ai-aerospace/ams_data_full_2000-2020 huggingface dataset:
the cleaning process and prevent contamination sources after cleaning. These changes to the assembly  and test program resulted in power and sign al circuit noise level well below the required values.  RF System  SDO’s data downlink is carried out by a Ka-band RF transmission of 26.5 GHz from a ¾-meter (30 in)  High-Gain Antenna to one of two 18-meter (60-ft) ground station antennas. WR-34 waveguides are used to transfer the signal from the tran smitter to the HGA. They are aluminum, plated with silver. An antitarnish coating was applied over the silver plate. Rotary joints, shown in Figure 6, pass the RF signal with  budgeted 0.2-dB insertion  loss and allow rotations about the two axes. The stationary and rotating  sections of each rotary joint are aligned by a duplex set of ball bearings. The rotating portion of the joint is  driven similarly to the ECRA. A ball drives the movement through a slot arrangement, using a tooling ball  and a clevis with a close-tolerance gap.    Drive  Tooling  Ball  Figure 6  RF Rotary Joint with Drive Tooling Ball (Elevation Axis Shown)  Waveguide Failure Originally, there were two 7- to 11-cm sections of corrugated flexible beryllium copper waveguide on the  gimbal—one in the azimuth section and one in the elevation section. The design intent was that the  accordion-style flexibility would compensate for tolerance stack-up and for slight variations in temperature  or CTE mismatches. During initial Qualification Unit vibration testing, both of the flexible sections broke completely due to low-cycle fatigue.    One cause for this failure was insufficient waveguide support. Some rigid waveguide spans were 25 cm  or more, while the manufacture r recommended 15 cm or less. During vibration, it was shown by analysis  that the flex waveguide saw deflections well above the yield stress point.    The main cause for failure was improper heat treatment and fabrication steps of the delicate 100-μm thick  corrugated sections. Metallographic analysis of the failed waveguide revealed a larger grain size than that associated with the certified heat treatment. There are multiple con ditions that can result in excessive  grain size. Regardless of its cause, this condition was a primary contributor to the low cycle fatigue failure  421
that occurred. There was also concern with the corrugation process, which le d to variable thickness. The  thickness before cold forming is 125 μm. After forming, it was to be no less than 100μm. The uncertainty  added to the difficulty in analyzing the part.    Other problems with the waveguide related to the braze joints between the 1mm thick rigid sections and  the flex sections, a 10:1 thickness ratio. Heat from the braze operation could also have increased  brittleness in the proximal region where all failures occurred. The added thickness at the joint  compounded the stress concentration on the thin section.    Figure 7. Waveguide Resolution - Elevation Waveguide with “P-Trap” section  Failure Resolution For the elevation waveguide, analysis confirmed that the 90° bend in flex could be replaced with rigid  waveguide in a slightly longer, convoluted path. The addition of two more 90° bends created a shape  similar to a plumbing expansion section or a P-Trap, shown in Figure 7. The extra path mitigated misalignment and thermal effects. Tolerance stack-up in the axial direction away from the P-Trap was  accommodated through the use of aluminum shims.    Because of volume constraints, the azimuth section could not have bends, so two approaches were  explored. The first was to procure new flexible waveguides made with properly heat-treated material, and  to redesign the structural supports. New waveguides were ordered and tested with sufficient supports, and this arrangement was deemed acceptable.    The second solution, shown in Figure 2, was to replace the flexible section of waveguide with a slip-joint  section. This was also developed and tested, and it was found to work well. Ultimately this slip-joint  approach was determined to be more robust with no discernible failure mode, and it was selected for use  in the azimuth Waveguide.  RF Path Performance The Ka band transmission performance was tracked throughout the development process. Individual  waveguide sections were scanned at various points during manufacture, test and integration. Upon  delivery from the vendor the RF performance, as measured by Insertion loss and VSWR, was part of the  422
