9 Spacecraft Structures

Submitted to:
Edited and Revised by:

Cyril Annarella

Original Document by:

David Fraser
Hank Kleespies
Cliff Vasicek
Fall 1991

1
9.1 Introduction

A satellite structure must fulfill various requirements. First of all, it must resist the
loads induced by the launch environment (acceleration, acoustics thermal), met all
the functional performances required on orbit such as dimensional stability for
example, but it must also interface with some other subsystems such as : thermal
control, optical components, electronic equipment, mechanisms, etc. In addition,
the structure will be the skeleton used during the assembly process of these
subsystems into the satellite and then it must provide very clean interfaces to each
individual element in order to simplify the sequence of integration . Finally , the
concept must be compatible with the standart manufacturing process and use
standart components(sheet-iron, tube,...) every time it is possible.

All these constraints must be taken into acount in the preliminary structural design
phase at the beginning of a project when the most important mechanical trade off
are done (truss versus shell, materials, integrated panels versus modular platform ).
A good or a bad structure is determined at the very beginning step of a project .An
important part of mission cost is the expense of insertion into space , related to the
spacecraft [Link], A major issue in structural design is to minimize
structural weight according to the required reliability level.

Spacecraft structures are mainly divided in two categories :

The Primary structure or main structure, whose purpose is to transmit loads to the
base of the satellite through specifically design components (central tube,
honeycomb platform, bar truss, etc.). This structure provides the attachement points
for the payload and the associated equipments. Failure of the primary structure
leads to a complete collapse of the satellite.

-The Secondary structures, such as baffle, thermal blanket support and solar panel
must only support themselves and are attached to the primary structurewhich
guaranties the overall structural integrity. A secondary structure failure is not a
problem for the structural integrity, but it could have some important impacts on
the mission if it alters the thermal control, the electrical continuity, the mechanisms
or if it crosses an optical path.

For the new generation of large satellites, we must consider a third type of structure:
Flexible appendages such as antenna reflectors and solar arrays. These strucures
have generally low resonant frequencies which interact directly on the dynamic
behaviour of the satellite and require a special care for design.

Finally, some spacecraft structures are more complex than the ones described above,
and cannot be described with general rules due to their uniqueness and particular
requirements . Among these are the manned spacecraft structures (orbiter and space
station) and the future lunar outposts. [Giraudbit 1989]

2
9.2 Design Philosophy

Spacecraft structural design is a complicated iterative process that involves materials

selection, configuration, analysis, and verification testing. Structural design is very
dependent on the design requirements of other subsystems such as thermal,
propulsion, communications, and power. The design process starts at a conceptual
stage and design specifications are based on the mission requirements (see Figure
9.2.1). These specifications may include accommodation of payload and systems,
launch requirements, environmental protection, thermal and electrical paths, and
stiffness. The challenging tasks of structural design are the extreme mass efficiency
and high reliability requirements of the structure.

There are a wide variety of shapes used in satellite structures whose mass, volume,
and other structural characteristics are well known, making new design and testing
unnecessary. The lack of aerodynamic drag in space allows the use of cubic,
cylindrical, octahedral, and polyhedral configurations providing high rigidity and
volume capacity. Spin stabilization of spacecraft requires symmetry and appropriate
roll-to-pitch inertia ratios for stability. Relying on known designs and less exotic
materials will reduce costs.

Modular construction of space vehicles allows quick and cost-effective assembly line
production, and increases accessibility and maintainability. Parts are
interchangeable and easily accessed. Off the shelf components can be put together to
fulfill design specifications. The drawback comes in the form of a weight penalty
due to the use of special interfaces. It can be viewed that modular construction is
design philosophy as well as a construction technique(see the European Polar
Platform project). A non-modular construction has an advantage in weight saving
aspects. In a non-modular construction of a space vehicle, one can customize a
space vehicle to mass or environmental specifications. Exotic materials can be
employed in a non-modular construction more beneficially than in modular
construction.

3
 Concept

Launch vehicle Initial Payload configuration

constraints specifications drivers

Preliminary Proof of concept

design and analysis studies and tests

Attitude control Mass and inertial

requirements properties budget

Systems Configuration Structural design

design synthesis and analysis

Design Final design Coupled loads

qualification and manufacture analysis

Figure 9.2.1 Design methodology [Fortescue 1991]

Factors of safety for spacecraft structures vary for a number of reasons. Obviously,
manned spacecraft require higher factors of safety than do satellites or probes.
Structural redundancy is also considered when factors of safety are calculated. If
failure of a structural member is non-catastrophic and its load is taken by another
member, the factor of safety specified for that member may be relatively low.
Mission redundancy also permits lower factors of safety. An example of this is a
multiprobe mission where several identical probes are released and failure of one of
them is not considered a mission failure.

The typical factors of safety for space structures (unmanned flights) are given in the
following list:

a) Test qualified structures

Qualification level : Flight x 1.45

Yield : Qualif. x 1.1
Ultimate : Qualif. x 1.25

4
 b) Computed structures only

Yield : Flight x 2
Ultimate : Flight x 3

c) Pressure tanks (fracture analysis)

Yield : nominal x 1.5

Ultimate : nominal x 2.0

Of course these values may be changed during the project. Loads and material
strengh are subject to uncertainties, often described in terms of mean value and
standart deviation σ (Gaussian distribution for instance).On the following example,
the factor of safety J will be used to calculate the probability of failure for a load
defined at 2σ and a strengh defined at 3σ:

L n = L + 2σL Nominal load

S d = S − 3σ s Design or admissible strengh
S d = JLn J factor of safety

Let X = S − L . The probability of failure is the percentage of case where Load >
Strengh or mathematically P(X≤0). In the case of a gaussian distribution:

K
u2
π
P (X ≤ 0 ) =
2 ∫
−∞
e du with K = X σ X
2

It can be shown that :

σL
1+ 2
J−1 L
K= with J = J
2 σ
 σL  σ
+ s *J 2 1+3 S
 L S
S

Now, if we consider the following deviation (gaussian distributions):

σL σ
= 0.1 and S = 0.05 and a safety factor of J = 1.1, we can deduce the value of K
L S
and then the failure probability through a numerical table of Gauss integral.

Finally K = 4.37 and Pfailure=10-5

5
 probability density

load strengh

L S load and strengh

Sd

Ln

Figure 9.2.2 Warner Diagram

9.2.1 Design Rules Summary

The constraints to take into account at the beginning could be summarized as

follows:

- Good knowledge of the environment (launch and orbit)

- Simple structural elements with simple function,

- Modularity, simple acess and assembly,

- Easy analytical predictions,

- Simultaneous concern of static, dynamic, and thermoelastic problems,

- Growth potential,

- Mechanical decoupling : isostaticity , decoupling of primary and secondary

structure, simple interfaces,

- Taking into account the thermal requirements (thermal and structural team
have to work very closely all the time ),

- Local interface flexibility to consider the global stiffness budget,

6
 - Precise choice of materials: specific strengh and stiffness, outgasing, thermal
conductivity, electrolytic corrosion, electromagnetic compatibility, availability,
cost, radiation resistance,, influence of humidity,...

