLOTS FOR VARIOUS LAUNCH VEHICLES ....................................... 10
FIGURE 6: LAUNCH VEHICLE ENVELOPE COMPARED TO NASA QUALIFICATION LEVELS .......................... 11
FIGURE 7: NASA ACCEPTANCE AND QUALIFICATION LEVELS .................................................................... 12
FIGURE 8: TEST POD DESIGNS: LOAD SCREWS (LEFT), SPRING PLUNGERS (RIGHT)..................................... 14
FIGURE 9: FIRST AND SECOND MODE OF VIBRATION - TEST POD HEAD PLATE .......................................... 15
FIGURE 10: TEST POD HEAD PLATE............................................................................................................. 16
FIGURE 11: TEST 1, UNLOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS THE FRONT,
5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE), RIGHT (RED).................................. 19
FIGURE 12: TEST 2, UNLOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS THE SIDE,
FIGURE 13: TEST 3, UNLOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS THE TOP,
5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (DARK BLUE), LEFT (PINK), MIDDLE (YELLOW), RIGHT (LIGHT BLUE)......... 21
FIGURE 14: TEST 4, UNLOADED HEAD PLATE, RANDOM VIBRATION TEST AT 14.1 GRMS:
CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT FACE (RED), SIDE FACE (BLUE), TOP FACE (PINK) .................................... 22
FIGURE 15: TEST 5, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS FRONT,
CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (DARK BLUE), LEFT (PINK), MIDDLE (YELLOW),
RIGHT (LIGHT BLUE) ............................................................................................................................ 25
FIGURE 16: TEST 6, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS THE SIDE,
CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE), RIGHT (RED) .. 26
FIGURE 17: TEST 7, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS TOP,
FIGURE 18: TEST 8, LOADED HEAD PLATE, RANDOM VIBRATION TEST AT 14.1 GRMS:
CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT FACE (RED), SIDE FACE (BLUE), TOP FACE (PINK) .................................... 28
FIGURE 20: TEST 10, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS SIDE,
FIGURE 21: TEST 11, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS TOP, CONFIGURATION 2,
FIGURE 22: TEST 12, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS THE FRONT,
5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT FACE (RED), SIDE FACE (BLUE), TOP FACE (PINK) ............ 31
FIGURE 23: TEST POD CONFIGURATION 1.................................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 24: MASS MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 25: TEST 13, INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (PINK), Z-AXIS (GREEN), X-AXIS (BLUE), Y-AXIS (RED)....................................................... 35
FIGURE 27: TEST POD, CONFIGURATION 2................................................................................................... 37
CONTROL (GREEN), Z-AXIS (RED), X-AXIS (BLUE), Y-AXIS (PINK)....................................................... 38
FIGURE 30: TEST 17, MASS MODEL AND TEST POD COMPARISON SPRING 2003, CONFIGURATION 1:
CONTROL (GREEN), TEST POD (PURPLE), MASS MODEL (YELLOW), HEAD PLATE (PINK) .................... 40
FIGURE 31: MASS MODEL AND TEST POD COMPARISON, PREVIOUS WORK, CONFIGURATION 1:
CONTROL (BLACK), TEST POD (RED), MASS MODEL (BLUE), HEAD PLATE (GREEN) ........................... 40
FIGURE 32: TEST 18, MASS MODEL AND TEST POD COMPARISON SPRING 2003, CONFIGURATION 2:
CONTROL (GREEN) TEST POD (PURPLE), MASS MODEL (YELLOW) ...................................................... 42
FIGURE 33: MASS MODEL AND TEST POD COMPARISON, PREVIOUS WORK, CONFIGURATION 2:
8
CONTROL (BLACK), TEST POD (RED), MASS MODEL (BLUE)................................................................ 42
FIGURE 34: CP1, CAL POLY'S FIRST STUDENT DESIGNED SATELLITE ......................................................... 44
FIGURE 35: TEST 19, ACCEPTANCE TEST FOR CP1 Z-AXIS, CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (RED), HEAD PLATE (BLUE), TEST POD Z-AXIS (PURPLE), TEST POD X-AXIS (GREEN) ........ 45
FIGURE 36: TEST 20, ACCEPTANCE TEST FOR CP1 Y-AXIS, CONFIGURATION 2, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (PURPLE), HEAD PLATE (RED), TEST POD Z-AXIS, TEST POD X-AXIS (GREEN) .................... 46
FIGURE 37: TEST 21, ACCEPTANCE TEST FOR CP1 X-AXIS, CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (PURPLE), HEAD PLATE (RED), TEST POD X-AXIS (BLUE), TEST POD Z-AXIS (GREEN) ........ 47
FIGURE 38: NEW TEST FIXTURES (A) SMALL HEAD PLATE, X AND Z-AXES (B)
LARGE HEAD PLATE, Y-AXIS............................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 39: PRO-MECHANICA RESULTS: FIRST TWO MODE SHAPES FOR SMALL P-POD HEAD PLATE ....... 52
FIGURE 40: PRO-MECHANICA RESULTS: FIRST TWO MODE SHAPE FOR LARGE P-POD HEAD PLATE......... 52
FIGURE 41: TEST 22, UNLOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS FRONT,
5 G /15 G SINE TESTS ........................................................................................................................... 56
5 G/15 G SINE TESTS ............................................................................................................................ 56
5 G/15 G SINE TESTS ............................................................................................................................ 57
FIGURE 44: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 1 ...................................... 58
CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE),
RIGHT (RED) ........................................................................................................................................ 60
FIGURE 46: TEST 37, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS DOWN FRONT,
CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), TOP (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE),
BOTTOM (RED)..................................................................................................................................... 61
FIGURE 47: TEST 38, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS SIDE,
CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (BLUE), LEFT (PINK), MIDDLE (YELLOW),
RIGHT (BLUE) ...................................................................................................................................... 62
FIGURE 48: TEST 39, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS DOWN SIDE,
RIGHT (RED) ....................................................................................................................................... 62
FIGURE 49: TEST 40, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS TOP,
RIGHT (RED) ........................................................................................................................................ 63
FIGURE 50: TEST 41, LOADED HEAD PLATE, RANDOM VIBRATION TEST AT 14.1 GRMS,
CONFIGURATION 1 CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT/P-POD X-AXIS (RED), SIDE/P-POD Z-AXIS (BLUE),
TOP/P-POD Y-AXIS (PINK) .................................................................................................................. 64
FIGURE 51: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 2 ...................................... 65
RIGHT (RED) ........................................................................................................................................ 67
FIGURE 53: TEST 43, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS SIDE FACE,
CONFIGURATION 2, SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE),
RIGHT (RED) ........................................................................................................................................ 68
FIGURE 54: TEST 44, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS TOP FACE,
CONFIGURATION 2, SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE), RIGHT (RED) ........ 69
FIGURE 55: TEST 45, LOADED HEAD PLATE, RANDOM VIBRATION TEST AT 14.1 GRMS,
CONFIGURATION 2: CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT/P-POD Z-AXIS (RED), SIDE/P-POD
X-AXIS (BLUE), TOP/P-POD Y-AXIS (PINK)......................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 56: SHEARED SCREWS ON P-POD BOTTOM PANEL ......................................................................... 71
FIGURE 57: WEAR ON P-POD BOTTOM PANEL ........................................................................................... 71
FIGURE 58: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR LARGE HEAD PLATE ...................................................................... 72
FIGURE 59: TEST 46, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS FRONT FACE,
5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PURPLE), LEFT (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE), RIGHT (RED) ............................ 73
FIGURE 60: TEST 47, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS DOWN FRONT FACE,
5 G SINE TEST: TOP (GREEN), MIDDLE (BLUE), BOTTOM (RED)........................................................... 74
9
FIGURE 61: TEST 48, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS SIDE FACE,
FIGURE 62: TEST 49, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS DOWN SIDE FACE,
FIGURE 63: TEST 50, LOADED HEAD PLATE, THREE ACCELEROMETERS ACROSS TOP FACE,
5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK), LEFT (BLUE), MIDDLE (GREEN), RIGHT (RED).................................. 77
FIGURE 64: TEST 51, LOADED HEAD PLATE, RANDOM VIBRATION TEST AT 14.1 GRMS:
CONTROL (GREEN), FRONT/P-POD Y-AXIS (RED), SIDE/P-POD Z-AXIS (BLUE),
TOP/P-POD X-AXIS (PINK) .................................................................................................................. 78
FIGURE 65: TEST 52, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: X AXIS (MAIN AXIS) .......................... 81
FIGURE 66: TEST 53, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Z AXIS (SIDE TO SIDE) ....................... 82
FIGURE 67: TEST 54, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Y AXIS (UP/DOWN)............................ 83
FIGURE 68: TEST 55, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Z AXIS (MAIN AXIS)........................... 84
FIGURE 69: TEST 56, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: X AXIS (SIDE TO SIDE) ....................... 85
FIGURE 70: TEST 57, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Y-AXIS (UP/DOWN) ........................... 86
FIGURE 71: TEST 58, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Y AXIS (MAIN AXIS) .......................... 87
FIGURE 72: TEST 59, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: Z AXIS (SIDE TO SIDE) ....................... 88
FIGURE 73: TEST 60, MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD, 5 G SINE TEST: X AXIS (UP/DOWN)............................ 89
FIGURE 74: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP - EXTERNAL P-POD ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 90
FIGURE 75: MODIFIED MASS MODEL - AT MAXIMUM SPEC AND COATED WITH ANTI-SEIZE LUBRICANT .. 92
FIGURE 76: TEST 61, P-POD ON SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 1, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (PINK), P-DEP - UP/DOWN (GREEN), SIDE PANEL – TEST-AXIS (BLUE),
DOOR – SIDE-TO-SIDE (RED) ................................................................................................................ 93
FIGURE 77: TEST 62, P-POD ON SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 2, 5 G SINE TEST:
CONTROL (PINK), DOOR – TEST-AXIS (GREEN), SIDE PANEL–SIDE-TO-SIDE (BLUE),
P-DEP– UP/DOWN (RED)...................................................................................................................... 95
FIGURE 78: TEST 63, P-POD ON LARGE HEAD PLATE, 5 G SINE TEST: CONTROL (PINK),
DOOR – SIDE-TO-SIDE (GREEN), SIDE PANEL – UP/DOWN (BLUE), P-DEP – TEST-AXIS (RED)............... 96
10
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PAYLOADS FOR EUROCKOT 2003 LAUNCH ..................................................................................... 4

