ai-aerospace/ams_data_full_2000-2020 huggingface dataset:
From these considerations, it is easy to see that if the costs of the valves themselves are similar, the total  savings to a spacecraft (and the development program) could be very significant.  Figure 1. Typical Pyrotechnic Valve and Explosive Chain Accomplishments This project produced many accomplishments over the year. Although generally in chronological order,  some of the accomplishments were a result of the entire effort. This report will detail these accomplishments by category.  Teaming:   MSFC led the effort. GSFC provided Dan Ramspacher, a committed designer, and systems  engineering overview. Mr. Ramspacher and his supervisor, Caitlin Bacha, were instrumental in making  this team work. Ms. Bacha provided Mr. Ramspacher with the resources needed for the detailed design,  offered peer review of the project, and provided leadership in the development of the task and team. The team had weekly teleconference calls, worked issues as they arose, interacting and communicating  well as they performed the assigned tasks. Generally, MSFC provided overall project control: managedschedule and funding, made top-level technical decisions, and performed most of the reporting activities.MSFC and GSFC each performed technical tasks. MSFC provided valve engineering, launch vehicle, engine, and cryogenic payload expertise. GSFC provided additional valve engineering, small near-earth satellite, and operations/handing expertise.  This effort has resulted in a relationship that will extend well beyond this project and has established a  collaborative environment for the two centers in the areas of valve and actuation systems, and component design and development. /g3 Requirements Definition:   The first task the team performed was to define a set of performance  requirements that satisfied the needs of all systems. MSFC provided launch vehicle and stage requirements, as well as long duration experiments. GSFC provided requirements for handling, reliability,  and near-earth satellites. 473
Concepts Development:   MSFC and GSFC each were then asked to develop a set of concepts that met  the above requirements. They were given a few weeks to perform a preliminary analysis of each concept  and present the ideas back to the team. Figure 2 shows these concepts.  MSFC developed 4 concepts:  1) A modified version of the Vacco design developed in 2002,2) A shear disk or “Dual Disk” Valve,  3) A wedge-supported rupture disk or “Wedge Seat” Valve, and4) A piloted balance disk or “Pilot Pressure” Valve.   GSFC developed a concept for a fracture plate or “Linear Disk” Valve based on previous work. Figure 2. Concepts Used in the Trades.  The Vacco design was attractive given that they had fully developed the valve concept. However, they  encountered large manufacturing costs, which could not be reduced with their current suppliers and assembly methods. The valve was designed to have a small poppet embedded in the body that was supported by the actuator. The pressure times area (PA) and spring (Sp) loads are carried through to the  actuator at all times. This loads the actuator with high forces from time the valve is assembled until it is  used. Thus the actuator requires some method to limit travel during testing. MSFC’s concept for this valve  was to use an actuator that had been developed under a task for the NASA Engineering and Safety  Center (NESC). This design could hold these loads continuously and release them through the use of a traditional solenoid system. This actuator uses a unique ball latch system. The MSFC concept for  modifications to the Vacco design was to reduce the high touch labor valve parts using SLM manufacturing methods. This concept was analyzed and found to be possible, but the valve body would still require some machine time and some welding. The forces required for this valve were directly tied to the supply pressure and would escalate with pressure, going up with the square of the area. Scaling up would further increase the actuator load requirements. The MSFC Dual Disk design was conceived to have an internal fracture disk that was sheared by the  release of a large spring load. That spring would push a shear plunger through the internal hermetic seal. 475
