Conclusion and Lessons Learned  The ALBus CubeSat mechanisms are an attempt to advance CubeSat technology by reducing mechanism  risk from deployments of SAs. They also advance SMA technology by demonstrating the use of custom,  unique, and high-temperature SMAs in the space environment. The project illustrates the potential of SMAs  in CubeSat applications where space and weight are limited. This work is also a simplified example of the  steps needed to develop a new design or technology from concept to final product and all of the common  development challenges that occur along the way. Lessons learned include:  •Friction forces are difficult to quantify without validation from hardware tests. •Sizing analyses such as loads, mechanisms, and kinematics should be done early on along with the design concepts even if firm inputs are not available. Do not focus only on the CAD design aspects. •Building an EDU or 3D printing hardware to test is key in any new development to quickly uncover assembly issues and evaluate actual functional performance. Do not only rely on analysis only. •Even though it can be easy to create dynamic and kinematic models for mechanisms, it may be very difficult to get meaningful correlations with the actual test data. •SMA applications should be evaluated from a system level. For example, although the hinge mechanism uses simple SMA sheets, the integration process which involved bolting, riveting and soldering proved to be very difficult. Acknowledgment  This CubeSat project was internally funded at NASA GRC (K.J. Oriti, project manager). The authors thank  Y.H. Hau, C. Redding, and L.H. Yoon for design help. The authors thank P.B. Abel, C. DellaCorte, T.J.  Halsmer, T.L. Kapucinski, D.R. Ludwiczak, R.J. Pawlik, and T.J. Ubienski for technical help. Othmane  Benafan thanks J. Brown from Dynalloy and M. Gummin from Miga Motor Co. for SMA actuator help.  References  1. CubeSat Design Specification, Revision 13, California Polytechnic State University (February 2014). 2. Swartwout, Michael and Jayne, Clay. “University-Class Spacecraft by the Numbers: Success, Failure, Debris. (But Mostly Success.).” 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (August 2016).l 3. Langer, Martin and Bouwmeester, Jasper. “Reliability of CubeSats – Statistical Data, Developers’ Beliefs and the Way Forward.” 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (August 2016). 4. Adam Thurn, Steve Huynh, Steve Koss, Paul Oppenheimer, Sam Butcher, Jordan Schlater, and Peter Hagan. “A Nichrome Burn Wire Release Mechanism for CubeSats.” Proceedings of the 41st Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, (May 2012). 5. Kepko, Larry et al. “Dellingr: NASA Goddard Flight Center’s First 6U Spacecraft.” 31st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, (Aug. 2017). 6. Benafan, Othmane. “Deformation and Phase Transformation Processes in Polycrystalline NiTi and NiTiHf High Temperature Shape Memory Alloys.” NASA/TM-2012-217741, (2012). 7. Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer Mk III Interface Control Document, California Polytechnic State University (August 2007). 8. Design and Development Requirements for Mechanisms, Revision A, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (July 2015). 9. Bigelow, Glen, et al. “Development and Characterization of Improved NiTiPd High-Temperature ShapeMemory Alloys By Solid-solution Strengthening and Thermomechanical Processing.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Shape Memory and Superelastic Technologies, Pacific Grove, California, (May 2006). 10. Miga Motor Company. “Miniature High Force, Long Stroke Linear Shape Memory Alloy Actuators.” SBIR Phase-II Final report, (December 31, 2009). 11. Schroeder, Jonathan R. “Demystifying the 2:1 Ratio and the Stick-Slip Phenomenon: A Technical Whitepaper Explaining the Theory Behind the Binding Ratio and How It Relates to Stick-Slip.” PBC Linear, (May 2010). NASA/CP—2018-219887 388