TABLE 2: NASA ACCEPTANCE AND QUALIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR RANDOM VIBRATION ............... 12
TABLE 3: TESTS FOR UNLOADED TEST POD HEAD PLATE............................................................................ 17
TABLE 4: TESTS FOR LOADED TEST POD HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 1 ................................................. 24
TABLE 5: TESTS FOR LOADED TEST POD HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 2 ................................................. 29
TABLE 6: TESTS FOR INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT OF TEST POD ..................................................................... 33
TABLE 7: TESTS FOR UNLOADED SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 1................................................. 53
TABLE 8: TESTS FOR UNLOADED SMALL HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 2................................................. 54
TABLE 9: TESTS FOR UNLOADED LARGE HEAD PLATE WITH INTERFACE PLATE ......................................... 55
TABLE 10: TESTS FOR SMALL LOADED HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 1 ................................................... 59
TABLE 11: TESTS FOR SMALL LOADED HEAD PLATE, CONFIGURATION 2 ................................................... 65
TABLE 12: TESTS FOR LARGE HEAD PLATE ................................................................................................. 72
TABLE 13: TESTS ON THREE MASS MODELS INSIDE P-POD ........................................................................ 79
TABLE 14: TESTS FOR DOOR, SIDE PANEL AND P-POD ELECTRONICS ........................................................ 90
11
1 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background: CubeSat Program
The CubeSat program has evolved into a multinational effort to provide students
with inexpensive launch opportunities for university-designed pico-satellites. For several
years now, the California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly) at San Luis Obispo has
developed common standards and procedures for building, testing, and qualifying these
satellites (CubeSats) for launch into space. All standards, assembly procedures,
integration procedures, and testing procedures have been distributed to more than thirty
developers worldwide. They can be found at www.cubesat.calpoly.edu under the
Documents section.
The CubeSat standard led to the development of the Poly Pico-Satellite Orbital
Deployer (P-POD), the common interface between a launch vehicle and one to three
CubeSats. The P-POD, shown in Figure 1, was built to greatly simplify the integration
between the CubeSats and any launch vehicle. Its small and modular design allows it to
fit in under utilized spaces inside the launch vehicle. Since the P-POD is self-contained,
its design reduces the possibility of interference with the primary payload(s).
The current P-POD is capable of containing and subsequently deploying three
single CubeSats measuring 10 cm3 and weighing 1 kg. The P-POD is manufactured
from Al 7075 T-73 and has a Teflon impregnated hard anodized coating.
12
Figure 1: CubeSat P-POD
By providing the developers the option of building a double or triple CubeSat, the
current design can accommodate three single CubeSats, a double plus a single CubeSat,
or one triple CubeSat. These satellites are double and triple the length and weight of a
single CubeSat respectively. Figure 2 demonstrates the various CubeSat configurations
discussed above.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2: CubeSat Sizes: (a) Single, (b) Double + Single, (c) Triple
13
The P-POD is meant to operate much like a jack-in-the-box. The main
deployment spring, providing approximately 10 lb of force, along with four spring
plungers on the back panel of the P-POD are compressed fully when the CubeSats are
inserted. Additional spring plungers on the bottom of each CubeSat provide enough
force to separate the CubeSats from one another once they exit the P-POD. A Vectran
line under 300 lb of tension prevents the P-POD door from opening during launch. The
line is cut using two resistive heating elements that are triggered once the P-POD has
reached the desired orbit. The line cutter assembly and the electronics that trigger the
resistive heaters are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Line Cutter Assembly with Electronics
June 30, 2003, marked the first successful deployment of two P-PODs containing
three single CubeSats and one triple CubeSat. The P-PODs were launched on a Russian
Eurockot launch vehicle. The payloads from this launch are found in Table 1. Note: The
two participating Tokyo Universities did not use the P-POD as their deployer. For this
14
launch, both Tokyo universities developed their own single CubeSat deployer, similar to
the P-POD in design.
Table 1: Payloads for Eurockot 2003 Launch
Large Payloads
Mimosa Satellite
MOST Satellite – University of Toronto
Small Payloads
NSL-1 (P-POD #1)

• University of Toronto (Single CubeSat)
• Technical University of Denmark (Single CubeSat)
• Aalborg University, Denmark (Single CubeSat)
NSL-2 (P-POD #2)

