AUSAT Final Report

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, COMPUTER &MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
MECH ENG COMBINED 0017: MECHANICAL HONOURS PROJECT 2010
955: Design, Build and Launch of a Small Satellite Based on

CubeSat Standards
Final Report
AUTHORS:
Callum CHARTIER
Michael MACKAY
Drew RAVALICO
Sonja RUSSELL
Andrew WALLIS
SUPERVISORS:
Maziar ARJOMANDI
Brad GIBSON
October 22, 2010
Executive Summary
The project Adelaide University Satellite (AUSAT): design, build and launch of a small
satellite based on CubeSat designs involved the construction of a picosatellite by five
undergraduate engineering students. The project expanded upon the conceptual design
of a picosatellite presented in the Adelaide Satellite (AdeSat) project in 2007. The work
completed in AdeSat included the conceptual design of electronic systems and the partial
manufacture of structural components. The manufacture of electronic systems was not
feasible in AdeSat due to the lack of mechatronic engineering expertise and resources.
The primary aims of the project AUSAT were to complete a feasibility study, review the
conceptual design of the AdeSat project, manufacture, purchase and test the components
needed to demonstrate a functioning CubeSat design. Completion of a CubeSat design
demonstrates that the University of Adelaide is actively involved in the development of
the space industry within Australia.
The project resulted in the construction of two picosatellites both based on a one unit
CubeSat.
The primary payload of the satellite was an imaging system as this best
demonstrated the functionality of all subsystems. An active attitude determination and

control system was developed to orient the camera towards the Earths surface. This
system included magnetorquers as actuators and a magnetometer and global positioning
system receiver as sensors to determine the satellites states. To receive the image an
S-band transceiver was selected to communicate with a ground station facility.
The first satellite was a prototype used in testing to validate the structural integrity of
the system. The tests required to meet CubeSat standards were random vibrations and
thermal vacuum chamber tests. These were conducted within the project and the results
confirmed that the AUSAT design would be capable of launch qualification. Additional
tests were performed on the solar cells, magnetorquers, battery and transceiver to prove
functionality of all satellite components.
The AUSAT project successfully designed,
manufactured and tested all the components required to demonstrate a functional

picosatellite based on CubeSat standards.
i
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following organisations for providing cash and
in-kind sponsorship,
The Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund
Disclaimer
Research undertaken for this report has been assisted with a grant from the Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith
Fund (Smith Fund) (www.smithfund.org.au ). The support is acknowledged and greatly appreciated.
The Smith Fund by providing funding for this project does not verify the accuracy of any findings or any
representations contained in it. Any reliance on the findings in any written report or information provided
to you should be based solely on your own assessment and conclusions.
The Smith fund does not accept any responsibility or liability from any person, company or entity that may
have relied on any written report or representations contained in this report if that person, company or
entity suffers any loss (financial or otherwise) as a result.
Engineers Australia National Committee for Space Engineering
ii
BAE SYSTEMS
The University of Adelaide

The Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences
The School of Mechanical Engineering
Additionally the authors would like to thank the following individuals,

Dr. Maziar Arjomandi and Mr. Brad Gibson for their time and effort supervising the project,
Mr. Silvio De Ieso, Mr. Norio Itsumi, Mr. Philip Schmidt and Ms. Lydia Zhang for their
work constructing electronics and setting up suitable testing facilities,
Mr. Nicholas Schulze for his work in constructing vital testing equipment and continual
support,
Mr. Pavel Simcik for his work in solar cell soldering,

Professor John Prescott at the University of Adelaide, School of Physics for his help in solar
cell testing,
Mr. Andrew Guidi from AUSPACE for his time and help in verifying orbital simulations,
The Physics Staff at the University of South Australia for their help in setting up
magnetorquer testing equipment and the use of their facilities,
Dr. Michael Riese at the Mechanical Workshop for his guidance in preparing suitable
drawings of the AUSAT structure for manufacture,
iii
Mr. Michael Albanese for his help in broadening the authors understanding of quaternions,
and
Family members and friends of the authors for their continual support over the year, in
particular Kevin Russell for his help in the production of an animation and poster design
used in presentations and Nathan Mcphee for the use of display items at the exhibition.
iv
Disclaimer
We the authors declare that the work presented herein, unless otherwise acknowledged,
is authentically and solely our own work.
Signed,
Callum Chartier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . .
Michael Mackay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . .
Drew Ravalico
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . .
Sonja Russell
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . .
Andrew Wallis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Date . . . . . .
Contents
1
Introduction
1.1 Project Goals and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feasibility Study
2.1 Advantages of Picosatellites . . . . . . .
2.2 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 AdeSat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2 Australian Mircosatellite Projects
2.3 CubeSat Requirements . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Project Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Literature Review
3.1 CubeSat Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Electrical Power . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3 Communications . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4 Command and Data Handling . . .
3.1.5 Attitude Determination and Control
3.1.6 Thermal Control . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.7 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Launch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Mass Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Literature Review Summary . . . . . . . . .
Structure Conceptual Design
4.1 Structural Components .
4.2 Material Selection . . . .
4.3 Manufacturing Process
4.4 Scale Model . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
Electronics Conceptual Design

5.1 Payload Design . . . . . .
5.1.1 Imaging System . .
5.1.2 Beacon . . . . . . .
5.2 Electrical Power Design .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
6
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
8
8
10
10
11
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
13
14
16
19
24
26
30
36
39
40
41
.
.
.
.
43
43
44
44
45
.
.
.
.
46
46
47
52
53
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6
5.2.1 Power Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2.2 Power Distribution Board and Battery Selection
5.2.3 Solar Cell Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communications Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Transceiver Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Antenna Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Microcontroller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1 Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2 Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.3 Microcontroller Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attitude Determination Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1 Attitude Determination Sensors . . . . . . . . .
Attitude Control Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.1 Bulk Temperature Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Internal Electronics Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Detail Design and Analysis

6.1 Final Structure Design . . . . . . .
6.2 Structural Analysis . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Static Loading . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Finite Element Analysis . .
6.3 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 Mission Profile . . . . . . .
6.3.2 Orbit Types . . . . . . . . .
6.3.3 Current Available Software
6.3.4 Orbit Prediction Model . .
6.3.5 Error Analysis . . . . . . . .
6.3.6 Power Generation . . . . .
6.3.7 De-tumble Model . . . . . .
Prototype and Testing
7.1 Solar Panels . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 Solar Panel Construction .
7.1.2 Solar Cell Testing . . . . .
7.1.3 Solar Cell Test Results . .
7.1.4 Solar Cell Test Conclusion
7.2 Magnetorquers . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
54
55
57
58
60
64
64
65
67
67
67
69
70
71
75
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
76
77
77
78
81
82
82
83
84
87
88
90
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
92
93
94
94
95
96
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.2.1 Magnetorquer Construction . . . . . .

7.2.2 Preliminary Magnetorquer Test . . .
7.2.3 Helmholtz Coil Test . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.4 Magnetorquer Test Expected Results .
7.2.5 Magnetorquer Test Results . . . . . .
7.2.6 Magnetorquer Test Conclusion . . . .
Thermal Vacuum Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.1 Thermal Vacuum Apparatus . . . . .
7.3.2 Thermal Vacuum Testing Method . .
7.3.3 Thermal Vacuum Test Results . . . .
7.3.4 Thermal Vacuum Test Discussion . .
7.3.5 Thermal Vacuum Test Conclusion . .
Random Vibration Testing . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4.1 Random Vibration Apparatus . . . .
7.4.2 Random Vibration Testing Procedure
7.4.3 Random Vibration Test Results . . . .
7.4.4 Random Vibration Test Discussion . .
7.4.5 Random Vibration Test Conclusion .
Communication Testing . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.1 Basic Wireless Linkage Test . . . . . .
7.5.2 Wireless Serial Data Transfer . . . . .
7.5.3 Patch Antenna Analysis . . . . . . . .
7.5.4 Anechoic Chamber Testing . . . . . .
7.5.5 Communication Test Results . . . . .
Battery Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6.1 Battery Test Theory . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6.2 Battery Test Procedure . . . . . . . . .
7.6.3 Battery Test Results . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6.4 Battery Test Conclusion . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
98
99
102
103
103
104
104
106
107
107
109
109
109
111
112
113
113
114
114
114
115
115
116
116
116
116
117
118
Finances
119
8.1 Component Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.2 Workshop Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8.3 Estimated Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Management
122
9.1 Time Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
9.2 Team Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
viii
10 Project Outcomes
124
11 Future Work
11.1 Integration of Electronics . . .
11.2 Attitude Control Algorithms .
11.3 Patch Antenna . . . . . . . . .
11.4 Ground Station . . . . . . . .
11.5 Launch Qualification . . . . .
129
129
129
130
130
131
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12 Conclusion
132
13 References
133
A CubeSat Design Specification
xxiii
B Gravity Gradient Theory
xxxvi
C Structural Drawings for Manufacture
xxxix
D Data Sheets
D.1 Solar Cell Data Sheet . . .
D.2 : Battery Data Sheet . . . .
D.3 : EPS Data Sheet . . . . .
D.4 : Transceiver Data Sheet .
D.5 magnetometer Data Sheet
D.6 Beacon Data Sheet . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
lvi
lvi
lix
lxii
lxv
lxviii
lxxii
E Link Budget
lxxvi
E.1 Link Budget Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxxvi
E.2 Link Budget Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lxxvii
F Bulk Temperature Analysis
lxxix
G Stability Analysis
lxxxviii
H Static Loading Analysis
lxxxix
Random Vibration FEA Analysis Report
cxxv
Magnetorquer Test Theory
cxlvi
ix
K Tests Results
clii
K.1 Magnetorquer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clii
K.2 Thermal Vacuum Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clvi
K.3 Random Vibration Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . clxx
L Vibrations Test Pod Design
clxxiv
M Battery Life Test Program
clxxxiv
N Bill of Materials
clxxxvi
O Project Cost Breakdown
clxxxviii
P Time Sheet
cxcii
Q Gantt Chart
cxciv
R Orbital Simulation
cxcix
S Satellite Detumble Algorithm
ccvi
T Microcontroller Code
ccxi
U Ausat Vibration Test Plan
ccxxii
V Risk Assessment Forms
ccxxxvii
W Safe Operating Procedure Forms
ccxliii
X Meeting Minutes
X.1 Supervised Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X.2 Internal Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X.3 Other Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ccxlvii
. . ccxlvii
. . cccliii
. . cdxxv
List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Timeline of related CubeSat projects indicating the scope of AUSAT . . . .

Picture of a COTS camera module used in The University of Michigan
CubeSat, M-Cubed (Heywood, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of a 1.5 unit CubeSat with deployable solar panels (APRS, 2010)
Photo of CubeSat XI - IV with body mounted solar panels (Uni. of Tokyo,
2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of the radiation pattern of a monopole antenna used on
satellites (Antenna Theory, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of radiation pattern of a dipole antenna used on satellites
(Antenna Theory, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Basic loop antenna used for ground communications (IO, 2010) . . . . . . .
A patch antenna capable of receiving and sending signals (Dobkin, 2009) .
Flow diagram for command and data handling onboard a satellite . . . . . .
Diagram of gravity gradient passive attitude control for a satellite . . . . .
Illustration of radiation flux levels on a satellite in LEO (Gilmore, 2002) . .
Cross section depiction of a typical multilayer insulation material
(Finckenor, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A variety of patch heaters that can be used to heat sensitive electronics
(Minco, n.d.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Left: An assembled ISIS CubeSat structure with no side panels, right an
assembled ISIS CubeSat structure including side panels and US quarter for
scale. (ISIS, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An assembled Pumpkin COTS structure excluding side panels (Pumpkin,
2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Left: Illustration of P-POD used to deploy CubeSat, right: Photograph of
internal structure of P-POD showing deployment spring (Munakata, 2009)
CAD model of the skeleton and structure of initial design . . . . . . . . . .
Scale model of AUSAT constructed for demonstration purposes . . . . . . .
Schematic of CMOS and CCD image sensors describing their operation
(Litwiller, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schematic of a basic imaging system (Hecht, 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plot of Airy disc diametres against F-numbers for the visible spectrum . . .
Surveyor SRV Blackfin camera module used in AUSAT (Surveyor
Corporation, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Neon-1 Minature Beacon selected as a secondary payload (Astrodev, 2010)
xi
6
15
18
18
22
23
23
24
25
28
32
34
35
37
37
39
44
45
48
49
50
51
52
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
COTS EPS board purchased from Clyde Space (Clyde Space, 2010) . . . . .
Schematic illustrating the size of an AZUR triple junction solar cell (AZUR,
2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Microhard Nano n2420 S-Band transceiver used in the communication
system (Microhard, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photograph of patch antennas used in the AUSAT project . . . . . . . . . .
Flow chart of the various states and processes managed by microcontroller
An Amtel ATmega 640 microprocessor used for data handling in AUSAT
(Digikey, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Novatel OEMStar GPS receiver used for identifying AUSATs position and
velocity (Novatel, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Honeywell HMR 2300 3-axis magnetometer including case, used for
attitude determination (Digikey, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature profile of the AUSAT structure over an orbit . . . . . . . . . . .
Final conceptual design with skeleton, left, structure, middle, and complete
assembly, right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finite element model illustrating defeatured structure mesh density . . . .
Von mises stress plot from random vibration analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A screen shot of STK predicting an orbital path for an existing CubeSat . .
A screen shot of Orbitron predicting a orbital path for an existing CubeSat .
Representation of the six Keplerian elements (Graysmark Business Systems,
2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three dimensional model (left) and two dimensional ground track (right)
produced by the orbital simulation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power generation plot for each side panel over the simulated three orbits. .
Power generation plot for the satellite over the simulated three orbits. . . .
Plot of power output of solar cells versus solar radiation incidence angle . .
Photograph of the first magnetorquer prototype manufactured . . . . . . . .
Photo of magnetorquer prototype in initial test rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Magnetorquer Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Close-up of Magnetorquer Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of the electronic boards used in thermal testing . . . . . . . . . .
Illustration of the thermal vacuum test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pre-test temperature readings for thermal testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature regime as stated by the CDS for thermal vacuum tests . . . . .
Thermal vacuum test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vibration test pod used to secure satellite in vibration testing . . . . . . . .
xii
55
56
60
63
66
67
68
69
74
76
79
81
83
84
86
87
89
89
95
98
98
99
100
104
105
106
107
108
110
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
CAD model of satellite within test pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satellite within test pod secured on shaker table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Satellite after random vibration testing with loose screws . . . . . . . . . . .
Left: photo of Ardunio microcontroller and battery, Right: Schematic of
battery test rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plot of battery voltage as a function of time for battery test . . . . . . . . . .
Model of Satellite - Nadir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Free Body Diagram of Forces acting on the satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forces creating the moment acting on the satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Satellites furthest distance from ground station diagram . . . . . . . . . . .
Satellite Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simplification Model of Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Principle Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Three Acceleration Scenarios(Acceleration in z, x, y axis respectively) .
Component A - Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shear Diagram, Comonent A, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moment Diagram, Component A, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component B, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shear Diagram, Component B, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moment Diagram, Component B, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component C, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressive Forces in Component C, Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component a, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component b, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forces Acting on Component B, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressive Force in Component B, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shear Diagram, Component C, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moment Diagra, Component C, Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component A, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forces Acting on Component A, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressive Force in Component A, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Component B, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shear Diagram, Component C, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moment Diagram, Component C, Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shear Force in the Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiii
110
111
112
117
118
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxvii
lxxvii
lxxxix
xc
xci
xci
xcii
xciii
xciv
xciv
xcv
xcvi
xcvi
xcviii
xcix
xcix
c
ci
ci
ciii
cv
cv
cv
cvii
cvii
cvii
cix
cxi
cxii
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Shear Stress in the Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buckle Bend Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force in Component Divided by the Critical Force . . . . . . . . . .
Screw Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simplified Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressive Forces in Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Section Area of Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compressive Force in Panel Divided by Critical Compressive Force
Schematic of Experiment Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schematic of the torqu acting on the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High level spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Low level spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zaxis, high level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zaxis, low level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Xaxis, high level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Xaxis, low level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yaxis, high level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yaxis, low level resonance plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xiv
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cxiii
cxiv
cxv
cxvi
cxviii
cxx
cxxi
cxxii
cxlvi
cxlvii
clxx
clxxi
clxxi
clxxii
clxxii
clxxiii
clxxiii
clxxiv
List of Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Component CubeSat operating temperatures, adapted from CanX-1 (Wells,

2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Material properties of Al 7075 and Al 6061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CubeSat separation spring characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estimation of mass allocation for each subsystem in CubeSat designs . . . .
List of components found to be suitable for the AUSAT project . . . . . . .
Specifications for the OmniVision OV9655 CMOS sensor . . . . . . . . . . .
Specifications for the Surveyor SRV Blackfin Camera Module . . . . . . . .
Specifications of Neon-1 Minature Beacon (Astrodev, 2010) . . . . . . . . . .
Power consumption of subsystems on board AUSAT for various operations
Summary of FR-4 patch antenna design parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of PTFE patch antenna design parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal properties of common satellite surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature ranges of a CubeSat with different surface materials . . . . . .
Description of the four internal electronics board within AUSAT . . . . . .
DNEPR Low Level Qualification Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DNEPR High Level Qualification Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modal response of CubeSat found in finite element analysis . . . . . . . . .
Summary of random vibration analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orbital prediction model error analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current and magnetic field strength for various magnetorquer testing
scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expected torque of magnetorquer with various currents . . . . . . . . . . .
Magnetorquer test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disturbance torques experienced on CubeSats in LEO environments . . . .
Zero offsets of the temperature sensors used in thermal vacuum tests . . . .
Modal frequencies of the structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modal frequencies of the mock boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Initial Estimation of Component Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Project AUSAT 2010 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bill of Materials of AUSAT components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Breakdown of workshop hours used during the AUSAT project . . . . . . .
Estimated Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Breakdown of group member allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Centre of gravity calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xv
30
38
39
41
42
48
51
53
54
62
63
72
72
75
80
80
80
81
88
102
103
103
103
106
112
113
119
120
120
121
121
123
lxxxviii
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Sensitivity Analysis Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical properties of magnetorquer 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measured and calculated values for magnetorquer 1 . . . . . . . . . .
Measured and calculated values for magnetorquer 2 . . . . . . . . . .
Measured and calculatedvalues for magnetorquer 3 . . . . . . . . . .
Time sheet and estimated wages for Project AUSAT 2010 . . . . . . .
Time sheet and estimated wages for Project AUSAT 2010 continued.
xvi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cxxiii
cliii
cliii
cliv
cliv
clv
clv
cxcii
cxciii
Nomenclature
Symbols
Greek
Angular Acceleration
Satellite Reference Angle to Sun, Angle between Magnetorquer and Reference

Magnetic Field, Angular Displacement
Wavelength
Mean Anomaly
Torque
Longitude of Ascending Node
Argument at Periapsis
Emissivity
Absorptivity
Rotation of the Zenith Axis
Roman
Internal Area of Magnetorquer
Aperture Diametre, Earths Equatorial Axis, Semi Major Axis
Magnetic Field Strength
Diametre
Eccentricity
F Number, Force
Focal Length
Universal Constant of Gravitation
Orbital Height, Substrate Thickness
Current
xvii
Inclination of Satellite
Mass Moment of Inertia
Length of Magnetorquer, Patch Antenna Length
Effective Extension of Patch Antenna Length
Mass
Mass, Magnetic moment
Number of Turns of Magnetorquer Coil, No
Orbital Radius of Satellite, Distance between two points
Period of Oscillation
Time Interval
Patch Antenna Width
Yes
Subscripted
Greek
er
Dielectric Constant
ere f f
Effective Dielectric Constant
Speed of Light in Free Space
Satellite Precession Rate
Satellite Angular Velocity
Torque Produced by Magnetorquer
Roman
dairy
Airy Disc Diametre
d pixel
CMOS Sensor Pixel Size
fa
Albedo Factor
fr
Resonant Frequency
xviii
GRX
Receiving Antenna Gain
GTX
Transmitting Antenna Gain
J2
Earths Second Dynamic Form Factor
JS
Solar Constant
Torsional Stiffness
LFS
Free Space Losses
LM
Miscellaneous Losses
LRX
Receiver Losses
LTX
Transmitter Losses
ME
Mass of the Earth
PRX
Received Transmission Power
PTX
Transceiver Transmission Power
q IR
Infra Red Radiation Flux of the Earth
Derivative of a Quaternion
Tk
Period of Free Oscillation
Xground
Ground Resolution
Superscripted
Greek
~s
Angular Acceleration in Satellite Reference Frame
~ G
Torque Produced by Magnetorquer Coil in Global Reference Frame
~ s
Torque Produced by Magnetorquer in Satellite Reference Frame
~s
Angular Velocity in Satellite Reference Frame
Roman
B G
Reference Magnetic Field in Global Reference Frame
GT
4 4Matrix of Quaternion Elements
Unit Vector in Direction of Magnetic Field of a Magnetorquer
xix
Abbreviations
ADCS
Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem
AdeSat
The University of Adelaide Satellite
ACMA
Australian Communications and Media Authority
AMSAT
Amateur Satellite Corporation
AUSAT
Adelaide University Satellite
AUU
Aalborg University Cubesat
BCR
Battery Charge Regulator
BLUEsat
Basic Low-Earth-Orbit UniNSW Experimental Satellite
BoM
Bill of Materials
CAD
Computer Aided Design
Cal Poly
California Polytechnic State University
CCD
Charged Coupled Device
CDHS
Command and Data Handling Subsystem
CDS
CubeSat Design Specifications
CIC
Coverglass Interconnect Cell
CG
Centre of Gravity
CMOS
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
CNC
Computer Numerically Controlled
COCOM
Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls
COTS
Commercial Off The Shelf
CS
Communication Subsystem
CSV
Comma Separated Value
CUTE-1
Cubical Tokyo Tech Engineering Satellite 1
DAR
Deviation Authorisation Request
EPS
Electrical Power Subsystem
FEA
Finite Element Analysis
GaAs
Gallium Arsenide
GC
Geometric Centre
GEVS
General Environmental Verification Standards
xx
Abbreviations (Cont.)
GPS
Global Positioning System
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
IMU
Inertial Measurement Unit
IPT
Integrated Project Team
IR
Infra-red Radiation
IS
Imaging Subsystem
ISIS
Innovative Solutions in Space
ISRO
Indian Space Research Organisation
ISS
International Space Station
JAESat
Joint Australian Engineering Satellite
LEO
Low Earth Orbit
MIT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MLI
Multilayer Insulation
MTP
Mission Test Plan
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAVSTAR
Navigation Signal Timing and Ranging
NORAD
North American Aerospace Defense Command
PCB
Printed Circuit Board
PFL
Pumped Fluid Loops
P-POD
Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer
PSD
Power Spectral Density
PSLV
Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
PWM
Pulsed Wave Modulation
RA
Risk Assessment
RF
Radio Frequency
SAR
Synthetic Aperture Radar
SOP
Safe Operating Procedure
SS
Structure Subsystem
STK
Satellite Tool Kit
xxi
Abbreviations (Cont.)
TCS
Thermal Control Subsystem
UHF
Ultra High Frequency
USB
Universal Serial Bus
UTJ
Ultra Triple Junction
UV
Ultra Violet
VGA
Visual Graphics Array
VHF
Very High Frequency
WIA
Wireless Institute of Australia
xxii
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The 2009 Defence White Paper indicated that Australia needs to be more actively
involved in the field of remote sensing satellites (Department of Defence, 2009). This
statement arose from Australias dependency on international partners, mainly the
United States of America, for acquiring space based services. These services include
telecommunications, surveillance and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). A method of
demonstrating Australias investment in developing a space industry is research projects
within universities. Such projects should demonstrate cost effective technical ability
through the construction of satellites with remote sensing capabilities. The aim of project
Adelaide University Satellite (AUSAT) was to demonstrate Australias space science
capability. In particular, the project focused on the design, build, test and integration of
all the subsystems onboard a satellite based on CubeSat standards to be ready for launch
in 2011.
CubeSat satellites fall into a class of small satellites called picosatellites designed for
inexpensive access into space. CubeSat standards allow for ten centimetre cube satellites
with a maximum mass of 1 kg to be launched from a standard deployer as a secondary
payload on larger missions. To date, CubeSat projects have been undertaken at various
universities around the world, including Australian Universities, with varying degrees of
success (Atchison, 2009).
The construction of a CubeSat is a multidisciplinary project involving a combination

of mechanical, aerospace and mechatronic systems.
The five students involved in
AUSAT comprised of three aerospace engineering and two mechatronic engineering

students. This distribution was chosen as it was identified in the 2007 Adelaide Satellite
(AdeSat) project, comprised of four aerospace engineering students, that a lack of
electronics knowledge made the completion of the conceptual design and construction
unfeasible. Incorporating a combination of mechatronic and aerospace students ensured
that sufficient mechanical, aerospace and electronic expertise was available.
1.1
Project Goals and Requirements
1.1
INTRODUCTION
The goal of AUSAT was to design, build and test a small satellite based on CubeSat
standards. All the subsystems required for successful operation of the satellite in Low
Earth Orbit (LEO) environments were purchased or manufactured and integrated into the
satellite design. A prototype was manufactured to mitigate the risks related to damaging
electronics during testing. As the project aim was to demonstrate a functioning satellite,
significant advances in space based technologies were not an expected outcome.
The following specific objectives needed to be completed to evaluate the flight worthiness
of the AUSAT design. The objectives were formed from a combination of specific AUSAT
and CubeSat Design Specifications (CDS: Munakata, 2009) requirements. Qualification
methods were defined as a means of verifying each of the requirements, these are
subsequently listed.
Qualification Methods
To assess the completion of each project requirement the following qualification methods
were utilised,
a. Demonstration. The operation of integrated satellite, subsystems or components of
subsystems that has an observable functional operation without the use of special
equipment or manual manipulation.
b. Test. The operation of a system, or a part of a system, using instrumentation or other
special test equipment to collect data for later analysis.
c. Inspection. The visual examination of system components.
d. Analysis. To validate a proposition based on acquired data.
All the requirements were broken down into subgroups which included design and
construction, material and component, imaging, attitude determination and control,
command and data handling, communications and testing requirements.
2
These
1.1
INTRODUCTION
requirements were then assigned a level of importance, essential and desired, to ensure a
method of assessing the success of AUSAT.
Design and Construction Requirements
1. The design was based on a one unit CubeSat design having a maximum width of 100
mm, with the exception of 6.5 mm extrusions on 5 of the 6 faces, and a height of 113.5
mm. [Essential, Inspection]
2. The total mass of the satellite was not to exceed 1.3 kg. [Essential, Inspection]
3. The centre of mass was to be within 2 cm of its geometric centre. [Essential, Analysis]
4. Rails had to be smooth and all rail edges rounded to a minimum radius of 1 mm.
[Essential, Inspection]
5. A minimum of 75% of the rails had to be in contact with Poly-Picosatellite Orbital
Deplyoer (P-POD) rails. [Essential, Inspection]
6. No external components other then the rails were to be in contact with the internals of
the P-POD. [Essential, Demonstration & Inspection]
7. The rails were to be at minimum 8.5 mm wide. [Essential, Inspection]
8. A separation system for deployment had to be included. A custom system could have
been designed but it needs to be approved by California Polytechnic State University
(Cal Poly) launch personnel at time of launch. [Essential, Inspection]
9. Any deployable component, such as solar cell arrays, had to be constrained during
launch. The internal structure of a P-POD must not be used to constrain deployables.
[Essential, Demonstration & Inspection]
10. The structure had to provide a platform for Printed Circuit Boards (PCB) to be located.
[Essential, Inspection]
11. A single deployment switch was required and had to be located at one of
the designated points.
The deployment switch was to be compatible with +Z

3
1.1
INTRODUCTION
contact point(s), see Appendix A, as defined by P-POD requirements. [Essential,

Demonstration & Inspection]
Material and Component Requirements
12. All materials and components were to be able to operate in a LEO environment and
be within available project funds. [Essential, Test & Inspection]
13. Rails had to be hard anodised to prevent cold welding, reduce wear and provide
electrical isolation between CubeSat and P-POD. [Essential, Inspection]
14. Aluminium 7075 or 6061-T6 were recommended for the CubeSat main structure. In
the instance that other materials are used the thermal expansion had to be similar to
that of the P-POD and approved by Cal Poly launch personnel. [Essential, Inspection]
15. Simulation of expected thermal loads to ensure temperature distribution throughout
satellite allowed for electronic components to operate within specified temperature
range had to be performed. [Essential, Analysis]
Electrical Power Subsystem Requirements
16. No electronics were to be active during launch to prevent any electrical or Radio
Frequency (RF) interference with the launch vehicle and primary payloads. CubeSats
with rechargeable batteries had to be fully deactivated during launch or launch with
discharged batteries. [Essential, Demonstration & Inspection]
17. Required to be able to generate, store and distribute electrical power to necessary
components throughout orbit. Additionally, had to have the capability of monitoring
the performance of electrical components onboard the satellite and avoid over and
undercharging of batteries. [Desired, Demonstration & Test]
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Imaging Requirements
18. A legible image was to be produced on command from microcontroller. [Essential,

Demonstration, Test & Inspection]
Attitude Determination and Control Requirements
19. Selection of sensor and actuator system that was capable of determining the
attitude and controlling the satellite to position the camera over the Earth and reject
disturbance torques. [Essential, Demonstration, Test & Analysis]
Command and Data Handling Requirements
20. The Command and Data Handling Subsystem (CDHS) had to be able to control and
regulate all subsystems through either ground commands or inbuilt programming.
[Essential, Demonstration & Test]
21. Had to be able to encrypt and decipher data sent to and received from ground station.
[Essential, Demonstration & Test]
Communications Requirements
22. Test Communications Subsystem (CS) that was capable of sending/receiving data
from ground station to satellite. [Essential, Demonstration]
Testing Requirements
23. Thermal vacuum bake-out to ensure proper out-gassing of components had to be

done, as outlined in the Mission Test Plan (MTP). [Essential, Test]
24. Structure shall be able to endure random vibration testing performed within launch
vehicle acceptance levels outlined in the MTP. [Essential, Test]
5
1.2
Scope
INTRODUCTION
25. Determination of power supplied by solar cells to ensure all subsystems successfully
operate throughout orbit was to be performed. [Essential, Test]
26. Experimental determination of torque produced by magnetorquers to allow for
control laws to be developed or implemented to commercially available attitude
determination software was to be undertaken. [Essential, Test]
1.2
Scope
The scope of the AUSAT project, represented in Figure 1, was to complete the conceptual
design, manufacture and tests of a CubeSat. The conceptual design furthered work
by Fenton and Tiedemann in 2006 and by a group of four final year students in the
2007 project, AdeSat. At the completion of the project it is hoped that that a final year
project will continue with the work of AUSAT by finalising launch qualification testing,
determining attitude control algorithms, establishing a ground station and launch of the
satellite in 2011.
Figure 1: Timeline of related CubeSat projects indicating the scope of AUSAT
1.3
Significance
As previously mentioned, the 2009 Defence White Paper emphasised the need to acquire
a satellite with surveillance capabilities. It was proposed that the most likely method of
6
1.3
Significance
INTRODUCTION
surveillance would be based on a high-resolution, cloud-penetrating, Synthetic Aperture