Table 2. Figures of Merit and Pair-wise Study Analysis Matrix Pairwise Comparison 953 13 59 Unit Cost X Force Margin Unit Cost X Repeatability Unit Cost X Serviceability Unit Cost X Scalability Unit Cost X Integration Force Margin X Repeatability Force Margin X Serviceability Force Margin X Scalability Force Margin X Integration Repeatability X Serviceability Repeatability X Scalability Repeatability X Integration Serviceability X Scalability Serviceability X Integration Scalability X Integration Table 3. Weighting Factors Applied to the Designs FOM Ranking Vector Weight Unit Cost 1.348 0.177 Force Margin 1.348 0.173 Repeatability 1.348 0.176 Serviceability 1.348 0.163 Scalability 1.348 0.161 Integration 1.348 0.152 8.088 1.0018 Detailed Design The following will provide details of the analysis and design efforts performed to develop the MSFC valve  design. GSFC will write a separate paper on the development of their valve, so it is not covered in this  paper. A future development activity will down-select to the final single valve using the performance, cost, and reliability data obtained from this testing and activity.  MSFC’s Design The original concept of the wedge design was to have a conical internal disk in the SLM body that was  supported radially by a removable conical wedge. The concept was to have the SLM disk as a feature  built directly to the needed thickness and sizes in the body. This was thought to only require a minor  reaming machine operation for clean-up of the wedge interface surfaces before assembly. Working with  477
the builders of SLM hardware, it became clear that the tolerances required by the design to achieve  reliable rupture performance were beyond the capability of the SLM equipment. Thus access to both sides of the disk would be required to clean up the build material. The radial design would have not  allowed 360 degrees of access to the underside of the disk for the machine operations.  The design was changed to a linear wedge configuration. Figure 3 shows the basic concept for each. The  overall design of the radial concept would have been smaller given the flow area was larger for a specificdesign. The linear wedge design allows access to both sides and is simpler to manufacture. This concept was the one taken to final design and used for development testing. Figure 3. Comparison of the MSFC Radi al Wedge vs. Line ar Wedge Designs  From this point, the analysis for the actuator load spring sizes and other calculations was performed. Four big issues were uncertain:  1. First was the variability of the coefficient of friction between the wedge and the disk. This drove the  loads as a function of supply pressure from as few as 30 (130 N) to nearly 350 lbf (1560 N),depending on the values of pressure and coefficient. 2. The second was whether the valve would generate particulate greater than allowed. 3. The third uncertainty was the actual spring rate and capability of the unique spring/bellows  concept. 4. And the final uncertainty was the consistency of the as-ruptured flow discharge coefficient.  To address the first concern, a 10-degree angle was selected to minimize the effect of load on the force  needed to pull the wedge from the pressurized disk, however, the actual effect was uncertain, because 478
Once the spring design was completed and assured that the loads were well known, the actuator design  was adjusted to provide the needed load holding and release capability. The biggest obstacle was to size the solenoid to provide the needed loads. A free-body loads analysis was used to define the actuator  load.  Spring Force = Fs = 700 lbf (3100 N) Reaction Load Per Ball on the Slip Ring = Fr =  Fs/4 balls * sin10 = 30 lbf (130 N) Actuator Pull Requirement I = Fa  Fa = 24 lbf (110 N)= {(30 lb (130 N) reaction load) * (0.2 coefficient of friction) * (4 balls)}   This is the force needed for the actuator. With a 100% force margin, the required solenoid force is 48 lbf (213 N). Figure 6 shows this in detail. Several available solenoids were tested, and a Marotta MV583 coil  was selected. Tests showed the coil needed 0.04-in (1-mm) stroke to generate the 48 lbf (213 N)  required. However, with the need for 0.0625-in (1.6-mm) actuator stoke (1/2 of the ball 0.125-in (3-mm)  dia), the design required a slip feature, such that the ball would push the slip ring axially past the stroke of  the armature to allow the ball to completely unlatch. This feature and a spring incorporated to reset theballs following actuation. Figure 6. Actuator Detail Layout The final MSFC valve drawings were completed and the hardware has been manufactured. Some of the  hardware is shown in Figure 7. The final assembly drawing is shown in Figure 8. Final assembly and  testing is underway as of the date of this paper’s writing.  481