- Handling hard points,

- Manufacturing process in accordance to unitary production.

These common sense rules generally lead to simple structures with very
competitive costs.

9.3 Space Environment

The space environment poses a variety of extreme conditions that can seriously
degrade or even cause failure of many materials and structures. Sublimation and
outgassing, thermal and radiation effects, and oxidation must all be considered in
the structural design. For craft in low Earth orbit, the environment is particularly
harsh.

9.3.1 Vacuum Properties

The vacuum of space surrounding Earth ranges from a pressure of 1.3 x 10-7 kPa at
200 km, to less than 1.3 x 10-12 kPa beyond 6,500 km. Under these conditions,
polymers may decompose and metals sublimate (lose molecules). The rate of
sublimation is given by:

M
G = 5.04x10 3 P
T
where:

G = amount of sublimated material, grams/cm3 -day

P = Vapor pressure of evaporating material, mm Hg
M = Molecular weight of the material
T = Absolute temperature, K

Sublimation can cause the growth of whiskers, which can create short circuits, or
lead to deposits on optical and thermal systems, which may ruin data transmission
or overheat and destroy the craft. Certain materials have high sublimation rates at
low temperatures (less than 200° C), and therefore should be avoided. Zinc, tin
(used in electrical solder), magnesium, and cadmium are examples. Also, composite
matrices have a higher vapor pressure than metals, thus having a higher
sublimation rate. This tends to make composites less desirable for long duration
missions, though this may improve with new composite technologies.

7
Outgassing, the release of absorbed gasses by a structural surface in a vacuum, is a
problem common to most materials. Released particles will settle on other parts
and can cause malfunctions (destruction of thermal coating, contamination).
Polymeric materials must possess non-outgassing characteristics for spacecraft
applications. This problem can be reduced by "bake-out" processing, putting the
material in a vacuum at high temperature. Because most lubricants outgas in space,
friction is greatly increased and some materials may undergo cold molecular
welding. Finally, composite materials have a high absorption rate of humidity
which can cause serious outgassing problems and lower their structural
performances.

9.3.2 Temperature Concerns

Related to the sublimation rate (as T increases, so does G), and vitally important are
temperature variations and extremes in space. Without an atmosphere, thermal
energy can only be transferred through conduction and radiation, with temperatures
ranging from -160° C to +180° C. This will vary for each spacecraft, depending on its
spin rate and the type of thermal control system. Passive systems make use of
surface absorptance/emittance (α /ε) properties. For example, anodized aluminum
or white surfaces have low (α /ε) ratios, while black objects have a ratio of about
unity. Solar absorbers, such as polished metal, have (α /ε) ratios greater than unity.

The highest temperatures affecting structural design typically arise from

atmospheric entry or robust propulsion systems. These conditions require the use
of special materials, tailored insulation, or both. The Space Shuttle uses tiled
insulation on its exposed aerodynamic surfaces. Most of these areas have normal
aluminum skin-stringer or honeycomb panel beneath, though the most critical
locations (e.g., stagnation points) use titanium.

For spacecraft without these two causes of extreme heating, the temperature
conditions are relatively benign. Cold environments, such as among the outer
planets, will generally increase the yield strength, tensile strength, and Young's
modulus of a material. Effects on ductility and toughness, however, vary with the
material. This requires that brittle failure by shock be examined. Cryogenic fuel
storage also necessitates a material with good low-temperature properties.

Figure 9.3.1 presents the temperature limits of several structural materials,

according to present and projected technology.

8
 Aluminum alloys

Aluminum matrix Developed

composites
Advanced
Titanium alloys development
Titanium matrix
composites Early
development
Graphite/resin
composites

Ceramics

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Temperature (K)

Figure 9.3.1 Material temperature limits.

9.3.3 Radiation Effects

Electromagnetic and particle radiation, such as protons and electrons from radiation
belts, solar emissions, and cosmic radiation, can remove structural material. The
amount is usually no more than 1 mg/cm2 , which has no serious effect on the
design of most structures. Thin films, however, such as a solar sail, must account for
this degradation. Radiation also reduces the ductility of most materials. This must
be anticipated for long-duration or high-exposure missions.

9.3.4 Oxidation Effects

In low Earth orbit, high energy, neutral atomic oxygen atoms (ATOX) and ionizing
radiation can severely degrade polymeric materials by reacting with their organic
molecules.

Similarly, thin organic films, advanced composites and metallized surfaces can
suffer from oxydation [Link] instance, Kapton erodes as much as 2.8 µm for
every 1024 atoms/m2 of atomic oygen fluence(the fluence over a period T is equal to
T x density of ATOX x satellite velocity). At approximately 200 km (125 miles), their
concentration varies from 2x109 to 8xl0 9 atoms/cm3 , depending on solar activity.
They can strike a spacecraft with a relative velocity greater than 9 km/s. ATOX can
also lead to further outgassing, and this effect can not be eliminated before launch.
However, research is being done to characterize and predict the outgassing behavior
of various materials. Development of coatings such as silica can reduce this effect.

9
9.3.5 Magnetic Properties

The magnetic field produced by the Earth requires that earth orbiting spacecraft must
use a non-magnetic material for most of its structure. The alternative is to accept
the magnetic dipole moment induced by motion through the magnetic field,
causing an orientation change unless resisted by attitude control mechanisms.

9.4 Materials

9.4.1 Properties

The selection of materials for structural applications is a crucial step in the design
process. A simple selection based on strength/density is not sufficient. It is
important to consider many other properties such as stiffness, stress corrosion
resistance, fracture toughness, fatigue resistance(minor issue for all short-life
spacecraft), thermal characteristics, sublimation, electrical and magnetic properties,
ease of manufacture, availability and cost.

[Link] Specific Strength (Sy/ρ)

The specific strength of a material is defined as the stress that causes a 0.2%
elongation at the elastic limit divided by the the density. This parameter is useful
for preliminary comparisons between materials. Titanium alloy metals and fiber-
reinforced composites (kevlar,HT carbon) typically have high specific strengths.
Composites materials generally present a high specific strengh ratio if they are
unidirectional. The performances of an isotropic composite material are much
lower (30%), which should be taken into account during the design.

[Link] Specific Stiffness (E/ρ)

The specific stiffness of a material is defined as the Young's modulus divided by the
density. This parameter is useful to select an efficient material with respect to mass.
Table 9.4.1 shows three common load cases and their respective material efficiency
criteria. These material efficiencies are given for typical structural materials in Table
9.4.2. Note that aluminum and titanium alloys have similar structural efficiencies
for all three load cases but that titanium has a higher specific strength.

Figure 9.4.1 Typical Stress/strain Diagram for Ductile and Brittle Materials
[Larson 1992]

10
[Link] Thermal Characteristics

Thermal conductivity and thermal expansion coefficients are critical parameters to

consider when selecting a material for a structural application. Thermal
conductivity is important as thermal conduction or insulation is often a secondary
function of the structure of a spacecraft. The thermal expansion coefficient is also an
important parameter. Large thermal stresses can be induced when two materials
with differing thermal expansion coefficients are used in the same structure. Also,
it may be desirable to minimize thermal expansion for delicate instruments such as
space telescopes. This can be done with composite materials quite effectively as a
structure can be designed to use the directionally dependent positive and negative
expansion coefficients of graphite/epoxy. A net expansion coefficient of zero for a
structure is theoretically possible within certain temperature ranges(Kevlar 49 and
UHM carbon are used in that way).