Radar (SAR) satellite (Department of Defence, 2009). The acquisition of such a satellite
would allow for surveillance services to be available for the Australian Defence Force.
As the space industry is limited within Australia the first step in developing a national
space program is to develop pilot satellite projects within Universities to demonstrate
technical ability and allow for future advancements. A CubeSat design was chosen as an
appropriate method of demonstrating technical ability due to its recent popularity and
relatively low cost. Additionally, AUSAT demonstrates that the University of Adelaide
is actively involved in collaborating with a variety of organisations and the education of
professional engineers in the processes of satellite design.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Feasibility Study
As part of the feasibility study CubeSat projects, picosatellite projects in Australia and a
CubeSat project at The University of Adelaide were investigated. The study revealed that
picosatellites had many advantages that suited university projects and gave an indication
to the current capabilities and technologies available for CubeSats.
2.1
Advantages of Picosatellites
The major advantage of picosatellites is that they are comparatively inexpensive to

launch due to their weight and size. Launch cost is further reduced as picosatellites
have the capability of being incorporated within launch vehicles as secondary payloads.
Additionally, the recent popularity of picosatellite designs has seen the development
of standard deployers, meaning funding and time do not need to be committed to
developing deployment mechanisms.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is currently investigating

the future use of picosatellite technology for component testing and networking
capabilities (Sweet, 2010). One of the ideas put forward by NASA was to create a network
of picosatellites to communicate with each other. A network of picosatellites has many
advantages over one large satellite due to the ease of replacing an individual picosatellite.
In the event that one picosatellite in a network fails or if a specific component technology
is advanced within one picosatellite it is easier to replace the problem picosatellite instead
of creating an entirely new large satellite.
2.2
History
CubeSats are designed such that they comply with a standard created by California
Polytechnic State University and Stanford University. The standard allows for CubeSats to
be launched from a range of standardised deployers. The purpose of the CubeSat program
was to develop low cost, hands on access to space that can be achieved at university level.
Stanford University launched a microsatellite in February 2000 which demonstrated that
a picosatellite program was both feasible and practicable (Heidt, 2000). The first CubeSats
8
2.2
History
FEASIBILITY STUDY
to be launched were on the launch vehicle Rokot on 30 June, 2003. Rokot launched six
CubeSats, four of which achieved successful operation. Other than QuakeSat, a three
unit CubeSat with an experimental payload, the other three satellites had an Imaging
Subsystem (IS) as their payload (Atchison, 2009).
The three single unit CubeSats onboard Rockot had onboard computers with speeds
between 4 MHz and 16 MHz and a RAM from 0.368 kB to 4.1 MB. The solar cells
used had an efficiency ranging between 16 % and 28 % and a battery capacity ranging
between 780 mAh and 3680 mAh. The CSs on board these satellites included a range
of transmitters, receivers and transceivers at frequencies between 145MHz and 500 MHz
and a data rate between 1200 bps and 9600 bps. These three satellites all used different
methods for their Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS). The Aalborg
University CubeSat (AUU) used magnetorquers and magnetometers. Cubical Tokyo
Tech Engineering Satellite 1 (CUTE-1) utilised a gyroscope, accelerometer and a sun
sensor while the OSCAR 57 (XI-IV) utilised a passive attitude control using an onboard
permanent magnet.
The AUU CubeSat was built by Aalborg University, Denmark and had three months of
operation. CUTE-1, built by Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, and XI-IV, built by The
University of Tokyo, Japan, were still operational as of December 2009. To date, there
has been at least sixteen more successful missions and many unsuccessful missions due
to various complications, including fourteen that were destroyed on a DNEPR launch
vehicle as a result of launch vehicle failure.
Since the CubeSat Program was designed, many universities and organisations around the
world have held CubeSat design competitions, design and build workshops, conferences
and many other CubeSat related activities. These activities have allowed for many people
with an interest in space to improve their knowledge, understanding and involvement in
the space industry.
2.2
2.2.1
History
FEASIBILITY STUDY
AdeSat
AdeSat was completed as a final year project at the University of Adelaide in the year
2007. The primary goals of AdeSat were to complete a conceptual design and partial
manufacture of a one unit (1U) CubeSat. AdeSat was designed to have an IS as its payload
as this the easiest way to demonstrate technical ability and functionality of the satellite
once in orbit . Other than the IS, the main components of AdeSat include solar cells as the
satellites power supply, a monopole antenna for communications and magnetorquers and
momentum wheels for attitude determination and control.
The outcome of the AdeSat project demonstrated that the design and build of a CubeSat
satellite was feasible as a final year project. The students involved in AdeSat were all
aerospace engineering students and therefore did not have the knowledge needed to
design the electronics required for a CubeSat satellite. As a result it was concluded
that a design and build project should include mechatronic engineering students for the
successful design of the electronic components. Without mechtronics students it would
still be possible to complete a CubeSat project by purchasing components off the shelf but
this would cost significantly more than making the components at the university.
2.2.2
Australian Mircosatellite Projects
In Australia there have been two major microsatellite projects the Joint Australian
Engineering Satellite (JAESat), which started in 1997 with launch planned for 2006,
and the Basic Low-Earth-Orbit UniNSW Experimental Satellite (BLUEsat), which is an
ongoing student satellite project at the University of New South Wales. Both projects are
yet to launch a satellite due to insufficient funding and industry collaboration.
JAESat was designed to separate into two sections after launch. The two sections were
titled the master and slave satellites which were to communicate with each other and back
to Earth via the master satellite (Enderle, 2004). The payloads on board JAESat included
GPS and GPS antennas on the both of the satellites, a Star Camera on the master satellite
and a miniature camera on the slave satellite. The structure of the two sections, based on
10
2.3
CubeSat Requirements
FEASIBILITY STUDY
a modular, tray design, was designed such that it could be taken apart in layers allowing
access to the lower sections.
BLUEsat is a 260 mm cube satellite weighing about 14 kg. This satellite project is a student
run project aimed at allowing students from any discipline to get hands on experience
at designing a satellite. The payloads of BLUEsat include a GPS, an IS and a Lexan
Experiment, testing how a material reacts to Ultra Violet (UV) radiation (Thiru, 2005).
Many CubeSat projects around the world are currently under development or planned for
the future. This popularity has led to launch vehicles being entirely devoted to CubeSats.
Launches devoted to CubeSats are beneficial as this allows for the rocket to be designed
around CubeSats instead of a different primary payload that may have different launch
requirements. An example of a launch planned for CubeSats is the QB50 project which
proposed to launch fifty two unit (2U) CubeSats. QB50 plans to launch CubeSats into a
range of LEO environments to collect data about the lower thermosphere. The project also
aims to collect data as the orbits decay and the satellites re-enter the Earths atmosphere.
2.3
CubeSat Requirements
CubeSat requirements were created by Cal Poly as a method of flight quality assurance,
detailed in the CDS, Revision 11. The main purpose of this design specification is to
provide requirements of designing a picosatellite that could be deployed from a standard
deployer reducing the cost of launch. The specifications are broken into two categories
that cover design specifications and testing specifications.
Testing specifications state the requirements of minimum tests that must be performed
on the CubeSat structure. In addition to the minimum testing requirements the CDS also
states that further testing may be preformed if deemed necessary to ensure the safety of
the CubeSat and deployer. Subsystems not highlighted in the CDS testing specifications
include magnetorquers, solar cells, IS and CS.
To perform the necessary minimum tests random vibration levels were obtained from
11
2.4
Project Feasibility
FEASIBILITY STUDY
launch vehicles MTP. The MTP is specific to the launch vehicle that is used to transport
the CubeSat into orbit. As launch was beyond the scope of this years project a specific
provider was not identified. In this case, generalised random vibration test levels and
thermal environment levels were obtained from the General Environmental Verification
Standards (GEVS) formulated by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre (Harper, 2005).
Once flight qualification is obtained the CubeSat must not be disassembled or modified in
any way. A qualified CubeSat is then sent to Cal Poly for acceptance testing that assures
proper integration of CubeSat in P-POD or similar deployers. After successful completion
of acceptance testing the CubeSat cannot be removed from P-POD before launch.
2.4
Project Feasibility
The purpose of the AUSAT project was to demonstrate functionality of a satellite which
would contribute to The University of Adelaides involvement in developing a space
program. Time limitations and funding restrictions were the main factors in determining
the feasibility of an appropriate satellite. The most feasible solution, to demonstrate a
functional satellite, was a picosatellite as many similar projects have successfully been
completed at universities around the world. The main advantage of picosatellites is the
relatively inexpensive cost of launch which is possible due to the size and the capability
of the satellite to be deployed as secondary payload from standard deployers. Recent
popularity in picosatellite projects has resulted in the development of the CubeSat design
requirements. These requirements allow for integration of many existing space approved
electronic components to reduce time spent on designing custom electronic components.
12
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature Review
Seven main subsystems were identified as vital to the functionality of a picosatellite

through the review of other CubeSat projects. Detailed research and comparisons were
conducted in each of the subsystems which revealed the benefits and suitability of each
hardware option and formed the basis of the conceptual design, see 5 - Conceptual
Design. The second area of research was a review of available launch vehicle providers.
Review of picosatellite launch providers allowed for orbital data used in simulations and
vibration levels for testing to be determined. A mass budget was then created to provide
an estimation of the maximum mass that could be allocated to each subsystem.
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
The seven main subsystems vital to the functionality of picosatellites are the following.
Payload: Primary means of demonstrating a functioning satellite. The payload

drives the design of the satellite,
Electrical Power Subsystem (EPS): Generation, regulation and distribution of
electrical power to onboard electronics,
Communication Subsystem (CS): Means of receiving data from satellite to ground
station once in orbit,
Command and Data Handling Subsystem (CDHS): Processing of data received from
sensors which are relayed to actuators or the communication system to control or
transmit data respectively,
Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS): Determination and control
of the orientation of the satellite to align payload and communication system
appropriately,
Thermal Control Subsystem (TCS): Method of maintaining the temperature within
component limits while in orbit and,
Structure Subsystem (SS): Housing and protection of electronics.
13
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of literature of the subsystems is presented in the following sections where initial
comparisons were made to eliminate any components that were not appropriate to the
AUSAT design.
3.1.1
Payload
Payloads onboard picosatellites are greatly restricted due to limitations of size and
mass. To date, common payloads used in CubeSats include IS, beacons, GPS receivers,
gamma ray burst detectors, radiation detectors, impact sensors, biological experiments
and magnetometers (Atchison, 2009). As several of these payloads are built for specific
industry or clientele requirements they surpass the level necessary to demonstrate
technical ability.
The payloads that demonstrate technical ability without involving
complicated designs are an IS, scientific data collection system and beacons which are
discussed in the following sections.
Imaging System
An IS is the most common form of payload used on existing CubeSats. This popularity
arises from well developed camera technology, which decreases the difficulty of tailoring
a camera system to specific CubeSat mission requirements as well as the ability of the
general public to easily interpret the output of the system. The IS usually consists of a
small Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) camera module, a Complementary Metal Oxide
Semiconductor (CMOS) or Charge Coupled Device (CCD) image sensor and custom
designed and built lens and housing.
CubeSat ISs have a low resolution when compared to commonly available digital cameras
for domestic use. Typical sizes for ISs on previous CubeSat missions are 640 x 480 Visual
Graphics Array (VGA) with some early missions having lower resolutions (Atchison,
2009). Future missions plan to use resolutions in excess of two mega pixels (Dontchev,
2010) however imaging sensors with large resolutions record file sizes that are typically
larger than what can be transmitted by the majority of CubeSat transceivers in one
overhead pass. To overcome this issue either large compression on the image file or
multiple overhead passes would be required.
14
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 2: Picture of a COTS camera module used in The University of Michigan CubeSat,
M-Cubed (Heywood, 2010)
Using a COTS camera module is advantageous to reduce the time required to design the
IS. The main issue related to identifying an available COTS module is the difficulty of
coupling a small, low resolution camera module to a high quality lens system capable of
integration to a microcontroller board through standard connections such as RS232. In
addition, a high quality lens is necessary as the quality of the lens is the primary means of
dictating the quality of an image. The University of Michigan CubeSat, M-Cubed, utilised
a COTS camera module manufactured by iDS, seen in Figure 2.
Scientific Data Collection

Scientific data collection is a category of payloads that use specialised instruments
to measure radiation levels, temperatures or the effect of microgravity on biological
experiments. One of the instruments used on previous CubeSat missions is the Geiger
tube, which is designed to detect radiation (Atchison, 2009). The information gathered
by the Geiger tube can be used to determine the radiation in LEO environments and the
necessary shielding required to protect electronics and humans for future space missions.
Gamma ray burst detectors are another form of scientific data collection, which operates
in a similar principle to the Geiger tube. The benefit of the gamma ray burst detector
is the capability of detecting higher energy radiation. Biological experiments have also
been conducted on previous CubeSat missions, however, are not common due to the
15
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
impracticability of recovering the CubeSat for analysis. The most noteworthy CubeSat
biological experiment was conducted by the three unit PharmaSat. The experiment aimed
to determine the effect of antifungal countermeasures on yeast in microgravity and was
considered successful (Prucey, 2009). Whilst other instrumentation such as GPS receivers,
magnetometers and impact sensors can be considered as payloads their primary uses
involve attitude determination or general monitoring in the case of impact sensors.
Beacon
Beacons are the simplest form of CubeSat payloads that are usually used as a secondary
payload in case the primary payload fails. Beacons are basic transmitters that only require
power to operate. Since a beacon is not connected to the CDHS, failure of any subsystem
other than power would not affect the performance of the beacon. Beacons tailored for
CubeSats are compact, low power and offer a cost effective fail safe.
3.1.2
Electrical Power
The EPS consists of all components related to the generation, storage and distribution
of electrical power onboard the satellite. The main components are the electrical power
supply board, battery and solar cells which are discussed in the following sections.
Electrical Power Supply Board

An EPS board is required to distribute the power generated by the solar cells as well as
monitor the performance of electrical components such as the batteries. Furthermore,
since power needs to be supplied to more than one subsystem of the satellite at a time,
the EPS board must have the capability of providing multiple power outputs at different
voltages. The EPS board must be fitted with DC to DC voltage converters since the voltage
generated by the solar cells varies with the orientation of the satellite. Another task of
the EPS board is to manage reverse bias protection for the solar panels. When a solar
panel does not have any light incident on it there is a possibility of it becoming reverse
biased resulting in complications for battery charging. The use of diodes between the
connections of the EPS board and the solar panels prevents any complications when the
16
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
solar cells become reverse biased.
Batteries
The power for CubeSat missions can be supplied by either a primary cell or rechargeable
battery. The first method requires a cell that is fully charged before launch. When
a CubeSat is released from its deployer, the kill switch, required during launch, is
deactivated and the primary cell supplies power to the subsystems of the satellite. The
length of the mission is then determined by the endurance of the primary cell battery.
Once the primary cell battery has depleted the satellite can no longer function. This
method restricts the amount of data that can be received from the satellite.
The most common method of power generation is through the use of an array or multiple
arrays of solar cells and a rechargeable battery. This system allows for a longer mission
life estimated at 1 year or more using a Lithium Polymer (LiPo) battery (Clyde Space,
2010). This compares favourably to a primary cell battery life, which was 50 days in the
case of the CubeSat Libertad (Libertad, 2007). COTS LiPo rechargeable batteries and an
EPS board are available in packages that eliminate custom integration and reduce the
complexity of the EPS.
Either rechargeable or primary cell batteries are required if the satellite is to operate in
eclipsed periods. The four types of cells that are currently used include Nickel-Cadmium
(NiCad), Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMh), Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) and LiPo.
Solar Panel Configurations

Deployable solar panel designs, seen in Figure 3, offer the highest power generation for
a given area of solar cells. The solar panels are held against the satellite during launch
and deployed via a release mechanism at a minimum of 30 minutes after separation from
P-POD. The panels then unfold to form a single face that track the sun for maximum
power generation. Deployable solar cells are commonly used on large satellites that
have precise ADCS. Although deployable solar panels can produce the greatest power
generation they introduce added complexity and a significant risk of failure if the satellite
17
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
cannot maintain a sun seeking orientation.
Figure 3: Illustration of a 1.5 unit CubeSat with deployable solar panels (APRS, 2010)
Body mounted solar panels, seen in Figure 4, are used on the majority of CubeSat missions
since they do not require intricate methods for deploying panels or the use of a high
precision ADCS. With solar panels mounted to every side of the satellite, power will be
generated regardless of the orientation of the satellite provided it is not eclipsed. The
major disadvantage of fixed solar panels is the higher cost required to mount solar cells to
every face.
Figure 4: Photo of CubeSat XI - IV with body mounted solar panels (Uni. of Tokyo, 2010)
18
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Solar Cells
There are various methods and materials that are used to produce different types of solar
cells. The most common of these cells are crystalline silicon, thin film silicon and multiple
junction cells. Thin film silicon cells are inexpensive, however their efficiency is typically
the lowest of the three main types of cell. The maximum efficiency for this type of cell has
been determined as 20.3% with cells manufactured by Germanys Center for Solar Energy
and Hydrogen Research (ZSW, 2010). Due to the low efficiency these cells are not suitable
for satellite missions, especially CubeSat missions where the available surface area is small
and maximum power generation per area is required.
Crystalline silicon cells are capable of achieving higher efficiencies than that of thin film
silicon cells. The theoretical efficiency of crystalline solar cells is approximately 29% and
cells have been manufactured with efficiencies of up to 25% at the University of New
South Wales (Silver, 2010). The higher efficiency of the crystalline silicon cells is beneficial
to maximise the power generation given the small area available on a CubeSat. However,
the cells are significantly more expensive than both thin film and multi-junction cells as
few companies can manufacture crystalline silicon cells with efficiency above 23%.
Multi-junction cells are manufactured by using multiple layers of solar cell wafers made
from materials that are effective at absorbing different wavelengths of light. This allows
the multi-junction cells to offer the highest efficiencies of all the types of solar cells. They
are most commonly used on Satellite missions including CubeSats. The highest efficiency
achieved by this type of solar cell to date is approximately 42% (ISE, 2009). Commercial
providers such as AZUR Space and Spectrolab distribute cells that are integrated with
radiation hardened cover glass to protect the cells once they are in orbit. For these reasons
multi-junction cells the most feasible power generation solution given the limited area
available.
3.1.3
Communications
A two way CS is needed for the satellite to send payload and telemetry data back to Earth
or for the satellite to receive reprogramming changes via communication with a ground
19
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
station. In order to communicate with the satellite a ground station must be established
with a proper radio licence. A transceiver must also be located onboard the satellite with
an appropriate antenna designed to transmit at the correct frequency.
Radio Licence
The most common form of communication for picosatellites is an Ultra High Frequency
(UHF) uplink and a Very High Frequency (VHF) downlink in the range of 145.800 MHz
146.000 MHz and 435.000 MHz 438.000 MHz respectively (Williams, 2010). To broadcast
in these frequencies an amateur radio licence needs to be obtained and the frequencies
need to be coordinated with Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) to ensure that there
will be no clashes of frequencies with planned or existing satellites. To transmit data
a repeater licence is required which can be applied for through the Wireless Institute
of Australia (WIA) and takes approximately 14 days to be approved. After a Repeater
Licence is obtained frequencies can be submitted to AMSAT for coordination.
Recent updates in space communication capabilities have also made S-band transceivers
a possibility in picosatellites. S-band transceivers cover a higher range of frequencies,
2- 4 GHz, and require coordination with the Australian Communications and Media
Authority (AMCA) to obtain the appropriate broadcasting and receiving licences (AMCA,
2010). The higher operating frequency of S-band transceivers compared to UHF/VHF
systems, results in higher achievable data transfer rates. Utilisation of a higher data
transfer rate results in more data being transfer from satellite to ground station per
communication period. In the scenario where all image and telemetry data could be
transferred per communication period an S-band transceiver would eliminate the need
for large data storage onboard the satellite.
Ground Station
The ground station for this project will be a S-Band facility capable communicating
with onboard transceiver. The ground station will require sufficient power to transmit
commands to the satellite and sufficient gain to be able to decode transmissions from
the satellite. The ground station could either be a purchased COTS system for use by
20
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
The University of Adelaide or an existing ground station that is owned and operated by
another university or corporation.
There are a variety of COTS ground stations that consists of antennas and software
to encrypt, decode and process received and transmitted data.
Several models are
available such as the Innovative Solutions in Space (ISIS) UHF/VHF Ground Station
Model GSKITUV which is available from Clyde-Space for a cost of 47,200 AUD or
the UHF/VHF/S Band Ground Station Model GSKITUVS which is also available from
Clyde-Space for a cost of 51,500 AUD (Clyde Space, 2010). Due to time and financial
constraints the selection of a suitable ground station was beyond the scope of the project.
Transceiver Board
The main component of the CS of the satellite is the communications board which will
feature a transceiver, a transmitter and receiver system, and other electronics for the board
to connect to the satellites microcontroller system. The main frequencies which are used
for CubeSat communications are VHF, UHF and S band (Williams, 2010). As mentioned,
S-band transceivers operate at the highest frequency resulting in the highest data rate and
would therefore be most suitable for downloading data accumulated over an orbit in one
pass over the ground station.
Antenna
Antennas used for radio frequency communications can be grouped into six different
categories. These categories are wire antennas, aperture antennas, microstrip or patch
antennas, array antennas, reflector antennas and lens antennas (Balanis, 1997). Size
and weight restrictions associated with compliance to CubeSat specifications restrict the
available antenna to wire antennas and microstrip antennas.
Wire Antenna
The wire antenna category can be broken up further to include monopole antennas, dipole
antennas, loop antennas, Yagi-Uda and helical antennas. Although Yagi-Uda and helical
antennas have potentially beneficial properties, their large size and complex elements
21
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
result in them being unsuitable for use on a CubeSat.
The monopole antenna is one of the simplest of the wire antennas. This particular type
of antenna consists of a single length of straight wire mounted perpendicular to a ground
plane. The resonance of the antenna is controlled by length of the wire. The typical length
of a monopole antenna for optimum performance is one quarter of the wavelength of
the frequency of interest, in this case the transmission frequency. The theoretical radiation
pattern of a monopole antenna is omnidirectional, however, in reality the radiation pattern
is skewed by the finite dimensions of the ground plane. Figure 5 demonstrates the
radiation pattern for a monopole antenna oriented on the z-axis.
Figure 5: Illustration of the radiation pattern of a monopole antenna used on satellites

(Antenna Theory, 2010)
The dipole antenna consists of two sections of wire extending in opposite directions
along a common axis. Dipole antennas can be a range of lengths, however, are most
l l
effective when they are either , or
l in length,
where
l is the wavelength of
transmission frequency. The radiation pattern of dipole antennas is omnidirectional.

Figure 6 demonstrates the radiation pattern for a dipole antenna oriented with both
elements coincident with the z axis.
22
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 6: Illustration of radiation pattern of a dipole antenna used on satellites (Antenna

Theory, 2010)
A loop antenna, Figure 7, is comprised of a loop of wire that can be formed into many
different shapes. Typical shapes of loop antennas include circular, square, rectangular,
elliptical and triangular loops. These particular antennas have a similar radiation pattern
to that of a dipole antenna with the exception that the electric and magnetic fields are
effectively reversed. The dimensions of a loop antenna being relatively flat in one plane
make mounting of such an antenna to the structure of the CubeSat relatively simple. This
particular type of antenna has difficulty in matching the impedance of the transmitter. As
a result, these antenna are often used as receiving antennas, where loses due to impedance
mismatch are tolerable (Antenna Theory, 2010).
Figure 7: Basic loop antenna used for ground communications (IO, 2010)
23
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Microstrip (Patch) Antenna

Microstrip or patch antennas have found significant use in aircraft, spacecraft, satellite
and missile applications due to their small size, low cost, low weight, performance,
and aerodynamic profile (Balanis, 1997).
However, the small antenna profile has
disadvantages of narrow bandwidth and high directivity. A patch antenna, Figure 8,

typically consists of a rectangular or circular patch of conductive material separated from
a ground plane by a dielectric material. Variations within patch dimensions will alter the
resonant frequency of the patch. Adding features and/or varying feed arrangements can
result in the transmission of circularly polarised waves. The radiation of a patch antenna
is significantly different to that of a monopole or dipole in that it is highly directional.
This has the advantage of reducing the wastage transmission power by focusing output
of the antenna in the direction of the patch, however, this also requires that the antenna
be directed towards the ground station for a transmission to occur.
Figure 8: A patch antenna capable of receiving and sending signals (Dobkin, 2009)
3.1.4
Command and Data Handling
The CDHS is the central control process of the satellite that allows various components
to communicate with each other and the ground station. The main component of the
CDHS is a microprocessor, seen as the central unit in Figure 9. The main function of the
microprocessor is to collect data from sensors which is used to orient the satellite to take a
photo, align the antenna with a ground station or maximise power generation. The CDHS
is also responsible for monitoring battery levels so that power intensive applications can
be postponed until sufficient charge is available.
24
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 9: Flow diagram for command and data handling onboard a satellite
Microcontroller
There are three classes of microcontrollers with respect to tolerance of electromagnetic
radiation: radiation soft or COTS, radiation tolerant and radiation hard. Radiation soft
components are COTS electronics which have no radiation protection. Radiation tolerant
devices are those that have undergone some radiation testing but are not suitable to use
in high radiation environments. Radiation hardened electronics are those which have
been rated to withstand high levels of radiation and are rated for use in industrial and
aerospace applications.
Previous CubeSat Microcontrollers

The majority of the previous CubeSat missions utilised custom microcontroller boards
with COTS microprocessors; however some incorporated COTS microcontroller boards
from CubeSat manufacturers. Common COTS microprocessors include the ARM7, PIC16
and MSP430s (Atchison, 2009). COTS microprocessors have been used for all of the
CubeSat missions rather than radiation tolerant or radiation hardened processors. The
two main COTS microcontroller boards available are the motherboard from Pumpkin
25
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
with a MSP430 chip costing 1600 AUD or the NanoMind from ISIS with an ARM7
microprocessor costing 4300 AUD. Both of these COTS boards conform to the size
restrictions stated in the CubeSat standards.
3.1.5
Attitude Determination and Control
Attitude determination and control is typically a major spacecraft subsystem (de Weck,
2001). This subsystem is responsible for determining the attitude of a spacecraft and
manipulating the attitude to satisfy mission requirements. An ADCS is comprised of a
variety of sensors to detect the attitude of the spacecraft as well as a variety of actuators
to modify the attitude whilst in orbit. Since many payloads, such as an IS, require
orientation towards a subject it is essential to have methods of attitude control and hence
attitude determination is required. Additionally, communications systems that consist of
a directional antenna require some form of attitude control. The following sections detail
sensors and actuators used on CubeSats for an ADCS.
Sensors
Attitude determination requires a combination of sensors that are capable of measuring
the orientation whilst in orbit. There are many different types of sensors capable of
performing this function, however some are not suited to small systems, such as a
CubeSat, due to size or power requirements.
Magnetometer
A magnetometer is an electromagnetic device capable of accurately measuring magnetic
field strength and direction. The information obtained from a magnetometer is compared
to a magnetic map of the Earth such that the position of the satellite can be determined
(Acua, 2002). The use of three magnetometers in orthogonal axis allows for three axis
attitude determination of the satellite. Magnetometers are commonly used as they are
commercially available, lightweight and have low power consumption. To integrate a
magnetometer within a CubeSat magnetic disturbances, generated by the operation of
onboard electronic components, needs to be accounted for if any accurate measurements
26
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
are to be taken.
Sun Sensor
A sun sensor consists of a photodiode and an aperture that can be used to detect the
vector of the sun with respect to the satellite. Sun sensors are highly accurate, lightweight
and compact. Solar cells are also capable of acting as a sun sensor, albeit with a lower
accuracy. By measuring the power generation of the cells for all radiation incidence angles
the telemetry provided by the EPS can be used to determine the orientation of the satellite
in a similar method to that of a sun sensor. Using the solar cells in this fashion as opposed
to separate sun sensors requires less components and hence less mass.
GPS Receiver
A GPS receiver is capable of determining the longitude and latitude of a CubeSat in
orbit through the use of the existing Navigation Signal Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR)
satellite network. Time stamps from each of the NAVSTAR satellites visible to the satellite
are compared to an internal clock in the GPS receiver. The time difference can be used
to determine the distance of a CubeSat from each NAVSTAR satellite. The information
from three NAVSTAR satellites can be used to triangulate the latitude and longitude of a
CubeSat (Space and Tech, 2001). Using information from four or more NAVSTARs will
also add the ability to determine altitude of a CubeSat. However, a GPS receiver does
not determine the attitude of a CubeSat a GPS receiver is small, lightweight and does not
consume excessive power.
Inertial Measurement Sensors

Inertial measurement sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes can be used
to determine the angular velocity and acceleration.
While by themselves inertial
measurement sensors cannot determine attitude they can be useful in a feedback loop
into active attitude actuators to control angular rates and for de-tumbling controllers.
The sensors need to be carefully calibrated to ensure that drift does not compromise the
accuracy of the measurements.
27
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Other Sensors
Other sensors such as horizon and star sensors have been used successfully on large
satellite missions, however due to complexity were not deemed suitable for CubeSats.
Passive Actuators
Passive actuators are useful for both completely stabilising picosatellites and in
conjunction with active actuators to help avoid auto control systems becoming unstable,
which leads to oscillatory behaviour. Passive actuators aim to naturally reject disturbance
torques without the use of electrical power or gas propulsion.
Gravity Gradient
Gravity gradients are used in many satellites as a form of passive attitude control by
utilising the change in gravitational force over the length of the satellite, illustrated in
Figure 10. A moment is created due to the difference in gravitational forces between top,
m1 , and bottom mass, m2 , which acts to orient the satellite with both masses in the Nadir
axis, see Appendix B for details.
Figure 10: Diagram of gravity gradient passive attitude control for a satellite
28
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Once the satellites attitude is corrected there is little damping causing the satellite to
oscillate like a pendulum. This oscillation can be damped by incorporating a system into
the satellite that can diffuse energy. In the past some satellites have overcome this problem
by enclosing a liquid on board that can dissipate energy through sloshing (Frontires,
1993).
Permanent Magnets
Fixed permanent magnets have been used on CubeSats to continually align with the
magnetic field of the Earth. Although the magnets would reject disturbance torques
continual orientation of antennas to the surface would not be possible with this form of
attitude control. Although the magnets would be an inexpensive form of attitude control
careful designing would be required as the strong local magnetic fields could have adverse
impacts on electronic devices on board the satellite.
Active Actuators
Active actuators provide a more precise control for satellites compared to passive
actuators.
Data is read from attitude sensors and fed into a control system that
generates the necessary torque to orient the satellite in any desired direction. This allows
flexibility in re-orienting the satellite to improve communication abilities or to improve the
effectiveness of the payload systems. Active control also allows for the greatest rejection
of disturbance torques.
Magnetorquers
A magnetorquer consists of a coil of wire that produces a rotational torque when an
electric current is passed through the coil similar to inductors. Unlike inductors that
are wound to produce maximum inductance, magnetorquers are wound to provide
maximum rotational torque on the coil. Magnetorquers have been used extensively
among CubeSat designers due to their simple and robust method of torque generation as
well as their lightweight, compact construction and lack of any moving parts (Atchison,
2009).
29
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Momentum Wheels
Momentum wheels utilise three orthogonal spinning discs, one for each of axis, to
generate control torques. Any change in the angular acceleration of one or more of the
wheels will result in a net torque being generated in the axial direction of the wheel(s).
This type of system is disadvantageous for CubeSats as it requires appreciable volume
and requires constant power input.
Particle Propulsion
The use of gas propulsion is commonly used on large satellites and is a very effective
way of providing control torques on a satellite. These systems are unsuitable for use in
CubeSats due to their volume and mass requirements. Attempts of designing a miniature
particle propulsion system by Paulo Lozano from Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) could lead to a viable attitude control solution, however no working system has
been created to date (Bettex, 2010).
3.1.6
Thermal Control
TCSs onboard satellites are used to protect onboard electronics form the severe thermal
loading experienced throughout an orbit. The methods of thermal control are broken
into passive and active categories. Both passive and active systems protect electronics by
regulating the temperature of components through a variety of methods. Regulation of
temperatures is vital for maximising the performance of components and is essential in
complying with manufacturers and standards, Table 1.
Table 1: Component CubeSat operating temperatures, adapted from CanX-1 (Wells, 2002)
Component
On board computer
CMOS Imager (Operation)
CMOS Imager (Storage)
Battery (Charge)
Battery (Discharge)
EPS
Transceiver
Min Temp. [C]

- 40
-5
-40
0
-20
-55
-40
30
Max Temp. [C]

85
65
85
40
60
85
85
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although both passive and active TCSs are used on large satellites such as the
International Space Station (ISS), space and power requirements make an active system
difficult to implement (Delil, 2003). The following sections detail the thermal environment
in orbit and the various methods of passive and active thermal control.
Thermal Environment
The severe thermal environment experienced in LEO is dependent on three primary
factors. These factors are high incidence radiation loads, low temperature surroundings
and internal heat generation. The interaction between these factors results in significant
thermal loading that necessitates the need for a TCS to maintain the temperature of vital
components within operating limits.
High radiation loads arise from three main sources, Figure 11. The first source is direct
solar radiation fluxes which can vary from a maximum of 1428 W/m2 to a minimum
of 1316 W/m2 depending on the time of year and solar cycle (Abouel-Fotouh, 2006). The
second source is infrared radiation fluxes from the Earths atmosphere. As the atmosphere
can be approximated as a uniform temperature black body of 288K the resulting radiation
flux is approximated at 240 W/m2 (Abouel-Fotouh, 2006). The last major source of
incidence radiation results from reflected solar radiation from the atmosphere, known
as the albedo effect. The albedo factor is the ratio of solar radiation incidence on the
Earth to reflected solar radiation and its mean value is 0.3. To avoid issues of exceeding
maximum operating temperatures a thermal control method is required to insulate
sensitive components from external radiation and provide sufficient heat dissipation to
the surroundings.
31
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 11: Illustration of radiation flux levels on a satellite in LEO (Gilmore, 2002)
Low temperature, vacuum surroundings are also present in a LEO environment. The
LEO environment can be accurately modelled as a black body at a mean temperature
of 4K (Abouel-Fotouh, 2006). The extreme surroundings result in high radiation losses
from exterior panels of the satellite that have no incident radiation loads. These losses
are most significant when the satellite is in eclipse and the only incoming source of
radiation is infrared sources from the Earth.
As infrared sources are significantly
lower than solar radiation fluxes the satellites thermal equilibrium is lower than during
sunlight.
Converse to the high radiation loads, the low temperature surroundings
damage components if minimum operational temperatures are exceeded. To ensure vital

electronics are not activated below minimum operating temperatures adequate heating
may also be required.
Internal heat generation from electronic components is also considered in the selection of
thermal control systems. Electronics on Earth are primarily cooled through the principle
of convection, however satellites operate in a vacuum where heat cannot dissipate
through convection. Additionally, radiation from electronic components is limited as the
majority of internal structures and components are maintained at similar temperatures.
The thermal control design must therefore incorporate a pathway for conduction from
electronics to the frame of the satellite to ensure sufficient heat dissipation.
32
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Passive Thermal Control

Passive TCSs regulate the temperature of onboard electronics without the use of power,
moving parts or working fluids.
Instead, passive systems are designed to utilise
favourable radiation and conduction properties of materials. Previous passive systems

used on satellites are discussed in the following sections.
Surface Coatings
Surface coatings are the primary means of thermal control for CubeSats as such methods
require no power or space. The level of radiation absorbed and reflected by the satellite
is controlled by application of a surface coating. Surface coatings usually have high
emissivity to absorptivity ratios, e/, which results in the majority of external radiation
being reflected to reduce external surface temperatures or internal radiation reflected to
minimise internal heat losses. Black paint is commonly used to line the internal structure
to assist radiant heat transfer between electronic components (Gilmore, 2002). Similarly
metallic surfaces, solar cells and foils have been utilised in previous CubeSat missions to
improve exterior surface characteristics to decrease the temperature range experienced in
direct sunlight and eclipse (Abouel-Fotouh, 2006).
Insulation
Multilayer Insulation (MLI) and single layered radiation barriers are common means
of thermal control in picosatellites (Gilmore, 2002). Insulation materials are low cost
and easily integrated into confined spaces. The main mechanism involved in insulation
materials is decreased heat conduction as a result of low thermal conductivity. Materials
such as MLI, Figure 12, are coated on electronics to prevent heat loss and on the internal
side of the structural panels to reduce the heat absorption and propagation from solar
panels and exterior faces.
33
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 12: Cross section depiction of a typical multilayer insulation material (Finckenor,
1999)
Phase Change Materials
Phase change materials absorb relatively high amounts of energy compared to other
thermal control methods in the melting, vaporisation and sublimation of materials.
Vaporisation and sublimation processes undergo large volumetric changes and are
usually utilised as open circuit systems where the vapour is vented to space (Gilmore,
2002). This process is not suitable for CubeSat designs due to space and mass restrictions.
Other phase change materials such as solid heat sinks or heat pipes are also implemented
in satellites. These processes require substantial volume and are suited for large satellite
applications.
Active Thermal Control

Active thermal control methods regulate temperature within a satellite through the use
of feedback control. Converse to passive systems, active control systems require power,
accurate sensors and processing capabilities.
To minimise power consumption and
complexity thermal control should be achieved purely through passive control methods
wherever possible. In some instances where components such as batteries are sensitive to
temperatures, in the case of charging, an active system may be utilised to heat or cool the
component. A brief description of primary active thermal control methods is presented in
the following sections.
34
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Heaters
The use of heaters in a TCS can supplement passive methods when accurate control of
vital components is required. The most common type of heater used on satellites is
the patch heater, Figure 13. Patch heaters are simple to attach and come in a variety of
sizes to suit specific applications. The primary method of control of patch heaters is a
thermostat which activates the heater at low temperatures and deactivates the heater at
high temperatures.
Figure 13: A variety of patch heaters that can be used to heat sensitive electronics (Minco,
n.d.)
Pumped Fluid Loops
Pumped Fluid Loops (PFL) transport large amounts of thermal energy by forced
convection. PFL can be simplified to a pumping device, heat exchanger and space
radiator. Heat is absorbed by coolant from sources such as batteries and then transferred
to a heat exchanger. Depending on whether the coolant is expendable or non expendable
it will be rejected into space or recirculated after sufficient heat is dissipated (Gilmore,
2002). These systems require sufficient space, power and an exterior surface where heat
radiation can be facilitated. Similar to other active systems, a PFL results in increased
complexity, cost, space and power requirements. These are restricted to use in large
satellites where sufficiently large heating loads need to be dissipated such as cryogenics
experiments onboard the ISS.
35
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Active Attitude Thermal Control