• Quakefinder (Triple CubeSat)
Tokyo Single CubeSat Deployer

• Tokyo University (Single CubeSat)
Tokyo Single CubeSat Deployer

• Technical University of Tokyo (Single CubeSat)
Transmissions from both the Tokyo satellites and the Quakefinder satellite were
heard first, indicating that NSL-2 (P-POD #2) had deployed successfully. It was not
known immediately whether NSL-1 (P-POD#1) had deployed at all, since transmissions
from all three satellites had not been heard up to this point. After several days, NORAD
was able to confirm that the number of objects orbiting the earth matched the expected
number of deployers + CubeSats launched. Nevertheless, the information from NORAD
was insufficient to fully confirm whether NSL-1 had deployed, since the objects orbiting
15
together could have been debris from the launch vehicle or broken parts from NSL-1 or
NSL-2.
It was not until July 2, 2003, that Aalborg University confirmed that a
transmission from their satellite had been received, albeit a very weak one. This
transmission confirmed that both P-PODs had functioned correctly and had released their
satellites. The other two satellites in NSL-1 (from the University of Toronto and the
Technical University of Denmark) were never heard from. The failure of these satellites
may indicate a flaw in the P-POD design or a flaw in the design of the individual
satellites. Despite these problems, the Eurockot launch proved that the P-POD’s
electronics functioned correctly and that the P-POD was able to successfully eject all
satellites into orbit. Though it is unknown what caused the CubeSats to fail in NSL-1, it
is Cal Poly’s goal to ensure that no CubeSat failure is attributed to the internal or external
P-POD environments.
The Test Pod, shown in Figure 4, was developed by Cal Poly to imitate the
internal environment of a P-POD during launch. It is currently used to perform
qualification and acceptance vibration tests for individual CubeSats and has been
distributed to over twenty CubeSat developers. The Test Pod was also used to qualify
CP1, Cal Poly’s first student-designed satellite.
16
Figure 4: Test Pod
The CubeSat program has existed for a relatively short time. Thus, thorough
testing of the internal environment of the Test Pod and the P-POD had not been
performed. Preliminary testing at Cal Poly showed that the environment inside the Test
Pod is different than the environment inside the P-POD. However, it had been unclear as
to how this difference affects a CubeSat’s performance in space. The purpose of this
thesis is to investigate this difference and to verify whether the Test Pod is still a viable
way to test individual CubeSats. This thesis also investigates whether the internal
environment of the P-POD could have caused the failure of the two satellites inside NSL-
1.
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the testing requirements used as a guide to
perform vibration testing on the P-POD, Test Pod, and their respective test fixtures (head
plates). Due to significant improvements and modifications developed during the course
of this work, the entire set of qualification and acceptance procedures and the fully
17
revised procedures for assembly, integration, and deintegration of the P-POD are
included in five appendices of this thesis. Refer to Appendices A-E.
Chapter 3 presents the improvements to the Test Pod and the tests performed to
ensure its integrity and robustness. A revision document of its enhanced design is
included as an appendix. A series of twelve experiments, eight 5 g logarithmic sine tests
and three two-minute random vibration tests at 14.1 Grms, were performed to characterize
the unloaded/loaded Test Pod head plate. Another four experiments, two 5 g logarithmic
sine tests and two two-minute random vibration tests at 14.1 Grms, were required to
properly understand and characterize the types of forces that a typical pico-satellite would
experience inside the Test Pod. A mass model manufactured from Al 7075-T3 was used
in the above four experiments to simulate a real CubeSat. Accelerometers were then
placed on the outside of the Test Pod and two sine sweep tests were carried out to
characterize the external environment of the Test Pod. The results were used to compare
the Test Pod’s external environment with its internal environment and used to verify
work done by a former Cal Poly student [12]. Finally, three more 5 g logarithmic sine
tests and three ten-minute random vibration tests were performed to complete acceptance
testing on Cal Poly’s first pico-satellite (CP1). The results from the acceptance tests were
used to compare the Test Pod’s response with a mass model inside to the Test Pod’s
response with CP1 inside.
Chapter 4 characterizes the internal and external P-POD environments and
characterizes two new P-POD vibration test fixtures designed for this thesis. Before
manufacturing began, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on the two new head
plates using Pro-Mechanica. The head plates were then characterized separately with and
18
without a fully loaded P-POD attached to them. A series of fourteen tests were
performed to characterize the unloaded head plates and sixteen more tests were needed to
characterize the loaded vibration test fixtures. Three mass models were then placed
inside the P-POD and accelerometers were placed inside them to measure the
acceleration in all three tests axes. Nine 5 g logarithmic sine tests were then performed
to characterize the internal environment of the P-OD. Accelerometers were also placed
on the P-POD door, side panel, and electronics. A 5 g logarithmic sine test was run in
each P-POD axis, and the results were used to compare the external P-POD environment
with the internal P-POD environment.
19
2 Chapter 2: Testing Requirements
2.1 Testing Overview
Flight hardware must undergo rigorous environmental testing to ensure that it will
survive the harsh launch and space environments. Typically, these tests can be broken up
into two categories: vibration and thermal vacuum testing. Each launch vehicle has its
own environmental profile, and customers will tailor the tests performed on their flight
hardware to meet the various testing levels given to them by the launch provider.
Additional tests that may be performed include shock and acoustic testing and tests to
check whether the flight hardware interferes electromagnetically with the launch vehicle
and/or other payloads. This thesis will focus on vibration testing for the P-POD, Test
Pod, and their respective test fixtures.
Vibration testing is further broken down into acceptance and qualification testing.
A test unit is usually built to flight specifications and qualified to 150% of the launch
levels for a specific launch vehicle. Acceptance testing occurs in the final stages of a
program and is performed on the actual flight hardware. Acceptance test levels are
generally 100% of the launch levels for that specific launch vehicle. Because it is often
difficult to know which launch vehicle a given P-POD or CubeSat will fly on, most
CubeSats and all P-PODs are qualified using a worst case-scenario profile provided by
NASA. This profile encompasses all potential launch environments with one
environmental test. By qualifying hardware at such high levels, Cal Poly can ensure that
its hardware will survive the majority of launches. Figure 5 shows power spectral
density profiles for various launch vehicles and consolidates them under one envelope.
Figure 6 compares this envelope, the worst-case profile for any launch vehicle, with the
20
NASA worst-case scenario profile. The revised qualification and acceptance procedures,
developed during the course of this work, are found in Appendix D and E, respectively.
Composite Plot of Four Launch Vehicles
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Frequency (Hz)
Dnepr Shuttle Pegasus Delta II Envelope
Figure 5: Power Spectral Density Plots for Various Launch Vehicles
21
Nasa QualificationTest Le
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Frequency (H
Qualification Envelope
Figure 6: Launch Vehicle Envelope Compared to NASA Qualification Levels
Random and sinusoidal sweep vibration tests are the two types of tests that are
always performed on flight hardware. Random vibration tests are used to qualify flight
hardware because these tests can more closely imitate the real launch environment by
simultaneously exciting multiple frequencies. Random vibration levels are given in total
root mean square loading (Grms) and can be calculated by taking the square root of the
area under the power spectral density curve. Launch providers furnish the total Grms
levels for their specific launch vehicle and the four key points that define the curve. The
duration of random vibration tests vary, depending on what is being tested.
Table 2 shows the NASA qualification and acceptance testing levels, and Figure 7
graphically compares the two curves. Appendix F contains a Matlab script that will
calculate the Grms loading for any set of four points and can be used as a means to check
a profile from a launch provider.
22
Table 2: NASA Acceptance and Qualification Specifications for Random Vibration
Frequency (Hz) Qualification Level (G2/Hz) Acceptance Level (G2/Hz)
20 0.026 0.013
50 0.16 0.08
800 0.16 0.08
2000 0.026 0.013
Overall 14.1 Grms 10.0 Grms
Qualif ication A cceptance
1.0000
0.1000
g2/Hz
ASD
0.0100
0.0010
10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Frequency
Hz
Figure 7: NASA Acceptance and Qualification Levels
23
Sinusoidal sweep (sine) tests are performed to obtain the natural frequencies of
the test specimen. The natural frequencies can be identified as spikes in the acceleration
vs. frequency plots. A pure sinusoidal signal is input into the vibration table for a range
of frequencies supplied by the launch provider. The qualification sine sweep test level is
15 g, and the acceptance sine sweep test levels vary from 5 g - 10 g. Sine tests sweep up
logarithmically from 50-2000 Hz and last approximately three minutes. The standard
operating procedure detailing the operation of the Cal Poly Mechanical Engineering
Vibration Table and the corresponding Puma data acquisition system can be found in
Appendix G. An engineering drawing of the vibration table and the specifications for the
table are found in Appendices H and I respectively.
Because qualifying the new test fixtures for the P-POD was a secondary
objective, all random vibration tests were performed at the NASA worst-case scenario
levels of 14.1 Grms. Every random vibration test lasted 2 1/2 minutes and included a 30
second time frame for the vibration table to ramp up to the specified level.
Because many tests were performed on the P-POD, Test Pod, and the vibration test
fixtures, the sine tests were run at 5 g for a total time of three minutes apiece. The
objective of the sine tests was to obtain the natural frequencies of the components and to
determine the relative motion of the mass models with respect to the vibration test
fixtures, P-POD and Test Pod. Higher levels would have imposed more wear on all the
components.
24
3 Chapter 3: Test Pod
3.1 Test Pod Improvements
The previous vibration tests performed on the Test Pod and its test fixture were
done to demonstrate the robustness of the Test Pod and to test the manufacturing of all its
components. Unlike the P-POD, the Test Pod was never meant to be installed on a
launch vehicle; therefore, weight minimization was not a focus for its design. To keep
cost to all manufacturers down, the Test Pod was built to withstand many rounds of
qualification and acceptance vibration tests for single CubeSats.
The four load screws at the back of the Test Pod were meant to simulate the
compressive force of the spring plungers located on the back panel of the P-POD.
However, the torque required to initiate the adjustment screws turned out to be greater
than the final required torque. To correct this, the design of the Test Pod was modified
by replacing all four load screws with four 1/4”-20 spring plungers and locking helicoils.
Figure 8 compares both designs. The Test Pod Revision Document in Appendix J
provides step-by-step instructions for replacing the load screws with the spring plungers
and helicoils.
Figure 8: Test Pod Designs: Load Screws (left), Spring Plungers (right)
25
3.2 Test Pod Head Plate
3.2.1 Previous Results
Because the frequency test range for the P-POD, Test Pod, and CubeSats is
between 20-2000 Hz, the Test Pod head plate, along with all other vibration test fixtures,
was designed to have a natural frequency greater than 2 kHz. When the Test Pod was
designed in Pro-E several years ago, it was designed to have a natural frequency of 2.5
kHz. Figure 9 reproduces the dynamic analysis results from Pro-Mechanica and shows
the first two modes of vibration.
Figure 9: First and Second Mode of Vibration - Test Pod Head Plate
26
The first mode of vibration occurs at 2.47 kHz and causes the head plate to act
like a drum membrane. The second mode of vibration is a torsion mode and occurs at
3.82 kHz. For this analysis, the four bolt-holes were constrained such that they were
prevented from rotating or translating.
3.2.2 Characterization of the Test Pod Head Plate
For this thesis, the head plate (shown below in Figure 10) was characterized with
and without a loaded Test Pod attached to it. The purpose of these tests was to confirm
the Pro-Mechanica results and to ensure that the head plate’s dynamics did not interfere
with the operation of the Test Pod.
Figure 10: Test Pod Head Plate
Table 3 summarizes the tests performed for the characterization of the unloaded
Test Pod head plate. It contains information about the types and duration of the tests, the
accelerometer placement on the test fixture, and the direction of vibration.
27
Table 3: Tests for Unloaded Test Pod Head Plate
Test Type Level Duration Accelerometer Placement
1 Sine 5g 3 min.
2 Sine 5g 3 min.
3 Sine 5g 3 min.
4 Random 14.1 Grms 2 min.
The Cal Poly Mechanical Engineering Vibration Table, used to perform all tests
in this thesis, operates by taking a signal from an accelerometer placed on the table itself.
It ensures that the accelerometer reading always stays at the desired level. This
accelerometer is appropriately called the control accelerometer. For instance, if a 5 g sine
test is input into the computer by the user, the table will adjust its level so that the control
accelerometer will always read 5 g. If the table cannot maintain the control
accelerometer at the desired level, the test is immediately aborted. Previous tests have
shown that the vibration table resonates at around 1100 Hz. The effect of this resonance
is expressed as small oscillations in the control channel. The current system has the
28
capability of processing a total of four channels, including the control channel. The
remaining three channels are used for measurement purposes and will not stop the test.
The ideal test fixture is meant to vibrate at the same level being input into the
vibration table. In other words, any accelerometer placed in the test-axis of the head
plate should closely match the control accelerometer. The head plate should also be
constrained such that accelerometers placed in both transverse axes read small
accelerations.
The Test Pod head plate has four 3/8” bolts .982” from each of the four corners.
If enough force were applied to the head plate, the center of the head plate would tend to
displace more relative to the constrained edges. Nevertheless, this outcome is highly
unlikely for the given loading. For Test 1, three accelerometers were placed across the
front of the head plate to measure the acceleration in the direction of vibration (test-axis).
The two accelerometers on the outer edges were placed at the locations of the constraints.
The middle accelerometer was placed farthest away from the constraints. It was
expected that all accelerometers would follow one another closely throughout the test
frequency range and follow the control channel.
Test 2 tested the transverse motion of the head plate (side to side motion). Again
two accelerometers were placed at the location of the constraints, and one accelerometer
was placed in the middle of the head plate furthest from the bolt locations. Since the
accelerometers were measuring accelerations 90 degrees from the direction of vibration,
accelerations well below the 5 g being input into the table were expected.
29
Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the results for Tests 1 and 2. All measurement
channels follow one another very closely, showing that the test fixture is appropriately
constrained and that the head plate is moving as a rigid body.
Figure 11: Test 1, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across the Front, 5 g Sine Test:
Control (pink), Left (green), Middle (blue), Right (red)
30
Figure 12: Test 2, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across the Side, 5 g Sine Test:
Note: For Tests 1 and 2 the accelerations of all three measurement channels tend to
increase with increasing frequency. This increase is due to improper gluing of the
accelerometers on the head plate, causing the accelerometers to vibrate more than what
would be expected. Once several techniques were explored, the problem was resolved.
The improvement in results can be seen in the following graphs.
The accelerometers for Test 3 were placed across the top face of the head plate.
These locations were ideal in investigating the interface between the Test Pod and the
head plate. Similar to Test 2, accelerations well below 5 g were expected, since
accelerations normal to the direction of vibration were being measured. The results from
Test 3 are shown in Figure 13. As expected, the accelerations of all measurement
channels are minimal and peak at approximately 0.7 g near the natural frequency of the
31
table (1100 Hz). The proximity of all channels over the frequencies of interest indicates
that the entire head plate is moving as a rigid body.
channel 1
channel 2
G
3
channel 3
channel 4
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 13: Test 3, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across the Top, 5 g Sine Test:
Control (dark blue), Left (pink), Middle (yellow), Right (light blue)
The final test performed on the unloaded Test Pod head plate was a two-minute
qualification level (14.1 Grms) random vibration test. For this test, one accelerometer
was placed on each of the three test axes. The control accelerometer and the
accelerometer on the front face of the head plate were expected to stay within the
specified limits and follow one another closely, while the two remaining accelerometers
on the side and top faces respectively were expected to experience minimal accelerations.
Figure 14 shows that with proper gluing, the test-axis accelerometer follows the control
32
accelerometer except for a slight attenuation around 2000 Hz. Both transverse
accelerometers also measured minimal accelerations.
Figure 14: Test 4, Unloaded Head Plate, Random Vibration Test at 14.1 Grms: Control (green),
Front Face (red), Side Face (blue), Top Face (pink)
3.2.3 Conclusions for Unloaded Test Pod Head Plate
Tests 1- 4 for the unloaded Test Pod head plate verified the previous Pro-
Mechanica results. The experiments showed that the head plate’s natural frequencies
were outside the test frequency range. The four bolts were able to prevent the head plate
from accelerating in both transverse axes and were able to transmit the table’s energy
directly to the test fixture. These experiments were sufficient to qualify the Test Pod
head plate as a viable vibration test fixture.
33
3.2.4 Loaded Head Plate
3.2.4.1 Test Pod Configuration 1
The next round of tests was done to ensure that the behavior of the Test Pod head
plate did not change while it was loaded in the two possible loading configurations. The
first loading configuration involves the Test Pod mounted such that the Test Pod’s Z-axis
is parallel to the direction of vibration. The second loading configuration involves a 90
degree counterclockwise rotation of the Test Pod when looking at the Test Pod from the
top. The Test Pod’s X-axis is the test-axis in this case. Due to the head plate’s
symmetry, the head plate is never rotated.
The same four tests performed on the unloaded head plate were performed for
each of the two loading configurations. Table 4 summarizes the four tests performed for
the first loading configuration.
34
Table 4: Tests for Loaded Test Pod Head Plate, Configuration 1
5 Sine 5g 3 min.
6 Sine 5g 3 min.
7 Sine 5g 3 min.
The first experiment performed for the first loading configuration measured
acceleration in the test-axis. Two accelerometers were placed at the location of the
constraints, and a third accelerometer was placed between the first two. All
accelerometers were expected to read 5 g throughout the test frequency range. The
results from this test (Test 5) are shown in Figure 15. Except for a slight attenuation near
2000 Hz, the three measurement channels follow the control channel.
35
10
6
channel 1
channel 2
5
G
channel 3
channel 4
4
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 15: Test 5, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine
Test: Control (dark blue), Left (pink), Middle (yellow), Right (light blue)
Next, three accelerometers were placed on the side of the head plate, (Test Pod X-
axis). Minimal vibration was expected in this direction because the accelerometers were
measuring accelerations perpendicular to the table’s motion. Figure 16 shows that the
head plate experiences accelerations of ≈ 0.3 g in this axis. Note: The relatively constant
accelerations for all three measurement channels begin to fluctuate near 450 Hz. As the
loaded Test Pod approaches its natural frequency, its dynamics begin to affect the fixture
itself. This behavior continues as the test passes through the natural frequency of the
36
table. Despite these oscillations, all changes in accelerations are relatively small, and the
head plate does an adequate job at keeping the vibration in this transverse axis low.
Figure 16: Test 6, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across the Side, Configuration 1, 5 g
Sine Test: Control (pink), Left (green), Middle (blue), Right (red)
For Test 7, three accelerometers were placed on the top face of the head plate
(Test Pod Y axis). The accelerometers on the head plate were moved slightly from their
locations in Test 3 to accommodate the Test Pod. Again, minimal accelerations were
expected for this axis. Figure 17 shows that the head plate does experience small
accelerations (< 0.5 g), and that it tends to vibrate as a rigid body. Small fluctuations
again appear as the Test Pod approaches and passes through its natural frequency.
37