[Link] Fracture and Fatigue

Fracture and fatigue resistance becomes more important as safety factors are reduced
and as structural efficiency is increased. Microcracking is assumed to exist in all
structures and the designer must ensure that failure from these flaws does not occur
throughout the service life of the structure. Every crack tip is a stress concentration
and cracks will propagate if local stresses are high enough. The critical crack length
is defined as the length of the largest crack that will not propagate at a given stress
level. The designer must calculate that the design and material can withstand non-
catastrophic cracking up to a certain size. Also, non-destructive testing techniques
must be used to demonstrate that no cracks above the critical size exist before
launch. These tests are usually done by ultrasonic sounding(reflection and
transmission), X-ray, thermography, [Link], it should be pointed out
that for most commercial spacecraft, fatigue is not a dimensioning parameter
because of the relatively short duration of the mission.

[Link] Ease of Manufacture

It is important that the designer consider the manufacturing process when

designing spacecraft structures. Some composite material structures may be
prohibitively expensive to manufacture and could be made of less exotic materials
and geometries while still performing the same function. Some materials such as
beryllium and aluminum-lithium alloys can present toxic or dangerous conditions
during manufacture. Late modifications often occur during assembly of individual
components. The designer should allow for such modifications to occur at the
assembly level if necessary.

11
Loading Beam Deflection Strut Buckling Panel Buckling
Configuration
P P P
d L
δ w
L L t

Characteristic
Equations PL3 π 2 EI E  t 
2
δ= Pe = P = const tw
3EI L2 1 −σ 2  w 
wt 3 πd 4
I= I=
12 64 mass = Lwtρ
mass = Lwtρ πd 4
mass = Lρ
4

Efficiency
 load  P  δt 2  E P P
12
E1 2 P P
23
E1 3
 mass  = const 4 = const e4  = const e4 
mass L ρ mass L ρ mass L ρ

Material
Efficiency E E1 2 E1 3
ρ ρ ρ

Loading
Coefficient δt 2  Pe 
12
 Pe 
23

L4  L4   L4 

Table 9.4.1 Structural configurations for material selection.

12
Material Density Young's Yield E E1/2 E1/3 Sy Thermal Thermal Fracture Fatigue
ρ modulus strength ρ ρ ρ ρ expansion Cond. toughness strength
(kg/m 3) E (GPa) Sy (MPa) (µm/m K) (W/m K) (MPa-m) (MPa)

Aluminum alloy
6061 T6 2800 68 276 24 2.9 1.5 98.6 23.6 167 186 97
7075 T6 2700 71 503 26 3.1 1.5 186.3 23.4 130 24 159

Magnesium alloy
AZ31B 1700 45 220 26 3.9 2.1 129.4 26 79

Titanium alloy
Ti - 6Al - 4V 4400 110 825 25 2.4 1.1 187.5 9 75 500

Beryllium alloys
S 65 A 2000 304 207 151 8.7 3.4 103.5 11.5
S R 200E 345

Ferrous alloys
INVAR 150 1.66
AM 350 7700 200 1034 26 1.84 0.8 134.3 11.9 40/60 550
304L Ann 7800 193 170 25 1.8 0.7 21.8 17.2

Fiber Composites
Kevlar 49 0deg 1380 76 1240 55 6.3 3.1 898.5 -4
/epoxy 90deg 1380 5.5 30 4 1.7 1.3 21.7 57
Graphite 0deg 1640 220 760 134 9.0 3.7 463.4 -11.7
/epoxy 90deg 1640 6.9 28 4.2 1.6 1.16 17.1 29.7

Table 9.4.2 Material properties

9.4.2 Metals

[Link] Aluminum

The alloys of aluminum represent the majority of spacecraft structural materials. A

combination of high stiffness to density ratio, excellent workability, non-magnetism,
moderate cost, high ductility, high corrosion-resistance, and availability in
numerous forms makes it the best choice for most uses. Its low yield strength is the
only appreciable disadvantage.

Aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloys have the potential of reducing launch vehicle

weight by as much as 30%, and are being produced by several manufacturers. These
materials can have a tensile strength over 100 ksi as well as a cryogenic strength
greater than any other aluminum alloy, and have high weldibility. This is an
important consideration for cryogenic fuel tanks.

Use of Al-Li sheet as a laminate with a fiber/epoxy has also been developed. The
fiber/epoxy is sandwiched between layers of aluminum, combining the strength and
resistance to fatigue of fiber with the benefits of the alloy.

13
[Link] Steel

Most structural steels are penalized by their magnetic properties, although austenitic
stainless steels are non-magnetic. Unfortunately, the stiffness to density ratios for
austenitic steels are lower than those of aluminum alloys. Nonetheless, these
materials can still be utilized for their high strength in instances where titanium is
not desirable, perhaps for machining or temperature reasons.

[Link] Titanium

Titanium, a non-magnetic material is used in many applications where aluminum

does not possess the required strength. Though somewhat more difficult to
machine, it has a substantially greater yield strength, a higher stiffness to density
ratio, and is particularly suitable for low-temperature applications (e.g., cryogenic
fuel storage). At high-temperatures, titanium is surpassed by steels, though it still
exceeds aluminums capabilities. Research may greatly increase the ease of
manufacturing complex titanium components.

A relatively new class of titanium based materials are the intermetallic titanium
alumides, or tialuminides. These low density materials exhibit high strength at
temperatures greater than 700° C and resist oxidation at all temperatures. Primary
uses are as a composite matrix material and in honeycomb structures.
Unfortunately, tialuminides react poorly with hydrogen, becoming brittle. This
limits their utility in vehicles that use hydrogen to actively cool the airframe unless
protective coatings are used.

[Link] Magnesium

Though its stiffness to density ratio is close to aluminum, this material and its alloys
are prone to brittle fracture. This reduces its applications to those where its barely
higher yield strength may be of some use, or where its good low-temperature
behavior is paramount. As already mentioned, magnesium sublimes relatively
quickly in vacuum (0.04 in/yr at 180° C). Exposure to temperatures less than 250° C
can cause it to lose static strength, although electroplating or coatings can prevent
this.

[Link] Beryllium

With a density approximately 60% of aluminum and a stiffness to weight ratio six
times better than aluminum or titanium, this material has many potential
applications. Being stiffer than other materials it can be useful in avoiding resonant

14
frequencies that may occur between a satellite and its booster during launch. It is
non-magnetic, has a high elastic modulus (44 Msi), and a high yield strength. Using
beryllium instead of aluminum can reduce weight significantly, and its high
thermal conductivity makes it an excellent choice for components that will conduct
heat. It is also non-reactive with hydrogen.