Attitude control can be utilised as a form of thermal control for satellites. The temperature
of the CubeSat can be regulated by rotating the satellite such that the hottest panels
face space. This action results in the highest radiation dissipation from exteriors and
avoids high temperatures that would otherwise be present on panels that are constantly
exposed to solar radiation. Conversely, constant power is required to operate the attitude
control systems which could cause issues with power availability to other subsystems.
Additionally the advantage of higher heat dissipation may be counteracted by the internal
heat generation of electronics used in attitude control.
3.1.7
Structure
The structure of a CubeSat provides housing and protection for the electronic components.
In order for a picosatellite structure to be separated from a launch vehicle it must be
located within a deployer. To minimise cost a standard deployer such as the P-POD
would be utilised. The structure is required to conform to the CDS which has geometrical,
weight, functionality, material and manufacturing restrictions. The satellite structure
must also be designed to withstand thermal, static and vibration loading during the
ground, launch, deployment and orbital operating environments. These environmental
loads are outlined in both the CubeSat Test Pod Users Guide (Brown, 2006) and the Poly
Picosatellite Orbital Deployer Mk III ICD (Lan, 2007).
Satellite Configurations
A number of COTS structure kits are a available from a variety of suppliers such as
Pumpkin and ISIS. In addition to COTS kits, other structures have been custom designed
in projects similar to AUSAT.
The ISIS CubeSat structure, Figure 14, was developed as a generic satellite structure that
conforms to the CDS. The ISIS structure is lightweight, 100grams, and can be used with
both PC-104 standard electronic boards and custom 94mm square electronic boards. The
structure has been tested both under typical static loads and random vibration loads
36
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
qualifying it as a usable CubeSat structure. The CubeSat structure comes standard with a
redundant kill switch mechanism with integrated separation springs, however the use of
this system is optional.
Figure 14: Left: An assembled ISIS CubeSat structure with no side panels, right an
assembled ISIS CubeSat structure including side panels and US quarter for scale. (ISIS,
2010)
The Pumpkin structure kit layout is a flexible design so that it can be fitted with a variety
of electronic boards. This structure also has vital connections required to program the
CubeSat and features such as a remove before flight pin and separation springs already
incorporated in the structure. The structure, along with a pre-installed electronic flight
board, can be seen below in Figure 15.
Figure 15: An assembled Pumpkin COTS structure excluding side panels (Pumpkin, 2008)
37
3.1
CubeSat Subsystems
LITERATURE REVIEW
Structure Material
The CubeSat standards dictate the materials available for the structure of the satellite.
The materials specified for applications in the rails and structure are aluminium 7075 and
aluminium 6061. The material data for both of these materials are shown in Table 2. If
other materials are used, the developer is required to submit a Deviation Authorisation
Request (DAR) and adhere to the waiver process (Munakata, 2009). The CubeSat standard
does not restrict other materials being used in the remaining sections of the satellite. In
addition to being manufactured from space approved alloy, the CubeSat rails, which
contact the deployer and adjacent CubeSat standoffs, are required to be hard anodised
aluminium to prevent any cold welding and provide electrical isolation to the deployer
(Munakata, 2009).
Table 2: Material properties of Al 7075 and Al 6061
Properties
Al 7075 Al 6061
1
Density [gcm ]
2.81
2.7
Hardness (Brinell)
150
95
Ultimate Tensile Strength [MPa]
572
310
Tensile Yield Strength [MPa]
503
276
Shear Strength [MPa]
331
207
Modulus of Elasticity [GPa]
71.7
68.9
Poissons Ratio
0.33
0.33
Electrical Resistivity [ cm]
5.15e-6 3.99e-6
1
Specific Heat Capacity [J g C ]
0.96
0.896
1
Thermal Conductivity [Wm K ]
130
167
Melting Point [C]
477-635 582-652
Separation Mechanism
A standardised, CubeSat specific deployer ejects CubeSats with the spring on the base
of the deployer, seen in Figure 16. For deployers launching multiple CubeSats, this
action does not allow the CubeSats to separate from one another after the initial ejection.
To ensure that each CubeSat separates from each other a separation mechanism is
incorporated into the rails of the CubeSat. The CDS stipulates that separation springs
must have characteristics defined in Table 3 on the designated rail standoff (Munakata,
2009).
38
3.2
Launch
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 16: Left: Illustration of P-POD used to deploy CubeSat, right: Photograph of
internal structure of P-POD showing deployment spring (Munakata, 2009)
Table 3: CubeSat separation spring characteristics

Characteristics
Value
Plunger Material
Stainless Steel
End Force Initial/Final
0.5 lbs. / 1.5 lbs.
Throw Length
0.05 inches minimum above the standoff surface
Structural Analysis and Testing
Testing and analysis of the AUSAT structure was required to prove flight worthiness of
the satellite. Tests required on the structure included static, vibration and thermal loading.
Initially static and random vibration analyses will be solved analytically with the aid of
the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) package, ANSYS 12 Workbench. A thermal analysis
had to be conducted theoretically with the aid of MATLAB computational tool. Although
these analyses are not sufficient to prove flight worthiness, they were used to select a
concept solution, which was then validated with testing. Physical tests were conducted
on the AUSAT structure to ensure the satellite will withstand loading conditions.
3.2
Launch
To establish possible AUSAT orbits review of launch providers and launch vehicles
compatible with CubeSats was necessary. An estimation of the orbit was then to be used
to calculate a link budget to determine the required power of communication systems, the
39
3.3
Mass Budget
LITERATURE REVIEW
requirements of the payload system, power estimation and required battery size.
Launch vehicles compatible with CubeSats are operated by a number of countries,

including United States of America (USA), Russia, France and India. The USA launch
provider, NASA, uses the Minotaur and Taurus rockets; however acceptance for American
projects such as QB50 was restricted to USA organisations. The Rokot, Dnepr and Kosmos
launch vehicles are utilised by the Russian Federal Space Agency and have previously
launched several CubeSats. The French rocket, Vega is operated by the Arienspace Agency
and has a planned launch for late 2010, with 11 CubeSats onboard. The Polar Satellite
Launch Vehicle (PSLV) is operated by The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
and has launched many CubeSats, including CanX-2 and SwissCube-1.
These launch vehicles are capable of deploying CubeSats into LEO, which covers altitudes
of 160 to 2000 km. A LEO has been chosen for the AUSAT project as it minimises launch
costs and power used for communication to ground stations. As establishing a specific
launch vehicle was beyond the scope of this years work, an estimation of a 600 km orbit
was used in the conceptual design. General launch specifications covering the most severe
launch conditions were utilised in testing.
3.3
Mass Budget
A mass budget was created to estimate the mass allocation for each subsystem. The
mass budget consisted of the average mass of each subsystem from a variety of CubeSat
designs, seen in Table 4. CubeSat designs before the introduction of CDS revision 12 in
2009 restricted the total mass of the satellite to 1 kg. As the majority of successful projects
were commenced prior to the introduction of the updated requirements the CubeSats
analysed were all based on a 1 kg one unit design. Current mass specifications allow for
a one unit CubeSat to have a larger total mass of 1.3 kg. This additional mass allowance
increased the margin of the design however; the project still aimed to demonstrate the
technical ability of a small satellite design by minimising its mass. As such, the proposed
design aimed to construct a satellite based on a maximum total mass of 1 kg.
40
3.4
Literature Review Summary
LITERATURE REVIEW
Table 4: Estimation of mass allocation for each subsystem in CubeSat designs

Subsystem
Average Mass [g]
EPS
171
Thermal Control
13
Data Handling
65
Communication
91
Payload
108
Attitude Control
115
Structure
340
Total
903
Margin
97
Although the mass budget served as a guide rather than a project requirement it was
important in determining the layout of the subsystems and served as an indication of
hardware feasibility in the conceptual design. Hardware or components that grossly
exceeded the mass allocation for its associated subsystem were discarded. Throughout
the design and manufacturing stages a mass spreadsheet was created and updated to
keep a track of the total mass of the design to ensure the 1 kg limit wasnt exceeded.
3.4
Study of literature on CubeSat projects identified seven main subsystems are essential
for the successful operation of a picosatellite. Within each subsystem the suitability of
each component option was compared to obtain an initial breakdown of the components
required for AUSAT. The components selected for each subsystem are summarised in
Table 5.
41
3.4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Table 5: List of components found to be suitable for the AUSAT project

Subsystem
Component
Description
Reasons for Selection
Payload
Imaging System
Easy to implement and inexpensive compared to

scientific data collection payloads
Fail safe to ensure telemetry can be received from
satellite in the event system failure
Least complex system with maximum solar cell
efficiency, reduces installation time and
eliminates the need to continually control
satellites attitude to maximise power generation
Proven flight heritage with the capability of
supplying all electronics with correct power input
High data transfer rate and compatibility with
existing ground station infrastructure
Easy to integrate to satellite and inexpensive
Capability of tailoring the control system to the
specific requirements of the AUSAT project
Precise attitude determination system capable of
determining all the states of the satellite
Light weight system with no moving parts and
proven flight heritage
Inexpensive and easy to implement
Beacon
Electrical Power
Body Mounted
Multi-junction Cells
Communications
COTS Electrical Power

Board
S-Band Transceiver
Command and
Data Handling
Attitude
Determination
Attitude Control
Patch Antenna
Custom Microcontroller
with COTS processor
GPS Receiver and
Magnetometer
Magnetorquers
Thermal Control
Structure
Surface Material and

Insulation
Custom Structure
Capability of integrating specific project

components
42
STRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Structure Conceptual Design
A custom structure was designed within the AUSAT project to ensure that electronics
could be easily assembled and sufficiently protected within the CubeSat. The design
of the structure went through many iterations before a final design was selected for
manufacture. Each iteration was produced in accordance to the project requirements,
outlined in 1.1 - Project Goals and Requirements, to ensure that the AUSAT structure
would meet the CubeSat specifications for both design and testing requirements.
The structure was designed to accommodate PC-104 electronic boards as all on board
electronics were either purchased with this form factor or could be integrated onto
a PC-104 board manufactured at The University of Adelaide.
Designing to PC-104
standards allowed for PCBs to be supported on four rails within the structure and
ensured that the location of PCBs could be altered. Alteration of the electronic layout
was a necessity as several components were not selected until after the structure was
manufactured due to time constraints.
Additionally, the capability of changing the
electronic layout ensured that Center of Gravity (CG) of the satellite could be easily altered
to meet requirements. As the structure was required to undergo vigorous testing two
structures were manufactured in case one was damaged due to separation of electronic
components. The following sections detail the design of the 1U AUSAT structure.
4.1
Structural Components
The initial design of the AUSAT structure utilised internal PCB rails similar to the ISIS
design, explained in 3.1.7 - Structure Literature Review. The initial AUSAT design differs
to the ISIS design by the incorporation of a single side piece frame and implementation
of the solar cells within the side panels. The electrical boards are then held in place by
passing the boards through rails that go into aluminium cross brackets. Six side panels
are screwed to the frame upon which the solar cells would be set in epoxy. The dimensions
of the structure meet the CDS and the side panel thicknesses were chosen at 1.8mm with a
1.2mm recess for the solar cell assembly. The Computer Aided Design (CAD) models
of the skeleton and structure can be seen in Figure 17. The single side piece frames
43
4.2
Material Selection
were chosen to increase strength during vibrations and to reduce the amount of fasteners.
The implementation of the solar cells with the side panels ensured that the satellite was
contained to a 100mm cube. This design allowed for the electronic boards to be suspended
within the structure, reducing the amount of contact with the structure and therefore
reducing the amount of transfer of thermal and vibration loads.
Figure 17: CAD model of the skeleton and structure of initial design
4.2
Material Selection
The CDS suggests that the main structure be made from either Aluminium 7075 or 6061
(Munakata, 2009). Other materials can also be used however the selected material must
have a thermal expansion similar to that of Aluminium 7075-T73 (Munakata, 2009). As
Aluminium 7075-T73 is material used for the P-POD a similar thermal expansion of
satellite material ensures a successful deployment from P-POD. Also to ensure successful
deployment, the rails of the satellite must be hard anodised to ensure that cold welding
does not occur between P-POD and satellite upon deployment.
4.3
Manufacturing Process
The CubeSat was designed using the 3D modelling package, Pro Engineer Wildfire 5.0.
During the design and modelling phase continual changes were applied, which had to be
iterated through the whole structure design to ensure the structure would comply with
standards and manufacturing time and effort was minimised. The iterations included
44
4.4
Scale Model
correct sizing of COTS components, such as screws, and where possible the incorporation
of standard stock sizes of materials to avoid ordering of custom materials. The structure
of the satellite is designed to be produced in a Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC)
machine. In order for the structure design to be compatible with CNC machining a
number of features were incorporated into the design, such as internal radii. From the
CAD model a number of drawings, seen in Appendix C, were produced to industry
standards.
4.4
Scale Model
A scale model was constructed for both the purpose of demonstration and to verify the
assembly of the satellite. The scale model, shown in Figure 18, will be used at the project
exhibition as an essential display tool. The scale model was designed and produced
according to the CAD model of AUSAT. It was important that as many design features
remained on the scale model in order to predict possible problems in manufacture and
assemble of the actual satellite. The production of the scale model showed that the
assembly of the structure would be successful and the allocated space for the electronic
components would be sufficient.
Figure 18: Scale model of AUSAT constructed for demonstration purposes
45
ELECTRONICS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Electronics Conceptual Design
Design of the electronic components was a cyclic process as several subsystems that were
co-dependent were designed in parallel resulting in numerous design iterations. The first
step of the design was to establish a payload that would be capable of demonstrating a
functioning satellite once in orbit. The most suitable payload design was an IS and beacon.
Once the IS was established an estimation of power requirements were formulated so that
an electrical supply system was designed. All the remaining systems were designed such
that power usage was minimised, mass was within the design specifications and could be
connected to and controlled by the microcontroller.
To be compatible with the design of the structure any COTS electronic components,
such as EPS board, were selected with a PC-104 form factor. The electronic components
that were not designed specifically for CubeSat missions, including camera and beacon,
required to be mounted onto custom PC-104 boards manufactured at the university. The
following sections provide an overview of the conceptual design and selection of COTS
electronic components.
5.1
Payload Design
For the majority of artificial satellites the payload is the subsystem that defines the
mission of the spacecraft and as a result all the other subsystems are designed to meet
the requirements of the payload. Subsystems such as the EPS, CDHS, ADCS and CS are
all in place to ensure that the payload is able to perform the necessary tasks and transmit
or store the data collected. The size and weight restrictions placed on AUSAT to allow for
deployment from a standardised deployer, limits the possibilities of complex payloads.
An IS and beacon have been chosen for the AUSAT project due to the capability of
demonstrating the functionality of the satellite in a manner that does not require extensive
onboard processing or communication capabilities or specialised data logging equipment.
The ability to capture an image from a specified orientation of the satellite and transmit
it back to a ground station will demonstrate all the subsystems are functional. In case
46
5.1
Payload Design
of a CDHS, ADCS or CS failure the beacon would still be capable of transmitting data
indicating a functioning EPS. The total mass of the payload system was 56 grams which
consisted of an IS of 36 grams and beacon of 20 grams. The payload systems was therefore
below the budgeted 108 grams, formulated in 3.3 - Mass Budget.
5.1.1
Imaging System
The IS captures images upon command from the CDHS and then sends images to the
CDHS board for processing and storage until the data can be transmitted to a ground
station. The IS also provides initial processing of the image data to reduce the workload
of the CDHS board. As it is a goal to minimise the CDHS resources required for image
processing the IS for AUSAT should perform sufficient image processing prior to being
sent to the CDHS. The fundamental components that were required to form the IS were the
lens, image sensor, housing and focusing apparatus, which are detailed in the following
sections.
Sensor Selection
The image sensor is responsible for converting an optical image into an electrical signal to
be processed using onboard microprocessors. There are two main types of image sensors
that are readily available and capable of high quality image capture. These two different
types of sensors are CCD and CMOS, Figure 19. While neither sensor is superior to the
other, there are differences that were considered to make a suitable selection for a space
based IS. Both types of sensors are composed of pixels in a two dimensional array. Each
pixel in a CCD sensor will generate an electrical charge proportional to the amount of
illumination on the pixel. The signal is then buffered and sent off of the sensor for external
processing into a digital signal (Litwiller, 2001). A CMOS sensor often contains some
circuitry to allow on board processing of the image resulting in a digital output from the
sensor (Litwiller, 2005).
47
5.1
Payload Design
Figure 19: Schematic of CMOS and CCD image sensors describing their operation
(Litwiller, 2005)
A digital signal output requires less processing before the data can be stored and will
therefore be easily implemented within AUSAT. Furthermore, CMOS sensors also require
less power to operate when compared to CCD sensors (Litwiller, 2005) which is also
advantages since power resources on the satellite are restricted.
For these reasons
a compact, low power CMOS sensor was selected from OmniVision with properties
summarised in Table 6.
Table 6: Specifications for the OmniVision OV9655 CMOS sensor
Description
Value
Active Array Size
1280 x 1024
Power Requirements (Active/Standby)
90 mW/20 mW
Operation Temperature Range
- 30 C to 7 0C
Stable Image Temperature Range
0 C to 50 C
Lens Size
1/4
Pixel Size
3.18 m by 3.18 m
Lens Selection
The fundamental component of any IS is the lens, which has the greatest effect of image
quality. Lens parameters such as F-number (speed), resolution, coatings and lens aperture
diametre have a significant effect on the quality of the image captured. The following
section provides a basic overview in optics that was used in the selection of F-number,
48
5.1
Payload Design
resolution and lens aperture diametre.
Optics Background
A basic IS, seen in Figure 20, consists of light passing through an aperture and lens to
focus the light on a sensor to form an image. The distance between focal point and lens is
called the focal length, f, and the aperture diametre is labelled, a.
Figure 20: Schematic of a basic imaging system (Hecht, 1987)

F-Number
The F-number, Eq. 1, is a measure of speed of a lens, which is proportional to the amount
of light that reaches the sensor and defined as
F =
f
.
a
(1)
For a set shutter speed, sensor and illumination a low F-number results in over exposure
and low depth of field. Conversely, a high F-number results in an under exposed image
and loss of detail (Canon, 2007).
Image Resolution
To produce quality images the resolution of the lens must be optimally chosen so that
49
5.1
Payload Design
the light can converge to a single point, at high f-numbers, and diffraction patterns are
minimised, at low f-numbers. For circular apertures such as the one in cameras the Airy
disc diffraction patterns limits the upper bound of f-number (Pedrotti & Pedrotti, 2007).
The diametre of Airy disc is given by Eq. 2
d airy = 2.44 F,
where
l is the wavelength of incident light.
(2)
For an image to be resolvable the Airy disc
diametre should match the pixel size of the sensor. The F-number was then determined
by plotting F-number against Airy disc diametre for the visible wavelengths of light,
Figure 21. The sensor pixel size of 3.18 m, indicated on Figure 21, shows that a suitable
F-number ranges between 1.7 and 3.3. For space applications the lower value in the
suitable F-number should be utilised to prevent under exposure and loss of detail.
Figure 21: Plot of Airy disc diametres against F-numbers for the visible spectrum
COTS Camera Module
A COTS camera module was selected for the IS to eliminate the time of designing a custom
lens and sensor. To match the requirements of the OmniVision OV9655 CMOS sensor and
to fit within the calculated range of F-number a Surveyor SRV Blackfin camera module,
Figure 22 was chosen. The characteristics of the Blackfin are summarised in Table 7.
50
5.1
Payload Design
Figure 22: Surveyor SRV Blackfin camera module used in AUSAT (Surveyor Corporation,
2010)
Table 7: Specifications for the Surveyor SRV Blackfin Camera Module

Description
Value
Focal Length
3.6 mm
F-number
2
Sensor
OmniVision OV9655
Mass
36 g
Board Size
50 x 70 x 40 mm
The ground image size of the Blackfin was calculated using Eq. 3
Xground =
d pixel
h,
f
(3)
where Xground is the ground resolution, d pixel is the CMOS sensor pixel size and h is the
orbital height of the satellite. The resulting ground image size, assuming an orbit of 600
km, with the Blackfin focal length of 3.6 mm is 530 m per pixel. The overall image size
corresponding to a VGA of 1280 x 1040 pixels covers a ground area of approximately
678 km x 551 km, which was comparable to previous CubeSat projects. The selection
of a Blackfin camera module ensured that a legible image, with major cities resolvable,
would be produced on command from microcontroller as stated in 1.1 - Project Goals
and Requirements.
51
5.1
5.1.2
Payload Design
Beacon
A beacon forms the secondary payload which acts a fail safe in case the camera
module or CDHS is damaged during launch or deployment. A beacon is capable of
transmitting a basic string of data via a UHF transmitter and is useful in establishing
initial communications with a satellite. Beacons on previous CubeSat missions such as
Goliat, XI-V and CUTE-1 had data rates of 1200 bps and transmission frequency between
430 MHz and 440 MHz (Atchison, 2009). The beacon must also have minimal power
consumption as it operates continually.
The beacon selected for AUSAT was the Neon-1 Minature Beacon, Figure 23,
manufactured by Astrodev. The beacon was designed specifically for CubeSat missions to
be compact, light weight and have low power consumption that met the projects design
specifications. Unlike the IS the beacon was directly connected to the EPS to ensure that
failure of the CDHS would not affect its performance. The specifications of the Neon-1
beacon can be found in Table 8.
Figure 23: A Neon-1 Minature Beacon selected as a secondary payload (Astrodev, 2010)
52
5.2
Electrical Power Design
Table 8: Specifications of Neon-1 Minature Beacon (Astrodev, 2010)

Description
Value
Frequencies
400 - 500 MHz
Power Usage (Active/Standby) 10 W max/10 mW
Data Rate
1.2 kbps
Serial Interface
Serial UART
Size
24 x 24 x 10.5 mm
Operating Temperature
-30C to 70C
5.2
To supply power to electronic components on board the satellite a robust power supply
and regulation system was required. The EPS includes solar cells, voltage converters,
voltage regulators, batteries, battery chargers as well as components required for battery
telemetry. As the EPS is essential for operations of other subsystems a space approved
COTS board and battery was selected. Selection of a space approved EPS with flight
heritage ensured that in the event that the CDHS, CS or ADCS failed the beacon could
still operate demonstrating and operational satellite.
A power budget of electronic components was produced to estimate the power

consumption of electronics in standby and when active. The power consumption for
periods where attitude control, communication and capturing images was necessary was
then calculated to estimate the likely power requirements throughout an orbit. The
required power usage was then used to select solar cells that would produce the necessary
power.
5.2.1
Power Budgeting
Following the selection of electronics components a power budget was created, Table
9, to estimate the total power consumption of the satellite at different phases of an
orbit. The phases included attitude control where magnetorquers and magnetometers are
active, communications where a transceiver is transferring data and imaging where the IS
captures an image. For each phase each electronic component would either be active or
in a standby mode to calculate the power consumption. By additionally considering the
53
5.2
duration of the phase an estimation of the power consumed in one orbit was obtained to
aid in solar cell selection.
Table 9: Power consumption of subsystems on board AUSAT for various operations
Component
S-band
transceiver
Magnetometer
GPS Receiver
Camera
Magnetorquer
Microcontroller
EPS Board
Beacon
TOTAL
Power
Consumption
(Standby)
[W]
Power
Consumption
(active)
Communications
[W]
Attitude
Control
[W]
Imaging
[W]
0.07
0
0.54
0
0 (0 x 3)
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.92
0.35
0.54
0.485
1.5 (0.5 x 3)
1.5
0.1
2
7.5
0.35
0.54
0
1.5
1.5
0.1
0.01
5.0
0.35
0.54
0
1.5
1.5
0.1
0.01
4.0
0
0
0.485
0
1.5
0.1
0.01
2.09
[W]
Based on Table 9 the average power consumption over an orbit would be approximately
1.37 W. This value was used as a guide to select an EPS board, battery and solar cells that
generated sufficient power over an orbit.
5.2.2
Power Distribution Board and Battery Selection
As previously mentioned, a COTS EPS board and battery was selected as several CubeSat
projects had successfully utilised these components, mitigating project risks. Selecting a
COTS component also eliminated production time and reduced costs as several models
were readily available for similar projects. The COTS components selected, seen in Figure
24, are described in the following sections.
The ISIS EPS has three Battery Charge Regulators (BCR) that are able to moderate three
parallel inputs from solar panels. However, as five solar panels are mounted on separate
faces of AUSAT solar panels were doubled up on the inputs of the EPS. The coupled
panels were positioned on opposite faces of the satellite to ensure that both panels cannot
be illuminated by sunlight at the same time preventing over supplying of the BCRs. Once
power has been supplied to the EPS board it will be converted to the correct voltage and
54
5.2
stored in the Clyde Space 8.2V battery. The EPS has two regulated output busses at 5V
and 3.3V as well as an unregulated bus directly from the battery.
Figure 24: COTS EPS board purchased from Clyde Space (Clyde Space, 2010)
The maximum power that can be supplied from the EPS board is approximately 5 W,
which would be sufficient for any of the previous scenarios except possibly when a
communication period required all 3 magnetorquers running simultaneously. In this
scenario the power supplied to the magnetorquers could be limited to 1.4 W. As it
is unlikely that 3-axis attitude control would be needed after initial de-tumbling, the
reduction of maximum power supply to 1.4 W for the magnetorquers is justified.
5.2.3
Solar Cell Selection
Selection of correct solar cells was of vital importance in the design of the satellite as they
are the sole source of electrical power to the EPS. Without sufficient power supply to the
EPS power would not be distributed to the remaining subsystems onboard the satellite.
In this situation functionality of the satellite would be either disrupted or completely lost.
Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) solar cells were found to be the most suitable for space
applications due to high efficiencies (up to 41.6 % (Spectrolab, 2010)), and proven flight
heritage. Current suppliers of these cells include AZURSPACE solar power GmbH in
55
5.2
Germany and Spectrolab in the USA. The Spectrolab cells were initially preferred as
a Coverglass Interconnect Cell (CIC) format was available however, the lead time on
these CICs was longer than acceptable for the project. Furthermore, the surface area
of each cell was slightly less than that of the AZURSPACE cells resulting in less power
generation. As such AZURSPACE cells, Figure 25, were purchased and these included
cells and coverglass. However, these cells did not incorporate interconnects or instructions
regarding the correct soldering method or adhesive selection meaning further research
into connection methods was required, detailed in solar panel construction, 7.1.1 Solar Panel Construction. The data sheet of the AZURSPACE solar cells can be found
in Appendix D.
Figure 25: Schematic illustrating the size of an AZUR triple junction solar cell (AZUR,
2010)
56
5.3
Communications Design
Solar Cell Layout

A fixed solar array system was identified as an appropriate design despite a deployable
solar panel configuration being a higher efficiency power generation method. This was
based on deployable panels needing a higher precision attitude control system, which
consumes more power whilst also increasing the risk of malfunction and failure.
Fixed panels were designed to cover five of the six faces of the satellite, with one side
uncovered to allow for the camera lens as well as the RS232 and Universal Serial Bus (USB)
ports. This layout with the selection of multi-junction solar cells provided adequate power
generation meeting the project requirements in 1.1 Project Goals and Requirements.
Each face was designed to utilise two GaAs cells in series to form a solar panel. A series
connection was used to supply a nominal voltage of 5 V per panel at the rated current of
one cell. This configuration was deemed appropriate as the majority of the components
within the satellite required a 5 V DC power supply.
Solar Cell Coating

The AZURSPACE solar cells had an integrated radiation protective coverglass. Coating
the cells in a space grade epoxy can potentially prevent damage of the cells from collisions
with space debris however, the introduction of any coating reduces the transmission
of solar radiation to the cells resulting in lower power generation. Furthermore, any
mismatch in the thermal coefficients between solar cells and epoxy coating could result
in the cracking of the cells when exposed to large temperature variations in orbit. For
these reasons, an epoxy coating in addition to the protective coverglass was deemed
unnecessary.
5.3
The CS is comprised of transceiver and antenna, which were required to communicate

with ground station. The antenna is responsible for both transmitting signals generated
by the transceiver and receiving signals from a ground station. It is necessary that the
57
5.3
antenna provide sufficient signal gain over the operating frequency of the transceiver as
well as adequate directivity to ensure that energy is focused towards the ground station
and not unnecessarily radiated into space. The proceeding paragraphs detail the design
of these components.
5.3.1
Transceiver Selection
The selection of the transceiver was dependent on the various specifications offered by
COTS units meeting or exceeding those required by the data transfer rate and link budget
as well as the overall cost. While there are different RF transceivers available with an
operating frequency ranges spanning from 30KHz to 300GHz the most suitable frequency
bands for the project were VHF (30MHz- 300MHz), UHF (300MHz 3GHz) and S-Band
(2GHz 4GHz). UHF/VHF bands are appropriate since these bands are commonly used
by amateur radio operators, CubeSat specific COTS components are readily available
and are typically reliable systems with flight heritage. S-band systems have potential for
higher data throughput but also suffer from higher signal directivity than the UHF/VHF
band. Whilst higher frequency systems are available in frequency bands including C (4-8
GHz), X (8 - 12 GHz), Ku (12 - 18 GHz), K (18 27 GHz) and Ka (27 40 GHz) (Davidson,
2010), the lack of availability as well as higher cost results in these being unsuitable for the
AUSAT project.
Many prior CubeSat missions have taken advantage of UHF/VHF transceivers due to
proven reliability and capability to connect with basic amateur radio equipment, as
a result lowering the cost of constructing a ground station.
Furthermore, CubeSat
specific UHF/VHF transceivers are available with radiation hardened components and
compatible with a standard CubeSat bus.
However, the main drawback of using
a UHF/VHF system is slow data transfer rates.
Typical COTS CubeSat UHF/VHF
transceivers are capable of 1200bps downlink and 9600bps uplink, which is much slower
than other commonly available high frequency wireless technology.
S-Band transceivers have found use on communication satellites and have the potential to
58
5.3
offer much higher data transfer rates than that of CubeSat specific UHF/VHF systems.
The S-band ranges from 2 GHz to 4 GHz, however, while S-band transceivers have
found use on larger LEO satellites, transceivers that are designed specifically for CubeSat
missions are not commonly available.
ISIS currently offers an S-band transmitter,
however, if this component were to be used, a separate receiver would need to be

purchased and used in conjunction to perform the same operation as a single transceiver.
Another advantage of using an S-band system is the reduction in antenna size. Since
S-band systems have a higher operating frequency and as a result a shorter wave length
allowing for smaller antenna elements. Since S-band transceivers require smaller antenna
elements, have a much higher data throughput and cost significantly less than UHF/VHF
CubeSat specific transceivers, an S-band transceiver was deemed the most suitable option
for the CS.
The transceiver selected was manufactured by Microhard Systems Incorporated, a

company specialising in long distance, robust, wireless data equipment. Microhard
MHX 2420 S-band transceivers have flight heritage with prior CubeSat mission and some
transceiver models are currently offered by CubeSat Kit producers such as Pumpkin.
While the MHX2420 was suitable for the mission and complied with link budget
specifications, a newer model was chosen to be used for this particular mission. The
Microhard Nano Series n2420, Figure 26, operates across the same frequency and offers
performance meeting or exceeding that of the MHX2420. The n2420 also has a superior
link rate of 1.2 Mbps as opposed to the MHX2420 which has a maximum link rate of 230
kbps. The n2420 also has a smaller and lighter casing allowing for easier integration to the
satellite as well as allowing margin within the mass budget. To perform communication
testing, 7.4 - Communication Testing, a pair of the n2420 was purchased to establish
a link between transceivers. The full specifications of the Microhard Nano Series n2420
transceiver can be found in Appendix D.
59
5.3
Figure 26: Microhard Nano n2420 S-Band transceiver used in the communication system
(Microhard, 2010)
5.3.2
Antenna Design
As previously mentioned in the literature review a patch antenna design is highly

directional and was deemed to be the most suitable for this project since they are
additionally compact, lightweight, simple to attach and require no telescopic or moving
parts to achieve the desired dimensions.
Initially the patch was designed using hand calculations based on formulas given Antenna
Theory Analysis and Design (Balanis, 1997).
For this particular case the resonant
frequency was 2.4GHz, the dielectric constant was assumed to be 2.1 and the height was
0.2 cm. Eq. 4 was used to determine the dimensions of the patch antenna width, W,
v0
W =
2 fr
where f r is the resonant frequency,
2
,
er + 1
(4)
er is the dielectric constant and 0 is velocity of light in
a vacuum 3 x 108 m/s. The effective dielectric constant, ere f f , was then determined using
Eq. 5
ere f f =
er + 1 er 1
h
+
(1 + 12 ) .
2
2
W
60
(5)
5.3
The next step was to calculate the additional length due to fringing effects of the
radiation,4 L, using Eq. 6
4 L = 0.412h
(ere f f + 0.3)( Wh + 0.264)

(ere f f 0.258)( Wh + 0.8)
(6)
so that the length, L, of the antenna could be calculated using Eq. 7

L =
2 fr
v0
ere f f
24 L
(7)
The calculations resulted in the dimensions of 5.02 cm width and 4.20 cm length. It was
later found that although this design was capable of an appropriate resonant frequency,
the transmission that it broadcast would be linearly polarised. Linear polarisation is
typically avoided for satellite radio communication systems because it suffers more from
signal fading and flutter than circularly polarised transmissions. A time harmonic wave
is said to be circularly polarised when the electric or magnetic field vector traces a circle
as a function of time (Balanis, 1997). Circularly polarised transmissions suffer less from
Faraday rotation than linearly polarised transmissions resulting in better fade and flutter
resistance (Dangleish, 1989). It was therefore required that the design of the antenna be
updated to accommodate circular polarisation.
Circular polarisation can be achieved through the use of a square patch with two opposite
corners removed or a slot removed from the centre (Balanis, 1997). Due to the increasing
complexity of the design a software based program was used to arrive at the desired
patch dimensions. PCAAD 5.0 was used to determine the square patch dimensions that
would give a resonant frequency of 2.45 GHz with an FR-4 laminate substrate having
dielectric constant of 4.2 and thickness 0.16 cm. To minimise manufacturing efforts a slot
was removed from the center of the patch instead of removing two of the corners.
FR-4 glass reinforced epoxy laminate was selected as the material for the antenna due
to its low cost and widespread availability. FR-4 is not a strictly controlled material
and specifications such as the dielectric constant and thickness of copper plating are not
61
5.3
always constant. Furthermore, the high dielectric constant, whilst reducing the size of the
antenna, can be detrimental to performance since a thinner substrate hence reducing the
bandwidth. The materials that offer the greatest performance are typically materials with
a low dielectric constant, approximately 2 2.5, as this allows for a thicker substrate that
will increase the efficiency and bandwidth (Balanis, 1997). One material that is commonly
used in high performance patch antenna design is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) due
to its low dielectric constant. However, as the material is manufactured to order its
availability and cost exceed the projects budget and time frame. It is recommended that
the antenna design be revised and implemented with high grade PTFE prior to launch of
the satellite.
The antenna utilised a coaxial probe feed to reduce the overall size of the patch antenna
by eliminating a feed track whilst matching the impedance of the antenna to that of the
transceiver. An SMA female pin connector purchased from RF Shop Australia was used
for the probe feed. The final design and performance of the antenna are summarised in
Table 10.
Table 10: Summary of FR-4 patch antenna design parameters
Parameter
Value
Patch Length
2.85 cm
Patch Width
2.85 cm
Substrate Material
FR-4
Substrate Thickness
0.16 cm
Dielectric Constant
4.2
Dielectric Loss Tangent
0.01
Probe to Edge Distance
1.05 cm
Resonant Frequency
2.445 GHz
Bandwidth
2.3 %
Directivity
6.0 dB
Input Resistance
52.2 Ohms
Efficiency
66.3 %
Antenna Gain
4.0 dB
An image of the manufactured antenna can be seen in Figure 27. The efficiency of this
design is low due to the high dielectric loss tangent of the FR-4 substrate.
62
5.3
Figure 27: Photograph of patch antennas used in the AUSAT project