Figure 7. Fabricated Hardware Summary The MSFC hermetically sealed valve isolation valve has been designed as a replacement for the  traditional pyrotechnic valve. This valve was designed from the ground up to address the system designs,  which result in operational complexity. This effort has shown that this design, although maybe not optimal for all applications, does meet the requirements of many pyrotechnic valve applications for spacecraft,  launch vehicle, and lander applications.  The valves MSFC built were “one off” and the cost was high. An estimate of the unit production cost is  provided in Table 4. At roughly $10K per valve, this cost is very similar to the costs of an existing  pyrovalve. So, the direct cost of the valve is a “wash”. The savings from the system design simplifications  and operations enhancements are the primary benefits to be expected. Additionally there is no  requirement for lot testing and depending on the size of the program, the cost of lot test units can be anywhere from $30K to $100K. 482
Table 4.  Projected Unit Costs Part NameHours  To  BuildHourly  RatePart Labor  Costs Material Cost Total Part Cost Machined and DMLS  Body 10 ###### 1, 000.00 $      1,500.00 $            2,500.00 $             Machined and DMLS Bellows/Spr ing 4 ###### 400.00 $         750.00 $                1,150.00 $             Direct Purchased Coil - $                550.00 $                550.00 $                 Machined Coil Housing - $                150.00 $                150.00 $                 Machined Spring Housing - $                250.00 $                250.00 $                 Machined Tube Adapter 2 ###### 200.00 $         75.00 $                  275.00 $                 Machined Adapter Rings - $                50.00 $                  50.00 $                   Machined Armature - $                250.00 $                250.00 $                 Machined Wedge - $                150.00 $                150.00 $                 Ball Support - $                75.00 $                  75.00 $                   Gland Adjuster - $                150.00 $                150.00 $                 Washer - $                20 20.00 $                   Balls - $                20 20.00 $                   Wavy Spring - $                25 25.00 $                   O-ring - $                10 10.00 $                   Bellows Clamp - $                15 15.00 $                   Misc Shims - $                15 15.00 $                   Misc Screws - $                100 100.00 $                 Welding Labor 20 100 2,000.00 $      100 2,100.00 $             Assembly Labor 6 100 600.00 $         600.00 $                 ATP Labor and Consumables 20 100 2,000.00 $      250 2,250.00 $             Projected Unit Cost 10,705.00 $          MSFC Hermetically Sealed Isolation Valve Costs Data 483
competitive with pyrovalves at the component level. If this is true, the systems utilizing these designs  could potentially save millions of dollars relating to simplification of system architecture design,  qualification, and operations. Cost and reliability data is to be determined from a follow-on task that is currently being worked at  NASA/MSFC.  Discussions with several projects have indicated interest in this concept and an e-mail from the Project  Manager of the Lunar Prospector Project has suggested that with more cost and reliability data, it could be considered as a flight alternative for their low-cost project.  A valve vendor has been shown the concepts and they have expressed interest in using some of these  concepts in their product line. They would also like to see additional cost and reliability data. They have  provided a letter stating this interest. Publications and Patent Application Three NASA Technology Report (NTR) disclosures have been submitted. 1. The unique latch system was submitted as an NTR. The application of a standard ball release  appeared to be a unique design.  2. The retractable wedge support system for the disk was considered unique. No other systems like  this were found, so an NTR was submitted.  3. The use of the two previous innovations makes the valve itself a unique design, so an NTR was  issued for the valve concept. These NTR’s will be evaluated to determine the uniqueness and patentability of the design(s). MSFC  submitted a final report on the two designs (MSFC and GSFC valve) in late November 2013 to the funding organization. Status of Investigation The final steps required to complete this effort include final machining of the undelivered parts, assembly,  and the noted basic testing. This should be performed before February 2014.  