However, beryllium is extremely anisotropic and sensitive to damage, and is twice

as brittle as aluminum. Its relatively low fracture toughness at cryogenic
temperatures is a potential drawback, but development of beryllium-aluminum
alloys may improve this. It also needs special facilities and tools for machining due
to the toxicity of its dust, and is thus very expensive.

9.4.3 Composites

Composite materials are quickly becoming the material of choice for aerospace
applications. They possess stiffness to weight ratios beyond all metals, making them
useful for damping unwanted vibrations. With a negative axial coefficient of
thermal expansion, they allow for structures that will not deform in the
temperature extremes of space. Their thermal conductivity exceeds copper, and so
they also provide lightweight thermal management and heat sinks. Where stiffness
is critical, as in telescopes, antennas, and reflectors, carbon fiber composites are
another natural choice. Metal matrix, Carbon-Carbon, and Ceramic-Matrix
composites are best for high temperature applications, such as re-entry vehicle skins,
since they can withstand temperatures in excess of 2500° F. with no active cooling.

However, there are some drawbacks to these materials. Effective oxidation coatings
must developed, as well as manufacturing techniques for large scale structures.
Grounding of electrical systems is done by adding conductive strips, which increase
the mass of the structure. Nicks and dents that can be repaired or ignored in
structural metals can destroy the integrity of the fibers and render the composite
unusable. In space, with little or no inspection and maintenance, and where failure
of primary structure can have devastating consequences, composites are typically
judged too unreliable for use as more than secondary structure. But judicious use of
composites in secondary structure can still result in much mass savings.

Another concern of laminated composites is their reaction to temperature changes.

Uniform changes can induce substantial internal stresses caused by different
expansion rates between the fibers and matrix. Temperature differentials can
produce more pronounced warping than in an isotropic material.

Hereafter are some applications of fiber reinforced composites:

a) Glass
High strengh, low cost, fatigue insensitive.
- Solid rocket engine casing

15
 - Pressure vessels
- Thermal decoupling

b) Kevlar
High strengh, low cost, impact resistant, radio frequency transparency.
- Solid rocket engine casing
- Pressure vessels
- Shrouds
- Bi-grille reflector antenna

c) HT-CFRP
High strengh, fatigue insensitive, low cost.
- Launcher interstages

d) HM-CFRP
Stiffness and strengh, reasonable cost.
- Optimized structure
- Solar array
- Antenna reflector

e) UHM-CFRP
High stiffness, low CTE, very high cost (10 times HT cost).
- Sophisticated thermo-elastic stable structure
- Telescope
- Antenna reflector and tower
- wave guide

16
9.4.4 Ceramics

17
Currently, ceramic materials are too brittle for use in primary structure. However,
their excellent ability to withstand high temperatures have led to applications as
turbine blades. Research may extend the high-temperature performance of ceramics
considerably, though its use will probably be limited to secondary structure.

9.5 Structural Elements

The structural elements most commonly used for spacecraft are columns, frames,
trusses, plates, and shells. Pressure vessels are also used, especially for fuel tanks.

Columns, including those that are the components of a truss, are often necessitated
by the axial nature of propelled spacecraft. Weight concerns, meanwhile, demand
small cross-sections. The result are columns designed close to the limits of
instability. To withstand axial loads with no eccentricity, the best cross-section must
be axisymmetric and possess a large radius. Round tubular sections are normally
used because they provide adequate torsional stiffness and they are less massive
than solid sections. In cases of large columns, the tube itself may rely on the
components it protects to provide some lateral support.

A simple and useful calculation is the determination of the margin of safety for a
circular cylinder:

1) Reference stress
1 Et
From the theory of shells : σ ref =
3(1− ν 2
) R
with E : Young's modulus
t : Thickness
R : radius
ν : Poisson's ratio

2) Compression and bending critical stresses

- Compression:
The critical stress is given by σ *c = γ cσ ref where γc is a correlation factor for
compression given by :

  1 R 
γ c = 1− 0.901 1− exp  − 
  16 t  

- Bending:
The critical stress is given by σ *b = γ bσ ref where γb is a correlation factor for
bending given by :

18
   1 R 
γ b = 1 − 0.731 1 − exp  − 
  16 t 

3) Margin of safety for a combined load case

The two critical stresses σ *c and σ *b are determined as above. The actual
stresses are determined as shown on the following figure :

σ
Compression
load

σ b Transverse
load

σc

θ
0 Π 2Π θ

Figure 9.5.1 Axial Stress Distribution in a Cylinder Subject to a Combined

Bending and Compression Loading

The recommended interaction equation for the margin of safety in the case of
combined compressive load and bending is given by :

−1
σ b σ c 
 σ *b + σ *c  − 1 = M.S.

where σc and σb are respectively the pure compression actual stress and the pure
bending actual stress.

Interpretation: MS < 0 Failure

0 < MS < 0.5 Optimum design
0.5 < MS < 1.5 standart but efficient design
1.5 < MS < ∞ Non-efficient design

Trusses and frames are similar. Both distribute a load throughout a sparse
arrangement of discrete elements. Trusses are constructed with fittings at the ends of
the members, while frames are molded or otherwise formed as one piece. Various

19
fasteners can attach smaller frames together, making a large one. Frames are
generally used for smaller spacecraft (satellites and probes), while trusses are more
applicable to large vehicles (manned structures and launch vehicles).

In plate and shell configurations, a skin-stringer or honeycomb sandwich

configuration is able to transmit loads while minimizing weight. The honeycomb
section is slightly more efficient than skin stringer and less prone to buckling.
Honeycomb sections are made of two thin (0.5-1.0 mm) aluminum or composite
sheets bonded on either side of a honeycomb core. These sections provide greater
micrometeorite protection than skin stringers, especially if the core is a low-density
solid (e.g., plastic foam). Additionally, honeycomb sections exhibit high damping.
However, the fabrication of a honeycomb plate is more complicated than a skin-
stringer because fittings, inserts, holes and edgings must be carefully designed. The
panel's strength depends on the core's resistance to damage and the adhesive
between the core and plates, which makes crack propagation an important concern.
Also, temperature differentials across the honeycomb panel's cross section can cause
substantial internal stresses. In practice, skin-stringer and honeycomb panels are
both used extensively, the former especially for irregular shells, such as nose caps
and aerodynamic surfaces.

Analytic calculation of structural plates made out of honeycomb can easily be

derived from isotroic elements formula. The actual thickness and Young’s modulus
of the honeycomb are replaced in the formula by “equivalent” thickness and
Young’s modulus depending on the honeycomb thickness and on the thickness of
its [Link] should also be noticed that sandwich have several buckling modes that
should be checked during the design process: intracellular buckling, face wrinkling
and shear crimping.

Another crucial spacecraft structure are the fuel tanks. Propellant tanks are usually
constructed of a thin gauge metal, and unlike other structural parts, can not be
riveted together. Instead, welding or filament winding is required. The propellant
itself is necessary for structural stability, possibly supplemented by stringers or struts.
Additionally, baffles may be required to prevent the sloshing of the fuel. In general,
the fuel tank mass may be estimated to be 10% of the total propellant mass.