The expected changes to the physical design from using a higher performance material
such as PTFE would be a slight increase in patch length, width and thickness. The
expected changes to the performance of the antenna from using a PTFE substrate would
be a significant increase in efficiency, bandwidth and gain. These results would come
from PTFE having a much lower dielectric loss tangent and a lower dielectric constant.
As previously mentioned the required material to manufacture a PTFE antenna was not
possible due to budget and time limitations. However, an antenna was designed for this
material where Table 11 outlines the expected performance of a PTFE antenna.
Table 11: Summary of PTFE patch antenna design parameters
Parameter
Value
Patch Length
3.9 cm
Patch Width
3.9 cm
Substrate Material
PTFE
Substrate Thickness
0.32 cm
Dielectric Constant
2.1
Dielectric Loss Tangent
0.001
Probe to Edge Distance
1.3 cm
Resonant Frequency
2.463 GHz
Bandwidth
4.8 %
Directivity
7.1 dB
Input Resistance
54.5 Ohms
Efficiency
97.9 %
Antenna Gain
7.0 dB
63
5.4
Microcontroller Design
Link Budget
A link budget analysis was performed to determine whether the CS was capable of
communicating with an S-band ground facility. Eq. 8 was utilised to calculate the power
received by the transceiver at the ground station, PRX
PRX = PTX + GTX L TX L FS L M + GRX L RX ,
(8)
where PTX is the transmission power of the transceiver on board the satellite, GTX is
the transmitter antenna gain, LTX is the total transmitter loss, LFS is the free space loss,
L M is the total miscellaneous loss, GRX is the receiving antenna gain and LRX is the
total loss associated with the receiving antenna. Assuming negligible losses between the
transceivers and the antennas the CS has sufficient power to connect with a typical S-band
ground station. This is due to the PRX being greater in magnitude than the sensitivity of
the Microhard transceivers. However, the sensitivity of these transceivers decreases as the
data rate increases. For further details refer to the link budget in Appendix E.
5.4
The requirement of the CDHS is to control all the systems onboard the satellite and is
achieved through the use of a microcontroller. Data received from sensors including
GPS, magnetometer, EPS and temperature sensors on battery is processed by the
microcontroller to ensure appropriate actions are taken to control the attitude of the
satellite and regulate the temperature of the battery. Although the satellite was designed
to be fully automated, manual control is desired which would be achieved through the
uplink of commands from ground station. The manual control would be necessary to
change the GPS coordinates were an image is taken. The design and selection of a
microcontroller is discussed in the following sections.
5.4.1
Radiation
Radiation can damage sensitive electronic components in the satellite. Ionizing radiation
in space can create miniature holes in silicon chips which can destroy transistors in flash
64
5.4
memory on microcontrollers, damage large power transistors over time and change the
voltage required to turn them on.
A radiation hardened processor was initially sought, however, could not be purchased
due to export restrictions. For this reason shielding of the electronics was required.
A study done by the University of Leichter has shown that 0.8 mm of aluminium is
sufficient to protect the microcontroller from standard radiation damage (Uni. of Leicester,
2009). As the satellite aluminium panels are greater than 0.8 mm, see Appendix C for
structural drawings, the structure would provide sufficient radiation protection for a
COTS microcontroller.
5.4.2
Programming
The microcontroller was programmed as a state machine with several states including
taking photo, transmitting/receiving data and charging battery summarised in Figure
28. Each of these states has different features attributed to them. The charging battery
state did not require active attitude control, however in the transmitting/receiving data
state the satellite needed to be oriented so a clear signal could be transmitted/received.
The microcontroller also included a battery warning indicator so that the satellite did not
attempt to do maneuvers which require high battery consumption when the battery is
running low, ensuring that the microcontroller doesnt automatically reset by running the
battery flat.
The microcontroller was required to control the attitude of the satellite using three
magnetorquers through the use of H-bridge circuits.
The control of magnetorquers
usually utilises an H-Bridge circuit which consists of four transistors per switching
channel to achieve reverse polarity. The current applied to the H-bridge circuits are
controlled using Pulse Wave Modulation (PWM) output from the microcontroller. By
varying the current through each of the magnetorquers the magnitude of torque on each
three of the satellites body axis can be altered to position the satellite.
65
5.4
Figure 28: Flow chart of the various states and processes managed by microcontroller
66
5.5
Attitude Determination Design
5.4.3
Microcontroller Selection
The microcontroller chosen for the CDHS is an Atmel ATmega 640, seen in Figure 29. It
was chosen as it has four serial communications ports for the four main serial devices as
well as I2C for control and telemetry from the EPS and PWM pins for the control of the
magnetorquers. The microcontroller runs at 16 MHz and has 64 k of internal memory for
storage of code and data which is acquired by the on board sensors before it is sent back
to the ground station as well as for use in predicting the path from a simplified model of
the orbital mechanics, see 6.3 - Simulation.
Figure 29: An Amtel ATmega 640 microprocessor used for data handling in AUSAT
(Digikey, 2010)
5.5
To control the satellites orientation a GPS receiver and magnetometer first determined the
satellites attitude. Data from the attitude sensors was then passed through the onboard
microcontroller so that appropriate output could be applied to magnetorquers to control
the satellite attitude. The following section details the design and selection of attitude
determination subsystem.
5.5.1
Attitude Determination Sensors
To determine the four states of the satellite, velocity, position, attitude and body rates two
independent sensors were required. These sensors were as follows
A GPS receiver to determine position and velocity, and
A magnetometer to determine attitude and body rates.
67
5.5
A GPS receiver was integrated into the satellite to give information regarding the position
of the satellite. A GPS receiver with minimal power consumption was sought as it
is continually active throughout an orbit. Initially, a 32 Channel LS20031 GPS 5Hz
Receiver was purchased as it consumed only 0.13 W (Sparkfun, 2010). It was found
that this device, like other COTS GPS receivers, had a Coordinating Committee for
Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) limit of 18 km altitude due to security issues.
For this reason an OEMStar GPS receiver, Figure 30, which was a low cost space grade
receiver was purchased from Canadian based company Novatel as the COCOM limits
could be removed. An application was then lodged and approved by Canadian and US
government to have the COCOM limits removed to ensure that the GPS would operate in
a LEO.
Figure 30: Novatel OEMStar GPS receiver used for identifying AUSATs position and
velocity (Novatel, 2010)
A magnetometer was integrated into the satellite as a primary method of attitude
determination. The most basic form of magnetometer is the scalar magnetometer. The
scalar magnetometer is only capable of determining the strength of a magnetic field and
does not give any information regarding the direction. The second type of magnetometer
68
5.6
Attitude Control Design
is the directional magnetometer, which is capable of determining field strength and

direction. The directional magnetometer was better suited to AUSAT since it is capable of
determining the north magnetic vector.
Once the direction of the north magnetic vector has been determined the onboard
microcontroller cross references a magnetic field map to determine the orientation of the
satellite. The time, obtained from the GPS receiver, is then used to determine the change
in orientation of the satellite. An integration method could then be used to determine
the body rates of the satellite. Hence, a digital flux valve magnetometer would be most
suitable for AUSAT because of the automatic degaussing ability. A COTS magnetometer
manufactured by Honeywell has been chosen to be used in AUSAT. The Honeywell HMR
2300, Figure 31, is a digital fluxgate magnetometer that is capable of data acquisition
sensitive enough to determine the orientation of the satellite within the Earths magnetic
field.
Figure 31: Honeywell HMR 2300 3-axis magnetometer including case, used for attitude
determination (Digikey, 2010)
5.6
Attitude Control Design
From the findings of the literature review it was determined that magnetorquers were the
most suitable active attitude control method for the AUSAT project due to low power
consumption and lack of any moving parts. The magnetorquers were designed for a
69
5.7
Thermal Control
nominal power consumption of 0.25 W each. For three axis control a maximum power
of 0.75 W will be dissipated by the magnetorquers. It should be noted that applying
maximum power to all three magnetorquers is considered a worst case scenario and in
reality is extremely unlikely to be used for attitude control.
Since a magnetorquer is essentially a coiled wire that forms an inductor the maximum
power dissipation can be expressed as a function of voltage and current, Eq. 9.
Power = Voltage Current,
(9)
where the maximum voltage supplied by the EPS board is 10 V. The resistance of each
magnetorquer was calculated using Ohms Law. Each magnetorquer was calculated to
have a resistance of approximately 100 assuming that 0.1 A is applied at 10 V. The
required resistance of the coil was then used to determine the required properties of the
coil such as wire thickness and length. In this instance the material will be copper as it
is readily available in a variety of wire gauges as well as excellent conductive properties.
A wire of 0.15 mm diametre wire was chosen for these coils resulting in a bare wire cross
sectional area of 1.768108 m2 .
To provide three axis control three magnetorquers, one for the x, y and z axes, were
mounted orthogonally on three surfaces of the satellite. As internal electronics boards
were fully occupied by electronic components the magnetorquers were installed on the
underside of solar panels. The size of the solar panels constrained the maximum depth
of the magnetorquer to 3.5 mm where its size could be a maximum of 65 x 65 mm. To
achieve a resistance of a 100 , 400 turns were required on each magnetorquer.
5.7
Thermal Control
Once in orbit the satellite is exposed to extreme thermal loading from solar radiation,
Earths Infra-red Radiation (IR), reflected solar radiation off Earth, albedo, and
approximately absolute zero temperature surroundings.
Such conditions lead to
large temperature variations causing decreased performance of electronics and possible

70
5.7
Thermal Control
damage. Each electronic component has specific operating temperature limits to prevent
damage and maintain acceptable performance. Thermal coatings and insulation materials
were identified as an appropriate method of thermal control to maintain electronics
within these operating limits.
Initially a bulk temperature model was created to
select an appropriate exterior surface coating that minimised the range of temperatures
experienced during orbit.
The second stage of the thermal control design involved
the selection of insulation materials to adequately protect components with stricter

temperature limits.
5.7.1
Bulk Temperature Model
A bulk temperature thermal analysis was performed on the satellite to determine

maximum and minimum temperatures throughout an orbit for a variety of materials,
Table 12 (Gilmore, 2002). Although the temperatures of individual components were not
calculated in this method the bulk temperature analysis indicated the effectiveness of each
material to limit the range of temperature experienced. The model evaluated a simplified
structure at quasi-steady state thermal loading conditions for two scenarios. The actual
instantaneous bulk temperature of the satellite would be unlikely to ever approach steady
state values as the thermal loading, either in eclipse or sunlight is continually varying
(Rockberger, n.d.). Additionally, the thermal capacity of the satellite would reduce the
temperature range calculated in the bulk temperature model. This is particularly relevant
in the cold case analysis where thermal energy absorbed during periods of sunlight would
be present through eclipsed periods. For detailed explanation of the bulk temperature
analysis see Appendix F.
71
5.7
Thermal Control
Table 12: Thermal properties of common satellite surfaces

Material
Surface Finish
Solar
Infrared
Absorptivity
Emissivity
( )
( )
Aluminium
Buffed
0.16
0.03
Aluminium
Heavily Oxidised
0.13
0.30
Aluminium
Polished
0.15
0.05
Aluminium
Hard Anodised
0.79
0.86
Gold
Polished
0.30
0.05
Titanium
As Received
0.40
0.55
Carbon black
0.96
0.88
paint NS-7
Ebanol C black
0.97
0.73
NASA/GSFC
0.36
0.91
NS-37 white
paint
Ultra Triple
As Received
0.92
0.85
Junction (UTJ)
solar cells
e/a ratio
0.19
2.3
0.33
1.1
0.17
1.4
0.92
0.75
2.5
0.92
To determine maximum and minimum bulk temperatures, Table 13, two scenarios were
considered. The first scenario was when the satellite is orientated such that one face
is directed towards the sun ensuring maximum solar radiation and the opposite face is
directed at Earth. Conversely, the second scenario is when the satellite is eclipsed by the
Earth and the only heat flux on the satellite is infrared radiation generated by the Earth.
Table 13: Temperature ranges of a CubeSat with different surface materials
Surface
Surface Finish
Temperature
Temperature
Material
Low [K]
High [K]
Aluminium
Buffed
160.5
299.1
Aluminium
Heavily Oxidised
148.3
278.9
Aluminium
Polished
158.9
297.0
Aluminium
Hard Anodised
166.3
278.1
Gold
Polished
169.4
304.3
Titanium
As Received
157.5
277.5
Carbon black
171.6
282.7
paint NS-7
Ebanol C black
175.8
289.4
NASA/GSFC
147.0
260.8
NS-37 white
paint
72
5.7
Thermal Control
The calculated temperature ranges, seen in Table 13, indicated that carbon black paint
NS-7 and hard anodised aluminium resulted in the smallest temperature range. As the
satellite structure already utilised hard anodised aluminium on its surface no additional
coatings were deemed necessary.
Once the temperature ranges were determined a
simulation was created that illustrated the variation of temperature over an orbit. The
assumptions of the model were
No convection heat transfer due to the lack of fluid flow,
All calculations performed at a bulk temperature,
Solar constant Js = 1368 W/m2,
Earths IR radiation flux q IR = 240 W/m2,
Albedo factor fa = 0.30, and
Equilibrium has been achieved at every point in the orbit.
Figure 32 illustrates the temperature distribution of the satellite with hard anodised
aluminium as the surface material over an orbit. In Figure 32 the angle represents the
position of the satellite in an orbit with 0 directly inline with the sun and 90 directly
over Eaths North Pole and the angle is the rotation of the zenith axis of the satellite.
As expected the maximum temperatures experienced during an orbit was when three of
the satellite sides received equal solar radiation. The maximum temperature was 325 K
(52 C) and within the maximum temperature limits of all electronic components except
the battery when charging. To ensure the battery was not damaged during charging the
microcontroller deactivates the battery when temperature sensors mounted on the surface
of the battery indicate a temperature of 35 C. To validate the results of the thermal analysis
and measure the temperature of the electronic boards within the satellite thermal testing
was performed, see 7.4 Thermal Testing.
73
5.7
Thermal Control
Figure 32: Temperature profile of the AUSAT structure over an orbit

74
5.8
5.8
Internal Electronics Layout
Internal Electronics Layout
As previously mentioned, the structure was designed so that the distribution of the boards
could vary after the structure was manufactured. It was important that the CG was
calculated and within the designed limit of 20 mm from the Geometric Centre (GC) as
stated by the CDS (Munakata, 2009). As the satellite rotates about the CG it is critical
for attitude determination and control that it is as close to the GC as possible to reduce
the complexity of control algorithms. However, having the CG located toward the camera
will create a favourable gravity gradient ensuring the camera will have a natural tendency
to point towards the Earths centre. Additionally, the boards were arranged to ensure
the battery would be shielded from high thermal loads as this component was found to
have the smallest operating temperature range, see Table 1. Following the selection of
the appropriate subsystem components, from 3.4 Literature Review Summary, the
electronics were grouped into four groups and placed on four separate PC-104 PCBs
to fit the internal volume limitations. The components and their respective boards are
summarised in Table 14.
Table 14: Description of the four internal electronics board within AUSAT
Board
Components
EPS
Electrical power supply board and battery
Communication
Transceiver and beacon
CDHS
Microcontroller and camera
ACDS
GPS receiver and magnetometer
The ensure that the camera lens was located on the side of the structure with no solar
panels and there was enough room for patch antenna on the same face the layout was
chosen so that the EPS was board 1, the ACDS was board 2, the Communication was
board 3 and the CDHS was the final board. The layout also allowed for cut outs to be
made into the communication board to facilitate the camera. The cut outs could not be
made into EPS as it was purchased as a COTS or the ACDS board as there was insufficient
room. A stability analysis was performed, seen in Appendix G, and the CG was found
to be 1.34 mm, 2.26 mm and 1.03 mm away from the x, y, z satellite GC coordinates,
respectively which satisfied the CDS requirements.
75
DETAIL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Detail Design and Analysis
As component selection advanced and the initial attitude control design was completed,
the structures internal available volume was insufficient to house all of the required
magnetorquers and electronic boards.
An update of the structure was required to
provide a housing method for magnetorquers, which is presented in the following section.
To validate whether the design would withstand all conditions over the life of the
satellite before testing analytical static loading and computational finite element analyses
were performed. A simulation of the satellite in orbit was also produced to estimate
communication periods and the requirements of the ADCS.
6.1
Final Structure Design
Upon clarification of the CDS (Munakata, 2009) it was found components could extrude
up to 6.5 mm from the side panels, which was not utilised in the initial design. A redesign
of the structure was performed which incorporated this criterion by moving the solar
cells and magnetorquers to an external assembly on a PCB, Figure 33. The redesign of
the structure kept the same general design of the frame, cross bracket and internal PCB
rail concept. However in order to further increase structural integrity two side panels
were incorporated into one piece frame. The final design has allowed for the solar cell
and magnetorquer assemblies to be designed and constructed separately. This allowed
the structure design and modelling to be completed before solar cell and magnetorquer
selection was completed, and meant that screw placement would be the only restriction in
the solar cell PCB assembly. The total mass of the structure and all electronic components
can be seen in Appendix G.
Figure 33: Final conceptual design with skeleton, left, structure, middle, and complete
assembly, right
76
6.2
Structural Analysis
After computer modelling of the design was completed the initial static, dynamic and
thermal analyses were performed. The results of these analyses further enhanced the
structure as the design could be changed easily on the CAD model before construction
took place. The results during these analyses showed that the structure will be able
to survive launch and orbital environmental loads. However, during random vibration
analysis, using the software package ANSYS 12 Workbench, it was seen that the bottom
panel thickness needed additional support by thickening the plate. This has meant that
the natural frequencies of the structure have increased, but this is beneficial as it will help
mitigate vibrations during launch which occur predominately less than 2000 Hz.
6.2
Structural Analysis
The satellites structure had to be designed to withstand the forces that would be
experienced during launch, encompassing static loading due to the acceleration of the
rocket and random vibration due to the propulsion system. A theoretical study of the
stresses in the structure under static loading and random vibrations has been conducted,
which is outlined in the following sections.
6.2.1
Static Loading
An initial static analysis was conducted to ensure that the structural components will
not fail during both launch or during orbit. The structure was analysed for shear and
buckling stress in the structure, panels and screws, see Appendix H for detailed analysis
procedure. The loads applied during the analysis were determined as 98.1 m/s2 , as this is
the average acceleration of launch vehicles capable of deploying CubeSats. The material
properties used in the static analysis corresponded to aluminium 6061 which has density
and Youngs modulus of 2730 kg/m3 and 71 GPa, respectively.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how changes in the cross sectional area,
length, density and acceleration of components would effect the calculated stresses. This
analysis, in Appendix H, calculated the percent change in stress for a ten percent change
in each variable. It was calculated that changes in the density of the components has the
77
6.2
Structural Analysis
largest effect on the calculated stresses. A ten percent increase in density increased the
stress by approximately 1.6 103 % of the yield stress of the material. These results
indicated that small changes of material properties did not effect whether the structure
failed.
The maximum shear stress experienced in the structure in the scenarios analysed is 21.304
kPa. This shear stress is about ten thousand times smaller than the maximum shear stress
the material can withstand. The detailed analysis of the stresses within the structure in
the three scenarios shows that the structure, panels and screws will not fail during launch
due to shear or buckling stresses. A detailed FEA analysis was conducted to determine
stress concentration areas to guarantee the structural integrity of the satellite.
6.2.2
Finite Element Analysis
Two types of FEA were performed before testing to determine the flight worthiness of
the satellite, including a modal analysis and random vibration analysis. A modal analysis
was conducted in order to find the natural frequencies of the satellite structure. The launch
vehicle standards require any resonance frequencies below 2000 Hz to be analysed by a
random vibration test. The random vibration analysis that was conducted used a Power
Spectral Density (PSD) specified by the testing requirements for the Dnepr launch vehicle.
To determine whether the structure would withstand random vibration loading a safety
factor of 1.25 utilised meaning that stresses within the structure were limited to 80% of the
yield stress. The solar panel PCBs maximum deflection was restricted to 1 mm to avoid
cracking the solar cells.
Model and Mesh

The FEA model was created by simplifying the original CAD model to improve the quality
of the mesh, shown in Figure 34. The CubeSat model was simplified in a number of areas
for the ANSYS analysis in order to make the system solvable. The screws and screw
holes have been removed to improve the mesh on the side panels. This simplification was
78
6.2
Structural Analysis
also used to appropriately perform a random vibration analysis of a similar picosatellite

structure (Pierlot, 2009). The structural side panels that would normally be one part are
modelled as a frame structure and a panel. This reduces the complexity of the model
allowing for a mapped mesh to be placed on the side panels. The total mass of the CubeSat
was kept at 1 kg, complying with the CDS (Munakata, 2009). Also all roundings on rails
and cross brackets were removed to increase mesh quality and reduce the number of small
angled elements.
Figure 34: Finite element model illustrating defeatured structure mesh density
Loads
The Dnepr launch vehicle currently has the most severe vibration response and it is likely
if the CubeSat structure can withstand a Dnepr launch it will be qualified for all launch
vehicles (CubeSat, 2009). The spectral density for each frequency range for both the high
level and low level qualification profile for a typical Dnepr Launch are shown in Table
15 and Table 16, respectively. The high level qualification profile must be applied to
the CubeSat for a 35 seconds and the low level qualification profile for 831 seconds to
simulate a typical launch. These loads will be applied through the fixed support boundary
conditions, mimicking the physical connection of the CubeSat and experimental shaker
outlined in 7.3 - Random Vibration Testing .
79
6.2
Structural Analysis
Table 15: DNEPR Low Level Qualification Profile

LOWER FREQ. [Hz]
20
40
80
160
320
HIGHER FREQ. [Hz]
40
80
160
320
640
2
SPECTRAL DENSITY [G /Hz] 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014
640
1280
0.007
1280
2000
0.007
Table 16: DNEPR High Level Qualification Profile

LOWER FREQ. [Hz]
20
40
80
160
320
HIGHER FREQ. [Hz]
40
80
160
320
640
SPECTRAL DENSITY [G2 /Hz] 0.011 0.011 0.033 0.053 0.053
640
1280
0.053
1280
2000
0.026
Modal Analysis
Modal analysis was conducted on the structure in order to determine the natural
frequencies of the satellite structure. The natural frequency results are compared to that
of a typical launch vehicles vibration frequencies. If the frequencies ranges coincide then
the structure would need to be redesigned in order to avoid a resonance response during
launch. The natural frequencies of the structure were computed using the ANSYS package
and are tabulated below, in Table 17.
Table 17: Modal response of CubeSat found in finite element analysis
Mode Frequency [Hz] Mode Frequency [Hz]
1
657
7
1320
2
770
8
1674
3
1080
9
1733
4
1108
10
1850
5
1162
11
1899
6
1210
12
1980
Results of Random Vibration Analysis
Random vibration analysis was conducted on the model of the structure to determine
flight worthiness of the CubeSat, a full report can be seen in Appendix I. Initial
computation of the stresses and deflections of the CubeSat show that the structure passed
the random vibration yield criterion, shown in Figure 35 and Table 18. This result is due to
none of the modes being excited as the frequencies during random vibrations are far less
than the natural frequencies of the system. From these results it was determined that the
structure of the satellite was designed sufficiently in order to withstand launch conditions.
80
6.3
Simulation
Table 18: Summary of random vibration analysis results

Direction of Vibration X Deflection
Y Deflection
Z Deflection
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
X
0.02027
0.00060
0.00109
Y
0.00064
0.01980
0.00076
Z
0.00073
0.00074
0.01692
Stress
[MPa]
1.10
1.41
1.36
Figure 35: Von mises stress plot from random vibration analysis
6.3
Simulation
During the design phase it was important to know and understand the orbit of the satellite
to predict power production, altitude, and ground track of the satellite. These parameters
are crucial to the design phase in the areas of solar panel design, CS design and payload
design. In order to determine the orbit of the satellite a prediction model was produced
and verified with COTS software, Orbitron and Satellite Tool Kit (STK). A simulation was
produced using MATLAB that included both a 2D ground track and 3D simulation of the
orbit about the Earth. The orbital mechanics model outputs the latitude and longitude of
the satellite and also the position of the sun. The orbital model also predicted when the
satellite will be over the ground station to estimate the time available for communications.
81
6.3
6.3.1
Simulation
Mission Profile
The mission profile of the satellite includes all stages of the life of the satellite from when
it is launched to the time at which burns up on re-entry. The launch of the satellite has not
been finalised so the simulation was designed to have a variable start position and orbital
parameters. Once the launch vehicle has reached the desired altitude and velocity the
P-POD will deploy the satellite. This ejection from the P-POD has the potential to induce
undesirable rotation of the satellite. The satellite will then enter into a de-tumbling period
in order to stabilise the satellite for communications and imaging.
6.3.2
Orbit Types
There are many different types of orbit that a satellite can have depending on its
inclination. The suitability of each orbit depends upon the functionality of the payload
on board. An inclination of 0 degrees correlates to the satellites orbit being on Earths
equatorial plane, in the same direction as the rotation of Earth. An inclination of - 90 to
+ 90 degrees results in an orbit called prograde orbit, which is also in the direction of
the rotation of the Earth. A polar orbit is defined as an orbit having an inclination of 90
degrees and passes over both the North and South Poles of Earth. A satellite that has
an inclination of between 90 and 180 degrees is said to have a retrograde orbit. A specific
type of a retrograde orbit is known as a polar sun-synchronous orbit, which is achieved by
selecting the correct altitude and inclination combination. Polar sun-synchronous orbits
are commonly used for imaging satellites due to the lamination angle and hence lighting
of the Earths surface is constant on each pass of the satellite. Typical sun-synchronous
orbits are approximately 600 800km in altitude, resulting in periods of 96 100 minutes
and corresponding inclinations of around 98. The precession rate of the satellite with a
polar sun-synchronous orbit can be calculated using Eq. 10,
2
wp = 3a
J2 ws cos(i ),
2r2
(10)
where a is the Earths equatorial radius, r is the satellites orbital radius, i is the inclination
of the satellite, J2 is the Earths second dynamic form factor, 1.08 103 (Sandwell, 2002)
82
6.3
Simulation
and s is the satellites angular velocity. The satellites angular velocity can be calculated
using Eq. 11,
ws =
G ME
,
r3
(11)
where G is the universal constant of gravitation 6.674 1011 Nm2 kg2 , and ME is the
Earths mass 5.98 1024 kg .
6.3.3
Current Available Software
A COTS satellite orbit prediction programs was STK, seen in Figure 36. STK is a powerful
2D and 3D simulation tool that is capable of orbital ground tracking and full virtual
satellite design for mission and planning purposes. The program incorporates many
ground station locations, ground terrain, the ability to estimate communication periods
and power requirements of satellite. Currently, for the AUSAT project a full licence of
STK has not yet been purchased however, a free trial version has been used to test the
ground track of existing CubeSats.
Figure 36: A screen shot of STK predicting an orbital path for an existing CubeSat
Orbitron is an open source satellite prediction program that is user friendly and a
powerful simulation tool.
The program uses a North American Aerospace Defense

83
6.3
Simulation
Command (NORAD) two line element system to import the required launch parameters
to predict the orbit. The software displays a simulated location of the satellite, sun, moon
and shows the portion of the Earth illuminated by the sun at real time, seen in Figure 37.
Orbitron also allows for the integration of a prediction model for when the satellite passes
over a desired location, such as a ground station.
Figure 37: A screen shot of Orbitron predicting a orbital path for an existing CubeSat
6.3.4
Orbit Prediction Model
The orbital prediction model was constructed to track the satellite for communication
period prediction. The satellite position was also used in the power generation model
and de-tumbling code. The model assumed that the Earth is spherical, which introduced
an error in the calculations of the longitude and latitude. Additionally, the model did
not account for density fluctuations within the Earth and hence did not precisely model
the gravity distribution of the Earth. Another assumption was the absence of influences
from other celestial objects, making the model a two body problem. The effect of these
assumptions was calculated during an error analysis with COTS program, STK.
The model adopts an Earth centred rotating reference frame, which neglects any
precession of the Earth.
For calculation purposes within the model the Earth is

84
6.3
Simulation
represented as a vector on the x-y plane, passing through zero longitude and zero latitude.
The orbit of the satellite will be calculated using inputs from a two line element file
supplied at launch. The inputs that governed the motion of the satellite relative to the
Earth were the six Keplerian elements, shown in Figure 38 and are:
Semi-major axis, a,
Eccentricity, e,
Inclination, ,
Longitude of ascending node, ,
Mean anomaly, , and
Argument at periapsis, .
From the Keplerian element inputs the orbital model calculated the initial position and
velocity of the satellite in Cartesian coordinates. The position of the satellite relative to the
Earth and the acceleration due to gravity was then calculated using Newtons Universal
Law of Gravitation Eq. 12,
F=
G M1 M2
,
r2
(12)
where G is the gravitational constant, M1 is the mass of the first point mass, M2 is the
mass of the second point mass and r is the distance between the two point masses. The
position and velocity of the satellite is then calculated throughout a specified number of
orbits using an Euler integration scheme.
85
6.3
Simulation
Figure 38: Representation of the six Keplerian elements (Graysmark Business Systems,
2010)
The longitude and latitude of the satellite are calculated using the relationship of the two
argument function, atan2, to find the angle between two vectors. This is applied to the
simulation by projecting the position of the satellite to the x-y plane. The longitude
is then the angle between the Earth vector and the projection, and the latitude is the
angle between the projection and the position vector. This method of calculation for the
longitude and latitude was only valid due to the assumption that the Earth was spherical.
The results of this model were plotted both on a three dimensional Earth and satellite plot
and a two dimensional ground track simultaneously. The position and time vectors were
exported to a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file for use with other models.
The satellites position was displayed within a figure of a three dimensional model of
the Earth and satellites orbit and a two dimensional plot showing the satellites position
relative to the surface of the Earth, seen in Figure 39. This visual demonstration was used
to estimate communication periods and image capture planning.
86
6.3
Simulation
Figure 39: Three dimensional model (left) and two dimensional ground track (right)
produced by the orbital simulation model
6.3.5
Error Analysis
An error analysis was conducted by cross referencing the output of the simulation,
produced within the AUSAT project, with COTS software package STK. Temporary use
of STK was possible due to the collaboration with Auspace, distributors of the software
package within Australia. The error analysis was performed primarily to investigate the
effects of assumptions made within the model, in particular the spherical Earth model.
The error analysis was conducted using the inputs from the existing CubeSat, Cute-1,
and estimated for a period of five days. The error analysis conducted compared the
longitude and latitude estimations of the two software packages. The orbital prediction
model constructed in MATLAB was able to accurately estimate the satellites position for
approximately two orbits, with the results detailed in Table 19. The assumptions that
the Earth was spherical affected the predicted values away from the equator. This was
expected as the Earths radius at the poles varied the greatest from a spherical Earth
model. The results showed that the simulation code produced was accurate enough to
be implemented onboard the satellite, with the prediction model taking inputs from the
GPS every orbit. This will allow the satellite to predict the time left before image capture
and communications, in order to correctly to have sufficient time to orient the satellite.
87
6.3
Simulation
Table 19: Orbital prediction model error analysis results