Figure 17: Test 7, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Top, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine
Test: Control (pink), Left (green), Middle (blue), Right (red)
The final test performed for the first configuration was a two-minute random
vibration test run at NASA qualification levels (14.1 Grms). The results for Test 8 are
shown below in Figure 18. The control and test-axis accelerometers stay within the
appropriate limits and the transverse axes experience minimal accelerations.
38
Figure 18: Test 8, Loaded Head Plate, Random Vibration Test at 14.1 Grms: Control (green), Front
Face (red), Side Face (blue), Top Face (pink)
The results for the first loading configuration show that the head plate was designed
correctly. It is constrained sufficiently to perform as an effective vibration test fixture.
For thoroughness, the four tests were repeated for the second Test Pod loading
configuration. For Configuration 2, the Test Pod was attached to the head plate such that
the Test Pod’s X-axis became the test-axis. Similarly, three accelerometers were placed
on the front, side, and top faces of the head plate. A two-minute random vibration test
was then performed. Table 5 summarizes the experiments for the second loading
configuration.
39
Table 5: Tests for Loaded Test Pod Head Plate, Configuration 2
9 Sine 5g 3 min.
10 Sine 5g 3 min.
11 Sine 5g 3 min.
Figure 19-22 show the results for Tests 9-12. For this configuration, the behavior
of the head plate is nearly identical to that of the first loading configuration. The
similarity in results is expected, since the moments of inertia for both loading
configurations vary only slightly when the Test Pod is rotated 90 degrees.
40
Figure 19: Test 9, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, Configuration 2, 5 g Sine
Figure 20: Test 10, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Side, Configuration 2, 5 g Sine
41
Figure 22: Test 12, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across the Front, 5 g Sine Test:
Control (green), Front Face (red), Side Face (blue), Top Face (pink)
42
3.2.5 Conclusions for the Loaded Test Pod Head Plate
Tests 1-12 characterize the Test Pod head plate and show that the head plate can be
used as a vibration test fixture. The accelerometers placed in the test-axis closely follow
the control accelerometer while the accelerometers placed in the other two directions read
minimal accelerations. Whether the accelerometers are placed on the constraints or
placed farthest away from them, no noticeable difference in acceleration occurs between
them. The fixture also behaves similarly whether it is loaded or unloaded. The
consistency in the results helps to confirm that the head plate was properly designed.
3.3 Internal Environment
To understand what types of forces a typical satellite experiences inside the Test
Pod, the internal environment of the Test Pod was investigated next using a mass model.
One accelerometer was placed in each of the three mass model axes. A 5 g logarithmic
sine test and a two-minute random vibration test at NASA qualification levels were
performed for each of the two Test Pod loading configurations. The experiments are
summarized in Table 6. The accelerometer in the test-axis was expected to follow the
control accelerometer throughout the specified frequency range. The other two
accelerometers in the remaining two directions were expected to read minimal
accelerations.
43
Table 6: Tests for Internal Environment of Test Pod
Test Pod, Configuration 1
13 Sine 5g 3 min.
Mass Model
14 Random 14.1 Grms 2 min
Test Pod, Configuration 2
15 Sine 5g 3 min.
Mass Model
44
The Test Pod was first oriented in the first loading configuration (3.2.4.1), such
that that Test Pod Z-axis aligned with the test-axis (Figure 23).
Figure 23: Test Pod Configuration 1
The mass model was inserted into the Test Pod such that the hollow end of the
mass model faced the Test Pod Z- axis, opposite the two openings on the top face of the
Test Pod. A view of the mass model is shown below in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Mass Model
45
The results from the sine and random tests are show below in Figure 25 and Figure 26.
Figure 25: Test 13, Internal Environment, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine Test: Control (pink), Z-axis
(green), X-axis (blue), Y-axis (red)
46
For the sine sweep test, the test-axis accelerometer follows the control channel
except when the mass model passes through two natural frequencies at 559 Hz and 1910
Hz. The mass model experiences accelerations of 37.8 g and 84 g for each of the two
natural frequencies respectively. The natural frequencies can be located by the spikes in
acceleration for all measurement channels. The random vibration test agrees very well
with the sine sweep test, placing the natural frequencies at 550 Hz and 1895 Hz
respectively.
The accelerations in the Test Pod X-axis and Y-axis were below 0.5 g up until the
first natural frequency. The accelerometer in the Test Pod X-axis, measuring the Test
Pod’s side-to side-motion, reached a maximum value of 18.6 g at the second natural
frequency. The accelerometer in the Test Pod Y-axis, measuring accelerations
perpendicular to the vibration table, also reached its maximum value of 22.5 g at the
second natural frequency.
The Test Pod was then reoriented 90 degrees so that the Test Pod X-axis became
the test-axis. See Figure 27 below.
47
Figure 27: Test Pod, Configuration 2
The sine and random tests from the first Test Pod configuration were repeated,
and the results can be found in Figure 28 and Figure 29.
48
Figure 29: Test 16, Internal Environment, Configuration 2, 5 g Sine Test: Control (green), Z-axis
(red), X-axis (blue), Y-axis (pink)
The above results are very similar to the results from the first loading
configuration, except for a shift in the natural frequencies. For this configuration, the
sine sweep test indicates that the first and second vibration modes occur at 790 Hz and
1795 Hz, respectively. The random test shifts these natural frequencies down to 765 Hz
and 1490 Hz. The natural frequencies can be located in the above graphs as spikes in
acceleration for all measurement channels.
The accelerations for both transverse axes are well below 0.2 g up until the first
natural frequency for the sine sweep test. The second mode tends to excite the mass
model more than the first mode. The accelerometer parallel to the Test Pod Z-axis
(measuring side-to-side motion) reaches a maximum acceleration of 15 g at this
frequency, while the accelerometer parallel to the Test Pod Y-axis experiences a
maximum acceleration of 21.7 g.
49
3.3.1 Conclusions for Test Pod Internal Environment
The mass model passes through two natural frequencies when it is loaded into the
Test Pod. The first mode for the first Test Pod loading configuration is approximately
200 Hz lower than the first mode for the second Test Pod loading configuration. The
second modes for both loading configurations occur within 100 Hz of one another.
Overall, the mass model remains within the limits specified by NASA for a random
vibration test. The exceptions to this occur at the mass model’s natural frequencies and
during the first 10 Hz of the experiments. At lower frequencies, the aluminum mass
model has time to move against the Test Pod and cause the higher accelerations seen on
the two power spectral density plots.
3.4 Test Pod External Environment
A series of tests were performed to determine how the natural frequencies of the
Test Pod compared to those of the mass model. Considering that that external and
internal environments of the Test Pod are different than the external and internal
environments of the P-POD, it was important to investigate the relative motion between
the mass model and the Test Pod.
Previously, Isaac Nason [12] performed 15 g sine tests to compare the relative
motion of the table, Test Pod, and mass model. These tests were redone for this thesis in
the spring of 2003 to confirm the validity of the previous results. In order to match the
previous testing environment, the two tests were run at 15 g rather than at 5 g. The Test
Pod Z-axis (Configuration 1) was tested first, and the results are found in Figure 30. The
previous results are reproduced in Figure 31.
50
Figure 30: Test 17, Mass Model and Test Pod Comparison Spring 2003, Configuration 1: Control
(green), Test Pod (purple), Mass Model (yellow), Head Plate (pink)
Figure 31: Mass Model and Test Pod Comparison, Previous Work, Configuration 1: Control (black),
Test Pod (red), Mass Model (blue), Head Plate (green)
51
The previous work indicates that the first natural frequency of the Test Pod and
mass model falls right below 400 Hz. The Test Pod’s motion is then damped for the
remainder of the test except for an increase in acceleration near 2 kHz. Due to improper
torque on the load screws the mass model deviates in acceleration from the Test Pod
starting at 600 Hz If proper torque would have been applied, the mass model and Test
Pod would have accelerated equally throughout the experiment.
When this test was repeated in the spring of 2003, the Test Pod and mass model
peaked at 327 Hz rather than at 400 Hz. There is a small spike in acceleration before the
table’s natural frequency and then an immediate drop in acceleration after the table’s
natural frequency.
The mass model accelerates much less than the Test Pod, except for when the Test
Pod passes through peaks in acceleration. The behavior of the mass model is highly
dependent on how accurately the spring plungers or the load screws are tightened. The
difference in acceleration seen in Figure 30 is due to an error in tightening the spring
plungers.
The Test Pod was reoriented 90 degrees so that the Test Pod X-axis became the
test-axis, and the test was repeated. Figure 32 and Figure 33 show the results from the
2003 test and the previous results respectively. The general shape of the acceleration vs.
frequency curve is similar for both graphs except for an extra peak in acceleration at 929
Hz for the spring 2003 test.
52
Figure 32: Test 18, Mass Model and Test Pod Comparison Spring 2003, Configuration 2: Control
(green) Test Pod (purple), Mass Model (yellow)
Figure 33: Mass Model and Test Pod Comparison, Previous Work, Configuration 2: Control (black),
Test Pod (red), Mass Model (blue)
53
The results from the previous work indicate that the mass model and Test Pod accelerate
equally up until the first natural frequency at 600 Hz. For the remainder of the
experiment, the mass model generally follows the Test Pod but tends to accelerate
slightly less. A small peak occurs just below the table’s natural frequency followed by a
range of damped frequencies. The mass model and Test Pod are again excited at 1400
Hz.
When this test was repeated in the spring of 2003, the Test Pod and mass model
accelerated equally over the entire frequency test range. The mass model and Test Pod
peaked at 578 Hz rather than at 600 Hz. The high accelerations were then damped out at
higher frequencies except for a rise in acceleration near 2 kHz (Figure 33).
3.4.1 Conclusions for Test Pod External Environment
The mass models and the Test Pod outer walls accelerate equally when the load
screws or spring plungers are tightened correctly. The results from the previous section
show that the internal and external environments of the Test Pod are equivalent except for
a slight difference in acceleration at the Test Pod’s first natural frequency. The spring
2003 tests verified the natural frequencies of the Test Pod, despite being slightly lower
than the previous results.
3.5 CP1 Tests
During the spring of 2003, acceptance tests were performed on CP1, Cal Poly’s
first student designed satellite (Figure 34).
54
Figure 34: CP1, Cal Poly's First Student Designed Satellite
A 5 g sine test as well as a 10-minute random vibration test was performed for
each axis. Due to the solar panels on the surface of CP1, accelerometers could not be
placed on the satellite inside the Test Pod. For these tests, the measurement
accelerometers were placed on the head plate test-axis, the Test Pod test-axis, and the
Test Pod transverse axis (side to side motion). Motion in the Test Pod Y-axis was not
measured due to the limited number of channels that the Puma data acquisition could
process at one time. The random vibration results are not included in this section
because the sine sweep test results are sufficient to compare the Test Pod’s response with
a mass model inside to the Test Pod’s response with CP1 inside.
CP1 was placed inside the Test Pod so that its Z-axis was parallel to the Test Pod
Z-axis and its Y-axis was parallel to the Test Pod Y-axis. The first sine sweep test was
performed with the Test Pod in its first loading configuration. The results for this test are
shown in Figure 35. It is interesting to note that the Test Pod remains below 8 g
throughout the test frequency range and is not noticeably excited at any frequency. More
specifically, the Test Pod is not excited at the mass model’s natural frequencies from
55
Section 3.3. At higher frequencies, the Test Pod is damped slightly. The motion in the
transverse axis is also kept below 0.7 g throughout the test.
Figure 35: Test 19, Acceptance Test for CP1 Z-axis, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine Test: Control (red),
Head Plate (blue), Test Pod Z-axis (purple), Test Pod X-axis (green)
The Test Pod was reoriented 90 degrees so that the Test Pod’s X-axis and CP1’s
Y-axis became the test-axis. In its second loading configuration, the Test Pod followed
the control channel until it reached 500 Hz. At this frequency, the Test Pod passed
through several small peaks in acceleration, reaching a maximum acceleration of 18.9 g
at 769 Hz. Refer to Figure 36.
56
Figure 36: Test 20, Acceptance Test for CP1 Y-axis, Configuration 2, 5 g Sine Test: Control (purple),
Head Plate (red), Test Pod Z-axis, Test Pod X-axis (green)
The mass model’s test-axis peaked again at 1193 Hz, near the vibration table’s natural
frequency. The acceleration at this frequency was 13.2 g. At 1832 Hz, the test-axis
reached its minimum acceleration of 0.698 g. Similar to the CP1 Z-axis sine test, the
Test Pod goes through several oscillations in acceleration starting at ≈ 600 Hz. Though
the Test Pod passes through peaks in acceleration with a mass model inside, a distinct
peak in acceleration is not seen with CP1 inside. Throughout the experiment, the
accelerations experienced by the Test Pod with CP1 inside were lower than the
accelerations experienced by the Test Pod with the mass model inside. Furthermore, the
acceleration of the Test Pod at the mass model’s natural frequency was 60% lower with
CP1 inside.
57
The Test Pod was then unloaded, and CP1 was placed back in the Test Pod so that
CP1’s X-axis lined up with the Test Pod’s Z-axis. The sine sweep test was performed
with the Test Pod in its first loading configuration. In this configuration, The Test Pod
experienced its highest accelerations with CP1 inside. The Test Pod went through a peak
in acceleration at 731 Hz and passed through a natural frequency at 973 Hz. The Test
Pod reached accelerations of 18.5 g and 33 g respectively at these frequencies. Only in
this configuration do distinct peaks in acceleration occur. The Test Pod was also damped
as it passed through the vibration table’s natural frequency. Unlike CP1’s Y-axis, there is
no peak in acceleration above the table’s natural frequency. The results of Test 21 are
found in Figure 37.
Figure 37: Test 21, Acceptance Test for CP1 X-axis, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine Test: Control (purple),
Head Plate (red), Test Pod X-axis (blue), Test Pod Z-axis (green)
58
3.5.1 Conclusions For CP1 Tests
The Test Pod’s response is highly dependent on the materials used to construct
the satellite inside it. The experiments with the mass model showed that if proper torque
is applied to the load screws/spring plungers, the Test Pod and mass model accelerate
equally over all frequencies. Assuming that CP1 was properly loaded into the Test Pod,
the Test Pod and CP1 accelerate equally over the entire frequency test range. The
maximum acceleration experienced by CP1 is also 40% lower than the maximum
acceleration experienced by an aluminum mass model. The highest accelerations
experienced by the Test Pod/CP1 occur while testing CP1’s X-axis. CP1’s first natural
frequency also occurs in this configuration at 973 Hz.
59
4 Chapter 4: P-POD
4.1 Chapter Overview
Similar to the Test Pod and the Test Pod head plate, the P-POD and its new test
fixtures had to be fully characterized. The new vibration test fixtures underwent FEA
analysis using the Pro-Mechanica software. The fixtures were then characterized with
and without a loaded P-POD mounted to them. The P-POD’s internal and external
environments were investigated next. The end goal of these tests was to compare the
internal and external environments of the Test Pod with those of the P-POD.
4.2 P-POD Test Fixtures: Pro-Mechanica Results
The original P-POD vibration test fixture was 14” x 15” x 6” and weighed
approximately 130 lbs. It attached to the vibration table with sixteen 3/8”-16 bolts. The
advantage of this head plate was that all three P-POD axes could be tested with one test
fixture. A major drawback to this head plate was its large size and the need for an
additional interface plate between the fixture and the P-POD. Because the head plate
dampens accelerations at higher frequencies, the control accelerometer had to be moved
from the table to the plate for some tests. Though this change helped to maintain the
experiments at the proper test levels, the weight of the head plate tended to push the
limits of the vibration table and cause the tests to stop after several minutes. It is
undesirable to have an experiment stop when flight hardware is being tested. Because the
tests have to be repeated, there is a risk of over stressing the components and a greater
probability that the hardware could fail in flight.
To ensure that the weight of the fixtures plus the loaded P-POD were well within
the limits of the Mechanical Engineering Vibration table, two new head plates were
60
designed and manufactured from 6061-T6 Aluminum. A 15”x 10”x 2” head plate was
designed to test the X and Z-axes of the P-POD and a 15”x 6.5”x 6.25” was designed to
test the P-POD’s Y-axis. To test the P-POD’s X-axis, the small rectangular head plate is
mounted so that the longest side is perpendicular to the direction of motion. To test the
P-POD’s Z-axis, the small head plate is rotated 90 degrees so that the longest side is
parallel to the direction of motion.
The smaller head plate eliminates the need for an additional interface plate and
helps to reduce the set-up time by 30 minutes. The head plates are shown below in
Figure 38. Engineering drawings of the two head plates can be found in Appendices K
and L.
Figure 38: New Test Fixtures (a) Small Head Plate, X and Z-axes (b) Large Head Plate, Y-axis
Pro-Engineer, a 3D modeling program, was used to design each head plate. A
modal analysis was done with the accompanying Pro-Mechanica software to determine
the first few natural frequencies and corresponding mode shapes of the test fixtures.
Because each head plate utilizes eight 3/8”-16 stainless steel bolts, the modal analysis
61
was performed with all bolts attached to the head plates. The head plates were
constrained such that the bottom surface of the bolts and a small area around the bolt-
holes were restricted from translating and rotating in all directions. Additionally, both
head plates were designed to have a first natural frequency higher than 2 kHz.
The first two natural frequencies for the smaller head plate occur at 3.61 kHz and
3.93 kHz. The corresponding mode shapes for the natural frequencies are shown in
Figure 39.
Figure 39: Pro-Mechanica Results: First Two Mode Shapes for Small P-POD Head Plate
The first mode is a bending mode, and tends to bend the head plate in half. The
maximum deflection occurs along the centerline of the test fixture. The second mode is a
62
torsion mode. At the plate’s second natural frequency, opposite sides of the head plate
deflect in opposite directions. The maximum deflection occurs along the 10” sides, at the
outer edges of the head plate.
The first two natural frequencies for the larger head plate occur at 2.18 kHz and
2.95 kHz. The corresponding mode shapes are found in Figure 40.
Figure 40: Pro-Mechanica Results: First Two Mode Shape for Large P-POD Head Plate
The first and second mode shapes for the larger head plate can best be described as
rocking modes. The first mode rotates the head plate about the axis parallel to the head
plate’s longest side (15”). The second mode rotates the head plate about the axis parallel
to the head plate’s 6.5” side.
63
4.3 Characterizing the Unloaded P-POD Head Plates
Similar to the Test Pod head plate, both head plates were characterized with and
without a loaded P-POD mounted to them. Because the small head plate is mounted to
the vibration table in two different ways, the number of tests was doubled for the small
head plate as compared to the large head plate.
Three accelerometers were placed across the front, side, and top faces for both head
plates. A 5 g sine test was performed to measure the acceleration in each axis. The outer
accelerometers were placed at the location of the constraints, and the middle
accelerometer was placed furthest away from the constraints in the middle of the head
plate. The final test performed for each test fixture was a two-minute random vibration
test at 14.1 Grms. Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the tests performed for the unloaded
small head plate.
Table 7: Tests for Unloaded Small Head Plate, Configuration 1
22 Sine 5g 3 min.
23 Sine 5g 3 min.
24 Sine 5g 3 min.
64
Table 8: Tests for Unloaded Small Head Plate, Configuration 2
26 Sine 5g 3 min.
27 Sine 5g 3 min.
28 Sine 5g 3 min.
The large head plate underwent similar testing, and the tests are summarized in
Table 9. Because the large head plate will never be on the vibration table without the
corresponding interface plate, the following four tests were performed with the interface
plate attached to the large head plate.
65
Table 9: Tests for Unloaded Large Head Plate with Interface Plate
30 Sine 5g 3 min.
31 Sine 5g 3 min.
32 Sine 5g 3 min.
33 Sine 5g 3 min.
34 Sine 5g 3 min.
Tests that measure acceleration in the test-axis are the most important because
they verify whether the energy from the table is being correctly transmitted to the test
fixture. The first test performed for each head plate configuration was a 5 g sine test with
three accelerometers placed across the face normal to the direction of vibration. Figure
66
41, 40, and 41 show that all measurement channels are immediately attenuated from the
beginning of the tests.
Small Head Plate