End-Item Data Package. Prior to integration into the gimbal, the waveguide was assembled on the bench  and throughput loss measured. The budgeted and actual losses are shown in Table 1.      Table 1. Gimbal Waveguide Total Throughput Loss  Loss (dB) Budgeted to each Gimbal -1.45 Highest measured in Flight Unit 1 -0.86Highest measured in Flight Unit 2 -0.92 Pointing Capability  The characteristics of the RF system, including the transmitting and receiving antennae and the power  available for transmission, drove the need for an overall allowable random pointing error of + 0.30  degrees. This value includes spacecraft position knowledge, attitude knowledge and control.  The gimbal portion of this pointing budget was 0.14 degree. This random error is measured on the ground to be 0.042  for the first gimbal and would have been 0.062 (not including boom-to-gimbal co-alignment) for the  second.    The total budgeted error for the gimbal, including biases that can be calibrated out, is 0.87 degree. Based  on ground measurements, this error is 0.175 degree for the first gimbal and would have been 0.356 for the second gimbal. The alignment budget and measurements are summarized below.  Table 2. Pointing Budget (Degrees)  Budget Ground Measure  Known on  groundGround-toOrbitRandom Budget  TotalsFlight 1 Flight 2  Hardware Alignment  Errors Gimbal to boom axis co-alignment error .13 .043    Gimbal to HGA base I/f  alignment error .13 .162 .350 Gimbal Interaxial  Orthogonality .14 . .007 .015 Gimbal actuator interface  launch shift .55** .025 .018 Dynamic Pointing Errors  Gimbal/boom dynamic  interaction .04 .011* .011* Gimbal tracking error .08 .041 .061 Total on-orbit error (RSS) .23 .55** .09 .87 .175 .356 Total on-orbit error after  compensation and onorbit calibration (RSS)*** -- .05 .09 .14 .042 .062 * from Qualification Unit Jitter testing  ** Worst case assumption *** Ignores 0.02 degree of thermal effects allowed in budget  The launch shift was budgeted base d on worst case interface assumption s, the measured value were  variations measured be fore and after vibration testing.  423
xii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions  for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operation and Reports, 1215 Jefferso n Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office  of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503 1.  AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2.  REPORT DATE 3.  REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 4.  TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5.  FUNDING NUMBERS 6.  AUTHORS 7.  PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8.  PERFORMING ORGANIZATION      REPORT NUMBER 9.  SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10.  SPONSORING/MONITORING        AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11.  SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a.  DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b.  DISTRIBUTION CODE 13.  ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 14.  SUBJECT TERMS 15.  NUMBER OF PAGES 16.  PRICE CODE 17.  SECURITY CLASSIFICATION        OF REPORT18.  SECURITY CLASSIFICATION        OF THIS PAGE19.  SECURITY CLASSIFICATION        OF ABSTRACT20.  LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102Unclassiﬁed Unclassiﬁed Unclassiﬁed UnlimitedE.A. Boesiger,* Compiler George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL  35812 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC  20546–0001 *Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Sunnyvale, CA NASA MSFC Point of Contact:  Don McQueenAn electronic version can be found at http://ntrs.nasa.gov Unclassiﬁed-Unlimited Subject Category 37Availability: NASA CASI 301–621–0390 The Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium (AMS) provides a unique forum for those active in the  design, production, and use of aerospace mechanisms. A major focus is the reporting of problems and solutions associated with the development and ﬂight certiﬁcation of new mechanisms. Organized by the Mechanisms Education Association, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (LMSSC) share the responsibility for hosting the AMS. Now in its 39th symposium, the AMS continues to be well attended, attracting partici-pants from both the United States and abroad. The 39th AMS was held in Huntsville, Alabama,  May 7–9, 2008. During these 3 days, 34 papers were presented. Topics included gimbals and positioning mechanisms, tribology, actuators, deployment mechanisms, release mechanisms, and sensors. Hardware displays during the supplier exhibit gave attendees an opportunity to meet with developers of current and future mechanism components.  436M–1225Conference Publication May 2008 NASA/CP—2008–215252 actuators, bearings, deployment, design, gimbals, mechanisms,   release, test, tribology39th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium
iii PREFACE 

The Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium (AMS) provides a unique forum for those  active in the design, production and use of aerospace mechanisms. A major focus is the  reporting of problems and solutions associated with the development and flight  certification of new mechanisms. Sponsored and organized by the Mechanisms  Education Association, responsibility for hosting the AMS is shared by the National  Aeronautics and Space Administr ation and Lockheed Martin Space.  

The 45th AMS was scheduled to be held in Houst on, Texas  on May 13, 14 and 15,  2020. Unfortunately, the worldwide COVID -19 pandemic did not allow this. These  proceedings are published however in order to provide these lessons learned and  mechanism design information to the mechanism community. Topics i ncluded  instrument  mechanisms, release devices , Mars 2020 mechanisms , tribology , actuators  and compliant mechanisms .  

The high quality of this symposium is a result of the work of many people, and their  efforts are gratefully acknowledged. This extends to the voluntary members of the  symposium organizing committee representing the eight NASA field centers, Lockheed  Martin  Space, and the European Space Agency. Appreciation is also extended to the  session chairs, the authors, and particularly the personnel at JS C responsible for the  symposium arrangements  and subsequent cancellation and the publication of these  proceedings. A sincere thank you also goes to the symposium executive committee who  is responsible for the year -to-year management of the AMS, including paper processing.   

The use of trade names of manufacturers in this publication does not constitute an  official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
v CONTENTS  

Symposium Organi zing and Advisory Committees  .......................................................................... ix 

Nanometric Positioning with IASI -NG‘s  Beam Splitter Mechanism Actuator  ..........................................1   Francois Barillot, Jocelyn Rebufa, Gladys Jaussaud & Adrien Guignabert  

Spectrometer Scan  Mechanism  for Encountering Jovian Orbit Trojan Asteroids .................................. 15  Kenneth Blumenstock, Alexander Cramer, Joseph Church, Jason Niemeyer,   Fil Parong, Sam Zhao, Nerses Armani & Kenneth Lee 

Point Ahead Mechanism for Deep Space Optical Communication –  Development of a   New Piezo -Based  Fine Steering Mirror  ……………………………………… ….. .................................... 29  Adrian Guignabert, Thomas Maillard, Francois Barillot, Olivier Sos nicki & Frank Claeyssen 

Design, Development and Verification of the METimage Mechanisms  ............................................... 43  Sebastian Rieger & Armin Jago 

Challenges of the Development of a Compliant Focus Mechanism Submitted to the Harsh Martian  Environment for the ExoM ars Rover Mission  ................................................................................. 59  Antoine Verhaeghe, Gerald Perruchoud, Philippe Schwab, Mathias Gumy,   Julien Rouvinet & Lionel Kiener  

Lessons Learned from Q ualification of HDRM for U ltralight LP -PW I Boom for ESA JUICE Mission  ........ 73  Maciej Borys, Ewelina Ryszawa, Ł ukasz Wiśniewski, Maciej Ossowski & Jerzy Grygorczuk  

Development of a F amily of R esettable Hold- Down and Release Actuator s based on SMA   Technology and Q ualification of D ifferent Application Systems......................................................... 87  Marcelo Collado, Cayetano Rivera, Javier Inés, José San Juan, Charlie Yeates ,   Michael Anderson,  Francisco Javier Rivas, Mónica Iriarte, Jens Steppan, Calem Whiting   & Karine Murray  

Development and Post -Testing Anomalies of the Parker Solar Probe Clamshell s Development  .......... 103  Mark Bryant  

Mars 2020 Rover Adaptive Caching Assembly: So Many Challenges  .............................................. 117  Milo Silverman & Justin Lin 

Sealing Station Mechanisms for the Mars 2020 Rover Sample Caching Subsystem  .......................... 137  Jesse Grimes -York & Sean O’Brien 

Design and D evelopment of a R obust Chuck Mechanism for the Mars 2020 Coring Drill  .................... 151  Anthony Barletta 

Percussion Mechanism for the Mars 2020 Coring Drill  .................................................................. 165  Kyle Chrystal  

STIG: A Two -Speed Transmission Aboard the Mars 2020 Coring Drill ............................................. 179  Timothy Szwarc, Jonathan Parker  & Johannes Kreuser  

Development of the Next Generation Battery Cell Isolation Switch  .................................................. 193  Ruben Betancourt & Michel Knight
vi A Fast-Acting Self-Energized, Low -Cost Valve for Air Cannons  ...................................................... 199  Lee Brown 

Development of a Low -Shock Separation Nut Out of the Pyrotechnic Class  ..................................... 205  Sebastien Perez, Frederic Miralles & François Degryse 

Lubricant Degradation in High- Load, High- Cycle Actuator Test Using Heritage Harmonic Drives for the  Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols Instrument ................................................................................. 211  Michelle Easter  