Orbital Periods
STK Latitude
[deg]
Predicted
Latitude [deg]
Relative % Error
Latitude
Absolute Error
Latitude [deg]
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
Orbital Periods
-81.318
-1.004
3.692
0.455
-1.302
1.914
0.765
-0.151
STK Longitude
[deg]
-84.213
-176.841
-8.931
157.435
-35.444
131.713
-60.379
106.777
-78.2263
-3.8088
5.0251
-7.313
8.3542
-17.2225
24.470
-36.3552
Predicted
Longitude [deg]
-76.9491
-176.45
-7.8032
158.8959
-32.735
135.8679
9 -53.6428
116.3451
3.80
-279.36
-36.10
1707.25
741.64
999.81
-3098.81
-23976.29
Relative % Error
Longitude
8.62
0.22
12.62
-0.92
7.64
-3.15
11.15
-8.96
-3.0917
2.8048
-1.3331
7.768
-9.6562
19.1365
-23.7059
36.2042
Absolute Error
Longitude [deg]
-7.2639
-0.391
-1.1278
-1.4609
-2.709
-4.1549
-6.7362
-9.5681
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
6.3.6
Power Generation
To ensure sufficient power was generated by solar panels and stored within onboard
battery a power generation model was produced within the orbital simulation. The power
generation model ensured that electronic components selected met the power budget.
The model used the relationship that the power produced by solar cells varied
sinusoidally with incidence angle, found during solar cell testing 7.1 - Solar Panel
Testing. The sun was simulated as a point source on the x axis at 149,598,000 kilometres
away from the Earth. The orbit selected for the power generation simulation was the same
as the orbital prediction model, CUTE-1. Similar to the orbital prediction model, the angle
between each solar panel and the sun was calculated using the two argument function,
atan2, between a vector through each side panel of the satellite and the relative vector of
the sun from the satellites centre.
88
6.3
Simulation
When a satellite is eclipsed by the Earth the solar panels no longer produce power. To
account for this, an if statement set the instantaneous power of all the solar panels to zero
when the angle between the Sun vector relative to the Earth and the satellites position
vector relative to the Earth was greater than 135 degrees. The value of 135 degrees was
selected as the eclipse angle which corresponded to an 800 kilometre orbit.
The power of the satellite was calculated over a period of three orbits and the resultant
instantaneous power generation for each side panel was plotted, see Figure 40. The total
power generated by the satellite was calculated through the addition of the instantaneous
power of each side panel, see Figure 41.
Figure 40: Power generation plot for each side panel over the simulated three orbits.
Figure 41: Power generation plot for the satellite over the simulated three orbits.
89
6.3
6.3.7
Simulation
De-tumble Model
A de-tumble model was produced as part of the simulation for the AUSAT project to
estimate the time required to de-tumble the satellite after deployment. The satellite will be
de-tumbled using the torque generated from the magnetorquers. The model required that
the initial rotational rate be variable to account for different deployment scenarios. The
model assumed that the torque produced from each magnetorquer acts at the geometric
centre of the satellite. Additionally, the satellite is assumed to be exactly one kilogram
which is distributed evenly about its geometric centre to reduce the complexity of the
model. The third assumption was that the system operates as a satellite fixed reference
frame so the magnetorquers had no lateral acceleration.
Transformations between co-ordinate frames were calculated using quaternions because

unlike Euler angles they are not susceptible to singularities and do not require each
calculation to be performed in the same convention (de Weck, 2001). The system was
modelled by converting the initial Euler angles of the satellite, obtained through attitude
sensors, into quaternions to prevent any singularities or gimbal lock occurring. The torque
produced from each magnetorquer was calculated using Eq. 13,
~ G = A N I n B G ,
(13)
in the global reference frame. In Eq. 13 A represents the area within the magnetorquer,
N is the number of turns in the magnetorquer, I is the current flowing, the vector, n,
is a unit vector in the direction of the magnetorquer and B is the reference magnetic
field. The torque produced was converted to the satellite reference frame and the angular
acceleration due to this torque is calculated using Eq. 14,
~ S = I ~S +
~SI
~ S,
(14)
where I is the moment of inertia, is the angular acceleration in the satellite reference
frame and is the satellite body rates. The cross product term in Eq. 14 related to the
angular momentum of the satellite. From the angular acceleration the body rates of the
90
6.3
Simulation
satellite were calculated by an Euler integration scheme, using the relationship in Eq. 15,
q [i+1] =
[ i +1]
1 T
~S ,
G
2
(15)
where q is the derivative of the quaternion, G T is a 4 4 matrix made up of the quaternion

elements and are the satellite body rates. The results from Eq. 15 were integrated and
underwent a transformation in order to gain the resultant Euler angles. The process was
iterated after new Euler angles were calculated to obtain the dynamic response of the
satellite after deployment. The process was contained within a for loop which required
the body rates of the satellite to reach a sufficiently slow rotational rate of 2 rad/s in order
for active attitude control to take over. Analysis revealed that the satellite required several
orbits in order to de-tumble the satellite from a moderate initial rotational rate of 2 rad/s.
91
PROTOTYPE AND TESTING
Prototype and Testing
Technical drawings were constructed following the completion of detailed structure

design, see Appendix C. The technical drawings were sent to BAE Systems for
manufacture as in-kind sponsorship for the project. Two structures were manufactured
by BAE Systems so that one could be used for thermal and vibration testing as outlined
in the CDS (Munakata, 2009) and the other was kept for electronic testing. Additional
tests were performed on the S-Band transceivers, GPS receiver and batteries to ensure the
components were functioning as expected.
Vibration testing involved the construction and use of mock boards that simulated CG,
mass and mass distribution of flight electronics to ensure no damage of electronics during
testing. Additional thermal mock boards were used in thermal tests which consisted of a
set of resistors that simulated the heat generated by electronics and temperature sensors
to measure the internal satellite temperature distribution under vacuum conditions. The
integrity of adhesive used to attach solar cells to solar panel was also confirmed in
vibration and thermal testing.
Other testing also validated theoretical analysis of subsystem designs in the conceptual
design and validated the power budget, constructed in 5.2 - Electrical Power Design.
The construction of a scale model, mock boards and testing is presented in the following
sections.
7.1
Solar Panels
Five solar panels used on AUSAT form the only means of system power generation and
as a result form an integral part of the satellite. Without the reliable and predictable
performance from the solar panels it would be impossible for the mission to operate
successfully. The panels were required to operate flawlessly in vacuum conditions as well
as withstand any radiation present in LEO environments. The construction and testing of
solar panels are detailed in the following sections.
92
7.1
7.1.1
Solar Panels
Solar Panel Construction
Two individual AZUR Space solar cells were connected in series to form a single solar
panel. Results of testing indicated that each cell produced approximately 2.5 V regardless
of the angle of incident light, therefore, connecting two in series resulted in each solar
panel generating approximately 5V with current varying with the angle of incidence of
the incoming solar radiation.
The first step of construction required the solar cells to have copper strips attached to
the positive and negative terminals to allow for their electrical connection via a PCB.
This presented a significant challenge, initially, conductive glue was used to attempt
to make an electrical connection. However, due to the limited area of the connective
pads on the solar cells, it was impossible to achieve a reliable electrical connection.
A secondary method included attempting to solder a copper connecting wire using
traditional soldering techniques. This method resulted in the solar cells cracking due to
thermal stresses induced by the soldering iron. The third method involved preheating the
solar cell with hot air followed by soldering copper ribbon to the cells. This method was
successful and resulted in a functioning cell with copper connectors attached. However,
the procedure was difficult to repeat and it was unfeasible to manufacture all the solar
panels using this method. The final method once again used preheating but instead of
copper ribbon, copper solder braid was used as it could readily hold the required amount
of solder and was flexible.
Once the interconnects had been attached PCBs were etched by the School of Mechanical
Engineering Electronics Workshop to form the solar panel structure. The boards were
designed with one side used to house the solar cells whilst the underside was used to
electrically connect the two cells. Different boards were required for four of the five
sides of the satellite that were to have solar panels attached. This was due to the various
locations of threaded holes within the structure. The copper interconnects were allowed
to pass through the board via three slots designed specifically to accommodate the cell
interconnects and were soldered to the tracks on the underside of the board.
93
7.1
Solar Panels
The cells were bonded to the PCB using a non-corrosive, flowable, silicone adhesive
manufactured by ACC Silicones. A silicone adhesive was chosen due to its flexibility and
ability to allow for differing thermal expansion coefficients between bonded materials. In
the event that the solar cells expanded more rapidly with thermal stimulus than the PCB
beneath them the silicone adhesive would not cause any damage to the cells or the PCB.
Other adhesives such as epoxies are much more brittle and more prone to cracking under
such thermal stresses.
7.1.2
Solar Cell Testing
Testing of the solar cells and panels was required to ensure sufficient power was
generated by the panels and to check whether the panels would survive space and launch
environments. The tests performed related to both measuring the power output and
ensuring the mechanical properties of the panels were suitable for space conditions. The
testing included an initial power verification test and establishment of the relationship
between the angle of incidence and power output of the cells. Vacuum testing was
performed to ensure that the adhesive used for the cells would not cause failure of the
panels due to outgassing. Thermal vacuum testing and random vibration testing were
performed on the solar panels at the same time as the structure and other components,
see 7.3 - Random Vibration Testing. Once the cells had been attached to the solar panels
a test was performed to ensure the cells were still performing as expected.
7.1.3
Solar Cell Test Results
Results from the initial testing outlined that the solar cells initially had performance
similar to manufacture performance specifications. With direct sunlight the cells produced
approximately 2.5 V at 0.4 A resulting in a power generation of approximately 1 W. Since
natural sunlight was used some power loss was expected due to atmospheric losses. It
was determined that the relationship between the angle of incidence of the sunlight and
the current produced and hence power generation by the solar cell was sinusoidal and
that the power generation was proportional to the cosine of the angle of angle of incidence,
seen in Figure 42. The angle of incidence in the case of the test was the angle between the
94
7.1
Solar Panels
normal vector of the solar panel and incoming radiation path.
Figure 42: Plot of power output of solar cells versus solar radiation incidence angle
The result from thermal vacuum testing demonstrated that the adhesive would not
significantly outgas whilst under a vacuum and that the cells were capable of remaining
attached to the PCB substrates whilst in a vacuum and subjected to thermal cycling.
Additionally, random vibration test results confirmed that the adhesive bond between
the cell and the PCB substrate was sufficiently strong to endure launch conditions.
7.1.4
Solar Cell Test Conclusion
The purpose of testing the solar cells and panels was to verify the electrical and
mechanical performance of the cells would allow full operation of the EPS throughout the
life cycle of the mission profile including launch vehicle vibrations. The results indicated
that it was reasonable to expect that the solar panels would endure launch and operate
successfully during spaceflight.
95
7.2
7.2
Magnetorquers
Magnetorquers
Three magnetorquers, which act as the sole actuators for the attitude control system of
AUSAT, were constructed and tested at The University of Adelaide. The purpose of
testing the magnetorquers was to determine the torque produced by the magnetorquers
with respect to the current in the coils, the surrounding magnetic field and physical
properties of the satellite.
The measurement of the torque produced by the final
magnetorquers was used to demonstrate de-tumbling of the satellite. The following

sections detail the construction and testing of magnetorquers.
7.2.1
Magnetorquer Construction
The magnetorquer construction posed some significant challenges that needed to be

addressed in order to produce useful and acceptable components. The weight of each coil
had to be kept to a minimum through the omission of any unnecessary materials. This
meant that bobbin mass must be as low as possible and any potting glue must be used
sparingly or not at all. Using a self bonding wire to wind each coil instead of standard
enamelled wire had the potential to eliminate the need for bobbin as well as eliminating
the need for any additional potting compounds. Self bonding wire includes an additional
adhesive overcoat surrounding the enamel. The coat becomes adhesive when exposed to
high temperature or chemical solvents, removing the need for a permanent coil structure
and any potting compound.
The wire chosen to wind the coils was Elektrisola FS-18 with a polyesterimide base
enamel coat and a polyamide bonding overcoat. This wire was chosen due to existing
flight heritage on prior CubeSat missions as well as being readily available in 0.150
mm bare wire diametre as required by the magnetorquer design. FS-18 allowed for a
variety of bonding methods including applying hot air during winding, oven baking and
application of an alcohol based solvent such as ethanol. The 0.150 mm bare diametre has
a nominal internal resistance of 0.9673 /m at 25 C.
Initially a magnetorquer winding mould was designed using ProEngeering Wildfire. The
96
7.2
Magnetorquers
assembly consisted of two parts, one flat plate and another plate with a raised section of
dimensions 65 x 65mm. The two plates were held together using four M6 bolts. The parts
were manufactured from High Density PolyEthylene (HDPE) using a privately owned
CNC machine. HDPE was chosen as the material due to its widespread availability, low
cost and ease of fabrication.
The coil was wound using transformer winding apparatus provided by the School of
Mechanical Engineering Electronics Workshop. Although the apparatus did not have
any sophisticated tensioning or wire guiding mechanisms, it provided a turn counter
and used in conjunction with two operators was capable of winding a tight and uniform
magnetorquer.
Due to the magnetorquer mould being manufactured from HDPE any attempts at using
oven baking or high temperature resistance curing would have resulted in the mould
melting. The recommended temperatures for both aforementioned bonding methods
require temperatures ranging from 130 C - 210 C, higher than the melting point of HDPE.
However, HDPE had a high chemical resistance and therefore using a chemical solvent
would be the most suited method to bond the coils.
The first prototype coil, seen in Figure 43, was wound onto the mould completely dry.
Once the correct amount of turns had been completed the mould was dunked into a bath
of methylated spirits for 300 seconds. The mould was then removed and allowed to dry
over the next 10 minutes. After the drying time had elapsed the mould was dismantled
and the coil was allowed to dry for a further 5 minutes. Upon removing the coil it was
clear that there had been significant adhesion within the coil however due to the flexibility
in the coils it was clear that the bonds were not completely formed.
Additional magnetorquers were manufactured using a slightly different procedure.

Methylated spirits was applied to the wire while the coil was being wound using a sponge.
This ensured that all the turns of the coil were sufficiently coated with the solvent. The
coil was then left free in the air for approximately 5 minutes. After this time a laboratory
97
7.2
Magnetorquers
power supply was used to run 300mA (at 40V) current through the coil for 10 minutes.
The current flow and internal resistance approximately 100 caused the coil to heat up
and dry any remaining solvent with the windings. This modified process ensured that the
entire coil was sufficiently bound and that there would be no solvent remaining on the
inner windings of the coil. This process was used on all subsequent magnetorquer coils.
Figure 43: Photograph of the first magnetorquer prototype manufactured
7.2.2
Preliminary Magnetorquer Test
Preliminary tests involved visual measurements of displacement due to torque created

by a magnetorquer coil prototype acting on a magnetorquer test rig.
Testing the
magnetorquer by means of direct measurement is difficult due to the weak magnetic

field produced by the magnetorquer and hence the small resulting torque. The torque
was analysed by placing a magnetorquer rig onto a volume of water and recording the
time for the rig to rotate 90 degrees, aligning itself with the Earths magnetic field, Figure
44. The test was deemed inconclusive as the results were not repeatable. This arose
from several factors including interference of test rig and water container wall, magnetic
interference from surrounding electronic devices, friction between test rig and water and
Earths relatively weak magnetic field.
Figure 44: Photo of magnetorquer prototype in initial test rig

98
7.2
7.2.3
Magnetorquers
Helmholtz Coil Test
To solve the problem of measuring low level torque, a test from previous CubeSat designs
(Aydinlioglu, 2006: Gieelmann, 2006) involving active magnetic control was adopted.
The test involved measuring the magnetic moment of an oscillating magnetorquer placed
within a large uniform magnetic field produced from Helmholtz Coils, Figure 45. The
comparison of the period of free oscillation and oscillation in the magnetic field produced
by the Helmholtz Coils allows for the test rig support stiffness and magnetic moment to
be experimentally determined respectively.
Figure 45: Magnetorquer Test Setup

Apparatus
The apparatus required for the experiment included a light triggered sensor, a retort
stand, magnetorquer coils and a Helmholtz coil, Figure 46. A Helmholtz coil is a pair of
relatively large metal coils set up at a distance from each other. When an electric current
was passed through the coils a uniform magnetic field was produced. The magnetic field
was measured to be approximately 16 G with non uniformities less than 0.1 G within the
Helmholtz coils inner diametre, where the magnetorquer was suspended by copper wire.
A retort stand and light gate was positioned so that the oscillating magnetorquer would
break the light beam every pass so that the period of oscillation could be electronically
99
7.2
Magnetorquers
logged.
Figure 46: Close-up of Magnetorquer Test Setup

Theory
To measure the torque created by the magnetorquer as a function of the angular
displacement, , from reference magnetic field, it was necessary to sum the forces acting
on the system. The two main forces acting on the system were due to magnetic interaction
between magnetorquer and Helmholtz coil and the torsional stiffness of suspending wire.
The theory behind the derivation of the governing equations in this section is covered in
more detail in Appendix J.
The resulting summation of torque acting on the magnetorquer was governed by Eq. 16,
= k M B sin( ) = J ,
(16)
where is torque acting on the magnetorquer, k is the torsional stiffness of the supporting
wire, is the angular acceleration of the magnetorquer, J is the mass moment of inertia of
the magnetorquer coil and M is the magnetic moment of the magnetorquer.
Equation 16 was manipulated such that the torsional stiffness of the supporting wire, the
magnetic moment of the magnetorquer coil and the torque created by the magnetorquer
100
7.2
Magnetorquers
coil, as a function of current, was calculated using Eq. 17 and Eq. 18 respectively. The
torsional stiffness of the supporting wire, k , was calculated using Eq. 17,
k =
4J 2
,
Tk2
(17)
where J is the moment of inertia of the magnetorquer coil andTk is the period of free
oscillation in seconds. The experimental magnetic moment of the magnetorquer coil, M,
was calculated using Eq 18,
M=
4J 2 k
,
B
T2 B
(18)
where T is the period of oscillation of the magnetorquer in a magnetic field and B is the
magnetic field supplied by the Helmholtz coil. The torque produced by magnetorquers
can then be expressed by Eq. 19,
c = M B ,
(19)
by assuming the following small angle approximation, Eq. 20,

sin( ) = f or 15o 15o .
(20)
Procedure
The test set up involved suspending the magnetorquer in the center of the Helmholtz Coil
Pair. The Helmholtz Coil Pair created a uniform magnetic field between the coils where
the magnetorquer coil was suspended. The magnetorquer coil was aligned such that the
magnetic fields created by both the Helmholtz Coil Pair and the magnetorquer were in the
same direction. In this orientation there were no forces acting on the magnetorquer when
the magnetorquer was stationary.
A light triggered sensor, supported by a retort stand, was set up such that the period of
oscillation of the magnetorquer could be measured. Measurements were taken initially
without applying a current across the coils, free oscillation or scenario one in Table 20,
to determine the torsional stiffness of the supporting wire. To measure the torque created
by each magnetorquer coil a constant current was applied to the Helmholtz coil and the
101
7.2
Magnetorquers
current supplied to each magnetorquer coil was increased in increments of 50 mA. The
different scenarios are listed in Table 20. To minimise errors, for each different voltage
setup, five sets of ten oscillations were recorded. The test procedure was repeated for
three magnetorquers.
Table 20: Current and magnetic field strength for various magnetorquer testing scenarios
Scenario
Current applied to
magnetorquer [mA]
1
0
2
50
3
100
4
150
5
200
7.2.4
Magnetorquer Test Expected Results
To validate the results of magnetorquer tests the experimental magnetic moments and
torques were compared to theoretical values. The theoretical value of magnetic moment
was calculated using Eq. 21,
M = A N I,
(21)
where A is the area of the magnetorquer, N is the number of turns on each magnetorquer
and I is the current supplied to magnetorquer. From the magnetic moment the torque on
each magnetorquer was theoretically estimated using Eq. 22
= A N I B ,
(22)
where B is the magnetic field strength. The following magnetorquer parameters were
used to calculate expected results presented in Table 21.
A = L2 = 0.074 = 0.00548 m2
N = 400 turns
B = 0.0016 T
102
7.2
Magnetorquers
Table 21: Expected torque of magnetorquer with various currents
7.2.5
Scenario
Applied Current
[mA]
Expected Magnetic
Moment [ A.m2 ]
Expected Torque
104 [N.m]
2
3
4
5
50
100
150
200
0.109
0.219
0.328
0.438
1.7
3.5
5.2
7.0
Magnetorquer Test Results
The results from testing each magnetorquer are listed in Table 22.
Scenario
2
3
4
5
7.2.6
Table 22: Magnetorquer test results

Magnetorquer 1 Magnetorquer 2 Magnetorquer 3
104 [ N.m]
104 [ N.m]
104 [ N.m]
1.39
1.25
1.28
2.78
2.16
2.34
3.77
3.02
3.35
4.63
3.80
4.23
Magnetorquer Test Conclusion
The results of magnetorquer testing indicated that the magnetorquers performed lower
than the expected theoretical results. The error arose due to the uncertainty of the moment
of inertia which was affected due to the addition of tape and wire on the magnetorquer to
break the light beam of the light gate sensor. The measured torques were compared to the
disturbance torques experienced in a LEO environment (Gieelmann, 2006) seen in Table
23. Active attitude control was determined to be possible as the torque produced from
each magnetorquer was approximately a factor of 1,000 times greater than disturbance
torques.
Table 23: Disturbance torques experienced on CubeSats in LEO environments
Source Torque
Torque [Nm]
Aerodynamic Drag
1.34107
Solar Pressure
2.62109
Residual Dipole
4.59107
Total Disturbance Level
5.95107
103
7.3
7.3
Thermal Vacuum Tests
Thermal vacuum tests were conducted to predict the satellites internal temperature
distribution throughout an orbit. The results of these tests were used to verify that
maximum operating temperatures of the electronics were not exceeded.
7.3.1
Thermal Vacuum Apparatus
A vacuum chamber was set up with sufficient data ports for the input and output wires for
the electronics. The vacuum created by the chamber reached 30 of mercury which was
100 % vacuum, with an precision of approximately 1 of mercury or 3.4% vacuum. The
satellite was assembled with four electronics boards, seen in Figure 47, in order to simulate
the heat output of the electronics that will be within the satellite in orbit. The heat was
produced by a 6.8 resistor positioned at the centre of each board. A power output of 5
W was achieved per board by applying 5.83 volts to each resistor. This simulated a worst
case scenario where all electronic power was dissipated by one board. The resistors were
connected in series and therefore a total of 23.32 V was applied to the system.
Figure 47: Illustration of the electronic boards used in thermal testing

104
7.3
The external radiative heat source was applied by a heat lamp directed onto the front
face of the satellite through the window of the vacuum chamber, seen in Figure 48. The
intensity output of the heat lamp was controlled by a voltage regulator. Four LM35
Precision Centigrade temperature sensors were installed at various locations inside of
the satellite. The voltage output of the sensors was proportional to the temperature of
the sensor and calibrated so that the voltage drop across the sensors was equal to ten
times the temperature of the sensor in degrees Celsius. A fifth temperature sensor was
installed inside the vacuum chamber in the radiation of the heat source to measure the
ambient temperature in front of the satellite. Five multimeters were used to measure
the voltage drop across each of the temperature sensors inside the vacuum chamber.
A voltage regulator was used to control the radiation output of the heat lamp from the
ambient temperature sensor reading. A mercury thermometer was used to find the zero
offset of each of the temperature sensors before the experiment took place.
Figure 48: Illustration of the thermal vacuum test setup
105
7.3
7.3.2
Thermal Vacuum Testing Method
The temperature for each sensor was recorded and compared to the mercury thermometer
reading inside the room. This reading was used to calculate the zero offset of each of the
temperature sensors, Table 24.
Table 24: Zero offsets of the temperature sensors used in thermal vacuum tests
Ambient
Sensor 1 [o C] Sensor 2 [o C] Sensor 3 [o C] Sensor 4 [o C]
Temperature Sensor
[o C]
0.147500
0.577500
-0.512500
-0.142500
-0.212500
The satellite was assembled with the electronics boards and solar panel at the front of the
satellite. Four of the five solar panels were not constructed by the time of the experiment
so one solar panel was positioned at the front of the satellite as this would have the largest
effect in the accuracy of the test. The satellite was placed inside the vacuum chamber, this
ensured that radiation was the only form of heat transfer to simulate space conditions.
The satellite was set on a stand inside the vacuum chamber to minimise heat transfer by
conduction to the chamber walls. Once the satellite was set up, the vacuum chamber
was sealed and brought down to 30 of mercury. Power was then applied to the resistors
and and the temperature for each of the sensors was recorded every minute until the
temperature settled, Figure 49.
Figure 49: Pre-test temperature readings for thermal testing

106
7.3
The ambient temperature inside the vacuum chamber followed the regime highlighted
by the CDS (Munakata, 2009) shown in Figure 50. The temperature reading for each
sensor was recorded every minute. The regime in Figure 50 covered two cycles in case
the maximum temperature in a second cycle is greater than that in the first cycle. For this
reason the test was deemed complete once the second maximum was reached.
Figure 50: Temperature regime as stated by the CDS for thermal vacuum tests
7.3.3
Thermal Vacuum Test Results
The results from the thermal vacuum test for each sensor are shown in Figure 51. It was
desired for the ambient temperature to follow the same line as the aimed temperature
however, at approximately 40 C, the heat from the satellite could not be radiated as
quickly as required. For this reason the internal temperatures in the second cycle are
an extreme case as they start from a higher base temperature. The full set of results are
shown in Appendix K.
7.3.4
Thermal Vacuum Test Discussion
The test was performed simulating all electronic components operating simultaneously
through the use of transistors. This is a worst case scenario that would only happen
for brief periods within the orbit such as communications. This factor acted to increase
the temperature within the satellite to higher than what would be experienced at any
107
7.3
point in an orbit. The maximum internal temperatures experienced in the second cycle
were within approximately 5 C of the first maximum. It was expected that, if the
ambient temperature decreased as planned, the second maximum would be closer to
the first recorded maximum. To ensure that the temperature gradient would maintain
the temperature profile outline by the CDS (Munakata, 2009) a method of cooling the
thermal chamber such as coolant loops would be required. The results shown in Figure
51 demonstrate that while the outside of the satellite reaches 70 C, the internals reach
a maximum of 60 C and therefore an update of the testing apparatus was deemed
unnecessary.
Figure 51: Thermal vacuum test results

The internal temperature measurements shown in Figure 51 were split into two main
curves. This is due to the temperature sensors for readings Temp 1 and Temp 2 were
closer to the front of the satellite than the other two sensors. Spikes in the results shown
108
7.4
Random Vibration Testing
in Figure 51 can be attributed mainly to errors in the temperature readings. Global peaks
in the measurements can be seen initially, at 84 and at 164 minutes in Figure 51. As the
global peaks drop back down in the next minute, it was assumed that there was a random
fluctuation in the power supply.
7.3.5
Thermal Vacuum Test Conclusion
Thermal vacuum testing indicated that the temperature distribution tended toward the
higher operating limits of the electronic boards. This was primarily due to the fact that
the test simulated the worst case scenario of all electronics operating simultaneously. The
maximum temperature within the satellite was approximately 60 C for brief periods
of the test. This maximum temperature was within all operating temperatures of the
components, seen in Table 1, except for charging of the battery. To ensure the battery
was not damage additional insulation material was required.
7.4
Random vibration tests were conducted to verify that the AUSAT structure and solar
panels would withstand launch environments. The Dnepr launch vehicles vibration
profile was used in testing as it has the most severe vibration profile of any launch vehicles
capable of launching CubeSats.
7.4.1
Random Vibration Apparatus
Mock boards were constructed to simulate the mass distribution and CG of the electronic
boards. The actual electronic boards were not used in the test as the test was primarily to
verify that the structure and solar panels would survive launch conditions. Additionally,
due to time constraints the electronic boards were required to remain at the university
to complete system diagnostics. Lead weights, sheet aluminium and plastic masses were
used to accurately model the weight distribution and provided a visual representation of
the actual electronic boards. A vibrations test pod, seen in Figure 52, was developed to
secure the satellite in place while on the shaker table. For more information on the design
of the test pod see Appendix L.
109
7.4
Figure 52: Vibration test pod used to secure satellite in vibration testing
The test pod simulated the support between satellite and the launch rails while not
touching any of the satellites faces, seen in Figure 53. Accelerometers were used to
measure the vibrations that the satellite experienced during testing. A Ling Dynamic
Systems, Model V824LS, electrodynamic shaker was used to apply the random vibration
spectrum in three axes supplied by VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Ltd, Sydney. The
shaker table was controlled by a Signal Star vibration controller manufactured by
Concurrent.
Figure 53: CAD model of satellite within test pod
110
7.4
7.4.2
Random Vibration Testing Procedure
The test pod was initially installed on the shaker table in the Z-axis configuration, seen in
Figure 54. The high level vibration spectrum, outlined in 6.2.2 - Finite Element Analysis,
was applied to the test pod and a accelerometer was used to measure the vibration
response of the base plate. The results were used to calibrate the vibration controller.
Figure 54: Satellite within test pod secured on shaker table

Accelerometers were attached to structural panels and internal mock boards to measure
the acceleration experienced by the satellite. Once the accelerometers were calibrated the
satellite was installed into the test pod and the high level vibration spectrum was applied
to the structure for 35 seconds to simulate the vibration conditions during launch.
After the high level vibration spectrum was applied, the test pod was opened and
the structure was inspected for damage. The accelerometer mounted on the satellite
structure was used to produce a resonance plot of the vibrations which outlined the modal
frequencies of the structure. The low level vibration spectrum, outline in 6.2.2 - Finite
Element Analysis, was then applied for 831 seconds and the structure and accelerometer
readings were analysed. The shaker table was re-oriented with a fork lift to conduct
vibration tests in the X and Y axes.
111
7.4
7.4.3
Random Vibration Test Results
After completing three axes vibrations tests the structure and solar panels remained
undamaged and therefore the satellite passed random vibration testing, as expected from
FEA results. However, two of the screws holding the solar panels in place came loose,
Figure 55. The graphs of the resonance plots of the structure and the spectrums applied
to the test pod are shown in Appendix K.
Figure 55: Satellite after random vibration testing with loose screws
The modal frequencies of the satellite structure, as determined by the accelerometers, are
shown in Table 25.
Table 25: Modal frequencies of the structure
Mode Frequency [Hz]
01
420
02
800
03
100
04
1050
05
1120
06
1450
112
7.4
The Y axis accelerometer was attached to one of the mock boards to determine the modal
frequencies of the boards, Table 26.
Table 26: Modal frequencies of the mock boards
Mode Frequency [Hz]
01
190
02
220
03
360
04
400
05
900
06
1400
7.4.4
Random Vibration Test Discussion
The vibration tests indicated that the screws which came loose were not in contact with
the silicone adhesive used to bond solar cells to PCB. This shows that all screws on the
launch qualified satellite will need to be held in place with an adhesive such as Loctite.
After measurement of the voltage output of the solar panels it was concluded that random
vibration testing resulted in no loss of performance of the solar cells due to solder damage.
The modal frequencies corresponded to the peaks in the resonance frequency plots,
Appendix K. The modal frequencies of the structure were different to the values calculated
during FEA in 6.2.2 - Finite Element Analysis. This is mainly due to the fact that there
was a nodal limit in the ANSYS program used, which lead to the over-simplification of
the CAD model analysed. This nodal limit greatly decreased the accuracy of the results
obtained. Furthermore, the accelerometers were placed on side panels of the satellite
and not on the main structure. The modal frequencies of the boards were lower than
the structure due to the decrease in structural rigidity and a gap in the spacers holding
them in place.
7.4.5
Random Vibration Test Conclusion
The random vibration testing indicated that the vibration spectrum experienced during
launch will not damage the structure or the solar panels. Furthermore, as the solder joints
were not damaged, the testing showed that they should not fail during launch. Further
113
7.5
Communication Testing
test will have to be conducted upon the integration of electronic boards to ensure the
launch qualification of the satellite.
7.5
The communication testing required a basic wireless linkage test, wireless serial data
transfer and patch antenna analysis to ensure the successful operation of all components
of the communication subsystem.
These communications test are presented in the
following sections.
7.5.1
Basic Wireless Linkage Test
The first test performed on the CS was establishing a basic wireless connection between
the two S-band transceivers. A basic wireless transfer of data between the transceivers
demonstrated that both transceivers were operational and functioning correctly.
The test was carried out by attaching the supplied antennas and connecting each of
the transceivers to separate computers via serial ports. The computers were located
approximated 5 metres apart and separated by a double brick wall. HyperTerminal was
opened on each of the computers and used to interface each of the transceivers through
the appropriate com ports. The necessary commands were entered to set one transceiver
as a master and the other as a slave.
The wireless connection was first visually inspected through the use of the signal indicator
LEDs on the transceiver boards. HyperTerminal was then used to successfully transmit
text from one transceiver to the other.
7.5.2
Wireless Serial Data Transfer
The second test of the CS involved establishing a virtual serial link between a computer
and a microcontroller. A Freescale Dragonboard HCS12 microcontroller was connected
to one transceiver while the other transceiver was connected to a computer. Using
the Metrowerks Codewarrior programming environment a basic serial communication
114
7.5
program was loaded onto the Dragonboard allowing for serial communication between
the dragonboard and the computer.
The test proved the capability of the transceivers to communicate between a computer and
microcontroller. This was a similar situation to the final communication protocol where
the on-board microcontroller would be required to interface with the on-board transceiver
module and communicate with the other transceiver located at the ground station. This
test was initially completed using the supplied monopole transceiver antennas and then
repeated using the custom made patch antennas to ensure correct operation of the patch
antennas.
7.5.3
Patch Antenna Analysis
Due to budget and time limitations it was not possible to manufacture the antennas from
a suitable material such as PTFE for this project. Two antennas were constructed from
FR-4 laminate, however, the analysis of this design showed significant losses in gain,
bandwidth and efficiency when compared to a similar design using a PTFE substrate.
The degradation of performance for this particular antenna was to such an extent that it
would not be satisfactory to include it on a flight ready satellite. As a result no formal
testing was conducted on these patch antennas.
7.5.4
Anechoic Chamber Testing
Anechoic chamber testing would have formed the majority of the patch antenna
analysis after the construction of a flight ready patch antenna.
Testing within an
anechoic chamber would be useful for determining parameters of an antenna or even

potentially a transceiver and antenna system. An anechoic chamber provides a controlled
environment, all weather capability and reduced electromagnetic interference (Balanis,
1997). Typically a receiver horn would be set up at one end of the chamber and the antenna
to be analysed set up at the other. Since the specifications of the receiver horn are known
by providing a known signal to the antenna to be analysed the output of the antenna
can be measured and parameters such as the gain, directivity, efficiency and resonant
115
7.6
Battery Test
frequency can be determined. This test was not performed on the antenna manufactured
for this project due to both time limitations and the already poor performance outlined in
5.3 - Communication Conceptual Design.
7.5.5
Communication Test Results
Communication tests demonstrated the capability of subsystem to transfer useful data

between the two transceivers. The results used in conjunction with the link budget
analysis demonstrate that the system would perform as expected with the use of an
appropriate antenna. Although an appropriate antenna was not manufactured due to
budget limitations it would be required to form a fully operational CS.
7.6
Battery Test
Testing of the battery, purchased from Clyde-Space, was required to determine the
available voltage of the battery over time. The battery was also tested to check that the
capacity of the battery matched that on the manufacturers data sheet.
7.6.1
Battery Test Theory
To find out the capacity of the battery the instantaneous voltage was divided by the
resistance according to Ohms Law to get the instantaneous current output. The total
capacity of the battery can be obtained by integrating the current with respect to time,
Eq. 23,
Battery Capacity =
I dt.
(23)
However, for discrete data the integral can be replaced with a summation seen in Eq. 24
Battery Capacity =
I 4t,
(24)
where 4t is the time interval used in testing.

7.6.2
Battery Test Procedure
Battery terminals were connected to a voltage divider which scaled the maximum battery
voltage of 8.3 V to 5V. The voltage was then logged to the computer at 1 second intervals
116
7.6
Battery Test
using an Arduino microcontroller as seen in the photo and schematic in Figure 56 and
a custom logging program seen in Appendix M. To validate that the voltage read by
the microcontroller was correct, a multimeter was used to measure battery voltage at
several stages of the test. The current at each time step was calculated through the use of
Ohms Law and the assumption that the resistance of the battery and testing rig remained
constant through the duration of the test. The product of current and time interval was
summed for the entire test obtain the total capacity of the battery.
Figure 56: Left: photo of Ardunio microcontroller and battery, Right: Schematic of battery
test rig
7.6.3
Battery Test Results
The logged voltage data for the battery test can be seen in Figure 57. The results indicated
that the battery had a capacity of 1.116 Ah which is within 5% of the manufacturers data
specifications for the battery of 1.172 Ah. Errors of the tests would have been introduced
due to the resistance of connecting the battery, microcontroller and computer using wires.
The resistance of the wire would decrease the current being recorded by data logger and
hence reduce the calculated battery capacity. Additionally, the value of the resistors on
both the microcontroller and EPS varied with temperature. As the temperature of the
test was not strictly controlled the temperature of test rig increased through the continual
operation of EPS. The increased temperature lead to an overall increase in the resistance
of test rig and had a similar effect of additional wiring.
117
7.6
Battery Test
Figure 57: Plot of battery voltage as a function of time for battery test
7.6.4
Battery Test Conclusion
Testing of the battery showed that the capacity was within 5% of the manufacturers
specified capacity.
Introduction of errors including resistor temperature effects and
additional resistance due to wiring decreased the experimentally obtained capacity

compared to manufacturers data. As the discrepancy was limited to within 5% of the
manufactures claim of 1.172 Ahr the test indicated that the battery was operating correctly.
118
FINANCES
Finances
Financial requirements were estimated so a suitable level of funding could be sourced.