Configuration #1, Accelerometers in Test Axis
18
16
14 Channel 1
12 Channel 2
Channel 3
10 Channel 4
G
8 Channel 1
Channel 2
6 Channel 3
4 Channel 4
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Hz
Figure 41: Test 22, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, 5 g /15 g Sine Tests
Small Head Plate

Configuration #2, Accelerometers in Test Axis
20
18
16
Channel 1
14
Channel 2
12 Channel 3
Channel 4
10
G
Channel 1
8 Channel 2
6 Channel 3
Channel 4
4
0
50 550 1050 1550
Hz
Figure 42: Test 26, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, 5 g/15 g Sine Tests
67
Large Head Plate
Accelerometers in Test Axis
30
25
Channel 1
20 Channel 2
Channel 3
Channel 4
G
15
Channel 1
Channel 2
10 Channel 3
Channel 4
0
50 550 1050 1550
Hz
Figure 43: Test 30, Unloaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, 5 g/15 g Sine Tests
Though all measurement channels accelerate equally throughout the experiment
(indicating that the head plates, regardless of configuration and size, are moving as rigid
bodies), the channels continue to drop in acceleration. This behavior does not follow
intuition or the Pro-Mechanica results. The tests were redone several times at 5 g and
later at 15 g to see if the measurement channels would continue to behave in a similar
manner. No other behavior was observed. It was later found that the control channel was
faulty and that it was no longer properly calibrated. The broken accelerometer explains
the behavior observed in these tests. Because the computer uses the control channel as a
reference to monitor the amount of energy being input into the table, a broken control
accelerometer would send erroneous readings to the computer. The table would then
respond in an erratic way, leading to erratic measurement channel readings.
68
4.4 Loaded Head Plates
4.4.1 Small Head Plate
In the fall of 2003, the head plates were loaded, and the tests in Section 4.3 were
repeated. Due to the limited amount of time, the unloaded head plates were not retested.
Because the head plates will never undergo a test without a loaded P-POD attached to
them, the following tests are of greater interest than those in Section 4.3.
The small head plate was loaded first such that the P-POD’s X-axis became the
test-axis. Figure 44 shows a picture of the setup, and Table 10 summarizes the six tests
performed for this loading configuration. The loading configuration shown in Figure 44
will be referred to as Configuration 1 for the remainder of this thesis.
Figure 44: Experimental Setup for Small Head Plate, Configuration 1
69
Table 10: Tests for Small Loaded Head Plate, Configuration 1
36 Sine 5g 3 min.
37 Sine 5g 3 min.
38 Sine 5g 3 min.
39 Sine 5g 3 min.
40 Sine 5g 3 min.
70
Three accelerometers were again placed across the front face of the head plate.
Two were placed at the location of the outer constraints, and one was placed in the center
of the head plate. Figure 45 shows that all measurement accelerometers accelerate with
the control channel until the experiment reaches the vibration table’s natural frequency.
At this frequency, all vibration is attenuated greatly to ≈ .05 g at 1725 Hz.
Figure 45: Test 36, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, Configuration 1, 5 g
Three accelerometers were then placed on the front face of the head plate so that
they covered the entire height of the test fixture. This experiment was added to see if the
top of the head plate was accelerating differently than its base. Refer to Figure 46.
Notice how Figure 45 and Figure 46 are almost identical, indicating that the entire plate is
moving as a rigid body. The large attenuation in vibration is also seen around 1725 Hz.
71
Figure 46: Test 37, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Down Front, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine
Test: Control (pink), Top (green), Middle (blue), Bottom (red)
The following two tests measured acceleration in the P-POD’s Z-axis,
perpendicular to the table’s motion. Three accelerometers were first placed across the
side face of the head plate. For the second experiment, the accelerometers were moved
so that they covered the entire height of the test fixture’s side face. This last test
measured the relative motion between the top of the head plate and the head plate’s base.
Figure 47 and Figure 48 show the results for the two tests respectively.
72
6
channel 1
channel 2
G
3
channel 3
channel 4
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 47: Test 38, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Side, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine
Test: Control (blue), Left (pink), Middle (yellow), Right (blue)
Figure 48: Test 39, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Down Side, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine
73
The entire side face of the head plate accelerates equally, and this can be seen by
the similarities between Figure 47 and Figure 48. The only noticeable feature in the
above two graphs is a small peak in acceleration at 1014 Hz. The accelerometers
measure accelerations just below 1 g at this frequency. The small accelerations
throughout the test range show that the head plate is sufficiently constrained to the table
so that only a small amount of energy is being transmitted to this axis.
Accelerometers were then placed across the head plate’s top face. This was done
to measure accelerations perpendicular to the surface of the vibration table. Figure 49
shows that all accelerations are small throughout the test frequency range. However, the
head plate is excited slightly at 100 Hz and oscillations in acceleration continue for ≈ 30
Hz after this frequency.
74
The final test that was performed for this loading configuration was a two-minute
random vibration test at 14.1 Grms. One accelerometer was placed in the center of each
face. As expected, the accelerometer in the test-axis followed the control accelerometer
up until the higher frequencies. The head plate’s test-axis was attenuated at these
frequencies. The other two accelerometers were well below the control accelerometer.
The results show that the head plate was properly constrained so that the majority of the
energy was being transmitted to the test-axis. The results for the random vibration test
are found in Figure 50.
Figure 50: Test 41, Loaded Head Plate, Random Vibration Test at 14.1 Grms, Configuration 1
Control (green), Front/P-POD X-axis (red), Side/P-POD Z-axis (blue), Top/P-POD Y-axis (pink)
The small head plate was then rotated 90 degrees such that the P-POD’s Z-axis
became the test-axis. The two tests measuring the relative acceleration between the top
75
of the head plate and its base were eliminated for this round of testing. The tests were
removed because the two similar experiments performed for the head plate’s first
configuration demonstrated that accelerometer location on the front and side faces did not
produce different results. The test setup for Configuration 2 is shown in Figure 51, and a
summary of the tests performed can be found in Table 11.
Figure 51: Experimental Setup for Small Head Plate, Configuration 2
Table 11: Tests for Small Loaded Head Plate, Configuration 2
42 Sine 5g 3 min.
43 Sine 5g 3 min.
76
44 Sine 5g 3 min.
Three accelerometers were placed across the small head plate’s front face to
measure the acceleration in the test-axis. All three measurement channels follow the
control channel until the test passes through the table’s natural frequency. At this
frequency, all vibration is gradually attenuated until the end of the experiment. If the test
were to continue, it appears that the accelerations would reach a minimum value just
beyond 2000 Hz. Though the test-axis results for this configuration are similar to the
results for the head plate’s first loading configuration, the different mass distribution
causes the attenuation in acceleration to occur at slightly higher frequencies. The results
for Test 42 are found in Figure 52.
77
Figure 52: Test 42, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front, Configuration 2, 5 g
Accelerometers were then placed across the side face of the head plate, parallel to
the P-POD’s X-axis. Two peaks in acceleration occur at 106 Hz and 464 Hz, reaching
values just under and just over 1 g respectively. Small oscillations also occur around the
table’s natural frequency. Though the leftmost accelerometer (blue) follows the general
trends of the other two accelerometers, its reading are significantly lower. After the test
was completed, it was discovered that this accelerometer was improperly glued to the
head plate. Refer to Figure 53.
78
Figure 53: Test 43, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Side Face, Configuration 2,
Accelerometers were then moved to the top face of the small head plate. Though
the accelerations for all measurement channels oscillate throughout the experiment, all
accelerations stay below 0.5 g for the majority of the test. The small accelerations show
that the contact surface between the P-POD and the head plate is relatively motion free.
The results for this test are found in Figure 54.
79
Figure 54: Test 44, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Top Face, Configuration 2,
A two-minute random vibration test was performed last with one accelerometer
on each face of the head plate. As in previous tests, the test-axis accelerometer was
attenuated at higher frequencies. The other two accelerometers measured small
accelerations for the frequency range of interest and show that the head plate is
sufficiently constrained to the table. The results for this test are found in Figure 55.
80
Figure 55: Test 45, Loaded Head Plate, Random Vibration Test at 14.1 Grms, Configuration 2:
Control (green), Front/P-POD Z-axis (red), Side/P-POD X-axis (blue), Top/P-POD Y-axis (pink)
The many tests performed on the loaded head plate caused some of the 4-40 head
cap screws connecting the P-POD to the small head plate to shear. Though the P-POD
was not damaged, the area around the six screw-holes showed some wear. The sheared
screws and the P-POD bottom panel are shown in Figure 56 and Figure 57. Hand
calculations performed before testing began showed that the screws would not shear. The
results indicate that either a much larger force was present at the P-POD/head plate
interface or that the batch the screws came from had a pre-existing flaw in it.
The head plate design includes 4-40 mounting holes, since it was tailored to the
current P-POD design. The P-POD is now being redesigned so that it can accommodate
larger mounting screws. Adding more mounting holes would also help to ensure that the
load per screw is lessened and that the screws can withstand vibration testing.
81
Figure 56: Sheared Screws on P-POD Bottom Panel
Wear around
mounting holes
Figure 57: Wear On P-POD Bottom Panel
4.4.2 Large Head Plate
The large head plate was characterized next. Six total tests were performed, five
sine sweep tests and one two-minute random vibration test. The test setup is shown in
Figure 58, and a summary of the six experiments can be found in Table 12.
82
Figure 58: Experimental Setup for Large Head Plate
Table 12: Tests for Large Head Plate
Accelerometers are on opposite side of head plate
46 Sine 5g 3 min.
Accelerometers are on opposite side of head plate
47 Sine 5g 3 min.
48 Sine 5g 3 min.
49 Sine 5g 3 min.
83
50 Sine 5g 3 min.
Accelerometer is on opposite side of head plate
Three accelerometers were first placed across the front face of the head plate.
Similar to the small head plate, all measurement channels in the test-axis attenuate after
the table’s natural frequency. The major difference between the two head plates is that
for the larger test fixture, the measurement channels peak at the table’s natural frequency
before attenuating. Figure 59 shows the results for this test.
Figure 59: Test 46, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Front Face, 5 g Sine Test:
Control (purple), Left (green), Middle (blue), Right (red)
84
Due to the height of the large head plate, it was important to determine whether
the top of the head plate was moving with respect to the base of the head plate. For the
next experiment, three accelerometers were evenly spaced over the height of the test
fixture. Again, all measurement channels follow the control channel until the table’s
natural frequency. The top of the head plate only experiences greater accelerations near
this frequency. The solid line at all other frequencies indicates that the entire front face
accelerates equally. See Figure 60.
Figure 60: Test 47, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Down Front Face, 5 g Sine Test: Top
(green), Middle (blue), Bottom (red)
Three accelerometers were placed across the side face to measure accelerations 90
degrees from the test-axis. All measurement channels oscillate slightly throughout the
test range, yet small accelerations are measured nonetheless. Channel three deviates from
the other two measurement channels between 50-100 Hz. This same accelerometer was
used in the next two experiments, and it can be observed that regardless of its location on
85
any face, the accelerometer is erroneously excited at lower frequencies. Despite its
inability to record a stable reading at lower frequencies, the accelerometer appears to
correctly measure frequencies above 100 Hz. The results for this test are found in Figure
61.
Figure 61: Test 48, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Side Face, 5 g Sine Test:
The accelerometers were then moved on the side face so that they covered the
entire height of the head plate. Figure 62 shows that all accelerometers roughly
experience the same accelerations during the test. All accelerations also remain below
0.5 g. Figure 59 - Figure 62 indicate that the head plate is sufficiently constrained and
that the entire head plate vibrates as a rigid body.
86
Figure 62: Test 49, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Down Side Face, 5 g Sine Test:
Three accelerometers were then placed across the top face of the head plate. All
measurement channels read small accelerations (except for a range of 200 Hz near the
table’s natural frequency). Due to the symmetry of the head plate and the symmetric
loading, all measurement channels should lie on top of one another on the graph. The
separation between channels is most likely caused by excessive glue on the bottom of
some of the accelerometers. This creates an uneven contact surface between the head
plate and the accelerometers, causing the accelerometers to tilt slightly. Angled
accelerometers will read slightly different accelerations than accelerometers flush against
a surface. Refer to Figure 63.
87
Figure 63: Test 50, Loaded Head Plate, Three Accelerometers Across Top Face, 5 g Sine Test:
Control (pink), Left (blue), Middle (green), Right (red)
The final test performed for the loaded head plate was a two-minute random
vibration test. The test-axis accelerometer peaks at ≈ 650 Hz and then gradually
attenuates until the end of the test. The other two accelerometers remain well below the
control accelerometer except for at higher frequencies. The accelerometer parallel to the
P-POD Y-axis is excited at higher frequencies such that it crosses the lower abort limit.
Overall, the large head plate seems to be sufficiently constrained so that most of the
energy is being transmitted to the test-axis. The head plate will have to be modified so
that the test-axis accelerometer does not attenuate after the table’s natural frequency. See
Figure 64.
88
Figure 64: Test 51, Loaded Head Plate, Random Vibration Test at 14.1 Grms: Control (green),
Front/P-POD Y-axis (red), Side/P-POD Z-axis (blue), Top/P-POD X-axis (pink)
4.5 Internal P-POD Environment
The internal environment of the P-POD was investigated next. Three mass models
were placed inside the P-POD, and accelerometers were attached to each mass model to
measure accelerations in all three axes. A summary of the nine tests performed is found
in Table 13.
89
Table 13: Tests on Three Mass Models Inside P-POD
52: X-axis, main axis Sine 5g 3 min.
53: Z-axis (side to side) Sine 5g 3 min.
54: Y-axis (up and down) Sine 5g 3 min.
55: Z-axis, main axis Sine 5g 3 min.
56: X-axis (side to side) Sine 5g 3 min.
57: Y-axis (up and down) Sine 5g 3 min.
58: Y-axis, main axis Sine 5g 3 min.
59: Z-axis (side to side) Sine 5g 3 min.
60: X-axis (up and down) Sine 5g 3 min.
90
The graphs for all the sine tests are arranged in the following manner. Every mass
model has one accelerometer per axis. For every testing configuration in Table 13, a
graph was created for each axis comparing all three mass models. The accelerometer
labeled as “Front” is associated with the accelerometer on the mass model closest to the
P-POD door. The accelerometer labeled as “Middle” corresponds to the accelerometer
on the center mass model. Similarly, the accelerometer labeled as “Back” corresponds to
the accelerometer located on the mass model closest to the main deployment spring.
4.5.1 P-POD X-axis
The P-POD was mounted onto the small head plate so that the P-POD’s X-axis
became the test-axis. Figure 65 compares the acceleration felt by each mass model in the
test-axis. All accelerometers are excited at lower frequencies, and a peak in acceleration
occurs just after 50 Hz. The center mass model is excited much more than the other two
mass models at this frequency. The mass models are greatly damped after 650 Hz, and
the accelerations remain low for the remainder of the test. Overall, the mass model next
to the door accelerates more than the other two mass models. The mass model closest to
the deployment spring accelerates the least.
91
P-POD Mass Models - X axis (main axis)
25
20
15
Control
Front
G
Middle
Back
10
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 65: Test 52, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: X axis (main axis)
The next test measured accelerations in the P-POD’s Z-axis, 90 degrees from the
direction of motion. The two mass models closest to the spring experienced a large peak
in acceleration at 50 Hz. After this frequency, the motion of these two mass models was
greatly damped. The mass model closest to the door experienced the highest acceleration
throughout the experiment and went through large oscillations in accelerations. It also
passed through peaks in acceleration at 159 Hz, 698 Hz, 1123 Hz and 1757 Hz. Though
the mass model next to the door experiences higher accelerations than the other two mass
models, it never exceeds the control channel. The results are shown below in Figure 66.
92
P-POD Mass Models - Z axis (side to side)
4
Control
Front
G's
3
Middle
Back
2
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 66: Test 53, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Z axis (side to side)
The final test that was performed measured accelerations in the P-POD’s Y-axis,
perpendicular to the vibration table’s surface. Similar to the above two tests, the mass
models go through a large spike in acceleration at 50 Hz. As can be seen in Figure 67,
the mass model closest to the spring is again excited more than the other two mass
models at this frequency. The mass model closest to the door experiences higher
accelerations than the other two mass models for the remainder of the test. The mass
model closest to the door also passes through a peak in acceleration at 320 Hz. Besides
the initial spike in acceleration at 50 Hz, the mass model in the center passes through a
peak in acceleration at 467 Hz.
93
P-POD Mass Models - Y axis (up/down)
14
12
10
Control
8
Front
G's
Middle
6
Back
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 67: Test 54, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Y axis (up/down)
4.5.2 P-POD Z–Axis
The small head plate was rotated 90 degrees so that the P-POD’s Z-axis became
the test-axis. In this configuration the P-POD door and the main deployment spring are
parallel to the test-axis. Similar to the X-axis tests, all mass models reach their highest
accelerations just after passing 50 Hz. The mass model nearest the door experiences
higher accelerations between 614-870 Hz, but only experiences slightly higher
accelerations than the other two mass models overall. Throughout the majority of the
test, the measurement channels stay well below the control channel. Refer to Figure 68.
94
P-POD - Z axis (main axis)
25
20
15
Control
Front
G
Middle
Back
10
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 68: Test 55, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Z axis (main axis)
The accelerations in the P-POD X-axis were measured next. The mass models
again pass through a spike in acceleration at 50 Hz. The middle accelerometer is excited
more than the other two mass models at this frequency. All measurement channels read
small accelerations throughout the experiment, and the mass model nearest the door
experiences larger accelerations than the other two mass models. In this configuration,
the mass model nearest the door is excited more between 1300-1600 Hz. Refer to Figure
69.
95
P-POD Mass Models - X axis (side to side)
12
10
Control
Front
G's
6
Middle
Back
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 69: Test 56, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: X axis (side to side)
The final test in this configuration measured accelerations perpendicular to the
surface of the vibration table and parallel to the P-POD’s Y-axis. All three mass models
pass through a spike in acceleration at 50 Hz. The front and middle mass models are
excited slightly at lower frequencies. The front mass model also passes through a peak in
acceleration at 698 Hz. All measurement channels measure accelerations well below the
control channel throughout the experiment. Refer to Figure 70.
96
P-POD Mass Models - Y axis (up/down)
14
12
10
Control
8
Front
G 's
Middle
6
Back
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 70: Test 57, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Y-axis (up/down)
4.5.3 P-POD Y-axis
The P-POD was removed from the small head plate and mounted to the large head
plate so that the P-POD’s Y-axis became the test-axis. The test-axis was examined first.
All mass models pass through a spike in acceleration at 50 Hz, and the middle mass
model is excited the most at this frequency. Though the mass model nearest the door
experiences higher accelerations relative to the other two mass models until 650 Hz, all
measurement accelerometers read small accelerations for the remainder of the test. Refer
to Figure 71.
97
PPOD Mass Models - Y axis (main axis)
35
30
25
Control
20
Front
G's
Middle
15
Back
10
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 71: Test 58, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Y axis (main axis)
The next test measured acceleration parallel to the P-POD’s Z-axis. Similar to the
previous tests, the mass models are excited at lower frequencies. The mass model nearest
the door is damped immediately after the spike in acceleration at 50 Hz but gradually
reaches another peak in acceleration at approximately 650 Hz. As the test progresses, the
mass model nearest the deployment spring experiences the highest accelerations and goes
through several oscillations in acceleration. Refer to Figure 72.
98
PPOD Mass Models - Z axis (side to side)
14
12
10
Control
8
Front
G's
Middle
6
Back
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 72: Test 59, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: Z axis (side to side)
The final test that was used to characterize the internal environment of the P-POD