The most commonly tanked fuels are hydrogen (for its high specific impulse (Isp)
and use in nuclear rockets), helium (used as a pressurizer), oxygen (an oxidizer and
ECLSS component), and hydrazine (for its high storability). The first three fuels do
not react with normal structural materials, but they must be stored at extremely low
temperatures. Thus, the wall of the tank will also be subject to the low temperature,
so design must anticipate brittle behavior. To minimize the flux of thermal energy
to the stored liquid, large tanks with high volume to surface area ratios, such as
spheres, are desirable for all cryogenic fuels. Additionally, foam-type insulation is
typically applied to the exterior of the tank. Hydrogen is especially sensitive to
temperature and will boil off if the insulation is not adequate. Also, spontaneous
conversion from ortho- to para-hydrogen will induce losses, unless a catalyst is used

20
to convert the fuel before storage. One material that cannot be used in conjunction
with hydrogen is titanium and its alloys. Hydrazine does not require cryogenic
storage, and thus does not lose large quantities to boil-off. For this reason it is
preferred for landers and other vehicles where propellant storability is an important
concern. Hydrazine can be stored in tanks constructed of most structural materials,
though magnesium and some aluminum alloys are not acceptable.

9.6 Structures Subsystem Interfaces

Based on the information provided in the previous sections, a general structures

development/design process can be formulated. Figure 9.6.1 shows the structures
subsystem interface document. This is divided into two separate categories, Inputs
and Outputs, to allow for easy referencing. The following sections discuss the many
design considerations that are used in the design of a spacecraft structure.

INPUTS OUTPUTS

Forces
Payload dimensions

Moments

Acceleration data
Heat & Temperatures

Thermal constraints Mass/size

STRUCTURES

Materials
Design Criteria

Impact protection

Vibration & shocks

Vibration Damping

Load Paths
Mission Criteria

21
Figure 9.6.1 Structures subsystem interface.

9.6.1 Launch Constraints

[Link] G Loadings

G loadings are the weight related accelerations a space vehicle experiences for an
extended period of time and that can be considered as quasistatic. These differ from
vibrations and shocks, which are accelerations of shorter period and are several
orders of magnitude greater. An example of typical g loadings is shown in Table
9.6.1.

G loadings during launch depend greatly on the propulsion system in use. Solid
motors are usually not throttleable and are often designed to deliver large amounts
of thrust in a relatively short burn. Liquid fueled boosters ability to throttle up to
full thrust can alleviate unnecessary loadings that are experienced when solid rocket
motors are used. Additionally, the ability of throttling may give a weight advantage
that can offset the added weight of equipment related to throttling thrust. This is an
important consideration since load sensitive payloads require special packing
devices.

Nuclear fueled and related engines have a long duration burn when compared to
chemical motors, and will not have as high g loadings. This is also true for
spacecraft which have throttleable motors for orbit transfers. A possible negative
result of the use of these types of engines is the inducement of material fatigue due
to repetitive thrusting combined with extended periods of thrusting.

Finally, payload fairing are typically not jettisoned until the dynamic pressure drops
to 0.5 N/m2 ( at this altitude the aerodynamic pressure is equal to the solar radiation
pressure).

22
 Flight Event Longitudinal Axis Lateral Axis

Maximum -3 g (compression) + 1.5g

Dynamic
Pressure

Second engine - 7 g (compression) + 1.0g

cut off (SECO)

Thrust Lift Off +2.5g (tension) + 1.0g

Table 9.6.1 Flight Limit Quasi Static Loads (Ariane IV) at the CG of the payload

[Link] Ignition, cut off (chugging) and Stage Separation Shocks

The primary source of loads occur during the launch phase and during stage
separations. These loads can be reduced with the use of throttling in liquid fuel
rockets. The actual loads applied to the payload depends on the particular launcher
used, but the expected flight limit loads are available through the launcher agency.
The spacecraft should be designed with of factor of safety between 1.25 and 1.4 in
relation to these flight limit loads. Shocks may also arise in orbit from pyrotechnics
and appendage deployments. Although these are small when compared to the
shocks encountered during motor burn, the orientation of these minor shocks may
be serious. For example, a component may be designed to withstand launch shocks
in the longitudinal direction, but shocks from other events may be oriented
differently from the longitudinal axis. A material's maximum tensile strength
could be important in considering these effects, but many other kind of failure are
likely to be induced by onboard shocks(electrical failure, solar panel release failure,
local geometrical deformation). The actual effects of these shocks can be estimated
with an impact loading and transient analysis and, if necessary, the design should be
modified to handle these effects.

[Link] Vibrations and Resonant Frequencies

The natural frequency of a spacecraft must not match those of the launch vehicle if
strong and potentially destructive coupling is to be avoided. Typically, it is desirable
for the spacecraft to have resonant frequencies above 30 Hz (to avoid coupling with
POGO) in the longitudinal axis and above 10 Hz laterally. Meeting the minimum
allowable frequency usually allows for simpler and lighter designs. A rule is to
consider that dynamic decoupling is achieved between the satellite and the launcher
when the first frequency of the satellite is than the first frequency of the launcher

23
multiplied by 2 .This rule is also valid for the decouling between payload and
main platform on the large satellites. Fatigue induced yielding could also be a major
design factor when harsh vibrational environments are encountered. Table 9.6.2
lists the goal structural natural frequency bands for spacecraft being launched by the
Ariane IV and Delta launch vehicles.

Axis Launcher Spacecraft Internal Equip.

Ariane IV
Thrust >31 31-60 <80
Lateral >10 10-40 <60
Delta
Thrust >35 35-65 <80
Lateral >15 15-45 <60

Table 9.6.2 Design-goal structural natural frequency bands (Hz) [Fortescue 1991]

Random vibrations and acoustic vibrations also occur at launch and should also be
considered in the design of any spacecraft. Random vibrations are generated by
mechanical parts in movement,gust of wind, combustion phenomena, and
structural elements excited by the acoustic environment. These vibrations are
transmitted to the spacecraft by the launch vehicle structure. Acoustic vibrations are
generated by engine noise, buffeting, and aerodynamic noise. These vibrations
propagate primarily through the atmosphere within the spacecraft at launch, but are
eventually transmitted as high-frequency structure-borne noise during ascent.
Tables 9.6.3 and 9.6.4 list the flight levels of random and acoustic vibrations for the
Ariane IV.

Frequency Level Overall

(Hz) (PSD) (rms)

5 - 150 +6 dB/oct to 7.3 g

0.04g2 /Hz

150 - 700 .04g2 /Hz -

700 - 2,000 -3dB/oct -

24
Table 9.6.3 Random Vibration Flight Limit Environment (Ariane IV)

Octave Band Acceptance Level

(Center Frequency, Hz) (0 dB ref.)

31.5 114
63 120
125 131
250 136
500 139
1,000 133
2,000 128
4,000 121
8,000 120
Overall 142

Table 9.6.4 Acoustic Vibration Flight Level (Ariane IV) in fairing

[Link] Dynamic Loadings

In addition to the thrust loads applied at launch and stage separation, the spacecraft
will also experience dynamic loadings due to lift, drag, and weight. Lift from a
cylindrical launch vehicle will always be a lateral force. Since hoop stresses in a thin
skinned vehicle will cause buckling more easily than the longitudinal stresses, they
must be minimized to lighten the vehicle and prevent undesirable loads.