The finances were approximated by comparing COTS components available for CubeSats.
General hardware costs of CubeSats constructed for the QB50 project are estimated to
be in the range of 70,000 AUD to 150,000 AUD (QB50, 2009). This cost includes all
manufacturing including structure and electronics. As the manufacturing of AUSAT has
been provided as in-kind sponsorship from BAE Systems and the School of Mechanical
Engineering the total cash sponsorship required was significantly reduced. Additionally,
the workshop hours were recorded and an estimation of wages was performed to provide
an estimation of labour costs.
8.1
Component Costs
The cost associated with the design, build and testing for AUSAT were approximated
in the initial stages of the project, listed in Table 27.
The cost of each component
was estimated by considering the costs related to raw materials, manufacture and
assembly. However, the cost of the structure is only an estimation of the raw materials
as manufacturing costs were covered by in-kind sponsorship from BAE Systems.
Table 27: Initial Estimation of Component Cost
Description of Article
Expected Costs [AUD]
Structure
180
Mock Structure
100
Camera
325
Solar Cells (GaAs)
4,895
Solar Cell Tests
100
Electric Power System Board and Battery
4,800
Magnetorquers and Magnetometers
210
Magnetorquer tests
100
Antenna
575
Transceiver
15,000
Mock Electronics
100
Miscellaneous Electronic Components
430
Miscellaneous
310
Thermal and Vibration testing
200
Total
27,325
119
8.1
Component Costs
FINANCES
The total estimated cost of the project was used to apply for funding, the amount of
funding sourced with the is listed in Table 28. The total funding sourced was 20,200 AUD
excluding the in-kind sponsorship from BAE Systems to manufacture two structures.
Table 28: Project AUSAT 2010 Funding
Organisation
Funding [AUD]
School of Mechanical Engineering
1,200 In-kind
Manufacturing
Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical
5,000
Sciences
Engineers Australia National Committee for Space
4,000
Engineering
The Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund
10,000
BAE Systems
Structural Manufacturing
Total
20,200
Following the sourcing of funds a Bill of Materials (BoM), seen in Table 29 and detailed
Appendix N, was created to track the purchase of components and materials to ensure the
project funds were not exceeded. The total cost of the project, seen in detail in Appendix
O, was 15,825 which was below the sourced funds. The funds acquired were sufficient to
complete the project due to the integration of inexpensive transceivers.
Table 29: Bill of Materials of AUSAT components
Costs [AUD]
Mock Structure
419
Camera
260
Solar Cells (Ga As)
3,042
Silicone Glue
162
Solar Cell Tests
7
Electric Power System Board and Battery
3,962
Magnetometer
870
Magnetorquers and Magnetorquer Test
508
Transceiver
1,482
GPS Receiver (COCOM removed)
3,626
Miscellaneous Electronic components
278
Miscellaneous
169
Conferences
825
Vibration testing
285
Thermal Testing
150
Total
16,042
120
8.2
8.2
Workshop Hours
FINANCES
Workshop Hours
As part of the project, 40 hours of workshop labour was budgeted per student to aid in the
construction of mechanical and electrical components. As the structure was manufactured
by BAE Systems no work was required from the Mechanical Workshop. However, the
microcontroller and thermal mock boards used in thermal testing were constructed in the
Electronics Workshop to reduce cost. The hours were recorded by the workshop staff to
ensure the budgeted 200 hours was not exceeded, seen in Table 30. At the completion of
the project 156 hours were utilised which corresponded to an in-kind contribution of 7,800
AUD assuming an hourly rate of 50 AUD/hr.
Table 30: Breakdown of workshop hours used during the AUSAT project
Date Hours [hr]
05/07
3
19/07
14
02/08
17
16/08
43.5
30/16
49.5
13/09
24
27/09
2
11/10
3
Total
156
8.3
Estimated Wages
The estimated wages for the students working on AUSAT have been calculated by
recording the hours each student has spent on the project on a daily basis in time sheets,
found in Appendix P. The wages assumed that each student is a qualified engineering
with a yearly salary of 50,000 AUD. The hours of all five students totalled 4,303.5 hours
corresponding to 286,900 AUD in project wages.
Table 31: Estimated Wages
Estimated Wages
Total Time [hours] 4,303.5
Salary [AUD/hour]
26
Direct Costs %
30
Indirect Costs %
130
Total Cost [AUD] 268,900
121
MANAGEMENT
Management
Efficient management of the project was essential to ensure the timely completion of
milestones and fair distribution of resources. To review progress of milestones weekly
internal and supervised meetings were scheduled during the project. Throughout the
year progress on electronic component design required extra time and resources resulting
in the formation of a third weekly meeting purely to discuss the progress of electronics.
The meetings allowed for ideas and research to be shared with the entire group in an
efficient manner. The meetings also served as a mean of gauging resource distribution
so that appropriate changes could be implemented to ensure a fair workload allocation.
Integrated Project Team (IPT) roles were assigned to group members to eliminate the
duplication of any tasks and responsibilities. The following sections discuss the various
methods utilised that ensured effective time and team management.
9.1
Time Management
The tasks which were required to satisfy the project goals, identified in 1.1 Project Goals
and Requirements, along with project deliverables set up by University of Adelaide for
final year projects were integrated into a long term Gantt chart, seen in Appendix Q. The
long term Gantt chart identified the critical path of the project, allowed for deadlines to be
placed on each task, ensured efficient time usage and resources available to critical tasks.
To ensure deadlines were met weekly meetings were organised. These included an
internal meeting with the members of the group, and internal electronics meeting and a
supervised meeting with the projects supervisor. In internal meetings the technical details
of designs, allocation of tasks, enforcement of deadlines and purchase of components were
discussed to make an informed group decision. Supervised meetings were then used to
keep track of the projects overall progress and to ensure the critical tasks were completed.
122
9.2
9.2
Team Management
MANAGEMENT
Team Management
Individual IPT roles, listed in Table 32, were assigned to group members to ensure efficient
completion of tasks. The roles were tailored to the strengths of the individuals. This meant
that any queries could be directed at the appropriate individuals who could provide the
best solution or ensure that appropriate actions were taken. A technical manager was
assigned to keep a track of the overall progress of the project and ensured that when
additional resources were required in a particular area the distribution of work load given
to each group member was altered to cater for this. A communication manager was
assigned who organise weekly meetings including the production of agendas and the
recording of meeting minutes. Specific subsystems including manufacturing, electrical
and mechatronics were also assigned managers to ensure the progress within each area of
the project was accurately tracked.
Table 32: Breakdown of group member allocations
Project role
Project member
Callum Chartier
Manufacturing manager
Michael Mackay
Technical manager
Drew Ravalico
Electrical manager & safety officer
Sonja Russell
Communication manager and test coordinator
Andrew Wallis
Mechatronics manager
123
10
10
PROJECT OUTCOMES
Project Outcomes
At the project commencement, goals and requirements were formulated to assess

the flight worthiness of a picosatellite based on CubeSat standards.
The goals and
requirements were broken into several discrete sections as the project covered many
disciplines including aerospace, mechanical, electrical and mechanical engineering. All
the core goals and requirements were successfully demonstrated throughout the project,
except for the integration of electronics, and initial research into the extended goal of
sourcing a launch vehicle was completed. The following section details the achievement
of each goal listed in 1.1 - Project Goals and Requirements.
1. A custom built structure was designed and manufactured based on a one unit CubeSat
design. The structure includes extrusions for solar panels and magnetorquers on five
faces and was confined to a 100 mm cube except for rails with height of 113.5 mm.
The structure included four internal rails that were designed so that electronics boards
conforming to PC-104 standards could be placed within the structure.
2. A mass spreadsheet, seen in Appendix G, was constructed in the conceptual design to
ensure that the total mass of each subsystem was within the limits and the total mass
of the satellite did not exceed 1.3 kg. This was achieved with a total mass of 961 g.
3. A stability analysis of the satellite was performed to determine the CG. The analysis
showed that the CG was at maximum mm from the GC, which was within the limit of
20 mm.
4. The rails of the satellite were designed and manufactured to be sufficiently smooth to
avoid jamming in P-POD and have a minimum radius was 1 mm or above.
5. All structural component fasteners such as screws were countersunk on the rails so
that 100 % of the rails would be in contact of P-POD rails. This exceeded the required
minimum that 75 % of rails must be in contact with P-POD rails.
6. All external components including antenna and solar panels were designed to avoid
contact with satellite rails to ensure that the satellite rails were the only component in
contact with P-POD rail.
124
10
PROJECT OUTCOMES
7. The structural design included rails of 8.5 mm in correspondence to CDS requirements.

8. Spring plungers from Maxiloc, 03020-04, meeting the CDS requirements were
purchased and integrated to the top of two diagonal rails. The springs allow for
successful separation from other satellites with P-POD.
9. To reduce the likelihood of mechanical failure and complexity no deployable
components were incorporated into the design.
10. Based on previous satellite missions the surrounding structure would provide
sufficient protection from radiation for onboard electronics.
11. Electronics were designed to include the function of a kill switch, however the official
switch was not integrated. A leaf spring kill switch device could be fixed to the
top panel of the satellite so that its tab rested on the surface of rail corresponding
to the designated +Z contact point as outlined in the CDS. This would allow for the
deactivation of electronics within the P-POD.
12. Financial budgeting, cash sponsorship and in-kind sponsorship ensured that all
materials and components used did not exceed the project budget of 20,200 AUD.
Testing of all material under random vibrations, thermal bake out and vacuum
conditions indicated that the materials would likely survive a LEO environment.
13. Hard anodising of the structural rails was not conducted as the position of the cut out
for camera lens on the frame was not finalised. Cut outs into the frame will need to be
made once the electronic components are integrated into the structure and the position
of the camera lens measured. After the structural cut out is made the two frame pieces
will need to be hard anodised to conform to the CDS.
14. Aluminium 6061 was selected for main structural components due to its low weight,
availability and desirable thermal properties.
As this grade of aluminium was
recommended by Cal Poly launch personnel a DAR was not required to qualify the
material for use in P-POD.
15. A bulk temperature analysis was performed on the satellite to select an outer surface
material. The analysis along with thermal vacuum testing indicated that aluminium
125
10
PROJECT OUTCOMES
6061, used for structural components, was sufficient in reducing the temperature
ranges to acceptable operating limits.
16. As previously mentioned a kill switch mechanism will need to be included that could
deactivate all electronics during launch. Additionally, ISIS rechargeable battery will
need to be fully discharged during launch. The battery would begin to charge after
deployment from P-POD. Once sufficiently charged from solar panels, the batteries
will then be capable of powering all on board electronics.
17. An EPS board with integrated battery and GaAs solar cells were chosen as the power
supply method for the satellite. A power budget, seen in 5.2 - Electrical Power
Conceptual Design, was calculated to ensure that this method was sufficient to supply
enough power over an entire orbit.
18. Conceptual design of an IS ensured that a COTS camera module was selected which
would give a legible image with a single image mapping approximately 678 km x 551
km.
19. Selection and purchase of a variety of attitude determination sensors capable of fully
determining the states of the satellite in orbit was completed. Furthermore, the design,
construction and testing of magnetorquers capable of sensitive attitude control and
disturbance torque rejection was achieved as an extended goal of the project.
20. Programming of a custom made microcontroller, using an Atmel ATmega 640
processor, allowed for the autonomous control of subsystems via inbuilt commands
to be achieved. The commands included the control of magnetorquers and receiving
telemetry from EPS.
21. An S-band transceiver pair, n2420, was purchased that interfaced with a computer
capable of encrypting and deciphering data transmitted between transceivers.
22. Communication testing results indicated that a successful link was achieved between
S-band transceivers. A pair of patch antennas was designed using FR-4 substrates
capable of transmitting and receiving images. However, to ensure successful operation
in LEO a redesign of the antenna using PTFE would be required as it was found to have
126
10
PROJECT OUTCOMES
superior properties to FR-4. A PTFE patch antenna was not designed as the material
cost exceeded the projects budget.
23. A prototype including mock electronic boards capable of simulating heat generation
of actual electronics was tested in a thermal vacuum chamber. The results indicated
that the structure provided sufficient radiation to ensure the internal temperature of
the satellite was maintained below 60 C. This maximum temperature was experienced
on the electronic board closest to the side of the satellite receiving solar radiation loads.
As the temperature was below the maximum operating limits of all electronics, except
the battery when charging, no insulation was required. The electronic boards were
arranged so that the battery had the greatest shielding from high thermal loads.
24. Construction of random vibration test apparatus, test pod, allowed for the testing
of a prototype satellite to simulate random vibration launch loads as outlined in the
most severe launch vehicles, Dnepr rocket, MTP. The testing resulted in no structural
damage and validated the selection of adhesives for solar panels as well as spacer
materials for internal electronics to avoid damage or destruction of electronics.
25. Solar cell testing was performed to ensure no degradation of solar cells occurred
during the construction of solar panels. Solar cell tests were also used to investigate
the performance of GaAs solar cells over a variety of cell orientations to radiation
sources. The results indicated that the output voltage varied little with orientation
to radiation source. Conversely, a sinusoidal relation was seen between output current
and radiation incidence angle. The results of the test were desirable as a constant
output voltage was desirable to charge batteries.
26. Determination of torques produced by magnetorquers was achieved through
the adaption of testing proposed by literature on similar active attitude control
applications.
In addition to the previously mentioned project outcomes a simulation of the satellites
orbit was constructed. The simulation included an orbital prediction model, which was
verified against the STK software package. The orbital prediction model output the
position in a three dimensional visual representation of the Earth and also a corresponding
127
10
PROJECT OUTCOMES
two dimensional ground track. The orbital prediction model was used to estimate power
generation over an orbit and communication periods.
128
11
11
FUTURE WORK
Future Work
The construction of a CubeSat was a multidisciplinary design project that involved the
design of several specific subsystems including structure, communication and power
generation.
To date, university CubeSat projects worldwide have involved a team
of undergraduate students working on each subsystem with overall project sizes of

typically 12 to 30 students. As the AUSAT project involved five undergraduate students,
resources were limited. To ensure achievable goals were set some design aspects required
to complete a flight ready satellite were deemed unfeasible. These aspects included
integrating electronic subsystems, updating the CS, development of attitude control
algorithms to orient satellite such that the IS and antenna were able to function as
designed and launch qualification.
11.1
Integration of Electronics
Several electronic components were tested throughout the year.
However, the full
integration of all electronics was not completed due to large lead times and several
component failures including the short circuiting of the camera module and malfunction
of the magnetometer and the EPS board. Additionally as the first batch of silicone
adhesive, used to bond the solar cells to the PCB substrate, did not cure correctly. As
a result the EPS board was not integrated until late in the project.
Full integration of electronics to allow the microcontroller to communicate between

each subsystem is required before flight qualification. It is recommended that several
mechatronic engineering students be involved in future work to complete the integration
of all electronic subsystems.
11.2
Attitude Control Algorithms
In order for the ADCS to be effective at determining and controlling the attitude of the
CubeSat it is necessary for an algorithm to be constructed to govern both of these tasks.
The control system is required to initially de-tumble the satellite after deployment from
129
11.3
Patch Antenna
11
FUTURE WORK
the P-POD and then orient the camera and antenna to take and image of the Earth and
track the ground station, respectively. The control system would need to cross reference
sensor data from magnetometer and GPS receiver with a magnetic field map of the Earth
to determine the states of the satellite. Once the states are determined the control system
would vary the current input to magnetorquers through the use of using H-bridges to
create the appropriate torque on the satellite to change its orientation.
Attitude control algorithms were not constructed as a part of the AUSAT project as COTS
software capable of attitude control, such as STK, could be purchased and implemented
at a later date. The satellite microcontroller code constructed within the project was
developed with the ability to be altered as required for the addition of such software
packages such as STK.
11.3
Patch Antenna
The patch antenna designed, built and analysed during the AUSAT project was
constructed as demonstration model to complete the communication system for ground
testing. The patch antenna was constructed from an FR-4 substrate, due to the cost
and availability. This antenna was used to conduct communication testing and required
microcontroller integration and coding. Analysis found that the performance of the
antenna was poor as a result of using a FR-4 substrate. To improve the performance
of the antenna and ensure successful operation of the communication system in LEO
a PTFE substrate is recommended. A flight ready patch antenna was designed and
analysed ready for construction however, could not be constructed due to budget and
time restrictions.
11.4
Ground Station
In order to communicate with the satellite a ground station with S-band facilities needs
to be established. Initial research into possible existing ground stations indicated that
a viable option is to partner with the Institute for Telecommunications Research at the
University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Campus. During the project an informal
130
11.5
Launch Qualification
11
FUTURE WORK
relationship was formed with some of the University of South Australia facility staff.
The parameters of the University of South Australias S-band ground station facility
were obtained from the staff and utilised in the link budget analysis to determine the
performance of the CS. Another option for a possible ground station would to be set
up a new facility at the University of Adelaide using COTS components. This option
would provide the largest amount of access and control for future university space
endeavours, however would be significantly expensive. Initial research, completed in
3.1.3 - Communication Literature Review, indicated that a COTS ground station could
be implemented at the university for approximately $50,000. This was considered outside
the scope of the project due to limited resources.
11.5
Launch Qualification
Launch qualification testing is required to be completed by launch vehicle personnel in

order for the satellite to be approved for launch. The CDS stipulates that the satellite
must pass three tests including a visual inspection, random vibration testing and thermal
vacuum testing. The visual inspection involves the integration of the CubeSat into a
P-POD to ensure the satellite meets all of the dimensional requirements outlined in the
CDS. Further random vibration testing needs to be conducted using the MTP of the
specific launch vehicle that will be used to launch the satellite. This test would be
similar to the testing completed in the AUSAT project. The random vibration testing
already completed was conducted to the most severe launch loads indicating that the
satellite structure and the electronic components would survive launch conditions of
any launch vehicle. The final launch qualification test is thermal vacuum testing which
involves cycling the temperature of the satellite in order to simulate the satellite on
orbit. Thermal vacuum testing completed in the project indicated that the temperature
distribution within the satellite remained within the operating temperatures of the
electronic components, with the exception of the battery when charging. To avoid damage
to the battery it was placed at the centre of the satellite for maximum thermal shielding.
It is therefore likely that any future launch qualification testing would confirm that the
satellite is flight ready.
131
12
12
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
A one unit picosatellite based on CubeSat standards was produced through the
completion of primary project requirements.
The satellites primary payload was a
camera with the capability of capturing an image of Earth with a ground resolution of
approximately 904 km x 705 km. A secondary payload was incorporated into the satellite
as a fail safe in the case that CDHS, CS or ADCS did not function as designed.
The selection and design of all subsystems required to demonstrate a functioning satellite
in a LEO environment was completed. The ADCS system consisted of two sensors,
a GPS receiver and magnetometer in conjunction with attitude actuators in the form
of magnetorquers. Following the selection of electronic components, power budgeting
was performed to indicate the necessary power consumed over an orbit. A space grade
EPS board and battery package with significant flight heritage was selected to meet the
requirements of the power budget. High efficiency GaAs solar cells were selected to
generate sufficient power to charge the battery and supply power to the electronics over
an entire orbit.
A variety of tests on a prototype satellite were completed to validate the integrity of

structure. Thermal vacuum and random vibration tests indicated that the prototype
would survive launch loads and adequately protect electronics from extreme heat loads
experienced during LEO environments.
Additionally, the outgassing and strength
properties of solar cell adhesive was validated in testing phases to ensure that solar cells
would remain attached to PCB under vacuum conditions.
With the exclusion of integrating electronic components and implementing attitude

control algorithms, identified as being beyond the scope of the current project, the AUSAT
satellite would be capable of autonomously capturing an image and transmitting the data
back to a ground station.
132
13
13
REFERENCES
References
Abouel-Fotouh, A.M, Shabaka, I, Elsharkawy, A, Elfar, A, 2006, Material Selection for

Satellite Passive Thermal Control, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Ed. 2, Vol. 12, p.
1106-1111.
ACMA 2010, Australian Communications and Media Authority, Canberra, viewed 2
October 2010, <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_566>.
Acua, M 2002, Space-based magnetometers, Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 73, no.
11, pp. 3717-3736.
AdeSat, 2007, Adelaide University Satellite, Final year Mechanical Engineering Project,
The University of Adelaide.
Antenna
Theory
2010,
Antenna
Theory,
viewed
21
October
2010
<http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/main.php>.
Astrodev 2010,
Astronautical Development,
California,
viewed 21 October 2010
<http://www.astrodev.com/public_html2/>.
Atchinson, L 2009, Increased fidelity space weather data collection using a non-linear
CubeSat network, Department of Aerospace Engineering, PhD thesis, University of
Southern California.
Automatic
Packet
Reporting
System
2010,
APRS,
viewed
21
October
2010
<http://www.aprs.org/>.
Aydinlioglu, A, 2006, Design development and production of electromagnetic coils for
attitude control of a picosatellite, Diploma thesis, The Univesity of Aachen.
Azurspace
2010,
Azurspace,
Germany,
133
viewed
on
21
October
2010,
13
REFERENCES
<http://www.azurspace.com>.
Balanis, C 1997, Antenna theory : analysis and design, Wiley, New Jersey.
Bettex, M 2010, Powering Cube Satellites, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, viewed 21
October 2010, <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/cubesat-01115.html>.
Brown, J 2006, Test Pod Users Guide, California Polytechnic Univeristy.
Canon, viewed 21 October 2010, <www.canon.com>.
Celnikier, L 1993, Basics of Space Flight, Frontires, France.
Clyde Space 2010, Clyde Space Electronics, Glasgow, viewed 21 October 2010,
<http://www.clyde-space.com/cubesat_shop/eps/8_1u-cubesat-eps>
Dalgleish, D 1989, An introduction to Satellite Communications, Peter Peregrinus, London.
Davidson,
J 2010,
Satellite Frequency Bands Chart,
viewed 21 October 2010,
<http://radio-electronics.com/info/satellite/frequencies/frequency-bands-chart.php>
de Weck, O 2001, Attitudue Determination and Control (ADCS), in Space System Product
Development Spring 2001, Department of Aeronautics and Austronautics, Massachusetts.
Delil, A.A.M, Pauw, A, Woering, A.A, Verlaat, B, 2003, AMS-Tracker thermal control
system: Design and thermal modelling of mechanically pumped two-phased CO2 loop,
Space Technology & Applications Forum, National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR.
Department of Defence, 2009, Defence White Paper, Department of Defence, Government
of Australia, viewed 6 September 2010,
<www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009>.
DigiKey 2010, Digikey - Atmega640, Minnesota, viewed 20 October 2010,
<http://parts.digikey.com/1/parts/552282-ic-mcu-avr-64k-flash-100-tqfp-atmega640-
134
13
REFERENCES
16au.html>.
Dobkin, D 2008, The RF in RFID: Passive UHF RFID in Practice, Elsevier Inc, Oxford.
Enderle, W., Boyd, C., King, J 2004, Joint Australian Engineering (Micro) Satellite (JAESat)
- A GNSS Technology Demonstration Mission, in The 2004 International Symposium on
GNSS/GPS, Sydney, Australia.
Finckenor, M. M, Dooling, D, 1999, Multilayer insulation material guidelines, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA, Alabama, USA.
Gieelmann, J, 2006, Development of an active magnetic attitude determination and
control system for picosatellites on highly inclined circular low earth orbit, Master thesis,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, RMIT.
Gilmore, D, 2002, Spacecraft thermal control handbook, America Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc., Virginia, USA.
Hansen, F 2001, DTU Satellite Systems and Design Course CubeSat Communication,
Danish Space Research Institute.
Harper, A, Ryschikeitsch, M, Obenschain, A, Day, R, 2005, General environmental
verification standard (GEVS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA,
Maryland, USA.
Hecht, E 1987, Optics, 2nd edn, Addison Wesley, USA.
Heywood, P 2010, CubeSat Systems, University of Michigan.
Innovative Solutions in Space 2010, Innovative Solutions in Space: CubeSat Structure,
Amsterdam, viewed 25 February 2010,
<http://www.isispace.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=68>.
135
13
REFERENCES
Institute of Solar Engineering Systems (ISE), 2009,Press Release,World Record 41.1%

efficiency for multi-junction solar cells at Fraunhofer ISE, Freiburg, Germany.
IO 2010, IO, viewed 21 October 2010 <http://www.io.com/~n5fc/loop_ant.html>
Lan, W 2007, Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer Mk III ICD, California Polytechnic
Univeristy.
Litwiller, D 2001, CCD vs CMOS:Facts and Fiction, Photonics Spectra, Laurin Publishing
Co. Inc.
Microhard
2010,
Microhard,
Calgary,
viewed
on
21
October
2010,
<http://www.microhardcorp.com/n2420.php>.
Munakata, R, 2008, CubeSat design specification (CDS), Rev. 11, California Polytechnic
State University, California, USA.
NovAtel Systems 2010, NovAtel OEMV Receivers, Melbourne, viewed on 12 September
2010, <http://www.novatel.com/products/gnss-receivers/oem
-receiver-boards/oemv-receivers/##>
Pedrotti, F & Pedrotti, L 2007, Introduction to Optics, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, USA.
Pierlot, G, 2009, Oufti-1:
Flight System Configuration and Structural Analysis,
University of Leige, School of Civil Electromechanical Aerospace Engineering.

Prucey, R 2010, PharmaSat Mission Update, Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, viewed on 6 September 2010,
<http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/features/2009/pharmasat-update_0612.html>.
Pumpkin Electronics 2010, Pumpkin CubeSat Structure, Stanford, viewed on 12 February
2010, <http://www.cubesatkit.com/content/space.html>.
136
13
REFERENCES
QB50 2009, QB50 Satellite Constellation, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, viewed
on 12 May 2010, <http://www.vki.ac.be/QB50/project.php>.
Rockberger, D, Eldad, O, Portnoy, D, Sherman, Z, Tamir R n.d, Thermal and Mechanical
Optimisation of The First Israeli Nano-Satellite, Israeli Nano Satellite Association.
Sandwell, D 2002, The Gravity Field of the Earth - Part 1, University of California.
Sergio Arboleda University 2007, Sergio Arboleda University, Columbia, viewed 12
September 2010, <http://www.usergioarboleda.edu.co/proyecto_espacial>.
Silver, M., 2010 UNSW Products and services, Sydney, viewed 11 October 2010
<http://www.pv.unsw.edu.au/links/products/purchase.asp>
Space and Tech 2001, NAVSTAR GPS - Summary, viewed 12 October 2010,
<http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/constellations/navstar-gps_consum.shtml>
Sparkfun Electronics 2010, Sparkfun: GPS LS20031, Colerado, viewed 26 May 2010,
<http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8975>.
Spectrolab
2010,
Spectrolab,
California,
viewed
13
March
2010
<http://www.spectrolab.com/>.
Surveyor Corperation 2010, Surveyor Corperation, California, viewed 12 August 2010,
<http://www.surveyor.com/blackfin/>.
Sweet, A., Crusan, J., 2010 Announcement of CubeSat Launch Initiative, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), accessed on 11th October at
<http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/home/CubeSats_initiative.html>
Thiruvarudchelva, V 2005, The BLUEsat Flight Computer, Department of Computer
Engineering, PhD thesis, University of New South Wales.
137
13
REFERENCES
University of Leichter 2009, University of Leichter CubeSat Project, viewed 19 September

2010, <http://cubesat.wikidot.com/>.
University of Michigan, The University of Michigan: CubeSat Project 2010, Michigan, viewed
12 October 2010, <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsawkar/index.html> .
University of Tokyo 2010, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, viewed 21 October 2010,
<http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_CubeSatLaunch1.html>.
Wells, J.G, Stras, L, Jeans, T, 2002, Canadas Smallest Satellite: Canadian Advanced
Nanospace experiment (CanX-1), University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies,
Canada.
ZSW 2010, New world record with efficient CIGS solar cell, media release, 23 August,
Suttgart University, Germany, viewed 21 October 2010,
<http://www.zsw-bw.de/fileadmin/ZSW_files/Infoportal/Presseinformationen/docs
/pi11-2010-e_ZSW-Weltrekord-DS-CIGS.pdf>
Zyren, J, Petrick, A 1998, Tutorial on Basic Link Budget Analysis, Intersil Corperation.
138
CUBESAT DESIGN SPECIFICATION
CubeSat Design Specification
To ensure the satellite can be deployed by a CubeSat standard deployer, the design has to
be built to comply with the CubeSat Design Specifications as follows.
xxiii
The CubeSat Program

California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Document
Classification
Public Domain
ITAR Controlled
Internal Only

(CDS)
CubeSat Design Specification REV. 11

The CubeSat Program, Cal Poly SLO
Page 2
CHANGE HISTORY LOG

Effective
Date
Revision
Author
N/A
Simon Lee
5/26/05
8.1
Amy
Hutputanasin
5/15/06
Armen Toorian Information and presentation revised.
8/2/07
10
Wenschel Lan
Information updated.
10/02/08
11
Riki Munakata
Format, Design specification and Mk.III P-POD compatibility

update.
Description of Changes
N/A
Formatting updated.
2 of 12

Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Overview............................................................................................................. 5
1.2
Purpose................................................................................................................ 5
Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer ............................................................................ 6
2.1
Interface .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2
General Responsibilities ..................................................................................... 6
CubeSat Specification............................................................................................... 7
3.1
Dimensional and Mass Requirements................................................................. 7
3.2
Structural Requirements...................................................................................... 8
3.3
Electrical Requirements ...................................................................................... 8
3.4
Operational Requirements .................................................................................. 9
Testing Requirements ............................................................................................... 9
4.2
Qualification ..................................................................................................... 10
4.3
Acceptance........................................................................................................ 10
Contacts .................................................................................................................. 10
APPENDIX
A.
CubeSat Design Specification................................................................................. 11
B.
CubeSat Acceptance Checklist ............................................................................... 12
3 of 12

Page 4
List of Acronyms
CAC
CubeSat Acceptance Checklist
Cal Poly
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
CDS
cm
Centimeters
FCC
Federal Communication Commission
GSE
Ground Support Equipment
HPTM
High Power Transmit Mode
IARU
Internation Amateur Radio Union
in
Inches
kg
Kilograms
LPTM
Low Power Transmit Mode
LV
Launch Vehicle
mm
Millimeters
MTP
Mission Test Plan
P/N
Part Number
P-POD
RBF
Remove Before Flight
Rev.
Revision
SSDL
Space Systems Development Lab
4 of 12

1.
1.1
Page 5
Introduction
Overview
Started in 1999, the CubeSat Project began as a collaborative effort between California
Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo, and Stanford University's
Space Systems Development Laboratory (SSDL). The purpose of the project is to
provide a standard for design of picosatellites to reduce cost and development time,
increase accessibility to space, and sustain frequent launches. Presently, the CubeSat
Project is an international collaboration of over 100 universities, high schools, and
private firms developing picosatellites containing scientific, private, and government
payloads. A CubeSat is a 10 cm cube with a mass of up to 1 kg. Developers benefit
from the sharing of information within the community. If you are planning to start a
CubeSat project, please contact Cal Poly. Visit the CubeSat website at
http://cubesat.calpoly.edu for more information.
Figure 1: Six CubeSats and their deployment systems.
1.2
Purpose
The primary mission of the CubeSat Program is to provide access to space for small
payloads. The primary responsibility of Cal Poly, as a launch coordinator and the
developer of the Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD), is to ensure the safety of
the CubeSat and protect the launch vehicle (LV), primary payload, and other CubeSats.
CubeSat developers should play an active role in ensuring the safety and success of
CubeSat missions by implementing good engineering practice, testing, and verification
of their systems. Failures of CubeSats, the P-POD, or interface hardware can damage
the LV or a primary payload and put the entire CubeSat Program in jeopardy. As part of
the CubeSat Community, all participants have an obligation to ensure safe operation of
their systems and to meet the design and minimum testing requirements outlined in this
document. Requirements in this document maybe superseded by launch provider
requirements.
5 of 12

2.
2.1
Page 6

Interface
The Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) is Cal Polys standardized CubeSat
deployment system. It is capable of carrying three standard CubeSats and serves as
the interface between the CubeSats and LV. The P-POD is a rectangular box with a
door and a spring mechanism. The P-POD is made up of anodized aluminum. CubeSats
slide along a series of rails during ejection into orbit. CubeSats must be compatible with
the P-POD to ensure safety and success of the mission, by meeting the requirements
outlined in this document. The P-POD is backward compatible, and any CubeSat
developed within the design specification of CDS rev. 9 and later, will not have
compatibility issues. Developers are encouraged to design to the most current CDS to
take full advantage of the P-POD features. Additional unforeseen compatibility issues
will be addressed as they arise.
Figure2a and 2b: Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) and cross section
2.2 General Responsibilities

2.2.1 CubeSats shall not present any danger to neighboring CubeSats in the P-POD,
the LV, or primary payloads:
2.2.1.1 All parts shall remain attached to the CubeSats during launch, ejection and
operation. No additional space debris shall be created.
2.2.1.2 CubeSats shall be designed to minimize jamming in the P-POD.
2.2.1.3 Absolutely no pyrotechnics are allowed inside the CubeSat.
2.2.2 NASA approved materials should be used whenever possible to prevent

contamination of other spacecraft during integration, testing, and launch.
2.2.3 The newest revision of the CubeSat Design Specification is always the official
version
2.2.3.1 Developers are responsible for being aware of changes.
6 of 12

Page 7
2.2.3.2 Changes will be made as infrequently as possible bearing launch provider

requirements or widespread safety concerns within the community.
2.2.3.3 Cal Poly will send an update to the CubeSat mailing list upon any changes to
the specification.
2.2.3.4 CubeSats using an older version of the specification may be exempt from
implementing changes to the specification on a case-by-case basis.
Cal Poly holds final approval of all CubeSat designs. Any deviations from the
specification must be approved by Cal Poly launch personnel. Any CubeSat may be
pulled from the launch if it is deemed a safety hazard by Cal Poly launch personnel.
3.
3.1
CubeSat Specification
Dimensional and Mass Requirements
CubeSats are cube shaped picosatellites with a nominal length of 100 mm per side.
Dimensions and features are outlined in the CubeSat Specification Drawing (Appendix
A). General features of all CubeSats are:
3.1.1 Each single CubeSat may not exceed 1 kg mass.

3.1.2 Center of mass must be within 2 cm of its geometric center.
3.1.3 Double and triple configurations are possible. In these cases masses 2 kg or 3
kg respectively are allowable. Only the dimensions in the Z axis change (227
mm for doubles and 340.5 mm for triples). X and Y dimensions remain the
same.
Figure 3: CubeSat isometric drawing
7 of 12

3.2
Page 8
Structural Requirements
The structure of the CubeSat must be strong enough to survive maximum loading
defined in the testing requirements and cumulative loading of all required tests and
launch. The CubeSat structure must be compatible with the P-POD.
3.2.1 The CubeSat shall be 100.0+0.1 mm wide (X and Y) and 113.5+0.1 mm tall (Z).
3.2.2 Rails must be smooth and edges must be rounded to a minimum radius of 1 mm.
3.2.3 No external components other then the rails shall be in contact with the internals
of the P-POD.
3.2.4 Each rail shall be a minimum of 8.5 mm wide.