measured acceleration in the P-POD’s X-axis, perpendicular to the vibration table’s
surface. The characteristic spike in acceleration at 50 Hz is also seen on this face of the
mass models.
Compared to all previous tests, the mass models in this configuration experience
the highest accelerations. The higher accelerations are likely due to the small gap
between the mass models and the rails inside the P-POD. The mass models are resting on
the bottom rail when the P-POD is mounted onto the large head plate. Any motion in the
P-POD’s X-axis will cause the mass models to hit the rails. Despite this outcome, the
measurement channels stay below the control channel except for at low frequencies. At
low frequencies, the mass model nearest the door is excited so that it reaches
accelerations as great as 9.6 g. The results for this test are found in Figure 73.
99
PPOD Mass Models - X axis (up/down)
30
25
20
Control
Front
G's
15
Middle
Back
10
0
50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450 1650 1850
Hz
Figure 73: Test 60, Mass Models Inside P-POD, 5 g Sine Test: X axis (up/down)
4.6 P-POD External Environment
4.6.1 Explanation of Tests
Accelerometers were placed on key locations in each P-POD axis to determine
what types of accelerations the door, side panel, and the P-POD Deployment Electronics
Package (P-DEP) were experiencing. A summary of the tests performed is found in
Table 14, where the embedded figures show the locations of the accelerometers. Figure
74 depicts the experimental setup for these tests.
100
Table 14: Tests for Door, Side Panel and P-POD Electronics
61 Sine 5g 3 min.
62 Sine 5g 3 min.
63 Sine 5g 3 min.
Figure 74: Experimental Setup - External P-POD Environment
101
According to specifications, the Vectran line holding the door shut must be loaded
with 300 lbs of tension to operate correctly. The force elastically deforms the door so
that it bows slightly outward. A visible gap of several millimeters forms once the P-POD
is fully integrated and ready for flight. This gap allows the mass model nearest the door
to move and is the likely cause of the higher accelerations experienced by the mass model
nearest the door in Section 4.5. The acceleration experienced by the door is of interest,
since the door’s movement affects the internal environment of the P-POD. Because it is
undesirable to excite a drumming mode while measuring the door’s acceleration, the
accelerometer was mounted away from the door’s thin center.
The P-DEP is a critical system in the P-POD, since it is responsible for triggering
the resistive heaters that cut the line to the door. Previous tests have only tested the P-
DEP’s functionality after qualification testing was performed. The actual accelerations
on the P-DEP have never been measured. The P-DEP is attached to the P-POD in two
ways. All four corners of the electronics board are attached to the P-POD with 4-40
socket head cap screws. Two rows of eight AAA batteries are also attached to both the
board and the P-POD’s top panel with space grade epoxy to help give the P-DEP
structural stability. The accelerometer on the P-DEP was mounted so that it did not
interfere with the electronics.
The accelerations experienced by the P-POD’s side panels are of interest, since
they can help determine whether there is enough deflection to cause damage to solar
panels or other electronics on the satellites. The side panel accelerometer was placed
near the corner closest to the door in order to prevent the accelerometer from exciting a
drumming mode. At the tests’ conclusion, the maximum acceleration experienced by the
102
side panel was recorded. To experimentally check whether the side panels were
deflecting to a point where they might damage the CubeSats inside the P-POD, a mass
model was modified so that its dimensions were at the maximum specification, including
tolerances, as outlined in the CubeSat Design Specifications Document [2]. The
modified mass model was then coated with a 0.5 mm layer of an anti-seize lubricant (See
Figure 75).
Figure 75: Modified Mass Model - At Maximum Spec and Coated with Anti-Seize Lubricant
If the panels were to deflect significantly, the lubricant would easily come off the mass
model and coat the inside of the side panels. The modified mass model was used for all
loaded head plate tests (Section 4.4) and for all external environmental testing in this
section. This allowed the P-POD to go through several sine and random vibration tests.
The mass model was inserted into the P-POD so that it was at approximately the center of
the side panel. If the panel were to deflect, the maximum deflection would occur at its
center, furthest from the constrained edges.
103
4.6.2 Testing
The P-POD was first mounted to the small head plate so that the P-POD’s X-axis
was parallel to the test-axis. In this configuration, the P-DEP accelerometer is measuring
accelerations perpendicular to the table’s surface. The accelerations are generally low
except for 5 g peak at 298 Hz and 564 Hz. The P-DEP also remains above 2 g between
800-1100 Hz. The thin materials of the P-DEP door and side panels produce the
oscillations in the accelerations seen in Figure 76.
Figure 76: Test 61, P-POD on Small Head Plate, Configuration 1, 5 g Sine Test: Control (pink), P-
DEP - up/down (green), Side Panel – test-axis (blue), Door – side-to-side (red)
Though the surface of the side panel is parallel to the direction of vibration, the
side panel experiences accelerations below 0.3 g for the majority of the test. The large
accelerations expected are not seen in this configuration. The door passes through two
low frequency peaks at 55 Hz and 112 Hz, measuring 3 g and 7.9 g respectively.
104
The P-POD was rotated 90 degrees such that the P-POD’s Z-axis was parallel to
the direction of vibration. The door was expected to vibrate more in this configuration
since the normal to the door’s surface is also in the direction of vibration. The door
remains below the control channel until 541 Hz where the accelerometer readings begin
to increase. The acceleration felt by the door increases until the door passes through a
natural frequency of 724 Hz. The acceleration recorded at this frequency is 66 g. All
measurement channels are also excited around 724 Hz, indicating that the loaded P-POD
is passing through a natural frequency. The door remains above or just below the 5 g
control level for the remainder of the test.
The side panel vibrates significantly more in this configuration. At 62 Hz and 86
Hz, the door reaches 14.3 g and 18.8 g respectively. The side panel also appears to pass
through a natural frequency between 564 Hz and 880 Hz. It reaches a peak acceleration
of 29 g at 685 Hz. For the remainder of the experiment, the side panel goes through large
oscillations in acceleration.
The accelerometer on the P-DEP is again measuring motion perpendicular to the
table’s face. The P-DEP is excited less at lower frequencies and excited more at higher
frequencies than the previous configuration. Beginning at 440 Hz, the P-DEP exceeds
the control channel and remains above it for the duration of the test. The P-DEP reaches
a maximum acceleration of 18.5 g at 831 Hz. The results for this test are in Figure 77.
105
Figure 77: Test 62, P-POD on Small Head Plate, Configuration 2, 5 g Sine Test: Control (pink), Door
– test-axis (green), Side Panel–side-to-side (blue), P-DEP– up/down (red)
The final test that was performed was a 5 g sine test on a P-POD mounted to the
large head plate. For this configuration, the normal to the P-DEP’s surface becomes the
test-axis. The P-DEP remains below the control channel until 258 Hz. The accelerations
remain very high between 460-604 Hz, reaching values as high as 49 g. The P-DEP is
suddenly damped at 700 Hz, but the acceleration proceeds to increase until 1272 Hz. At
this frequency, the P-DEP reaches a maximum acceleration of 70 g. The door
experiences accelerations near 5 g at low frequencies. Besides a peak in acceleration at
290 Hz (where the acceleration reaches a value of 31 g), the door is not excited
significantly for the remainder of the test. The side panel follows the P-DEP up until the
P-DEP’s first peak in frequency. See Figure 78.
106
Figure 78: Test 63, P-POD on Large Head Plate, 5 g Sine Test: Control (pink), Door – side-to-side
(green), Side Panel – up/down (blue), P-DEP – test-axis (red)
4.6.3 Conclusions for External P-POD Environment
After all tests were concluded, the modified mass model was removed from the P-
POD. The lubricant was still evenly coated on all sides of the mass model, and no trace
of the lubricant was found on the inside of the side panels or the rails of the P-POD. The
experiment proves that regardless of the deflection that might occur during testing, the
side and top panels will not damage a satellite that is built to the maximum allowable
dimensions.
The high accelerations present on the P-POD’s external surface is not a concern,
since the results show that the internal P-POD environment is independent of the external
P-POD environment. The weight of the accelerometers also helps to excite the thin walls
of the door, side panel and P-DEP more easily so that higher accelerations are measured.
107
5 Chapter 5: Conclusion
5.1 Conclusions
5.1.1 Internal and External P-POD Environment
• The P-POD’s internal and external environments did not cause the failure of the
two satellites in the June 2003 Eurockot launch.
• Accelerations of the mass models over the frequency test range were up to an
order of magnitude lower than the accelerations on the P-POD’s outer structure.
The internal environment of the P-POD is independent of any motion experienced by
the P-POD walls, the P-POD door, and the P-DEP. The difference in acceleration is due
to the P-POD’s design. Considering the cost of launching an extra kilogram into space,
the P-POD was built to minimize the material used. The mass models rest on thick, solid
aluminum rails that provide a sturdy structure that is almost completely isolated from the
thin walls covering the rails. The large spring inside the P-POD also helps to absorb
some of the energy during vibration testing, reducing the vibration inside the P-POD even
further. The primary functions of the P-POD walls, however, are to prevent foreign
material from entering the P-POD and to prevent the satellites inside from being
damaged. The walls are not meant to provide significant structural support. The weight
of the accelerometer on the thin walls of the door, side panel and P-DEP also contributed
to the high accelerations recorded during vibration testing.
• The P-POD panels do not damage the satellites inside.
It was proven experimentally that despite the large accelerations on the side
panels of the P-POD, the panels do not deflect significantly so as to damage a satellite
built to maximum specifications (Section 4.6).
108
5.1.2 Test Pod
• The Test P-POD is a viable means to qualify CubeSats.
Currently, all CubeSats are qualified using the Test Pod. Although the accelerations
felt by the mass models were significantly higher in the Test Pod than the P-POD at the
Test Pod’s natural frequencies, the Test Pod accelerates up to 40% less with CP1 inside.
The CP1 results show that overall, the Test Pod maintains all measurement channels at
the level of the control channel. When qualifying a satellite for flight, it is desirable to
have the measurement channels follow the control channel throughout the test frequency
range. The majority of CubeSats will likely behave similar to CP1 rather than follow the
behavior of the aluminum mass models.
• The external and internal Test Pod environments are equivalent.
If the proper torque is applied to the spring plungers on the back panel of the Test
Pod, the mass models and Test Pod vibrate equally. A small deviation in acceleration
occurs only if the satellite passes through a natural frequency during the experiment.
• A satellite’s materials significantly affect the Test Pod’s response during vibration
testing.
When qualifying CP1, it was discovered that the type of material used in its
construction made a significant difference in the magnitude in acceleration felt by the
Test Pod. The maximum acceleration experienced by the Test Pod with the aluminum
mass model inside was 40% higher than the maximum acceleration experienced by the
Test Pod with CP1 inside. From the previous conclusion it can be inferred that CP1 also
experienced a 40% reduction in acceleration as compared to the mass model. The CP1
109
results are significant because they reflect a more accurate picture of the environment
inside the Test Pod than the mass model.
5.1.3 P-POD and Test Pod Comparison
• The internal Test Pod environment is harsher than the internal P-POD
environment.
The current P-POD tends to dampen most frequencies so that the accelerations felt
by the mass models are well below the control channel. The only significantly large
spike in acceleration throughout the test range occurs near 50 Hz. This frequency is low
enough so that most components on the satellite do not resonate and cause damage to the
satellite. Satellites should not be qualified using the P-POD because the P-POD cannot
maintain the measurement channels at the level of the control channel. It is important to
qualify satellites at launch levels throughout the entire test frequency range rather than
under-test a satellite. A satellite must be properly tested so that it can survive launch.
• The P-POD’s external environment is up to ten times harsher than the Test Pod’s
external environment
Unlike the P-POD (where weight minimization is a goal), the thick outer walls of
the Test Pod prevent the walls from vibrating significantly. The thin P-POD walls,
however, are easily excited and vibrate much more easily.
5.1.4 Test Fixtures
• The height of a test fixture directly affects the ability of the fixture to qualify
flight hardware.
When characterizing the Test Pod head plate and the two P-POD head plates, all
measurement channels were attenuated as the test approached 2 kHz. The Test Pod head
110
plate, being the thinnest vibration test fixture and having a height of 0.75”, attenuated as
much as 1.4 g near 2 kHz. The small P-POD head plate, having a height of 2”, attenuated
an average of 4.17 g for both loading configurations. Finally, the large P-POD head plate
attenuated nearly 5 g. The attenuation at higher frequencies was not predicted by the Pro-
Mechanica results. As the test fixtures become larger they tend to absorb more energy
from the vibration table at higher frequencies.
• The Test Pod head plate and the small P-POD head plate are able to successfully
qualify flight hardware.
A head plate is a viable test fixture if it does not exceed the limits set by NASA for a
random vibration test. For both loading configurations, the Test Pod head plate stays
within the specified limits. The small P-POD head plate also stays within these limits
except for at higher frequencies. This problem can be easily fixed by moving the control
channel from the table to the test-axis of the small head plate. By moving the control
accelerometer to the plate itself, the computer will automatically put more energy into the
table when the head plate begins to attenuate at higher frequencies. This experiment can
be safely done because the head plate is reasonably light-weight. The change in
accelerometer location will also not exceed the limits of the vibration table.
• The large P-POD head plate cannot currently qualify flight hardware above 700
Hz.
The large P-POD head plate attenuates significantly during the random vibration test
set at NASA qualification levels. Modifications to either the test setup or head plate must
be made so that that the fixture stays within the limits specified by NASA at higher
frequencies. Manufacturing the head plate from a stiffer material such as titanium could
111
be an option. The cost of building titanium test fixtures, however, is not feasible with
current university budgets.
• The vibration table must have the ability to rotate in order to eliminate the need
for the large P-POD head plate.
The Cal Poly CubeSat program has performed and performs testing on the
Mechanical Engineering Department’s vibration table. Current restrictions prevent
the table from being rotated. Since rotation is not possible, the large head plate must
be used to test the P-POD’s Y-axis. In the spring of 2004, the Aerospace Engineering
Department will acquire a new vibration table, which will be capable of being rotated.
The versatility of the new vibration table will allow the use of the small head plate
when testing all three axes and ensure that all flight hardware is successfully
qualified. This will eliminate most, if not all, of the difficulties associated with
mounting a large mass to the vibration table. Furthermore, using the small head plate
for all tests will completely eliminate the need for the interface plate, significantly
reducing setup time.
• If the vibration table cannot be rotated, the control channel should be moved from
the table to the large head plate.
If the large head plate must be used, the control accelerometer should be moved
from the table to the head plate itself. Because the computer uses the control
accelerometer as a reference, the computer will cause more energy to be input into the
table when the large head plate begins to dampen out all vibrations at the higher
frequencies.
112
Moving the control accelerometer to a location other than the table could
potentially harm the table. Due to the size and weight of the large head plate, care must
be taken so that the limits of the table are not exceeded. The following experiment
should be setup with mass models inside a P-POD before any testing with flight hardware
occurs. The control accelerometer should be moved to the top of the head plate, and a
measurement accelerometer should be placed on the table (where the control used to be).
A sine and then a random test should be performed below acceptance levels. If the
measurement channel on the table stays within the acceptable limits, then the levels of the
sine and random tests should be increased. The tests should be repeated until NASA
worst-case scenario qualification levels are reached. If the measurement channel remains
within the limits specified by NASA, then the large head plate can be used to qualify
flight hardware as long as the control accelerometer remains on the head plate. These
experiments are left to the next structural engineer.
5.2 Recommendations
• Testing should be done to understand whether the current screws connecting the
P-POD to the small head plate are able to withstand repeated vibration testing.
The screws that connect the P-POD to the launch vehicle and to the test fixture on the
vibration table are sufficient to survive launch, but they are inadequate for repeated
vibration testing. The failure of the screws was unexpected. This could indicate a flaw in
the material used to manufacture them. Even a small crack could greatly decrease the
strength of the screws. Before making any changes to the P-POD, several rounds of
testing should be done on a new set of six screws. A microscope should be used to
113
search for any flaws in the material. If the screws still shear after testing, they should be
inspected again to see how they failed.
If the failure is not due to the manufacturing of the screws, then the force at the
interface between the small head plate and the P-POD is much larger than expected. If
this is the case, further investigation is needed. Such high forces should not exist at the
interface between the head plate and the P-POD.
• The P-POD’s bottom panel must be modified.
In order to ensure that the screws attaching the P-POD to the small head plate do
not shear, the bottom panel should be modified. Two simple solutions exist. More holes
on the panel could be drilled so that the force per screw decreases, or the current six holes
on the bottom panel could be widened to accommodate a screw with a larger cross
sectional area.
• Construct mass models out of different materials.
An interesting experiment left for another student would be to construct mass
models out of materials other than aluminum. The tests in this thesis should be repeated
in order to understand how different materials affect both the external and internal
environments of the Test Pod and the P-POD.
• The door must be reinforced when the P-POD is loaded so that no visible bowing
occurs.
Some satellites have a strict requirement to remain debris free. A small gap in the
door could allow foreign material to be introduced inside the P-POD, which could
potentially damage the sensitive solar panels on the outside of the CubeSats. The
114
elimination of the gap between the door and the P-POD could also reduce the higher
accelerations experienced by the satellite closest to the door.
• An analytical model to determine the maximum deflection of the side panel could
be a way to verify the experimental results from this thesis.
The P-POD side panels experienced the highest accelerations when the P-POD was
mounted to the large head plate. In this configuration, the panels were deflecting
perpendicular to the table. In order to analytically determine the maximum deflection,
the side panel must be treated as a thin plate with a varying cross sectional area.
Boundary conditions should be imposed on the panel’s edges so that the deflection and
slope are zero. An excitation force should also be added in the plane of the panel that
matches the force from the vibration table. The analytical model will take significant
work to complete; this is left to the next structural engineer.
5.3 Future Work
Cal Poly is currently in the final stages of organizing a launch in the fall of 2004 on
a Russian DNEPR rocket. Another launch is planned for 2005 with the new American
launch provider Space-X. A redesign of the P-POD is well under way. For this launch,
the line cutter assembly (with the accompanying electronics) has been completely
removed from the P-POD. Cal Poly has moved to a Starsys Qwknt 3k instantaneous
release mechanism. The mechanism has many advantages over the line cutter assembly.
The current system relies solely on the P-DEP and its accompanying batteries. If the P-
POD were to spend a significant amount of time in the shade before deploying, the
batteries and electronics might stop functioning due to the low temperatures. The burn
time for the line cutter can also vary by several minutes, which can cause problems in
115
timing the release of all payloads from the launch vehicle. The Starsys system eliminates
the extra weight of the batteries, electronics, and line cutter. It operates on a standard
initiation pulse that allows it to be triggered instantaneously by the launch vehicle.
Redundant memory alloy actuators allow the Starsys system to be reset in one minute.
The Starsys system has flight history behind it and is reliable. It can also operate over a
wide range of temperatures. The specifications for this mechanism are found in
Appendix M.
Modifications have been made to the P-POD door and to the collar in order to
accommodate the new release mechanism. The P-POD door is also being reinforced so
that it no longer bends when the P-POD is integrated. Finally, Cal Poly is working on
finishing the design of CP2, the next Cal Poly satellite.
116
References
[1] Beer, Ferdinand and E. Johnston. Mechanics of Materials. New York: McGraw,
1981.
[2] CubeSat Program. CubeSat Design Specification. 2002