Multi-Mission Deployable Boom: Spring Mechanism  Design,  Failure Investigation , and Resolution  ...... 227  Christine Gebara & Paul Lytal  

NSI Performance Improvement T hrough the use of Automation  ..................................................... 235  Jason Kozmic , Bill Gratzl & Hobin Lee 

Microvibrations Modelling and M easurement on Sentinel 4 UVN Calibration Assembly using a  Piezoelectric 6 C omponent Force Dynamometer  ......................................................................... 241  Benoit  Marquet  

Lubrication Concept Evaluated for Geared Actuators under Starved Conditions ................................ 255  Erik Nyberg, Ichiro Minami  & Jonny Hansen 

Development  of a Universal and Scaleable Mechanism Control Electronics Configured to Application  Solely by Parameter and Software Configuration  ......................................................................... 261  Udo Rapp & Juan Camilo Garcia Hernandez  

Eddy Current Effects in Spacecraft Mechanisms  .......................................................................... 269  Emilia  Wegrzyn, Claudia Allegranza, Thomas Adam , Florian Liebold & René Seiler  

Recovery and Operational Best Practices for Reaction Wheel  Bearings  .......................................... 277  Michael  Dube, Jeff Fisher, Stuart Loewenthal & Peter Ward 

Laboratory Studies of Spacecraft Fluid Lubricant Mobility and Film Thickness .................................. 287  Peter Frantz , James Helt  & Steve Didziulis  

Efficacy of Lead Naphthenate for Wear Protection in High Vacuum Space Mechanisms  .................... 301  Jason Galary  

Bearing Anomaly for the Sentinel 6 Supplemental Calibration System  ............................................. 315  Gale Paulsen, Dylan Van Dyne, Fredrik Rehnmark , Phil Chu & Ted Iskenderian 

Parker Solar Probe MAG Boom Design, Analysis and Verification  .................................................. 329  Weilun Cheng, Calvin  Kee & John Wirzburger  

Development of a Low -Shock Payload Fairing Jettison System  ...................................................... 343  Boris Halter, Josef Zemann, S imon Wieser, B eatrice Burkhart, M athias  Burkhalter ,   Alberto Sánchez  & Oliver Kunz  

Deployment Mechanism for an Earth Re- Entry Deployable Decelerator ........................................... 355  Carl Kruger
ix SYMPOSIUM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE  

Host Chair  – Brandan Robertson, NASA JS C 

General Chairman -  Edward A. Boesiger, Lockheed Martin Space  Deputy Chairman -  Stuart H. Loewenthal, Lockheed Martin Space (retired) 

William Caldwell, NASA ARC   Damon C. Delap, NASA GRC   Jared A. Dervan, NASA MSFC   Adam G. Dokos, NASA KSC   Michael J. Dube, NASA NESC   Carlton L. Foster, NASA MSFC (retired)   Lionel Gaillard, ESA/ESTeC   Claef F. Hakun, NASA GSFC   Christopher P. Hansen, NASA JSC   Louise Jandura, JPL   Alan C.  Littlefield, NASA KSC (retired)   Ronald E. Mancini, NASA ARC (retired)   Fred G. Martwick, NASA ARC  Donald H. McQueen, Jr., NASA MSFC   Robert P. Mueller, NASA KSC   Benjamin J. Nickless, NASA LaRC   Joseph W. Pellicciotti, NASA HQ   Minh Phan, NASA GSFC   Joseph P. Schepis, NASA GSFC   Donald R. Sevilla, JPL   James E. Wells, NASA LaRC   Jonathan P. Wood, Lockheed Martin Space
2 The heart of the instrument is a modified Michelson type interferometer  based on the Mertz concept . This  interferometer embeds a beam splitter blade. The blade tip- tilt positioning is critical with respect to IASI NG  performance. Therefore,  specific actuators are implemented to readjust in orbit the Beam Splitter Tip/Tilt  alignment: the two BSMA. They provide a linear motion to lever arms acting either in push- push or pushpull to provide both axis tilt. Act uation forces shall be sufficient to counteract the stiffness of the mechanism  and to maintain its position after setting; it means a sufficient passive unpowered holding force (actuator  non-powered). Moreover, an additional “vibration mode” (small oscillations at high frequency) is needed to  assess the dynamic sensitivity.  