3.2.5 At least 75% (85.125 mm of a possible 113.5mm) of the rail must be in contact
with the P-POD rails. 25% of the rails may be recessed and NO part of the rails
may exceed the specification.
3.2.6 All rails must be hard anodized to prevent cold-welding, reduce wear, and
provide electrical isolation between the CubeSats and the P-POD.
3.2.7 Separation springs must be included at designated contact points (Appendix A).
Spring plungers are highly recommended (McMaster-Carr P/N: 84985A76
available at http://www.mcmaster.com). A custom separation system may be
used, but must be approved by Cal Poly launch personnel.
3.2.8 The use of Aluminum 7075 or 6061-T6 is suggested for the main structure. If
other materials are used, the thermal expansion must be similar to that of
Aluminum 7075-T73 (P-POD material) and approved by Cal Poly launch
personnel.
3.2.9 Deployables must be constrained by the CubeSat. The P-POD rails and walls are
NOT to be used to constrain delpolyables.
3.2.10 The CubeSat shall meet all other requirements noted in Appendix A.
Figure 4: Spring plunger
3.3
Electrical Requirements
Electronic systems must be designed with the following safety features.
3.3.1 No electronics shall be active during launch to prevent any electrical or RF

interference with the launch vehicle and primary payloads. CubeSats with
rechargeable batteries shall be fully deactivated during launch or launch with
discharged batteries.
3.3.2 One deployment switch is required (two are recommended) for each CubeSat.
The deployment switch should be located at designated points (Appendix A).
3.3.3 Deployment switch shall be compatible with +Z contact point(s).

3.3.4 Developers who wish to perform testing and battery charging after integration
must provide ground support equipment (GSE) that connects to the CubeSat
through designated access ports (Appendix A).
8 of 12

Page 9
3.3.5 A remove before flight (RBF) pin is required to deactivate the CubeSats during
integration outside the P-POD. The pin will be removed once the CubeSats are
integrated into the P-POD. RBF pins must fit within the designated data ports
(Appendix A). RBF pins should not protrude more than 6.5 mm from the rails
when fully inserted.
3.4
Operational Requirements
CubeSats must meet certain requirements pertaining to integration and operation to

meet legal obligations and ensure safety of other CubeSats.
3.4.1 CubeSats with rechargeable batteries shall have the capability to receive a
transmitter shutdown command, as per Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regulation.
3.4.2 To allow adequate separation of CubeSats, antennas may be deployed 15

minutes after ejection from the P-POD (as detected by CubeSat deployment
switches). Larger deployables such as booms and solar panels may be
deployed 30 minutes after ejection from the P-POD.
3.4.3 CubeSats may enter low power transmit mode (LPTM) 15 minutes after ejection
from the P-POD. LPTM is defined as short, periodic beacons from the CubeSat.
3.4.4 CubeSats may activate all primary transmitters, or enter high power transmit
mode (HPTM) 30 minutes after ejection from the P-POD.
3.4.5 Operators shall obtain and provide documentation of proper licenses for use of
frequencies. For amateur frequency use, this requires proof of frequency
coordination by the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU). Applications can
be found at www.iaru.org.
3.4.6 Developers shall obtain and provide documentation of approval of an orbital

debris mitigation plan from the FCC. Contact Robert Nelson at rnelson@fcc.org
3.4.7 Cal Poly will conduct a minimum of one fit check in which developer hardware
will be inspected and integrated into the P-POD. A final fit check will be
conducted prior to launch. The CubeSat Acceptance Checklist (CAC) will be
used to verify compliance of the specification (Appendix B).
3.4.8 Periodic teleconferences, videoconferences, and progress reports may be

required.
4.
Testing Requirements
Testing must be performed to meet all launch provider requirements as well as any
additional testing requirements deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the CubeSats
and the P-POD. All flight hardware will undergo qualification and acceptance testing.
The P-PODs will be tested in a similar fashion to ensure the safety and workmanship
before integration with the CubeSats. At the very minimum, all CubeSats will undergo
the following tests.
4.1.1 Random vibration testing at a level higher than the published launch vehicle
envelope outlined in the Mission Test Plan (MTP).
4.1.2 Thermal vacuum bakeout to ensure proper outgassing of components. The test
cycle and duration will be outlined in the MTP.
9 of 12

Page 10
4.1.3 Visual inspection of the CubeSat and measurement of critical areas as per the
CAC (Appendix B).
4.2
Qualification
All CubeSats must survive qualification testing as outlined in the MTP for their specific
launch. Qualification testing will be performed at developer facilities. In some
circumstances, Cal Poly can assist developers in finding testing facilities or provide
testing for the developers. A fee may be associated with any tests performed by Cal
Poly. CubeSats must NOT be disassembled or modified after qualification testing.
Additional testing will be required if modifications or changes are made to the
CubeSats after qualification testing.
4.3
Acceptance
After delivery and integration of the CubeSats, additional testing will be performed with
the integrated system. This test assures proper integration of the CubeSats into the PPOD. Additionally, any unknown, harmful interactions between CubeSats may be
discovered during acceptance testing. Cal Poly will coordinate and perform acceptance
testing. No additional cost is associated with acceptance testing. After acceptance
testing, developers may perform diagnostics through the designated P-POD diagnostic
ports, and visual inspection of the system will be performed by Cal Poly launch
personnel. The P-PODs WILL NOT be deintegrated at this point. If a CubeSat failure is
discovered, a decision to deintegrate the P-POD will be made by the developers, in that
P-POD, and Cal Poly based on safety concerns. The developer is responsible for any
additional testing required due to corrective modifications to deintegrated P-PODs and
CubeSats.
5.
Contacts
Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo

Prof. Jordi Puig-Suari
Aerospace Engineering Dept.
(805) 756-5087
(805) 756-2376fax
jpuigsua@calpoly.edu
Stanford University
Prof. Bob Twiggs, Director
Space Systems Development Lab. (SSDL)
Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(650) 723-8651
(650) 723-1685 fax
btwiggs@leland.stanford.edu
Student Contacts
Program Manager
(805) 756-5087
cubesat@gmail.com
10 of 12
Appendix A: CubeSat Design Specification Drawing
11 of 12
Appendix B: CubeSat Acceptance Checklist
12 of 12
GRAVITY GRADIENT THEORY
Gravity Gradient Theory
Gravity gradients are used in many satellites as a form of passive attitude control by
utilising the change in gravitational force with distance r as shown by the Newtons Law
of Universal Attraction Fg:
Fg =
GMm
r2
(25)
Where, in this case, F is the attractive force between the Earth and the satellite, G is the
universal constant of gravitation, M is the mass of the Earth, m is the mass of the satellite
and r is the distance between the centres of mass of the two bodies.
The theory behind utilising a gravity gradient in a satellite is as follows: Assume the
satellite in orbit can be modelled as two masses (m1 = m2 = m) separated by a distance L
at an angle
j (where 0jp/2) from the nadir axis in the orientation shown in Figure 58:
Figure 58: Model of Satellite - Nadir

Figure 59 is a free body diagram demonstrating the forces acting in the satellite in
Figure 58, this is assuming that the direction of the gravity force does not change across
the span of the satellite due to the relatively large distance the satellite is from the centre
of mass of the earth.
xxxvi
Figure 59: Free Body Diagram of Forces acting on the satellite

The moment acting on the satellite is dependent on the components of the forces acting
perpendicular to the satellite, this is shown in Figure 60.
Figure 60: Forces creating the moment acting on the satellite

The moment acting on the satellite can be calculated by summing the moment about
O as shown in Eqs. 26 and 27:
GMm2
GMm1
Mo = sin (r Lcos )2 2 sin (r + Lcos )2 2

sinGML
Mo =
2
m2
m1
r Lcos r + Lcos
xxxvii
(26)

(27)
Since m1 = m2 = m, Eq. 27 becomes Eq. 28:

sinGMLm
Mo =
2
1
1
r Lcos r + Lcos

(28)
Since r and L are real positive numbers and sin and cos will both be positive due to the
j p
fact that 0 /2, Eqs. 29 and 30:

r Lcos r + Lcos
Ther f ore :
1
1
1
r Lcos r + Lcos
(29)
(30)
Eq. 30 shows that Eq. 28will always be positive under the constraints and therefore the
moment acting on the satellite due to the gravity gradient will try to turn the satellite
orientation such that it is parallel to the nadir axis and thus passive attitude control is
obtained. One problem in this theory is that once the satellites attitude is corrected, there
is no damping due to friction acting on the system, ignoring the very small amounts of
aerodynamic drag that will be experienced at this altitude, this will cause the satellite to
oscillate like a pendulum. This oscillation can be damped by incorporating a system into
the satellite that can diffuse energy; in the past some satellites have overcome this problem
by having a liquid on board that can dissipate energy through sloshing.
xxxviii
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR MANUFACTURE
Structural Drawings for Manufacture
The CAD design of the structure was used to create the drawings for manufacture, these
are:
AUSAT Assembly
AUSAT Assembly With No Panels
Frame 1
Frame 2
Side Panel
Top Panel
Bottom Panel
Top Left Cross Bracket
Top Right Cross Bracket
Bottom Left Cross Bracket
Bottom Right Cross Bracket
PCB Rail
xxxix
DATA SHEETS
Data Sheets
The following data sheets for the following components have been included:
Solar Cells - O.1
Battery - O.2
EPS - O.3
Transceiver - O.4
magnetometer - O.5
Beacon - O.6
D.1
Solar Cell Data Sheet
The 3G - 28% solar cells that have been purchased from AZUR Space have the following
specifications.
lvi
Cell Type: 3G - 28%
This cell type is a GaInP/GaAs/Ge on Ge substrate triple junction solar cell ( efficiency
class 28% ). The cell is equipped with an integrated by-pass diode, which protects the
adjacent cell in the string.
Drawing and picture not to scale (Dimensions in mm)
www.azurspace.com
Cell Type: 3G - 28%

Design and Mechanical Data
Base Material
GalnP2/GaAs/Ge on Ge substrate
AR-coating
TiOx/Al2O3
Dimensions
40 x 80 mm 0.1 mm
Cell Area
30.18 cm2
Average Weight
86 mg/cm2
Thickness
150 20 m
Ag - Thickness
4 10 m
Grid Design
Grid system with 3 contact pads
Shadow Protection
Integrated protection diode Vforward (1.2 ISC ) 2.5 V; T = 25 3C
Electrical Data
BOL
2.5E14
5E14
1E15
Average Open Circuit VOC
[mV]
2667
0.96
0.95
0.93
Average Short Circuit ISC
[mA]
506
0.99
0.99
0.96
Voltage at max. Power Vpmax
[mV]
2371
0.96
0.94
0.93
Current at max. Power Ipmax
[mA]
487
0.99
0.97
0.94
Average Efficiency bare
[%]
28.0
0.95
0.92
0.88
Remaining factors @ 28C in accordance with qualification tests
Temperature Gradients
BOL
2.5E14
5E14
1E15
Open Circuit Voltage dVoc /dT
[mV/C]
- 6.0
- 6.4
- 6.2
- 6.3
Short Circuit Current dIsc /dT
[mA/C]
0.32
0.33
0.31
0.39
Voltage at max. Power dVmp /dT
[mV/C]
- 6.1
-6.8
- 6.3
- 6.4
Current at max. Power dImp /dT
[mA/C]
0.28
0.36
0.20
0.29
Threshold Values
Absorptivity
0,91 (with CMX 100 AR)
Pulltest
> 1.6 N at 45 welding test (with 12.5 mm Ag stripes)
Development Status
Qualified
AZUR SPACE Solar Power GmbH Theresienstr. 2 74072 Heilbronn

Telefon: 07131 67-2603 Telefax: 07131 67-2727 E-Mail: info@azurspace.com
HNR 0002490 RIX dated April 2007
Standard : CASOLBA 2005 ( 05-20MV1, etc) ; Cell Type: 3G-28%;

Spectrum: AMO WRC (1367 W/m ) ; T = 28 C
www.azurspace.com
D.2
D.2
: Battery Data Sheet
DATA SHEETS
: Battery Data Sheet
The battery that has been purchased is a Space Lithium Polymer Battery from Clyde Space,
this has the following specifications.
lix
SP AC E L IT HIUM
PO LYM ER B AT T ERY _
MAIN
FEATURES
High Energy Density, 120Wh/kg to 150Wh/kg
Suitable for hard vacuum conditions.
Compatible with operation of 1 Year or more in LEO.
Integrated battery heater with thermostat to
maintain battery temperature above 0C.
Battery over-current protection.
Battery temperature, voltage, and current telemetry.
Available in 8.2V, 12.3V and 32.8V versions.
Required battery capacity achieved using parallel
connected strings.
Low magnetic signature due to aluminium foil casing.
APPLICATIONS
CubeSats and other small satellites.
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Satisfied with the performance of the cell under these

conditions, we are happy to recommend to our
customers that they use this cell on their spacecraft.
Clyde Space Ltd.

t: + 44 (0) 141 946 4440
e: enquiries@clyde-space.com
w: www.clyde-space.com
CE L L ACCE P TANCE TE STI NG
Lot Acceptance tests are performed on flight cells to verify

integrity for space use.
Once the batch has passed this test, the cells are matched
for capacity and voltage characteristics over temperature.
This helps verify the individual cell integrity and also
enables selection of cells with matched characteristics for
flight batteries.
CONTI NUOUS DE VE L OPME NT
We are continuing to characterise our cells and are
conducting further life tests in order to build up data for
battery sizing for different mission scenarios. This will
provide confidence in the technology for long duration
LEO, GEO and interplanetary missions.
Higher voltage batteries are also being developed with up
to 8 cells in series (32.8V) and multiple strings in parallel to
achieve the required capacity.
This datasheet is not contractual and can be

changed without notice. Last updated 23/02/2009
Copyright (c) 2005-09 Clyde Space Ltd. All Rights Reserved
A commercial Lithium Polymer cell has been selected by

Clyde Space for use with our CubeSat EPS in a space
application. Prior to selecting this cell it has undergone a
number of tests to verify its performance in a space
environment. These tests were as follows:
Capacity at C/10 under vacuum.
Radiation up to 500krad.
DPA
Capacity at -10C, 0C, 20C and 40C
Resistance
Self Discharge
Missions Scenario Tests
EMF vs SOC
Cycling Tests at reduced pressure (15-20mbars)
- 30% DoD, C/2 Charge/Discharge >5000 cycles.
SP AC E L IT HIUM
PO LYM ER B AT T ERY _
32. 8V BATTE RY
Our 32.8V battery has a modular design and can easily be adapted to
sizes from 1.25Ah up to 10Ah by selecting the appropriate mounting
frame. Similar to our CubeSat batteries, the 32.8V battery has
integrated functionality and protection, including a thermostatically
controlled heater. In addition, the front face PCB provides the further
option to have a telemetry and telecommand node on the battery in
order to measure and access all battery telemetry information on the
spacecraft serial data-bus.
1U CUBE SAT BATTE RY
32.8V 5Ah Battery for Small Satellites
The 1U Battery integrates with our power system and is scalable to

increase the total capacity. Each battery has an integrated battery
heater with thermostat, battery cell voltage, terminal voltage, as well
as current and temperature monitoring.
The bottom picture on the previous page shows a prototype of the
battery board design with two lithium polymer cells. The cells are
coated in Kapton for insulation, although the foil bag is not
connected to battery negative or positive. The cells are held onto the
PCB using thermally conductive adhesive. The capacity of each
battery is 1.25Ah at a maximum voltage of 8.2V.
CubeSat Power board with integrated 20Whr

battery
The figure middle right shows the battery and EPS fully integrated
with 2 lithium polymer batteries in parallel, providing approximately
20Whrs of capacity.
With one battery integrated onto the EPS, the total height of the unit
is 14mm from the EPS board surface; with two batteries this is 21mm.
The mass of the EPS is 80g and the mass of one, two cell, 10Whr
battery is 62g.
The 3U battery has a main battery board with two series cells which
are mounted flat, side-by-side on a PC104 sized, CubeSat kit
compatible PCB. Two additional, two cell battery daughter boards
can then be integrated with this main PCB to increase the capacity (in
the same way that the daughter boards integrate with the 1U EPS).
The main battery board has its own I2C microcontroller for telemetry
and telecommand. It can also provide a further two voltages as an
option: 12V at 300mA and 50V at 1mA. These voltages are accessed
via spare pins on the main header connector.
12.3V 15Whr Battery Cell String for

Nanosatellites.
This configuration results in a 2s3p battery (2 series cells per string

and 6 strings in parallel). The capacity of each 2s3p is 3.75Ah at a
maximum voltage of 8.2V. The main battery PCB (PC104) weighs
approximately 80g and each daughter battery unit weighs 62g.
Clyde Space Ltd.

t: + 44 (0) 141 946 4440
e: enquiries@clyde-space.com
w: www.clyde-space.com
This datasheet is not contractual and can be

changed without notice. Last updated 23/02/2009
Copyright (c) 2005-09 Clyde Space Ltd. All Rights Reserved
3U CUBE SAT BATTE RY
D.3
D.3
: EPS Data Sheet
DATA SHEETS
: EPS Data Sheet
The EPS board that has been purchased from Clyde Space has the following specifications:
lxii
CUBESAT
POWER_
MAINFEATURES
CubeSatandCubeSatKitcompatible.
3.3V,5VandRawBatterybusesareprovided.
Flexibledesign:differentsolarcelltypes/string
lengths.
Caninterfacetoupto6solararrays;oneper
spacecraftfacet
ActiveMaximumPowerPointTrackingofsolar
arrays.
CompatiblewithLithiumIonandLithiumPolymer
batteries.(WealsosupplyCubesatbatteries).
TelemetryandtelecommandviaI2Cinterface.
Busovercurrentandbatteryundervoltage
protection.
USBbatterycharger.
Compatiblewithdeadlaunchviaseparation
switches.
APPLICATIONS
CubeSatandCubeSatKitsatellites.
Nanosatelliteswithapowerrequirementfrom
1Wto20Worbitaveragepower.
TechnicalDescription (also se e Bl oc kD i agra m o n the n e xt pag e) .
EachBCRusesahighefficiencypowerstageandisratedto
3W/8Wscaledtomatchtheconnectedsolararray.A
simplechargepumppowersthelowlevelelectronicsfrom
inputvoltagesaslowas3.5V.
AcentralisedEndofChargeVoltagecontrollerprovides
constantcurrent/constantvoltagechargeregimesuitable
forlithiumionandlithiumpolymerbatteries.(Asimple
modificationadaptsthisforNiCdandNiMH).
TLM/ TC
Telemetryandtelecommandfunctionalityishandledbya
dedicatedI2Ccompatiblemicrocontroller.Telemetry
channelsincludearrayandbatterycurrents,voltagesand
temperatures.Telecommandsprovidereset/runcapability
oneachpowerbus.
Thereare3BatteryChargeRegulators(BCRs).EachBCR
connectstosolarpanelsonopposingsidesofthespacecraft
(onlyoneofthesepanelscanbeinsunlight).EachBCRhas
adedicatedactiveMaximumPowerPointtracker.
PCU
Synchronousrectifiersprovidehighefficiencydcdc
converterstoregulateto5Vand3.3Vfromtherawbattery
voltage.
Anautomaticlightmodeofoperationprovidesseamless
operationfromzeroload.
BCR3hastheabilitytointerfacetothe5VUSBlinefrom
themainconnector.ThisallowsbatterychargeviaUSBand
EGSEpowertothespacecraftduringtest.
PROTECTIONS
BA TTER Y
Anunloadingfunctiondisablestheoutputswhenthe
batteryvoltageislessthan6.5V,reactivatingoncethe
batteryrecoversto7.5V.
AClydeSpacelithiumpolymerbatterycanbeintegratedas
adaughterboard(batterycanbepurchasedseparately).
ClydeSpaceLtd.
t:+44(0)1419464440
e:enquiries@clydespace.com
w:www.clydespace.com
Copyright(c)200508ClydeSpaceLtd.AllRightsReserved
B CR
Anovercurrentonanyofthe3busestriggersthetimed
disconnectionofthepowerbusinquestion.
Thisdatasheetisnotcontractualandcanbe
changedwithoutnotice.Lastupdated04/03/2008
CUBESAT
POWER_
Performance Specifications
(Performances can be adapted to mission specific needs).
SYSTEM UNIT
PERFORMANCES
1U
3W BCR
3U
Input voltage: 3.5V to 8V depending on mission configuration.

Output voltage: 10V max. Output current: 0.5A max
Efficiency: ~90%
Input voltage: 3.5V to 15V depending on
mission configuration.
Output voltage: 10V max. Output current:
1.2A max
8W BCR
Efficiency: ~90%
PCU
Power System
Mechanical Details
Connectors
Input voltage: 9V maximum
Input voltage: 9V maximum
Efficiency: >90%
Efficiency: >90%
Output voltage: 5V and 3.3V +/- 1% over

lifetime and temperature
Output voltage: 5V and 3.3V +/- 1% over

lifetime and temperature
Output current: 20mA to 1A (3.3V) and

1.2A (5V)
Output current: 20mA to 1.2A (3.3V) and

1.2A (5V)
Light mode: zero to 20mA output current

with a 2.4% output voltage ripple
Light mode: zero to 20mA output current

with a 2.4% output voltage ripple
Mass: 73g without battery stand-offs; 82g

with battery stand-offs.
Mass: 86g
Volume: typical dimensions (for above

spec): 95mm (l) x 90mm (w) x 15mm (d).
Volume: typical dimensions (for above

spec): 95mm (l) x 90mm (w) x 15mm (d).
Two 52 PIN SMATEC ESQ-126-39-G-D connectors, to the CubeSat Kit

specification.
Three 6 PIN HIROSE H3324-ND connectors for Solar Array connections.
For Pin outs, please contact us.
P lea se c on tac t us w ith your specific re quirements (e nq u i ri e s @ c ly d e - s pa ce . com) .
Block Diagram
+Y & -Y
(Side) Solar
Arrays
USB +5V
+Z & -Z
Top/Bottom
Solar Arrays
ClydeSpaceLtd.
t:+44(0)1419464440
e:enquiries@clydespace.com
w:www.clydespace.com
BCR1
BCR2
3W/8W
OverCurrent
Protection
Separation
switch
Battery Bus
Pull-Pin
3W/8W
Copyright(c)200508ClydeSpaceLtd.AllRightsReserved
+X & -X
(Side) Solar
Arrays
5V
REG
3.3V
REG
BCR3
3W
Thisdatasheetisnotcontractualandcanbe
changedwithoutnotice.Lastupdated04/03/2008
D.4
D.4
: Transceiver Data Sheet
DATA SHEETS
: Transceiver Data Sheet
The transceiver that has been purchased from Microhard Systems Inc. has the following
Data Sheet:
lxv
Nano Series - n2420

Miniature 2.4 GHz Wireless Modem
For size conscious consumers, consider the Nano Series with its small footprint and design flexibility.
The Nano Series offers the reliability, features, and performance of our larger modems, yet can fit
almost anywhere! Fully compatible with MHX series radio modems!
Applications
Weighs only 19 grams!
Robotics
Remote Telemetry, DGPS
Electric, Oil & Gas Sensors/Detection
Display Signs
Small Enclosure Communication Devices
Industrial Communications
Features an Input IP3 with

more linearity than most
spectrum analyzers!
2 X 1.25 X 0.25
The Nano Series features robust, high speed, low latency, secure data communications. The n2420 has full serial and diagnostics data capabilities and is radio compatible with 2420 modems! The n2420 offers excellent noise figure, superior interference
rejection, agile frequency synthesis, digital modulation, and matched filter detection. The n2420 can support 1.384Mbps and
higher!
Features of the n2420

Supports up to 1.2Mbps (higher rates available, contact Microhard
for details)
Interface Options
Quad Filter Stage provides Extreme Noise & Interference Rejection

Enclosed Solution
Supports Point-to-Point, Point-to-Multipoint, Store and Forward

Repeater, TDMA
Maximum allowable transit power (1W)
Low Power consumption in Sleep and Sniff modes
32 bits of CRC, selectable Forward Error Correction with retransmit
Separate diagnostics porttransparent remote diagnosis and
online network control
Very Small Footprint
MHX2400 and MHX2420 compatible interface card available
Rev 1.01
Motherboard Solution
This is not FCC approved. It is for demonstration purpose only, not for sale. This equipment is subject to
FCC rules and will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer.
CONFIDENTIAL
Nano Series - n2420 S p e c i f i c a t i o n s

Frequency
2.4000 - 2.4835 GHz
Spreading Method
Frequency Hopping / DTS
Band Segments
Selectable via Freq Restriction
Forward Error Detection
Hamming
BCH
Golay
Reed-Solomon
Error Detection
32 bits of CRC, ARQ
Encryption
Optional (see AES option)
Range
30+ miles (50+ km)
Sensitivity
n2420T
n2420F
n2420S
Input Voltage
OEM 3.3VDC Nominal (+/- 0.3V)
Enclosed 7-30VDC
Power Consumption
(OEM: 3.3V +/- 0.3V)
Sleep
Rx:
Idle:
Tx :
< 1mA
90mA to 140mA
20mA
1000mA to 1300mA
Connectors:
OEM
Antenna
Data
Enclosed
Antenna
Data
MMCX
60 Pin OEM Header
RP-TNC Female Bulkhead
Female DE9 (x2)
Environmental
-99 dBm @ 10-4

-107 dBm @ 10-6
-115 dBm @ 10-6
Temperature -40oF to +185oF (-40oC to +85oC)

Humidity 5-95%, noncondensing
Weight
Output Power
OEM Approx. 19 grams

Enclosed Approx. 240 grams
100mW - 1W (20-30dBm)
Serial Interface
Dimensions
OEM TTL
Enclosed RS232/RS485/RS422
OEM Approx. 1.25 x 2.0 x .25

(32mm x 51mm x 6.35mm)
Enclosed Approx. 2.25 x 3.75 x 1.75
(57mm x 95mm x 45mm)
Serial Baud Rate
- Up to 230.4 kbps asynchronous

- Up to 3.2 Mbps synchronous
Link Rate
Approvals
19.2kbps to 1.3824 Mbps
(higher rates available, contact Microhard for
details)
Operating Modes
Point-to-Point, Point-to-Multipoint, Store &

Forward Repeater, Peer-to-Peer
Signals Interface
RxD1, TxD1, RTS, CTS DCD, DSR, DTR,

RxD2, TxD2, RSSI LEDs, Tx/Rx LEDs, Reset, Config, Wake-up, RSmode
-AES
+12 dBm
-AES256
60 dB
75 dB
>90 dB
-2W
Up to 2 Watts Output Power.

(Government, Export Only. Not for
commercial / Industrial use) Contact
Microhard for details.
-C1D2
Class 1 Div 2 (for use in hazardous

environments)
Pending
Order Options
Input IP3
(Antenna Connector)
RF Selectivity
Adjacent Channel
Alternate Channel
Out of Band
Remote Diagnostics
n2420S 19.2 kbps

n2420F 115 - 230 kbps
n2420T 1.2 Mbps
Battery Voltage, Temperature, RSSI, Packet

Statistics
128-bit AES Encryption

(NOT AVAILABLE for export outside of
Canada and USA.)
256-bit AES Encryption
(NOT AVAILABLE for export outside of
Canada and USA.)
Copyright 2010 Microhard Systems Inc.

Specifications subject to change without notice.
Contact Information
Microhard Systems Inc.
150 Country Hills Landing N.W.
Calgary, AB, Canada T3K 5P3
Email: info@microhardcorp.com
Tel:
(403) 248-0028
Fax:
(403) 248-2762
www.microhardcorp.com
Rev 1.01
This is not FCC approved. It is for demonstration purpose only, not for sale. This equipment is subject to
FCC rules and will comply with the appropriate rules before delivery to the buyer.
CONFIDENTIAL
D.5
D.5
magnetometer Data Sheet
DATA SHEETS
magnetometer Data Sheet
The first three pages of the data sheet of the Honeywell magnetometer are the following:
lxviii
HMR2300
SENSOR PRODUCTS
SMART DIGITAL MAGNETOMETER

Features
High Accuracy Over 1 gauss, <0.5% Full Scale

Range of 2 gauss, <70 gauss Resolution
Three Axis (X, Y, Z) Digital Outputs
10 to 154 Samples Per Second, Selectable
RS-232 or RS-485 Serial Data Interfaces
PCB or Aluminum Enclosure Options
6-15 volt DC Unregulated Power Supply Interface
General Description
The Honeywell HMR2300 is a three-axis smart digital
magnetometer to detect the strength and direction of an
incident magnetic field. The three of Honeywells
magneto-resistive sensors are oriented in orthogonal
directions to measure the X, Y and Z vector
components of a magnetic field. These sensor outputs
are converted to 16-bit digital values using an internal
delta-sigma A/D converter. An onboard EEPROM
stores the magnetometers configuration for consistent
operation. The data output is serial full-duplex RS-232
or half-duplex RS-485 with 9600 or 19,200 data rates.
A RS-232 development kit version is available that
includes a windows compatible demo program,
interface cable, AC adapter, and carrying case.
APPLICATIONS
Block Diagram
Attitude Reference
V+
Compassing & Navigation
Traffic and Vehicle Detection
Anomaly Detection
Laboratory Instrumentation
Security Systems
Gnd
Pwr
Cond
TX
ADC
UART
RX
HMC1002
HMC2003
HMC1001
Solid State Electronics Center www.magneticsensors.com (800) 323-8295 Page 1
EEPROM
HMR2300
SENSOR PRODUCTS
SPECIFICATIONS
Characteristics
Conditions
Min
Typ
Max
Units
15
Volts
35
mA
Power Supply
Supply Voltage
Pin 9 referenced to Pin 5 (Ground)
Supply Current
Vsupply = 15V, with S/R = On
6.5
27
Temperature
Operating
Storage
Ambient
-40
+85
Ambient, Unbiased
-55
125
Full Scale (FS), Total Field Applied
-2
+2
gauss
Applied Field to Change Output
67
Magnetic Field
Range
Resolution
Accuracy
Linearity Error
Hysterisis Error
micro-gauss
RSS of All Errors @+25C

1 gauss
0.01
0.52
%FS
2 gauss
%FS
Best Fit Straight Line @+25C

1 gauss
0.1
0.5
%FS
2 gauss
%FS
3 Sweeps Across 2 gauss @+25C
0.01
0.02
%FS
Repeatability Error 3 Sweeps Across 2 gauss @+25C
0.05
0.10
%FS
Gain Error
Applied Field for Zero Reading
0.05
0.10
%FS
Offset Error
Applied Field for Zero Reading
0.01
0.03
%FS
Temperature
Coefficient of Gain
Power Supply
Effect
-600
ppm/C
114
Effect
From +6 to +15V with 1 gauss
150
ppm/V
grams
Applied Field
Mechanical
Weight
Vibration
PCB Only
28
PCB and Non-Flanged Enclosure
94
PCB and Flanged Enclosure
98
Operating,
5 to 10Hz for 2 Hours
10
mm
10Hz to 2kHz for 30 Minutes
2.0
HMR2300
SENSOR PRODUCTS
Characteristics
Digital I/O Timing
TRESP
TDELAY
Conditions
Min
Typ
Max
Units
1.9
2.2
msec
*ddP
3.2
*ddR, *ddS, *ddT
6.2
(See Timing Diagrams)

*dd Commands (dd = Device ID)
*ddC
40
60
*ddQ
2+(ddx80)
2+Typ
*99 Commands
2+(ddx40)
2+Typ
*99Q
2+(ddx120)
2+Typ
*dd Commands (dd = Device ID)
39
*99 Commands
TBYTE
TSTARTUP
40
41
ddx40
2+Typ
9600
1.04
19,200
0.52
Power Applied to End of Start-Up
50
Message
RS-232 COMMUNICATIONS Figure1 (Timing is Not to Scale)
RS-485 COMMUNICATIONS Figure 2 (Timing is Not to Scale)
msec
msec
80
msec
D.6
D.6
Beacon Data Sheet
Beacon Data Sheet
The beacon has the following data sheet:
lxxii
DATA SHEETS
AstroDev Ne-1 Minature Beacon
01 February 2010
PRODUCT OVERVIEW
Version 0.1
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Overview
The Neon beacon product line provides a CubeSat
compatible backup communication system for extreme
environment applications. Neon beacons feature
orderable frequency selection and are compatible with
standard amateur radio ground stations capable of
communication at 1200 bps or greater using GMSK
modulation.
The Neon beacon transmits from 400 to 500 MHz.
Custom frequencies are available per customer
requirements.
The Neon beacon is available in a small brick package
and can be mounted on any PCB or metal substrate.
A digital command and data interface is provided to the
beacon. Through this interface the beacon can be
configured and data is sent for transmission. The
interface protocol is a serial UART. A packet protocol
with checksums is implemented between the host and
beacon for robust access.
The beacon communicates using AX.25 packet protocol
(custom protocols can be ordered). In AX.25, only
unnumbered information (UI) frames are supported.
The packet source and destination call signs are
configurable.
.
Cubesat Kit systems

High altitude balloon missions
Rovers or other remotely operated
vehicles
Remote embedded systems
Features:
GMSK transmitter beacon
Frequencies:
o 400- 500 MHz
Input voltage:
o 5-17V, 1.75 Amp Max
RF Output transmit power:
o 3.5 W Max
Power usage:
o Transmit: 10 W Max
o Standby: < 10 mW
Data rate:
o >=1.2 kbps
Serial interface:
o Serial UART
Form factor:
o 24 x 24 x 10.5 mm
o 4 x M2.4 screw mount
o FTSH 0.05 in header
Operating Temperature: -30 to +70 C
Options:
o Protocol support:
AX.25
o Configurable CW mode
For more information, contact:
info@astrodev.com
Ne-1 emits RF radiation that may

interfere with the use of other
devices. Users must maintain
proper licenses during operation.
Ne-1 is static sensitive, take the

necessary precautions
Figure 1--Picture of the Ne-1 Beacon.
Ne-1 requires proper termination
of transmitter in 50 Ohm load
during operation.
Astronautical Development, LLC
Revision 0.1 01 February 2010

