was built, the force to move the pin was measured directly. This measured force to move the pin and the  available pull force from the SMA linear actuator, along with the appropriate safety factors, were used to  calculate the force margin using NASA-STD-5017 [8] and ensure that it was positive. The other analysis  evaluated the stroke margin of the linear actuator to ensure that it would move enough to clear the middle  lug in the release plate and therefore release it. This was calculated using the geometry of the design, the  total available stroke of the linear actuator of 7.1 mm, and assuming 10% extra for a positive margin as  suggested by NASA-STD-5017 [8].  The 2nd stage mechanism’s analysis evaluated the force margin of the compression springs, stroke margin  of the release plate, and bearing analysis for linear-guided bearings. The force margin of the compression  springs was calculated by adding up the resistive and friction forces and ensuring that the springs would  overcome these forces, along with the appropriate safety factors. The resistive forces are from the eight  deployable array hooks, friction between the guide pins, and other parasitic drag forces such as  manufacturing misalignments, which were approximated. Additionally, to show the 2nd stage was failsafe,  the margin for a one spring out case was calculated. For the stroke margin analysis, the release plate needs  to clear the eight hooks used to hold the SAs in the stowed position. This analysis was done using the  geometry of the hooks and ensuring that the release plate could move enough with at least 10% more  distance than required. Finally, NASA-STD-5017 [8], gave guidance on how to analyze the four guide rails  and plain bushings used in this mechanism to ensure that it would not bind and the stick-slip phenomena  would not occur. The general rule of thumb is to assume a 2:1 ratio of allowable moment arm length to  bearing length, which would cause the mechanism to become unrealistically long to fit in the CubeSat, so  the bearing length was reduced. To ensure the design would not bind, an analysis was conducted using  guidance from J.R. Schroeder [11], which essentially is a statics analysis of the design.  To aid in verifying that the mechanisms would deploy the SAs in orbit, an Automated Dynamic Analysis of  Mechanical Systems (ADAMS) kinematic model was generated. The goal of the ADAMS model was to  validate the design by showing all four SAs would deploy without adverse effects on the dynamics of the  free-flying CubeSat. Moreover, the analysis was also used to evaluate some off-nominal pre-deployment  rotations to see if there is a state when the arrays would not deploy or cause adverse effects on the  dynamics of the free-flying CubeSat. This analysis also provided a way to support a test-like-you-fly  exception, which is the inability to test the full deployment of all four SAs at the same time. The SMA hinge  springs are designed to open the arrays in the freefall environment in orbit and the SMAs cannot open the  arrays against Earth’s gravity. Therefore, the fully assembled CubeSat’s SAs are deployment tested with  the array’s gravity offloaded on its side, which results in only being able to test two SAs at one time. The  ADAMS model was created to deploy all four arrays at the same time to learn about the full system’s  response and dynamics from a deployment in orbit. Additionally, the model was used to analyze other  extreme initial conditions since it is unknown what state the CubeSat will be in before the deployment  occurs. It could be tumbling and rotating, which would be impossible to test. Other off-nominal deployments  were investigated, such as learning what would happen to the dynamics of the CubeSat if the arrays impact  at different times or if one of the arrays became hung up then suddenly released. The ADAMS model was  critical in observing the dynamics of a deployment from these various initial conditions.  The ADAMS analysis can retrieve other important data that can be difficult to generate from a ground test  or analyze by hand such as deployment impact and latching forces. This information would aid in the  structural design of subcomponents. An attempt was made to correlate impact load test data to the ADAMS  model. However, the test data was significantly smaller than the ADAMS values. A very involved analysis  and testing program is required to get the values to correlate better. This was deemed impractical and not  necessary for this CubeSat project. However, it is important to be aware of the effort needed to capture  these data for large projects.  The ADAMS model that was generated focused on the hinge mechanism and not the R&R since it can  function completely on its own and against Earth’s gravity. The model was useful early on in the  development of the mechanism to give an idea of the required torque needed to deploy the arrays. However,  many unknowns exist with analysis methods alone and it is pivotal to also build hardware to correlate to the  NASA/CP—2018-219887 385