Figure 1. BSMA A ctuators “ Push-Pull” Configuration  

The major requirements for the BSMA are the following:   • Movement:  45-nm resolution step motion over a ± 40-µm range with up to 20N force  • Launch: withstand launch including up to 50N force on output shaft   • Unpowered position stability:   o 0.15 µm over 24h/1K stability   o 0.30 µm over 6 months   o 1.4 µm long term   • Vibration mode: 0.2 to 0.8  µm oscillations with 10  Hz to 70 Hz frequency   • Driver capability:   o Piezo: Max voltage 120V, Max current 0.1 A   o Mag: Max voltage 50V, Max current 0.3 A   • Cold redundancy  

BSMA Architecture  

Figure 2. BSMA EM With Connector Saver
3 Overall architecture   The core BSMA is based on the combination of the following elements:   • Fine Stepping Piezoelectric Actuator (FSPA): these piezoelectric motors provide a 320- µm  displacement range and a resolution smaller than 50 nm,  • Parallel Pre-stressed Actuators (PPA): these actuators are used to generate the sine oscillations for  the vibration mode.   • Eddy Current Sensor: these sensors are used to monitor the effective position of the BSMA output  shaft.  

In order to achieve cold redundancy, each of these elements ha s to be doubled inside the BSMA. The two  FSPAs motors are connected by a lever arm which sums the position of the two motor s. This architecture  divides by a factor of two the displacement generated by the FSPA. This improves motor r esolution by a  factor of two but at the cost of a doubled stroke for the motor.  

Figure 3. BSMA I nternal Architecture  

Electrical interconnection of the components is achieved through a multilayer PCB that also includes the  eddy current  sensors. A single SUB -D connector is then attached on the side of the BSMA to connect the  harness.  

FSPA Actuator   The FSPA is a new brand of patented piezoelectric motors from Cedrat Technologies. It is a combination  of a Rotating Stepping Piezoelectric Actuator (RSPA) and a differential screw.    This FSPA piezomotor is mainly proposed as a product for industrial and laboratory applications , among  CTEC range of SPA piezo motors  [3]. 

However, its compact design and vacuum compatibility is an opportunity for cost -effective  space  applications such as micro satellites  or constellations nano satellites .   FSPA piezo motors main advantages are:   • 5-mm displacement range with up to 120N driving force,   • compact casing (Ø50  mm x 45 mm) and low mass (150 g),  • typical stepping size adjustable from 50 nm to 250 nm,  • holding force while unpowered,  against external forces , that can exceed 1 kN,  • end-stops that passively prevent the motor from exceeding its operational stroke including  in case  of a faulty command from the user.  

The high holding force at rest allows to avoid the use of an additional launch- lock mechanism.  

This FSPA motor can be used for nano positioning of an optical payload. It could even be used as an HDRM  (Hold Down and Release Mechanism) for another mechanism.
4   Figure 4. FSPA35XS,  Drive Electronic s & Load C urve 

The FSPA stick/slip operating principle is based on inertial forces  as other SPA [4] . The consequence is  that some short current spikes are needed to generate the pulses. For IASI -NG a requirement is to minimize  the need for current spikes in order to facilitate electronic design.  

A magnetic clutch is then added to the or iginal  RSPA motor. This clutch allows to open the contact between  the RSPA module and the rotor when it reverts to its original position. The maximum current for piezoelectric  components can then be reduced below 100 mA (even using larger ceramics than usual).  

Figure 5. Kinematic  Chain of FSPA Inside BSMA  

Figure 5 shows the kinematic chain for the FSPA inside the BSMA.  The step sequence is the following:   1. Start powering the magnetic clutch to reinforce the torque transmission between the RSPA module  and the rotor   2. Power the RSPA module to generate a small rotation. Rotation is transmitted to the rotor through  the clutch.   3. Reverse power in the magnetic clutch to cut the contact with the rotor   4. Cut power of the RSPA t o have it return to its initial position. The rotor stays in place.   5. Cut power of the magnetic clutch. Rotor is then locked in place.  

Each step results with a fraction of a turn rotation ( α) for the rotor. As the rotor is connected to the structure  through screw 1, the rotation causes  a small translation ( α.p1) of the rotor relative to the structure. Further,  the output shaft (which cannot rotate) moves relative to the rotor in the opposite direction( -α.p2) because  of screw 2.   -50510152025 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Speed (µm/s) Load(N)