<www.cubesat.calpoly.edu/Documents/CubeSat Design Specification>
[3] De Silva, Clarance. Vibration: Fundamentals and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC,
1999.
[4] Eurockot Launch Service Provider. Eurockot User’s Guide. 22 January 2003
<http://www.eurockot.com>
[5] Gere, James M., and Stephen P. Timoshenko. Mechanics of Materials 4th Edition.
PWS Publishing Company, 1997.
[6] ISC Kosmotras. Dnepr Space Launch System User’s Guide. 15 September 2002
<http://kosmotras.ru/archive2.htm>.
[7] Johansen, Nick. Qualification Testing of the Cubesat Poly Pico-Satellite Orbital
Deployer. Master’s thesis, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo,
2003.
[8] Juvinall, Robert C. Fundamentals of Machine Component Design. John Wiley &
Sons, 2000.
[9] NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. General Environmental Verification

Specification for STS and ELV Payloads, Subsystems and Components. 21
January 2003 <http://astro.estec.esa.nl/NGST/study_docs/GEVS-
SE_Rev_A.pdf>.
[10] NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Outgassing Data for Selecting Spacecraft
Materials Online. 12 January 2003 <http://misspiggy.gsfc.nasa.gov/og/>.
[11] NASA Johnson Space Flight Center. Space Shuttle Program Payload Bay Payload
User’s Guide. 21 January 2003
<http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/data/PayloadDocs/documents/21492.pdf>.
[12] Nason, Isaac Edwin. Development of the CubeSat P-Pod Deployment System.
Master’s thesis, Master’s thesis, California Polytechnic University, San Luis
Obispo, 2002.
117
[13] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Technical Standard,
Payload Vibroacoustic Test Criteria. 21 January 2003
<http://jsc_web_pub.jsc.nasa.gov/psrp/
[14] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Technical Standard,

