Results for “COAX” — Page 3

NASA NTRS2018

Testing and Maturing a Mass Translating Mechanism for a Deep Space CubeSat

Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) Scout is a deep space satellite set to launch aboard NASA’s Exploration Mission 1. The spacecraft fits within a CubeSat standard 6U (about 300 x 200 x 100 mm) and is designed to travel 1 AU over a 2.5 year mission to observe NEA VG 1991. The spacecraft will use an 86 square meter solar sail to maneuver from lunar orbit to the NEA. One of the critical mechanisms aboard NEA Scout, the Active Mass Translator (AMT), has gone through rigorous design and test cycles since its conception in July of 2015. The AMT is a two-axis translation table required to balance the spacecraft’s center of mass (CM) and solar sail center of pressure (CP) while also trimming disturbance torque created by off-nominal sail conditions. The AMT has very limited mass and volume requirements, but is still required to deliver a large translation range—about 160 x 68 mm—at sub mm accuracy and precision. The system must accommodate and protect a shielded wire harness and coax cables during translation. Lastly, the system has been constrained to operate in complete exposure to space with limited power and data budgets for mechanical and thermal needs. The NEA Scout team has developed and carried out a rigorous test suite for the prototype and engineering development unit (EDU). These tests uncovered numerous design failures and led to many failure investigations and iteration cycles. This paper will site each discovery and discuss at length the most surprising and difficult failures to date as the NEA Scout AMT moved through functional, random vibration, thermal vacuum, harnessing, and design life verification testing. A paper was previously presented at the 43rd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposia entitled, “Development of a High Performance, Low Profile Translation Table with Wire Feedthrough for a Deep Space CubeSat”. This paper will make note of specific lessons learned from the test activities: testing ideologies for high-risk missions, thermal mitigation design for small mechanisms, non-flight qualified stepper motor accommodation, harnessing volume allocation/design, and ground testing of mechanisms developed for zero-g environments.

Few, Alex↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

DOE OSTI2025

The ladder and readout cables of intermediate silicon strip detector for sPHENIX

A new silicon-strip-type detector was developed for precise charged-particle tracking in the central rapidity region of heavy ion collisions. A new detector and collaboration at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory is sPHENIX, which is a major upgrade of the PHENIX detector. The intermediate tracker (INTT) is part of the advanced tracking system of the sPHENIX detector complex together with a CMOS monolithic-active-pixel-sensor based silicon-pixel vertex detector, a time-projection chamber, and a micromegas-based detector. The INTT detector is barrel shaped and comprises 56 silicon ladders. Two different types of strip sensors of 78 micron pitch and 320 micron thick are mounted on each half of a silicon ladder. Each strip sensor is segmented into 8 × 2 and 5 × 2 blocks with lengths of 16 and 20 mm. Strips are read out with a silicon strip-readout (FPHX) chip. In order to transmit massive data from the FPHX to the down stream readout electronics card (ROC), a series of long and high speed readout cables were developed. This document focuses on the silicon ladder, the readout cables, and the ROC of the INTT. The radiation hardness is studied for some parts of the INTT devices in the last part of this document, since the INTT employed some materials from the technology frontier of the industry whose radiation hardness is not necessarily well known.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