## 6 Results and Proposal  
The numerical simulations conducted on the CUSP payload yielded highly positive results for both the modal and quasi-static analyses on each axis. The quasi-static analysis, which applied loads of 15 g per axis to simulate extreme mechanical stress scenarios, confirmed the structural integrity of the payload under these conditions. Similarly, the modal analysis, aimed at verifying that the first resonance mode exceed the mission requirement of 120 Hz, indicated that the payload's design was well within acceptable limits, in Figure 5.  
The random vibration and thermo-elastic analyses highlighted the need of a revision of the design of the scintillator frame (due to random vibration) and the interface with the platform (due to thermo-mechanical stress). Therefore, a preliminary optimization, see Figure 6, was developed. We created a reduced mode for the scintillator frame and the interface with the platform. By employing advanced morphing techniques [7], several iterations were performed, resulting in mechanical prototypes that exhibited improved resilience to the identified loads. In this phase, the RS were used to guide the optimization process and identify the most promising designs. The ROM also enable the monitoring  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Material**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Density** \\ **(kg/m\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} **Young’s** \\ **Modulus** \\ **(GPa)** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Poisson Ratio**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Thermal** \\ **Expansion** \\ **Coefficient** \\ **(10\({}^{-6}\)/K)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Yield** \\ **Strength** \\ **(MPa)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ultimate** \\ **Strength** \\ **(MPa)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Aluminum \\ 6082 \\ \end{tabular} & 2700 & 70 & 0.33 & 23.5 & 260 & 310 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Aluminum \\ 7075 \\ \end{tabular} & 2810 & 71.7 & 0.33 & 23.6 & 503 & 572 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Ti6 Al4V \\ \end{tabular} & 4430 & 113.8 & 0.34 & 8.6 & 880 & 950 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} 3D Printed \\ PEEK \\ \end{tabular} & 1320 & 3.6 & 0.36 & 47 & 90 & 100 \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} Tungsten \\ \end{tabular} & 19300 & 400 & 0.28 & 4.5 & 550 & 750 \\ \hline \
\begin{tabular}{c} Scatterer \\ \end{tabular} & 1023 & 1.86 & 0.41 & 80 & 28 & 29.2 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} Scintillator \\ GAGG \\ \end{tabular} & 6630 & 1.86 & 0.4 & 75 & 28 & 29.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Material propertiesof field quantities, providing a deeper understanding of the underlying physics. In fact, limiting the optimization to the evaluation of scalar quantities, such as the maximum peak stress, can be a constraint and may lead to the exclusion of very interesting solutions.  
These optimized components, shown in Figures 7 and 8 were subjected to multiple rounds of testing and refinement, ensuring that they met the required performance standards.  
Figure 5: Results for modal analysis.The first six modes are rigid body forms, meaning the rotational and translational oscillations of the entire system. All subsequent modes represent the elastic forms.  
Figure 6: Rom builder for the I/f payload-platform.  
Figure 7: Preliminary optimization for the interfaces.  
Following the completion of these analyses, a technological demonstrator was developed and fabricated in the workshop.  
A demonstrator like this, in Figure 9 incorporating the optimized components, will be tested in the subsequent phases of the mission to validate its performance under real-world conditions. The parts that underwent optimization and were produced using the outlined method were 3D printed, see Figure 10 leveraging the precision and flexibility of additive manufacturing to achieve the desired specifications.  
Figure 8: Preliminary optimization for the scintillator frame.  
Figure 10: Technological demonstrator.  
Figure 9: Technological demonstrator.