Planned Future Work Production of a complete lot of valves for testing and evaluation focused on the manufacturing costs,  reliability, and performance necessary to meet projected goals. This effort was submitted as a follow-up TIPs proposal. If not funded in FY14, it will be submitted again in FY15. Additionally, the proposal was  submitted to the ED Technology Excellence committee for potential funding. If the TIPs follow-on is not awarded, then the TE board has said that it will fund this effort. 485
DRAGON - 8U Nanosate llite Orbital Deployer Marcin Dobrowolski*, Jerzy Grygorczuk*/g15/g3/g37/g68/g85/g87/g82/g86/g93/g3/g46/g266/g71/g93/g76/g82/g85/g68*, Marta Tokarz*and Maciej Borys* Abstract The Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences (SRC PAS) together with Astronika  company have developed an Orbital Deployer called DRAGON for ejection of the Polish scientific  nanosatellite BRITE-PL Heweliusz (Fig. 1). The device has three unique mechanisms including an  adopted and scaled lock and release mechanism from the ESA Rosetta mission MUPUS instrument. This  paper discusses major design restrictions of the deployer, unique design features, and lessons learned from development through testing. Introduction BRITE Constellation is a group of scientific nanosatellites whose purpose is to study oscillations in the  light intensity of the most luminous stars (brighter than magnitude +3.5) in our galaxy. The observations  will have a precision at least 10 times better than achievable using ground-based observations. The BRITE (BRight Target Explorer) mission formed by Austria, Canada and Poland will send to space a constellation of six nanosatelites, two from each country. BRITE-PL satellite is based on the Generic  Nanosatellite Bus (GNB) from the Canadian SFL/UTIAS (Space Flight Laboratory / University of Toronto,  Institute for Aerospace Studies). The spacecraft are to use the SFL XPOD (Experimental Push Out  Deployer) as a separation system. Figure 1.  DRAGON Orbital Deployer and BRITE-PL Heweliusz Spacecraft (in a safety box) *Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland /g3 /g51/g85/g82/g70/g72/g72/g71/g76/g81/g74/g86/g3/g82/g73/g3/g87/g75/g72/g3/g23/g21/g81/g71/g3/g36/g72/g85/g82/g86/g83/g68/g70/g72/g3/g48/g72/g70/g75/g68/g81/g76/g86/g80/g86/g3/g54/g92/g80/g83/g82/g86/g76/g88/g80/g15/g3/g49/g36/g54/g36/g3/g42/g82/g71/g71/g68/g85 /g71/g3/g54/g83/g68/g70/g72/g3/g41/g79/g76/g74/g75/g87/g3/g38/g72/g81/g87/g72/g85/g15/g3/g48/g68/g92/g3/g20/g23/g16/g20/g25/g15/g3/g21/g19/g20/g23/g3 487
The first scientific satellite, BRITE-PL Lem, is a modified version of the original SFL design. The second  one, BRITE-PL Heweliusz, has the significant changes – it carries additional technological experiments implemented by SRC PAS. Lem satellite was launched into orbit on November, 2013 as a secondary payload, using the XPOD, on a Dnepr vehicle from the Yasny Cosmodrome. Heweliusz will be launched from China by a Long March 4B rocket. In regards to its launch, a decision was made not to use XPOD  and to develop a Polish-made separation device. The lack of a compatible device on the market prompted SRC to propose its own design. Overview of Nanosatellite Deployers To speed up and simplify placing nanosatellites in orbit in a cost effective way, a few standards and rules  of building nanosatellites was established. The smallest standard unit of nanosatellite, so called 1U CubeSat, is a spacecraft that is a 10-centimeter cube with a mass of 1 kilogram. Each larger standard  nanosatellite is a multiple of one unit. The first CubeSats were launched in 2000, with many more having been launched since then on a myriad of different launch vehicles. To facilitate the launch of nanosatellites as a secondary payload, several orbital deployers have been developed. Figure 2. Popular nanosatellite dep loyers: a) CalPoly 3U P-POD;  b) NASA WWF 6U Deployer (with one wall removed); c) SFL 8U GNB X-POD Being first, California Polytechnic State University developed the Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (PPOD), which became a virtual industry standard. Shown in Fig. 2a, the P-POD accommodates three  CubeSats in a linear configuration of individual satellites but also combinations of satellites occupying the  same volume, including a single 3U (triple-unit) CubeSat. By