Payload Test Requirements. 21 January 2003 < http://jsc-web-
pub.jsc.nasa.gov/psrp/docs/7002.pdf>.
[15] Planetary Systems. Line Cutter Assembly Interface Control Document. Sliver
Springs, MD 2001.
[16] Proceedings and Presentations of the 17th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on

Small Satellites. Access to Space, Aug 11-14 2003. [CD-ROM]. Logan, Utah.
[17] Spectral Dynamics. Random Operating Manual, Puma. 2400-0120, 1997.
118

Veronica Bash Bush Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Veronica Bash Bush Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Characterization of the Internal and External Environments of the CubeSat P-POD and

the Faculty of the California Polytechnic State University,

San Luis Obispo

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

authorization from me.

TITLE: Characterization of the Internal and External Environments of the CubeSat P-

POD and Test Pod

AUTHOR: Veronica Bashbush

DATE SUBMITTED: January 20th, 2004

Committee Member Signature

Committee Member Signature

Committee Member Signature

Characterization of the Internal and External Environments

common interface between a launch vehicle and student designed pico-satellites

here a great one.

FIGURE 1: CUBESAT P-POD.......................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE 1: PAYLOADS FOR EUROCKOT 2003 LAUNCH ..................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background: CubeSat Program

with inexpensive launch opportunities for university-designed pico-satellites. For several

developers worldwide. They can be found at www.cubesat.calpoly.edu under the

The current P-POD is capable of containing and subsequently deploying three

single CubeSat respectively. Figure 2 demonstrates the various CubeSat configurations

deployment spring, providing approximately 10 lb of force, along with four spring

resistive heaters are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Line Cutter Assembly with Electronics

the P-POD in design.

Table 1: Payloads for Eurockot 2003 Launch

MOST Satellite – University of Toronto

NSL-1 (P-POD #1)

NSL-2 (P-POD #2)

Tokyo Single CubeSat Deployer

Tokyo Single CubeSat Deployer

number of deployers + CubeSats launched. Nevertheless, the information from NORAD

internal environment of a P-POD during launch. It is currently used to perform

CP1, Cal Poly’s first student-designed satellite.

Chapter 2 presents an overview of the testing requirements used as a guide to

included in five appendices of this thesis. Refer to Appendices A-E.

included as an appendix. A series of twelve experiments, eight 5 g logarithmic sine tests

response with CP1 inside.

Chapter 4 characterizes the internal and external P-POD environments and

with the internal P-POD environment.

2.1 Testing Overview

Pod, and their respective test fixtures.

Composite Plot of Four Launch Vehicles

Figure 5: Power Spectral Density Plots for Various Launch Vehicles

Figure 6: Launch Vehicle Envelope Compared to NASA Qualification Levels

duration of random vibration tests vary, depending on what is being tested.

a profile from a launch provider.

Frequency (Hz) Qualification Level (G2/Hz) Acceptance Level (G2/Hz)

800 0.16 0.08

2000 0.026 0.013

Overall 14.1 Grms 10.0 Grms

Qualif ication A cceptance

Figure 7: NASA Acceptance and Qualification Levels

table are found in Appendices H and I respectively.

3.1 Test Pod Improvements

qualification and acceptance vibration tests for single CubeSats.

3.2.1 Previous Results

the first two modes of vibration.

prevented from rotating or translating.

3.2.2 Characterization of the Test Pod Head Plate

with the operation of the Test Pod.