The drag force on a launch vehicle has a profound effect on the nose of the launch
vehicles. Pressure distributions must be obtained for the analysis of the
aerodynamic forces on the launch vehicle. The point where the aerodynamic
dynamic pressure is at it's greatest, qmax, is a function of altitude (density) and
freestream velocity. At qmax drag forces also peak. Pressure distributions at this
condition may be analyzed for a first cut type of calculation for a sizing design
analysis.

During the flight, the weight of the launch vehicle will decrease and will have an
effect on the center of gravity placement and the stability of the launch vehicle.
Center of gravity movement will be caused by stage separations, fuel burn, transfer
of fuel between tanks, and jettisoned expendables, but this movement can be easily
predicted. The movement of the center of gravity should be analyzed thoroughly
because it may cause a shift in the load paths within the vehicle.

25
[Link] Launch Vehicle/Volume Constraints

Volume limitations are encountered with every payload, especially for inter-
planetary vehicles. Solar arrays, magneto sensors, high heat generating
components, antennas, and other oversized appendages are often stowed or tucked
away within the allowable space of the launch vehicle. These appendages are later
deployed with the use of springs, pyrotechnics, or angular momentum. The space
vehicle must be designed to fit in the payload area of the launch vehicle. The
capabilities of current and planned launchers is summarized in Table 9.6.5. Usually,
the length of the payload bay is not specified and many vehicles can accommodate
long payloads for special missions.

Country Vehicle Fairing envelopes Deliverable Payload weight (kg) to Orbit

dia(m)/length(m)
CEO/LEO GTO GEO Interplanetary

China Long March 1-D 1.9/2.8 860 200 100

Long March 3 2.3/3.1 5,000 1,500 730

Europe Ariane III 3.2 / 8.6 3,350 1,600

Ariane IV-40 3.6/12.4 4,900 1,900
ArianeV 3.6/13.7 20,000 7,400

Japan Mu-3S II 1.64 840

N-2 2.4 2,200 300
H- 1 A 2.2/6.5 3,200 1,100 550
H-2 3.7/10 10,500 4,000 2,500

USA Atlas-Centaur 2.9/7.7 5,580 2,250 450 1,300

ALS (1 booster) 8.3 46,800
ALS (2 boosters) 10.6 88,200
Delta 3910/PAM 2.4 2,475
Delta 3920/PAM 2.4 2,600 1,200
Delta 3924 2.4 1,090
HLLV 12.37/29.7 126,000
Saturn 1 B 6.6 18,000
Saturn 5 6.7 83,000 42,000 (lunar)
Scout D 1.2 270 54
Shuttle 4.6/18.3 24,400
Shuttle-C 4.6/24.7 64,000 20,400 (lunar)
Titan 3 3.6/12.4 14,400 5,000 1,360
Titan 4 4.5/17 17,700 6,350 4,540

Table 9.6.5 Launch Vehicle Parameters

26
9.6.2 Orbit and Mission Constraints

[Link] Thermal Gradients

Both internal and external thermal gradients exist in a spacecraft. The internal
thermal gradients usually originate from subsystems such as propulsion, electronics,
power, and communications. External thermal gradients are largely due to the sun.
For interplanetary vehicles, other factors such as radiative planetary surface
reflections (albedo) and aerothermodynamic heating may have to be considered.

The existence of these thermal gradients can cause thermal stresses and then
geometrical distortions. If left unchecked, these stresses will cause deformations of
some structural members which may disturb the alignments and stability of
onboard sensors. Therefore, the heat generated within the spacecraft must be ejected
from the craft. The spacecraft structure is commonly used to provide some thermal
control. This is accomplished by placing heat generating components on highly
thermal conductive structural members which have a conducting path to the
surface of the vehicle where radiative dissipation will take effect.

[Link] Debris Protection

Since all types of spacecraft are in danger of being impacted by either

micrometeorites or some type of space debris, the structure of spacecraft must be
designed to withstand the majority of these impacts. Actually, the probability of a
piece of debris impacting a space system is given by the kinetic theory of gases as

PC = 1 − e( −[Link].T.V rel )

where spd is the spatial density of debris, AC the cross-sectional area of satellite at
risk, Vrel the relative velocity and T the mission [Link] formula is valid for
LEO rather than GEO.

There would be a prohibitive weight penalty if the structure was designed for all
possible impacts, thus the design is usually based on the assumption that the
spacecraft will not be impacted by debris larger than a predetermined size. A size
that has been used for space structures designed for use on or around the moon is a
1 gm micrometeorite with a 1.56 cm diameter.

There are a few different structural methods for debris protection, two of which are
sacrificial bumpers and multilayered protection. The theory behind sacrificial
bumpers is that a bumper can be designed to vaporize both a micrometeorite of
known mass and the local bumper wall upon impact. Unfortunately, if the mass of
the debris is smaller than the bumper is designed for, the bumper will not
completely vaporize and the structure can actually be damaged by subsequent
hypervelocity impact of bumper [Link] optimum back-up sheet (second wall)

27
thickness, tb, for aluminium, is given by the following equation (taken into
consideration that the shield and the debris have to be vaporized during the
impact):

Cmv
tb =
S2

Where t b is the back-up sheet thickness in cm, m is the projectile mass in g, v is the
particle velocity in km/s, S is the spacing in cm, and C=41.5+/- [Link] to the
current data and the predictions about the orbital debris population ,tb for the Space
Station is equal to 0.31 cm in 1995 and 1.8 cm in 2010.

The other method is to combine thermal and micrometeorite protection and use
Multilayered Insulation (MLI). This method is implemented by wrapping the
structure with several layers of thermal protection material separated by layers of
low thermal conductivity impact protection material. This method is typically less
massive, while still as effective as using aluminum bumpers.

[Link] Deployable Appendage Constraints

Thermal flutters caused by the spacecraft's spinning in an axis perpendicular to the

radiation of the sun may cause an encroachment onto the vibrational design limits
of the spacecraft. For a sensor or weapons platform pointing at objects far away, even
tiny structural vibrations can cause large errors. For instance, some instruments on
the Hubble Space Telescope are troubled by the snap and subsequent vibration as its
solar panels expand in sunlight and contract in darkness. Booms and antennas are
areas where thermal flutter can be a design factor, so there will be stiffness
requirements and vibration limits applied to deployed [Link] sources of
micro-perturbations are commonly the reaction wheels, the tape recorders, the
instrument coolers using mechanical cycles (Stirling,..). It may also be necessary to
include passive or active vibration suppression in the design of the spacecraft,
depending on the spacecraft's function and the levels of vibration expected.

[Link] Aerobrake or Aerothermodynamic Heating

Some spacecraft will require an aerobrake to be incorporated in their design. A

detailed discussion of aerobrake design is located in another portion of this manual.

28
9.6.3 Spacecraft Design Criteria

[Link] Mass Distribution

The distribution of subsystem components within the spacecraft is critical because it

determines the center of gravity and the moments of inertia about the craft's
principle axes. Mass distribution of the components should provide minimal
moments of inertia in order to provide optimum attitude control characteristics,
and interfacing with the attitude control team is important. The actual center of
gravity placement will be dependent on the location of the thrust line.

