1 / 33

Space Frame Structures for SNAP

Space Frame Structures for SNAP. Bruce C. Bigelow University of Michigan Department of Physics 11/04/04. Space Frames for SNAP. SNAP already has baseline primary and secondary structures. Why look at others? Minimizing structure mass = mission flexibility

licia
Download Presentation

Space Frame Structures for SNAP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Space Frame Structures for SNAP Bruce C. Bigelow University of Michigan Department of Physics 11/04/04

  2. Space Frames for SNAP SNAP already has baseline primary and secondary structures. Why look at others? • Minimizing structure mass = mission flexibility • Higher resonant frequencies are (almost) always better • Minimizing carbon fiber mass reduces H2O dry-out issues • Open structures provide maximum access to payloads • Space frame structures are prevalent in space (heritage)

  3. Space Frames Features: • Loads carried axially (ideally) • Joints/nodes carry some moments (not space truss) • Deflections scale linearly with length: • d = PL/AE loads carried in tension/comp. (SF) • Versus: • d = PL/nAG loads carried in shear (monocoque) • d = PL^3/nEI loads carried in bending • Fast and easy to model with FEA • Facilitate test and integration • Space frames are ideal for supporting discrete loads • Space frames make poor fuel tanks and fuselages…

  4. Space Frames for SNAP Status of space frames for SNAP (PPT presentations in BSCW PS1300/Weekly): • Space frame spectrograph mount 05/14/04 • Athermal (constant length) strut designs 06/04/04 • Det. space frame designs for TMA-63 07/29/04 • Indet. Space frame designs for TMA-65 08/26/04 • Node/joint design concepts 09/02/04 • Survey of space heritage structures 09/02/04 • Minimum obscuration SMA structure 09/16/04 • TMA 65, fold mirror, and lower baffle 10/28/04

  5. Spectrograph mount Design features: • Hexapod space frame to carry 10Kg spectrograph • 2:1 hexapod geometry => horizontal deflections, no tilts • Attaches to common focal plane mounting points • Essentially no loads carried by focal plane assembly • Simple interface to spectrograph • 3 discrete support points, or round flange • Supports spectrograph load near center of mass • Minimizes moment loads • Simple interface to FP (mount points, cylindrical volumes) • Spectrograph and mount easily separate from FPA • Invar, CF, or athermal struts • Simple control of spectrograph thermal defocus

  6. FEA Model • SNAP Baseline design: • Moly, Invar, Ti flexures • Attaches to FPA baseplate • Loads carried near detect. • Natural frequencies for spectrograph, mount, and flexures: 116, 121, 164 Hz. • Mass: ?

  7. Spectrograph mounting structure Ease of access to detector connections FP assembly with spectrograph included (note redundant str.)

  8. Dynamic FEA • First 6 freq: • 413 Hz • 415 Hz • 416 Hz • 470 Hz • 478 Hz • 490 Hz f1 = 413 Hz, transverse mode, 25 x 2 mm Invar struts, 2.5 Kg, f1 = 675 Hz for carbon fiber (MJ55), 25 x 2 mm struts, 0.5Kg

  9. Athermal Struts Design features: • Thermally compensated or controlled length struts • 3 materials to provide varying expansion/contraction • Avoid high stresses due to CTE mismatches • Provide integral flexures for kinematic constraints • Provide features for length adjustments (alignment) • Application details required for FEA

  10. Athermal Struts Blue = Ti CP Grade 1 --- 17 PPM/K Light Grey = Invar --- 1.26 PPM/K Dark Grey = Ti 6Al 4V --- 6.7 PPM/K L1 = 156mm, L2 = 78mm, L3 =222mm(x2), 600mm long strut

  11. Athermal Struts 2:1 truss geometry on focal plane assy, 600mm long struts EDM cross-flexure

  12. OTA Space Frames Motivations: • Minimize telescope structure deflections under gravity • Maximize resonant frequencies on ground and in orbit • Minimize structure mass, CF outgassing, etc. • Maximum access to optical elements (assembly, test) • Explore parameter space for SNAP structure

  13. OTA Space Frames – TMA 63 Design objectives: • Maintain symmetry to extent possible • Locate nodes for access to primary loads • 3 nodes above secondary mirror for hexapod mount • 3 nodes above primary for secondary support • 3 nodes behind primary for mirror, attach to SC • 3 nodes below tertiary axis to stabilize secondary supp. • Locate nodes and struts to avoid optical path • Size struts to minimize mass and deflections • Round struts used for constant stiffness vs. orientation • Non-tapered struts used – easy for first cut designs • COI M55J carbon fiber composite used for all struts • CF can be optimized for cross section, thermal expansion

  14. OTA Space Frames – TMA 63

  15. TMA-63 structure FEA Elements

  16. Dynamic FEA Dynamic analyses: Telescope mass: 360kg payload, 96kg structures Modal analysis for ground, launch f1 = 72 Hz f2 = 74 Hz f3 = 107 Hz f4 = 114 Hz f5 = 131 Hz Modal analysis for on-orbit (unconstrained) f7 = 106 Hz f8 = 107 Hz

  17. Static FEA First ground mode, 72 Hz

  18. Nodes for space frames Design features: • Nodes connect the struts in a space frame • Accommodate diameters of struts (constant diameter, wall) • Minimize mass (often a large fraction of the mass in a SF) • Maximize ease of fabrication and assembly • Provide attachment points for secondary structures

  19. Nodes for space frames • Molded node, 22mm x 2mm tubes, V = 13103 mm^3 • Invar = 0.1 Kg, Ti = 0.06 Kg, CC = 0.02 Kg

  20. Nodes for space frames • Machined node, 22mm OD tubes, V = 58561 mm^3 • Invar = .47 Kg, Ti = 0.26 Kg, CC = 0.09 Kg

  21. Secondary Mirror Structure Design features: • Minimize pupil obscuration by SMA structures • Minimize structure mass • Maintain high first resonance • Secondary support vanes: • 25 mm diameter x 2 mm wall • Requires revisions to current outer baffle design

  22. Secondary Structure Blue/green hexapod struts are outside of CA

  23. Secondary Structure Trial 9, ring at 2.85m elev.

  24. Space frame developments Latest work: • TMA 65 structure with nodes • Fold mirror sub-frame • Lower baffle structure (Al) and close-outs • Rings have 50 x 50 x 3 mm sections • Struts have 50 x 50 x 6mm sections • Upper baffle mass = 190 Kg • Baffle structure (38 Kg) + close-outs (27 Kg) = 65 Kg • f1 = 33 Hz • CF baffle structure: 20Kg, 40Hz

  25. TMA-65 structure with nodes

  26. Fold mirror sub-structure

  27. Lower baffle structure

  28. Lower baffle, structure clearance

  29. Deformation in 1g held by GSE(baffle displacement~2.6mm) Baseline: mass = 79 Kg

  30. Lower baffle structure mass = 65 Kg

  31. Baffle/OTA Assembly Mode 1, 20Hz

  32. Lower baffle structure

  33. Space frames for SNAP Conclusions: • Space frames are applicable to most SNAP structures • Space frame structures offer significant mass reductions over current baseline designs • Space frame structures provide higher frequencies/mass compared to baseline designs • Space craft structure heritage is well established • Space frame structures will readily scale to larger apertures • Space frames for SNAP: Ready for prime time!

More Related