using the entire dispenser, a 3U CubeSat  can have a maximum length of approximately 34 cm and mass of 4.5 kg. A similar but larger deployer is  the NASA Wallops Flight Facility (WWF) 6U Deployer, which is able of carrying a 10x23x35-cm cuboid payload with a maximum mass of 12 kg (Fig. 2b). Both are characterized by a closed structure that does  not allow for the projection of any part of the satellite outside the container and block electrical noise. A  little different ejector is designed by SFL. Shown in Figure 2c, XPOD has a partially open structure, which  allows the ejection of satellites with sticking out elements beyond the outline of the deployer. XPOD is  designed to carry a GNB-type satellite platform that has the shape of a cube with dimensions of 20x20x20 cm, an equivalent of 8U and mass of around 7 kg. Common features of these three deployers include satellite sliding along guide rails during ejection pushed by a pusher plate that is driven by a linear spring. Other features are a single satellite clamp plate with a hinge on one side and a lock and release system on the other side. During launch, the spacecraft structure is maintained in tension by locking pins located in corresponding sockets on the top and bottom of the spacecraft.  488
Design Requirements The DRAGON project was subject to a very tight schedule. Satellite requirements included size, ejected  mass, ball-pin interfaces, and protruding elements like UHF antennas and a magnetometer. The  Launcher requirements included spacecraft deployment speed less than 1.5 m/s; electrical signal for  releasing to be 0.6 A for 10 sec at 28 ±4 V; telemetry signals indicate door opening and spacecraft escape; up to 12 g of overload level; and a shock of 1000 g. Since original plans assumed the usage of  XPOD, the launch provider supplied an interface bracket mounted to the main spacecraft adapter, which  followed XPOD-like footprint guidelines. This resulted in constraints such as the mounting hole arrangement, limited overall deployer dimensions, and lower dry mass, which was almost 10 kg in the  case of the XPOD. Mechanical Design DRAGON deployer design includes three main mechanisms:  a pushing platform, doors with latches, and  the hold down & release mechanism (HDRM). The deployer structure is made of a nickel-plated 7075 aluminum. It consists of four walls connected at the bottom by a thinner panel. Two opposing side walls  provide hinge support and the front wall provides mounting for the HDRM. The general view of the  deployer is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3.  DRAGON CAD model (in stowed position) Pushing Platform Although BRITE-PL Heweliusz has a structure suitable for sliding along guide rails, it was decided not to  apply this solution. In order to protect the spacecraft better during deployment, a sliding motion along rails  was replaced by a rolling motion. This is accomplished using a pushing platform shown in Figure 4a. The platform consists of an aluminum base to which are mounted two sets of wheels located opposite to each  other. Wheels roll in a groove in the structure's side panels (Fig. 4b). In the stowed position, four conical  elements are touching the sockets in the base panel of the structure, thus transferring all loads. The  spacecraft is located on the platform base in the appropriate slots, and safety brackets prevent it from  sliding off. The energy needed to eject the satellite is stored in a conical spring located between the  489
platform base and the bottom plate of the structure. A conical spring was used instead of a simpler linear  spring to decrease its length in the stowed position, which resulted in a reduction of height of the ejector as well as its mass. Initial force of the spring is 83 N. The pushing platform end positions are shown in  Figure 4c. Figure 4.  Pushing platfo rm: a) main components;  b) view of the initial position; c) view in the deployed position Doors with Latches From the top, the spacecraft is secured by locating pins fastened in a pair of symmetrical doors  containing their own latches. The doors are equipped with locking brackets on one side and are driven by  hinges, attached on the opposite side.   Figure 5.  DRAGON door hinge and latch in the initial (top)  and locked position (bottom) Figure 5 shows one of two pivotally mounted doors which opens rapidly due to the torque from two  double torsion springs (A). To slow down the opening of the door, friction was used to act between a AB C DE 490