Scientific sensors often need large field of views, and thus may require a boom.
Solar arrays need a surface attachment with a large field of view or are deployed on a
boom. Antennas, particularly high gain antennas, also need unobstructed fields of
view .

[Link] Mass Estimation

Although a significant design process is required to determine the attributes of a

spacecraft structure, for a preliminary design the critical output is the structure’s
mass, and that can be estimated from other preliminary results. Inputs into the mass
estimation include the various mission design parameters and outputs from the
other subsystem analyses.

The outputs from the other subsystems to the structural design will include thermal
loads, electrical and data transmissions and most significantly, forces and torques,
which are driven by the masses of these subsystems. Because of this, the principle
factor in the estimation of the mass of the structure is the sum of the masses of the
other subsystems.

Analysis of the structural masses of various spacecraft is complicated by the wide

variety of definitions of the structure used in the literature. While the primary
structure is always included, the listed mass of the structure may or may not include
the secondary structure, brackets and attachments, booms, various mechanisms and
hardware, ballast, fasteners, and other miscellaneous components. Even cabling,
solar arrays, and the entire thermal system are part of the structure by some
definitions. A list of the masses of a few satellites is given in Table 9.6.6.

29
 Spacecraft Structural Mass Total Dry Mass Comments
(kg) (kg)

ATS-6 212.1 1,297.30

Mariner 5 30.999 244.563
Pioneer 6 17.46 137.94 includes
booms
Pioneer 9 18.10 147.20 includes
booms
Intelsat V 183.1 749.80 includes
thermal
Magellan 246.3 1,046.0
Galileo 255.2 1,051.8
Mars Observer 231.21 1,011.09 includes mech.

Table 9.6.6 Sample satellite structural masses

Based on the data presented in Table 9.6.6, an empirical equation relating structural
mass to non-structural mass can be derived. That equation is:

M S = 0.032M 1.084
N

where MN is the total mass of the other subsystems, and MS is the mass of the
structural system, including booms and mechanical hardware not specifically part of
another subsystem.

For an idea of the mass of the primary bus structure, Table 9.6.7 lists this value for
some spacecraft.

Spacecraft Primary Structure Mass

(kg)

ATS-6 192.4
Pioneer 6 7.01
Pioneer 9 7.03
Magellan 123.8
Mars Observer 135.81

Table 9.6.7 Sample masses of the primary bus structures of some satellites

30
Table 9.6.8 presents subsystem mass data for several spacecraft. The relationship for
structural mass that results from this data is:

M S = 0.315M 1.084
N

where here MS represents the mass of the structural, thermal and cabling
[Link] other commonly used rough estimation of the structural mass is that it
should be, for an optimum design, between 7 and 10 % of the spacecraft total mass.

Subsystem Masses (kg)

Satellite Structure Telemetry Power Experiments Guidance Total

& data & Control

Ranger 6-9 120 40 114 27 47 356

Ranger 1-5 88 30 73.5 24 56 277
IMP A-C 19.5 6 18 1 16.5 61
IMP D-E 17 7.5 19 1 9.5 93
Mariner-R 60.5 38 46.5 24 21.5 198
Mariner-64 62 51 70.5 37 20.5 252
OGO A-E 182 71.5 81.5 49 86 470
RELAY 20.5 20.5 35 1.5 5.5 83
SYNCOM 9 14.5 6 4 0 38
SURVEYOR 1-7 133.5 24.5 45 38 12 356
OSO 70 19.5 23.5 28 113 254
ESRO-II 24.5 10 14 5 21.5 75
ESRO-I A 34 12.5 16 2.5 20 85
HEOS A-1 40 8.5 17 8.5 27 101
ESRO-I B 34 12.5 16 2.5 20 85
HEOS A-2 41 9 18.5 11 25.5 105
TD 184 33 35.5 86.5 116 455
ESRO IV 22 11.5 20 8.5 32 94

Table 9.6.8 Mass Break-down of satellites

Estimation of the mass of the structure can be accomplished by the use of an

empirical function of the total mass of the other subsystems. The simplistic nature
of this function curtails its usefulness in many situations. Some particular design
requirements that will not be reasonably estimated using this relationship include:

Manned systems - The restrictions provided by ECLSS and the high contained
volumes required produce a very different set of constraints from unmanned

31
 systems. An approximation as a fuel tank may produce a meaningful estimate
for some uses.

Re-entry vehicles - The mass of the heat shielding is sometimes included in

the structure. More information on this can be found in the aero-braking
section. The vast range of accelerations possible during aero-braking (the
Galileo probe will peak at 231 g’s) requires a more complex analysis. As an
example for this type of structural mass, the Galileo probe has a structural
mass of 90.7 Kg., and a total mass of 120.6 Kg.

Spacecraft with significant aerodynamic behavior - While this is a subset of

re-entry vehicles, this is an even more complex system and requires an even
more involved analysis. There is much effort underway to model these
systems, especially to assist in the design of shuttle derivatives. For more
information see MacConochie et al.

Large structures - These type of structures are dissimilar to other spacecraft

types, and require a very different design analysis.

Table 9.6.9 presents the total weight of several spacecraft.

32
 Spacecraft Total Weight (lbs., dry)

Apollo CSM (wet) 51,000

Apollo LM (wet) 33,000
ATS-3 805
ATS-6 3,090
Comstar-l 1,800
Echo I 166
FLTSATCOM 2,216
Gemini capsule 7,000- 8,374
HS 376 1,300
Intelsat 2 192
Intelsat 4A 1,750
Landsat 1965 - 2100
Lunar Orbiter 853
Mariner 2 (Venus) 447
Mariner 3 (Mars) 575
Mariner 9 (Mars) 2,200
Mariner 10 (Venus & Mercury) 1,108
Mercury capsule 2,000-3,000
Pioneer 10 & 11 570
Ranger 840
RCA Satcom 1,021
Shuttle Orbiter 150,000
Skylab 167,849
Surveyor 2,194 (596 after landing)
Viking orbiter 5,125
Viking lander 2,353
Voyager 1 & 2 1,797

Table 9.6.9 Spacecraft Weight

[Link] Electrical Grounding

Many spacecraft components need grounding to prevent internal circuitry from

burning out due to environmental electrical fluctuations or the regular operation of
the spacecraft itself. Electrical environments can be caused by solar flares, traversing
through the earth's Van Allen belts, and electrical switching within the spacecraft.
Electrical grounding is a similar situation as the thermal conduction case. Both
require a path of conducting material which will lead to the main structure of the
spacecraft. Fortunately, a good electrical conductor is usually a good thermal
conductor.

33
9.7 Design Verification

The structural design of any spacecraft must be verified, either by a complete set of
tests or by modelling and analysis supported by limited testing. The actual method
of verification will determined by such factors as physical size and the number of
qualification models built. In other words, the structure may be too large to fit onto a
test facility or it may be desirable to limit testing if only the actual flight model is
built. An outline of the common method of design verification is in Figure 9.7.1.

With the use of finite element analysis (FEA) software packages such as NASTRAN,
it is possible to model structures mathematically in great detail, and to examine
their behavior under all possible static and dynamic load conditions. For instance,
in a dynamic simulation, the structure's natural frequencies can be assessed and
relative phase information of deflection shapes at different locations within the
structure can be indicated. Once a complete set of finite element analyses has been
performed on the whole structure and other subsystems, a reduced model, which
demonstrates similar characteristics to the larger version, is used for incorporation
into the overall spacecraft simulation. This model is then incorporated into a
coupled analysis model of the launcher-spacecraft combination so that a full
examination of the complete launch configuration can be [Link], the
results of finite elements analysis might present some important discrepancies with
the actual data. As small joints and mechanisms are difficult to modelize and
subject to high concentration of stresses, the finite element analysis can sometimes
lead to errors up to 40%.In dynamic models, where such details are less important,
the average error rate is around 10%.The fact is that these error rates could be
corrected by a more and more detailed [Link], such an improvement
requires time and money, which are actually the factors that define the limit the use
of FEM in spacecraft design. Usually. a good solution to this problem is to use test
data to correct the mathematical model.

34
 Modelling Quasi-static Modal
(predictions) loading testing

Natural frequency Vibration

determination surveys

Flight Vibration
qualification
Analysis

Shock

Acoustic

Spin

Flight Assessment of Reduced

clearance qualification vibration
tests tests

Figure 9.7.1 Structure Verification [Fortescue 1991]

The structural testing required to qualify an assembly for launch is often

accomplished by subjecting a prototype to static and vibration loads in excess of
those anticipated for flight and the actual flight unit is subjected to near flight levels
(approximately 110%). The vibration testing is carried out in each of the three axes
independently and is used to determine the response of the structure to vibration,
which includes determining its natural frequencies. For large structures that can
not be excited by a single vibrator, a test is performed using small vibrators
positioned within the structure. The placement of these vibrators is done with
information obtained in the FE model.

In addition to vibration testing, the structure is also subjected to shock, quasi-static

load, and spin testing. Shock tests, used to simulate shocks due to releases or
deployments, are performed by feeding a simulated shock into the vibrator to excite
the spacecraft. Since a full static load test can not be realistically performed, quasi-
static load testing is performed by attaching loads to appropriate nodes of the
structure and comparing the resultant deflections to the FEA predictions. For any
spacecraft that will undergo spinning in operation, spin testing is performed to test
its structural integrity and to allow the dynamic balance of the spacecraft to be
measured.

35
9.8 Cost Modeling

A good analysis of spacecraft design cost is provided in Chapter 20 of "Space mission

analysis and design" [Link], the cost of the structure/thermal subsystem
can be calculated in terms of Fiscal Dollars for a given [Link], methods are
given to translate this sum in actual cost, which takes into account not only the
value of the subsystem but also the time spreading of the funding and the inflation
during the project.

9.9 Future Subsystem Report Recommendations

It will be important to better define the output process through specific

methodology, such as Finite Element stress analysis. The mass estimation section
can be expanded by obtaining more data. The materials section should be updated as
new materials are developed. Other areas to look into are relative costs of materials
and configurations, lunar or non-terrestrial materials for space construction, and
structures for large space assemblies such as space stations.

9.10 Bibliography

Blazquez, A.L. Gonzalez, "Ariane V Structural Design and Development," ESA

Journal, Vol. 13, 1989, pp. 13-18.

Caluori, Vincent A., Conrad, Robert T., and Jenkins, James C., "Technology
Requirements for Future Earth-to-Geosynchronous Orbit Transportation
Systems," NASA CR-3266, June 1980.

Carton, D.S., Maxwell, W.R., and Hurden, D., editors, Rocket Propulsion
Technology, Volume 1, Proceedings of the First Rocket Propulsion
Symposium, Cranfield, Plenum Press, New York, 1961.

Chetty, P.R.K., Satellite Technology and its Applications, TAB Books, Inc., Blue
Ridge Summit, PA, 1988.

Damsky, Robert G., "Beryllium Excels in Space," Space, Sept-Oct. 1990, pp. 48-51.

Dunn, Barrie D., Metallurgical Assessment of Spacecraft Parts and Materials, Ellis
Horwood LTD, Chicester, 1989.

Fortescue, Peter and Stark, John Ed.,Spacecraft Systems Engineering, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1991.

36
Gatland, Kenneth, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology, Orion Books,
New York, 1989.

Giraudbit, Jean-noel, Structural design of Aeraspace structures, SUP’ Aero hand-out,

E.N.S.A.E Toulouse France, 1983

Haruvy, Y., "Risk Assessment of Atomic-Oxygen-Effected Surface Erosion and

Induced Outgassing of Polymeric Materials in LEO Space Systems", ESA
Journal, Vol. 14,1990.

Hepler, A.K. and Bangsund, E.L., "Technology Requirements for Advanced Earth
Orbital Transportation Systems," NASA CR-2879, July 1978.

Hunt, Margaret, "Aerospace Aluminum", Materials Engineering, Aug. 1990, pp. 27-
30.

Kelly,H. Neale, Rummler, Donald R., and Jackson, L. Robert, "Research in

Structures and Materials for Future Space Transportation Systems -- An
Overview," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1983, pp. 89-96.

Kempfer, Lisa, "Materials Take Hypersonic Leap into Space", Materials Engineering,
Aug. 1990, pp. 19-22.

Kit, Boris and Evered, Douglas S., Rocket Propellant Handbook, The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1960.

Larson,[Link] and Wertz,James R.,Space mission analysis and design, second

edition, Microcosm inc.,Torrance Cal., 1992

MacConchie, Ian O., et al., Shuttle II : Subsystem Weights Program Development,

Presentation of the 46th Annual Conference of The Society of Allied Weight
Engineers Inc., 1987.

Osgood, Carl C., Spacecraft Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966.

Parker, Earl R., Materials for Missiles and Spacecraft, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., New York, 1963.

Purser, Paul E., Faget, Maxime A., and Smith, Norman F., editors, Manned
Spacecraft: Engineering Design and Operation, Fairchild Publications, Inc.,
New York, 1964.

Rao, U.R., ed., The Aryabhata Project, Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, 1979.

Ring, Elliot, Rocket Propellant and Pressurization Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Englewood Bliffs, NJ, 1964.

37
Silvestri, Goffredo, et. al., Quest for Space, Crescent Books, New York, 1985.

Stevens, Tim, "Carbon Fiber Poised to Dominate", Materials Engineering, Aug. 1990,
pp. 35-38.

U.S. Congress, OTA, "Reducing Launch Operations Costs: New Technologies and
Practices", OTA-TM-ISL-28, (Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, Sept. 1988).

Wolff, Edward A., Spacecraft Technology, Spartan Books, 1962.

Wood, K.D., Aerospace Vehicle Design, Volume 11: Spacecraft Design, Johnson
Publishing Company, Boulder, CO, 1964.

Yenne, Bill, The Encyclopedia of US Spacecraft, Exeter Books, New York, 1985.

38