Page 1 of 3
User Manual In Progress

Pysical:
Please refer to supplied IGS file at:
http://www.astrodev.com/public_html2/downloads/solidmodels/Ne1_IGS.zip
The Ne-1 is a rectangular module that is 24 mm x 24 mm x 10.5 mm and is mounted at four points with M2.4 x
8mm screws. The 5x2 pin mating plug can be either through hole on a PCB or a mating plug such as Samtec
CLP or FLE. An example implementation can be seen on the AstroDev Low Cost CPU board. The RF output is
a MCX horizontal style plug.
The Ne-1 requires staking to a PCB to dissipate heat. The footprint should have a metallic pad as large as the
radio module. Additional heatpipes are recommended. The mounting screws are good methods of conducting
heat away from the board and should be used to interface to a heatsink.
Interface:
The Ne-1 pinout from a top view is shown below.
P4
BUS_VOLTAGE
GND
UART RX
UART TX
M1_RST/NMI
1
3
5
7
9
2
4
6
8
10
BUS_VOLTAGE
GND
Shutdown
Watch Dog In
Watch Dog Out
Header 5X2
The Pin 1 orientation is shown in the physical three view drawing from a bottom view.
Software Interface:
The Ne-1 sends a data packet with each beacon. To load a packet, the user must send a valid 255 bytes, or
less, to the UART port. A packet consists of the following hex values.
Byte 0: 0x4E
Byte 1: 0x65
Byte 2: packet size in bytes, up to 250
Bytes 3 through 3+N: User Payload
Byte N+3: checksum_A
Byte N+4: checksum_B
Calculating checksum_A and checksum_B:
CK_A = 0, CK_B = 0
For(I=0;I<N;I++)
{
CK_A = CK_A + Buffer[I]
CK_B = CK_B + CK_A
}
Where:
N is the length to calculate the checksum over.
Buffer[] is the array of bytes to be sent
Example function to send a one byte payload, 0xFF, to the radio:
static unsigned char message[255];
void main( void )
{
message[0] = 0x4E;
message[1] = 0x65;
message[2] = 0x01;
message[3] = 0xFF;
calculate_checksum( 1 );
//Write out the packet to the serial port here
}
void calculate_checksum( unsigned char size )
{
unsigned short int i = 0;
unsigned char ck_a = 0;
unsigned char ck_b = 0;
for (i=2;i<size;i++)
{
ck_a += message [i];
ck_b += ck_a;
}
message [size] = ck_a;
message [size+1] = ck_b;
}
LINK BUDGET
Link Budget
E.1
Link Budget Calculations
Revision 1 - Received Power Analysis

The received power, PRX [dB], can be calculated by Eq. 31
PRX = PTX + GTX L TX L FS L M + GRX L RX [ Zyren, 1998]
(31)
Where:
PTX is the transmitted output power [dB] = 30dB
GTX is the gain of the transmitter antenna [dBi] = 4dBi (FR4 antenna)
L TX is the transmitter losses [dB] = 1dB (assumed)
L FS is the free space loss [dB] (Calculated by Eq. 32)
L M is the miscellaneous losses such as atmospheric interference = 0 dB (assumed)
GRX is the receiver antenna gain (dBi) = 30dBi (UniSA facility)
L RX is the receiver losses = 0dB (assumed)
The free space losses can be calculated by Eq. 32:

L FS
distance
= 20log 4
wavelength
[ Hansen, 2001]
(32)
Under the assumption of a 600km altitude, the satellites furthest distance from the
ground station, X, can be calculated as follows:
From Figure 61, X = 2830km (worst case scenario, satellite on horizon). From Eq. 32
the worst case scenario value of L FS is calculated as shown in Eq. 33:

L FSWorstCase

2830000
= 20 log 4
= 169.0 dB
0.125
The worst case scenario value of PRX is calculated from Eq. 31 as shown in Eq. 34:
lxxvi
(33)
E.2
LINK BUDGET
Figure 61: Satellites furthest distance from ground station diagram
PRXWorstCase = 30 + 4 1 169.0 + 30 1 = 107 dBm
(34)
The calculated value of PRX is right on the limit of the sensitivity of the n2420
transceiver.
When the satellite is directly above the ground station X = 600km, the best case scenario
value of L FS is calculated as shown in Eq. 35:

L FSBestCase

600000
= 20 log 4
= 155.6
0.125
(35)
The best case scenario value of PRX is calculated from Eq. 31 as shown in Eq. 36:
PRXBestCase = 30 + 4 1 155.6 + 30 1 = 93.6 dB
(36)
When the satellite is directly above the ground station the power of the received signal
is well above the minimum sensitivity of the n2420 transceiver (107 dB) with a margin of
13.4 dB.
N.B. It should be noted that a more advanced antenna material (PTFE) could increase
the gain of the transmitter antenna, GTX by up to 3 dB.
E.2
Revision 2 - Signal, Eb , to Noise, No , Ratio

The link budget can be calculated by using the energy per bit of the information
divided by the spectral noise density by Eq. 37:
lxxvii
E.2
LINK BUDGET

G
distance
f requency
bit rate
Eb
= EIRP + + 196.15 20log
20log
10log
[ Hansen, 2001]
No
T
1km
1MHz
1bps
(37)
Where:
EIRP is the Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power = transceiver power + antenna gain
G
T
is the quality factor of the ground station = 5dB/K (UniSA facility)
The value 196.15 is the combination of the StefanBoltzmann constant in decibels

and the constant term in the free space losses Eq., -32.45.
The signal to noise ratio of is calculated by Eq. 37 as shown in Eq. 38:

2400
115600
Eb
2830
20log
10log
= 17.88dB
= (0 + 4) + 5 + 196.15 20log
No
1
1
1
(38)
This is a high signal to noise ratio and should result in a probability of errors less than
Pe = 1 1011 for a data rate of 115 kbps.
N.B. Increasing the data rate will decrease the signal to noise ratio, however, this could
be offset by increasing the gain of the antenna by using a material such as PTFE.
lxxviii
BULK TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS
Bulk Temperature Analysis
A bulk temperature analysis was completed on MatLab, the HTML of this code is as
follows:
lxxix
thermalcalcs
Page 1 of 8
Contents

Orbit Parameters
Satellite Geometry Parameters
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Different Surface Materials
Flux with sun angle between 0 and 90 degrees and zenith rotation angle between 0 and
90 degrees
Flux with sun angle between 90 degrees and eclipse angle and zenith rotation angle
between 0 and 90 degrees
Flux with sun angle between eclipse and 180 degrees angle and zenith rotation angle
%Thermal Calculations
%Michael Mackay 1161498
%AUSAT 2010
clc
clear all
Orbit Parameters
Js
= 1368;
%Solar constant (W/m^2)
%Earth's IR radiation (W/m^2)
E_IR = 240;
fa
= 0.34;
%Albedo factor
sigma= 5.67e-8;
%Stephan Boltzmann Constant (W/m^2*K^4)
e_sc = 0.85;
%Solar Cell emissivity
a_sc = 0.92;
%Solar Cell absorptivity
P
= 5;
%Power generation 5W
Re
= 6378e3;
%Earth's Mean radius (m)
h
= 600e3;
%Satellite's altitude above Earth's surface (m)
r
= Re + h;
%Distance from Earth's center to orbit height (m)
beta_e = acos(Re/r) + pi/2; %Eclipse angle
display('Eclipse angle')
fprintf(' %0.4f\n\n',beta_e*180/pi)
Eclipse angle
113.9337
Satellite Geometry Parameters

A_sc = 0.003018;
%Area of 1 solar cell
%Emissivity
e_sc = 0.85;
e_pcb = 0.9;
%Emissivity of Azur solar cells

%Emissivity of PCB
%Absorptivity
a_sc = 0.91;
a_pcb = 0.6;
%Absorptivity of Azur solar cells

%Absorptivity of PCB
%Frame 1
Af1_tot = 0.010188;
%Total surface area of Frame 1 (m^2)
Nf1_sc = 2;
%Number of solar cells
Af1_sc = Nf1_sc*A_sc; %Surface area of solar cells(m^2)
Af1_pcb = 1.727e-3;
%Surface area of exposed solar cell pcb (m^2)
Af1_st = Af1_tot - (Af1_sc + Af1_pcb); %Exposed frame surface area (m^2)
file://G:\AUSAT 2010\Thermal\html\thermalcalcs.html
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 2 of 8
%Frame 2
Af2_tot = 0.010188;
%Total surface area of Frame 2 (m^2)
Nf2_sc = 0;
Af2_sc = Nf2_sc*A_sc; %Surface area of solar cells(m^2)
Af2_pcb = 0;
Af2_st = Af2_tot - (Af2_sc + Af2_pcb); %Exposed frame surface area (m^2)
%Top Panel
%Total surface area of Top Panel (m^2)
Atp_tot = 0.01;
Ntp_sc = 2;
Atp_sc = Ntp_sc*A_sc; %Surface area of solar cells(m^2)
Atp_pcb = 1.727e-3;
Atp_st = Atp_tot - (Af2_sc + Af2_pcb); %Exposed frame surface area (m^2)
%Bottom Panel
Abp_tot = 0.01;
%Total surface area of Bottom Panel (m^2)
Nbp_sc = 2;
Abp_sc = Nbp_sc*A_sc; %Surface area of solar cells(m^2)
Abp_pcb = 1.727e-3;
Abp_st = Abp_tot - (Abp_sc + Abp_pcb); %Exposed frame surface area (m^2)
%Side Panel
Asp_tot = 0.010188;
%Total surface area of Bottom Panel (m^2)
Nsp_sc = 2;
Asp_sc = Nsp_sc*A_sc;
%Surface area of solar cells(m^2)
Asp_pcb = 1.727e-3;
Asp_st = Asp_tot - (Asp_sc + Asp_pcb); %Exposed frame surface area (m^2)
A_tot = Af1_tot + Af2_tot + Atp_tot + Abp_tot + 2*Asp_tot;

area
%Total exposed surface
Scenario 1
%Camera facing Earth satellite, Earth and Sun are colinear
[a_st,e_st] = meshgrid([0:0.01:1]);
Qin1 = Js.*(a_st.*Af1_st + a_sc*Af1_sc + a_pcb*Af1_pcb) + fa.*Js.*(a_st.*Af2_st) +
E_IR.*(a_st.*Af2_st); %Heat flux incedent on satellite (made of direct solar
irradiance, Earth's infrared and reflected albedo radiation)
Qgen1 = 5;
%Maximum internal heat generation of electronics
T_B1 = ((Qin1 + Qgen1)./(sigma.*(e_st.*Af1_st + e_sc*Af1_sc + e_pcb*Af1_pcb +
e_st.*Af2_st + 2.*(e_st.*Atp_st + e_sc*Atp_sc + e_pcb*Atp_pcb) + 2.*(e_st.*Asp_st +
e_sc*Asp_sc + e_pcb*Asp_pcb)))).^(1/4);
figure(1)
meshc(a_st,e_st,T_B1)
grid on
title(['Scenario 1: Camera facing Earth while satellite, Earth and Sun are
colinear',10,'Bulk Temperature vs. Absorptivity and Emissivity'])
xlabel('Absorptivity of Structure Material')
ylabel('Emissivity of Structure Material')
zlabel('Temperature (K)')
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 3 of 8
Scenario 2
Satellite in eclipse, camera facing Earth
Qin2 = E_IR.*(a_st.*Af2_st);
Qgen2 = 0.92;
%Power in standby
(W)
T_B2 = ((Qin2 + Qgen2)./(sigma.*(e_st.*Af1_st + e_sc*Af1_sc + e_pcb*Af1_pcb +

e_st.*Af2_st + 2.*(e_st.*Atp_st + e_sc*Atp_sc + e_pcb*Atp_pcb) + 2.*(e_st.*Asp_st +
e_sc*Asp_sc + e_pcb*Asp_pcb)))).^(1/4);
figure(2)
meshc(a_st,e_st,T_B2)
grid on
title(['Scenario 2: Camera facing Earth in eclipse',10,'Bulk Temperature vs.
Absorptivity and Emissivity'])
xlabel('Absorptivity of Structure Material')
ylabel('Emissivity of Structure Material')
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 4 of 8
Different Surface Materials

%Aluminium Buffed
a1 = 0.16;
e1 = 0.03;
display('Temperature high for Aluminium Buffed (K)')
disp(T_B1(e1/0.01,a1/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Aluminium Buffed (K)')
disp(T_B2(e1/0.01,a1/0.01))
%Aluminium heavily oxidised
a2 = 0.13;
e2 = 0.30;
display('Temperature high for Aluminium heavily oxidised (K)')
disp(T_B1(e2/0.01,a2/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Aluminium heavily oxidised (K)')
disp(T_B2(e2/0.01,a2/0.01))
%Aluminium polished
a3 = 0.15;
e3 = 0.05;
display('Temperature high for Aluminium polished (K)')
disp(T_B1(e3/0.01,a3/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Aluminium polished (K)')
disp(T_B2(e3/0.01,a3/0.01))
%Aluminium hard anodised
a4 = 0.79;
e4 = 0.86;
display('Temperature high for Aluminium hard anodised (K)')
disp(T_B1(e4/0.01,a4/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Aluminium hard anodised (K)')
disp(T_B2(e4/0.01,a4/0.01))
%Gold polished
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 5 of 8
a5 = 0.30;
e5 = 0.05;
display('Temperature high for Gold polished (K)')
disp(T_B1(e5/0.01,a5/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Gold polished (K)')
disp(T_B2(e5/0.01,a5/0.01))
%Titanium as recieved
a6 = 0.40;
e6 = 0.55;
display('Temperature high for Titanium as recieved (K)')
disp(T_B1(e6/0.01,a6/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Titanium as recieved (K)')
disp(T_B2(e6/0.01,a6/0.01))
%Carbon black paint NS-7
a7 = 0.96;
e7 = 0.88;
display('Temperature high for Carbon black paint NS-7 (K)')
disp(T_B1(e7/0.01,a7/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Carbon black paint NS-7 (K)')
disp(T_B2(e7/0.01,a7/0.01))
%Ebanol C black
a8 = 0.97;
e8 = 0.73;
display('Temperature high for Ebanol C black (K)')
disp(T_B1(e8/0.01,a8/0.01))
display('Temperature low for Ebanol C black (K)')
disp(T_B2(e8/0.01,a8/0.01))
%NASA/GSFC NS-37 white paint
a9 = 0.36;
e9 = 0.91;
display('Temperature high for NASA/GSFC NS-37 white paint (K)')
disp(T_B1(e9/0.01,a9/0.01))
display('Temperature low for NASA/GSFC NS-37 white paint (K)')
disp(T_B2(e9/0.01,a9/0.01))
Temperature high for Aluminium Buffed (K)

299.0966
Temperature low for Aluminium Buffed (K)
160.5300
Temperature high for Aluminium heavily oxidised (K)
278.8899
Temperature low for Aluminium heavily oxidised (K)
148.2631
Temperature high for Aluminium polished (K)
296.9744
Temperature low for Aluminium polished (K)
158.8980
Temperature high for Aluminium hard anodised (K)
278.0595
Temperature low for Aluminium hard anodised (K)
166.2524
Temperature high for Gold polished (K)
304.2925
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 6 of 8
Temperature low for Gold polished (K)

169.3605
Temperature high for Titanium as recieved (K)
277.4495
Temperature low for Titanium as recieved (K)
157.5331
Temperature high for Carbon black paint NS-7 (K)
282.6990
Temperature low for Carbon black paint NS-7 (K)
171.5623
Temperature high for Ebanol C black (K)
289.3738
Temperature low for Ebanol C black (K)
175.7505
Temperature high for NASA/GSFC NS-37 white paint (K)
260.7825
Temperature low for NASA/GSFC NS-37 white paint (K)
146.9620
Flux with sun angle between 0 and 90 degrees and zenith rotation angle between 0 and
90 degrees
[theta,phi] = meshgrid([0:pi/200:pi/2]);
e_st = e3;
a_st = a3;
Qf_1i = Js*(a_st.*Af1_st + a_sc*Af1_sc + a_pcb*Af1_pcb).*cos(theta);
Qf_2i = E_IR*(a_st*Af2_st) + fa*a_st*Af2_st*Js;
Qtp_i = Js*(a_st.*Atp_st + a_sc*Atp_sc + a_pcb*Atp_pcb).*sin(theta).*cos(phi);
Qbp_i = 0;
Qs1_i = Js*(a_st.*Asp_st + a_sc*Asp_sc + a_pcb*Asp_pcb).*sin(theta).*sin(phi);
Qs2_i = 0;
Q_geni = 5;
T_i = ((Qf_1i + Qf_2i + Qtp_i + Qbp_i + Qs1_i + Qs2_i + Q_geni)./(sigma.*

(e_st.*Af1_st + e_sc*Af1_sc + e_pcb*Af1_pcb + e_st.*Af2_st + 2.*(e_st.*Atp_st +
e_sc*Atp_sc + e_pcb*Atp_pcb) + 2.*(e_st.*Asp_st + e_sc*Asp_sc + e_pcb*Asp_pcb)))).^
(1/4);
figure(3)
hold on
meshc(theta,phi,T_i)
grid on
axis([0 beta_e 0 pi/2 280 360])
title('Temperature Variation During Orbit')
xlabel('Theta (rads)')
ylabel('Phi (rads)')
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 7 of 8
Flux with sun angle between 90 degrees and eclipse angle and zenith rotation angle
[theta,phi] = meshgrid(pi/2:pi/200:beta_e,0:pi/200:pi/2);
Qf_1ii = 0;
Qf_2ii = a_st*Af2_st*E_IR + fa*a_st*Af2_st*Js + Js.*(a_st.*Af2_st + a_sc*Af2_sc +
a_pcb*Af2_pcb)*cos(theta);
Qtp_ii = Js*(a_st.*Atp_st + a_sc*Atp_sc + a_pcb*Atp_pcb).*sin(theta).*cos(phi);
Qbp_ii = 0;
Qs1_ii = Js*(a_st.*Asp_st + a_sc*Asp_sc + a_pcb*Asp_pcb).*sin(theta).*sin(phi);
Qs2_ii = 0;
Q_genii = 5;
T_ii = ((Qf_1ii + Qf_2ii + Qtp_ii + Qbp_ii + Qs1_ii + Qs2_ii + Q_genii)./(sigma.*
(e_st.*Af1_st + e_sc*Af1_sc + e_pcb*Af1_pcb + e_st.*Af2_st + 2.*(e_st.*Atp_st +
e_sc*Atp_sc + e_pcb*Atp_pcb) + 2.*(e_st.*Asp_st + e_sc*Asp_sc + e_pcb*Asp_pcb)))).^
(1/4);
meshc(theta,phi,T_ii)
17/10/2010
thermalcalcs
Page 8 of 8
Flux with sun angle between eclipse and 180 degrees angle and zenith rotation angle
Qf_1iii = 0;
Qf_2iii = E_IR.*(a3.*Af2_st);
Qtp_iii = 0;
Qbp_iii = 0;
Qs1_iii = 0;
Qs2_iii = 0;
Q_geniii = 0.92;
T_iii = ((Qf_1iii + Qf_2iii + Qtp_iii + Qbp_iii + Qs1_iii + Qs2_iii + Q_geniii)./
(sigma.*(e_st.*Af1_st + e_sc*Af1_sc + e_pcb*Af1_pcb + e_st.*Af2_st + 2.*(e_st.*Atp_st
+ e_sc*Atp_sc + e_pcb*Atp_pcb) + 2.*(e_st.*Asp_st + e_sc*Asp_sc + e_pcb*Asp_pcb)))).^
(1/4);
display('Temperature during eclipse (K)')
disp(T_iii)
Temperature during eclipse (K)

159.2366
Published with MATLAB 7.5
17/10/2010
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Stability Analysis
The centre of gravity of the satellite was calculeted using the following table:
Table 33: Centre of gravity calculation
Mass
Position
MassPosition
Component
[g]
x [mm] y [mm] z [mm] x [gmm] y [gmm] z [gmm]
EPS
161.9
50
86.5
56.75
8095
14004.35 9187.825
Magnetorquer 1
17
50
4.25
56.75
850
72.25
964.75
Magnetorquer 2
17
101.75
56.5
56.75
1729.75
960.5
964.75
Magnetorquer 3
17
50
56.5
112.25
850
960.5
1908.25
Transceiver
19
50
46.5
56.75
950
883.5
1078.25
GPS
21.5
50
66.5
56.75
1075
1429.75 1220.125
Magnetometer
28
50
66.5
56.75
1400
1862
1589
Microcontroller Board
40
50
26.5
56.75
2000
1060
2270
Camera
36
30
36.5
40
1080
1314
1440
Beacon
20
50
46.5
56.75
1000
930
1135
Antenna
10.4
-1.5
56.5
25
-15.6
587.6
260
Solar PCB Bottom
29.8
50
56.5
0.8
1490
1683.7
23.84
Solar PCB Top
29.8
50
56.5
122.7
1490
1683.7
3656.46
Solar PCB frame
29.8
105.7
56.5
56.75
3149.86
1683.7
1691.15
Solar PCB side 1
29.8
50
0.8
56.75
1490
23.84
1691.15
Solar PCB side 2
29.8
50
112.7
56.75
1490
3358.46
1691.15
Structure
360.5
50
56.5
56.5
18025
20368.25 20368.25
Comms Board
32
50
46.5
65
1600
1488
2080
Attitude Board
32
50
66.5
65
1600
2128
2080
CG
961.3
51.34
58.76
57.53
49349.01 56482.1 55299.95
Geometric Centre
50
56.5
56.5
GC-CG
-1.34
-2.26
-1.03
Standards
Pass
Pass
Pass
lxxxviii
STATIC LOADING ANALYSIS
Static Loading Analysis
To analyse the structural integrity of the satellite structure in launch a static and a dynamic
analysis is to be done. The static analysis will be used to calculate what stresses will be
acting on the satellite while it is under a constant acceleration.
Structure Verification Model

Initially a verification model is to be made so that it can be shown that values calculated
are correct. The verification model will be conducted by hand calculations of stresses in a
simplified structure.
Figure 62: Satellite Structure

Figure 62 shows the structure that is to be analysed for preliminary calculations.
lxxxix
Simplified model of structure
Figure 63: Simplification Model of Structure

Figure63 shows a detailed drawing of the simplified model that was analysed.
By
assuming the structure was symmetric about the three primary axes, shown in Figure
64, and each component had a constant rectangular cross section.
Acceleration Force
The static force acting on the structure will be due to the acceleration
of the structure in the launch vehicle during launch and will therefore be dependent on
the self weight of the structure.
The direction of forces acting on the structure during launch will be unknown becasue
the deployer can be connected to the rocket in any orientation. For this reason the static
loading initial calculations will be conducted assuming the force is acting in the direction
of each of three principle axes, shown in Figure 64, in turn.
xc
Figure 64: Principle Axis
Figure 65: The Three Acceleration Scenarios(Acceleration in z, x, y axis respectively)
Assumptions
For the verification calculations an acceleration of 100m/s2 , approximately 10gs, Eq.
39, will be used as this is in the range of the average acceleration of satellite carrying
rockets (Giesselmann,J, 2006):
let a = 100m/s2
(39)
The density of the structur, Eq. 40, is going to be approximated to be the density of
aluminium 7075 as this is the material that the structure should be made out of, this
xci
Figure 66: Component A - Scenario 1

is (W, D Callister and D, G Rethwisch 2009).
= 2730kg/m
(40)
The rails will be completely supported in the structure with a constant pressure
distribution acting on it.
Forces act as point forces on 2D components.
Structure breakdown
The structure was broken up into three different components,
shown in Figure 64, this simplified the calculations by allowing for one component to be
analysed at a time.
Structure Stresses The following sections detail the calculations used to analyse
whether the structure will fail under the acceleration of the rocket.
Scenario 1 Acceleration In The Z Axis
Component A - Figure 66)
The weight per unit length is equal to the cross section area*density*acceleration, Eq.
41.
1a = 0.008 0.0067 2730 100 = 14.6328N/m
(41)
The total force due to a component is given by Eqs. 42:

F = l
xcii
(42)
Figure 67: Shear Diagram, Comonent A, Scenario 1

The total force due to component a is calculated from Eq. 42 in Eq. 43:
Fwa = 14.6328 0.083 = 1.21452N Total Sel f Weight o f the Component
(43)
The reaction forces acting at the ends of component a is given by Eq. 44:
F1aReaction =
Fwa
= 0.60726N Reaction Force at the Supports
2
(44)
The shear force (V) acting on a material can be calculated by Eq. 45:
L
V (x) =
1a dx
(45)
The shear force acting in component a, scenario 1, is calculated by Eq. 46:
V1a ( x ) = 0.60726 14.6328xN Shear Force
(46)
Figure 67 shows the shear force of component a in Scenario 1 with respect to position:
The moment in a component is calculated using Eq. 47:
xciii
Figure 68: Moment Diagram, Component A, Scenario 1
Figure 69: Component B, Scenario 1
M( x) =
L
Shear dx =
V ( x )dx
(47)
The moment acting in component a, scenario 1 is calculated by Eq. 48, this is shown in
Figure 68:
M1a ( x ) = 0.60726x 7.31639x2 Nm
(48)
Component b - Figure 69)

The weight per unit length (1b ) of component b can be calculated using Eq. 42, this is
shown in Eq. 49:
l1b = 0.005 0.0033 2730 100 = 4.5045N/m
xciv
(49)
Figure 70: Shear Diagram, Component B, Scenario 1

The total self weight of this component is given by Eq. 50:
Fwb = 4.5045 0.083 = 0.373874N Total Sel f Weight o f Component
(50)
The reaction forces acting on this component are given by Eq. 51:
FabReaction =
Fwb
= 0.186937N Reaction Force o f Supports
2
(51)
The shear force, V1b ,in component b, scenario 1 is given by Eq. 52, this is shown in
Figure 52.
V1b = 0.186937 4.5045xN Shear Force
(52)
The moment in this components, calculated by Eq. 47 is given by Eq. 53 and shown in
Figure 70:
M1b = 0.186937x 2.25225x2 Nm
Component c - Figure 72)

xcv
(53)
Figure 71: Moment Diagram, Component B, Scenario 1
Figure 72: Component C, Scenario 1
xcvi
The total self weight of component c, scenario 1, is given by Eq. 54:
Fwc = 0.1135 0.0085 0.0085 2730 100 = 2.238702N
(54)
The reaction forces acting on the component are given by Eqs. 55 and 56:
F1cReaction = 2F1aReaction + 2F1bReaction + Fwc The Reaction Force at the Supports
F1cReaction = 2 0.60726 + 2 0.186937 + 2.238702 = 3.827096N
(55)
(56)
Compressive Force:
Let
dF
dx
= c , this is the amount of self weight in section dx where x is the distance from
the base. Where 1c is the self weight per unit length given by Eq. 57:
1c = 0.00852 2730 100 = 19.72425N/m
(57)
From base to 1)
The compressive force acting in component c, scenario 1, from the base in to position
1, shown in Figure 72, is given by Eqations 58 and 59:
F1c01 = F1cReaction 1c x N
(58)
F1c01 = 3.827096 19.7243x N
(59)
Where x is the distance from the base

This is similar to the compressive force calculation in the rest of the component as
follows:
From 1 to 2)
From position 1 to 2 the compressive force acting in the component is given by Eqations
60 and 61:
F1c12 = F1c01 F1breaction
(60)
F1c12 = 3.640159 19.7243x N
From 2 to 3)
xcvii
(61)
Figure 73: Compressive Forces in Component C, Scenario 1

62 and 63:
F1c23 = F1c12 F1areaction
(62)
F1c12 = 3.032899 19.7243x N
(63)
From 3 to 4)
64 and 65:
(64)
F1c34 = 2.42564 19.7243x N
(65)
From 4 to 5)
66 and 67:
(66)
F1c12 = 2.238703 19.7243x N
(67)
The Eqs. 58 through to 67 are shown in Figure 73:
The graph of compressive force versus distance from the base shows that the highest
compressive force in component c for scenario 1 is at the base equal to the reaction force
at the base
xcviii
Figure 74: Component a, Scenario 2
Figure 75: Component b, Scenario 2

Scenario 2 Acceleration In Ihe X Axis
Component a - Figure 74)
The loading, shear force, moment and shear stress in this scenario for component a is
the same as that for scenario 1.
Unlike component c in scenario 1 this will have a linear compressive force distribution
that will only depend on the forces acting on the ends of the component, F2bacReaction , and
its self weight Fwb . The forces acting on this component are shown in Figure 76:
The reaction forces acting on this component are calculated in Eqs. 68 and 69:
F2bacReaction =
Fwc
Fwa
2.238702 1.21452
+
=
+
= 1.726611N
2
2
2
2
Reaction Force o f Component B Supporting Components A and C

xcix
(68)
Figure 76: Forces Acting on Component B, Scenario 2
F2bReaction = Fwb + F2bacReaction = 0.373874 + 1.726611 = 2.100485N
(69)
The Reaction Force Supporting Component B

The self weight of the component per unit length in the x direction,
l2b , is given by
Eqation 70:
2b = 2a = 4.5045N/m
(70)
The compressive force with distance x from the base is given by Eq. 71, this is shown
in Figure 77:
F2b = F2bReaction 2b x = 2.100485 4.5045xN
(71)
The self weight with distance x (
l2c ) is the same as that in scenario 1, this is shown in
Eq. 72:
2c = 1c = 19.72425N/m
c
(72)
Figure 77: Compressive Force in Component B, Scenario 2
ci
Calculation of the shear force (V) acting along the component :
From 0 to 1)
The shear force inside the component from 0 to 1 is given by Eqs. 73 and 74:
V2c01 = 2c x N
(73)
V = 19.72425x N
(74)
From 1 to 2)
The shear force inside the component from 1 to 2 is given by Eqs. 75and 76:
V2c12 = F2c01 + F2ba cReaction
(75)
V2c12 = 1.726611 19.72425xN
(76)
From 2 to 3)
V2c23 = F2c12 F1aReaction
(77)
V2c12 = 1.119351 19.72425xN
(78)
From 3 to 4)
V2c34 = F2c23 F1aReaction
(79)
V2c12 = 0.512091 19.72425x N
(80)
From 4 to 5)
V2c45 = F2c34 + F2ba cReaction
(81)
V2c12 = 2.238702 19.72425x N
(82)
The shear force acting in component c, Scenario 2, calculated in Eqs. 73 through to 82,
are shown in Figure 79
The moment in the section is calculated by Eq. 47.
cii
Figure 79: Shear Diagram, Component C, Scenario 2

By integration of the above shear equations, making sure that the constant of
integration ensured that there is no step change, the moment in the component is
calculated as follows
From 0 to 1)
The moment inside the component from 0 to 1 is given by Eqs. 83 and 84:
1
19.72425 x dx
M2c01 =
(83)
M2c01 = 9.862125x2 Nm
(84)
From 1 to 2)
2
1.726611 19.72425 x dx
M2c12 =
(85)
M2c12 = 0.016403 + 1.726611x 19.72425x2 Nm

From 2 to 3)
ciii
(86)
3
1.119351 19.72425x dx
M2c23 =
(87)
M2c12 = 0.009723 + 1.119351x 19.72425x2 Nm
(88)
From 3 to 4)
4
0.512091 19.72425x dx
M2c34 =
(89)
M2c12 = 0.05252 + 0.512091x 19.72425x2 Nm
(90)
From 4 to 5)
5
2.238702 19.72425x dx
M2c45 =
(91)
M2c12 = 0.127046 + 2.238702x 19.72425x2 Nm
(92)
The moment acting in component c, Scenario 2, calculated in Eqs. 83 through to 92, are
shown in Figure 80
Scenario 3 Acceleration In The Y Axis
Component a - Figure 81)
Like component b in scenario 2 this will have a linear compressive force distribution
that will only depend on the forces acting on the ends of the component and its self weight,
Figure 82.
civ
Figure 80: Moment Diagra, Component C, Scenario 2
Figure 81: Component A, Scenario 3
Figure 82: Forces Acting on Component A, Scenario 3
cv
The reaction force due to component a supporting components b and c is calculated in

Eq. 93:
F3abcReaction =
Fwc
F
2.238702 0.186937
+ wb =
+
= 1.306288N
2
2
2
2
(93)
The Reaction Force o f Component a Supporting Components b and c

The reaction force supporting component a is given by Eq. 94:
F3aReaction = Fwa + F3abcReaction = 1.21452 + 1.306288 = 2.520808N
(94)
The Reaction Force Supporting Component a

The self weight of the component per unit length in the x direction, 2b , is given by Eq.
95:
3a = 1a = 14.6328N
(95)
The compressive force with distance x from the base is given by Eq. 96:
F3a = F3aReaction = 2.520808 14.6328xN
(96)
The loading, shear force, moment and shear stress in this scenario for component b is
the same as that for scenario 1, component b.
cvi
Figure 83: Compressive Force in Component A, Scenario 3
Figure 84: Component B, Scenario 3
cvii
H
The self weight with distance x (
l3c ) is the same as that in scenario 1, Eq. 97:
3c = 1c = 19.72425N/m
(97)
The shear force calculations in the component are as follows:

From 0 to 1)
V3c01 = 3c xN
(98)
V3c01 = 19.72425xN
(99)
From 1 to 2)
V3c12 = V3c01 F1bReaction
(100)
V3c12 = 0.186937 19.72425xN
(101)
From 2 to 3)
V3c23 = V3c12 + F3abcReaction
(102)
V3c12 = 1.119351 19.72425xN
(103)
From 3 to 4)
V3c34 = V3c23 + F3abcReaction
cviii
(104)
Figure 86: Shear Diagram, Component C, Scenario 3
V3c12 = 2.425639 19.72425xN
(105)
From 4 to 5)
V3c45 = F2b34 F1bReaction
(106)
V3c12 = 2.238702 19.72425xN
(107)
The shear forces calculated in Eqs. 98 through to 107 are shown in Figure 86:
The moment in the section is calculated by Eqaution 47. By integration of the above
shear equations, making sure that the constant of integration ensured that there was no
step change, the following equations have been made:
From 0 to 1)
cix
19.72425x dx
M3c01 =
(108)
M3c01 = 9.862125x2 Nm
(109)
From 1 to 2)
2
0.186937 19.72425x dx
M3c12 =
(110)
M3c12 = 0.00178 0.186937x 19.72425x2 Nm
(111)
From 2 to 3)
3
1.119351 19.72425x dx
M3c23 =
(112)
M3c12 = 0.012593 + 1.119351x 19.72425x2 Nm
(113)
From 3 to 4)
4
2.425639 19.72425x dx
M2b34 =
(114)
M3c12 = 0.145014 + 2.425639x 19.72425x2 Nm

From 4 to 5)
cx
(115)
Figure 87: Moment Diagram, Component C, Scenario 3
5
2.238702 19.72425x dx
M2b45 =
(116)
M3c12 = 0.127046 + 2.238702x 19.72425x2 Nm
(117)
The moment in component c, scenario 3, as calculated in Eqs. 108 and 117 are shown
in Figure 87:
Analysis
The following sections go throw the failure analysis of the structure by analysing failure
due to shear and compressive stresses.
Shear analysis
To calculate whether a material is going to yield under shear force the
shear stress is to be calculated. The shear stress in a material is calculated by dividing the
shear force by the cross sectional area of the component, Eq. 116.
=
V
A
cxi
(118)
Figure 88: Shear Force in the Components

Where
t is the shear stress (Pa), V is the shear force ( N ) and A is the cross section area
( m2 ).
The shear force (V) in all the components is shown in Figure 88:
Area calculation :
The cross section area of each of the components, A a , Ab ,Ac , are calculated in Eqs. 119
to 121:
A a = 0.008 0.0067 = 5.36 105 m2 Cross Section Area o f Component a
(119)
Ab = 0.005 0.0033 = 1.65 105 m2 Cross Section Area o f Component b
(120)
Ac = 0.0085 0.0085 = 7.225 105 m2 Cross Section Area o f Component c
(121)
cxii
Figure 89: Shear Stress in the Components

By dividing the equations of shear force by the cross section are of the components
Figure 89 has been made:
By inspection of the graph in Figure 89, the highest value if shear stress is found at
position 1 in 2c. This shear stress has a magnitude of 21304Pa.
The yielding strength of aluminium 7075 is 505MPa (W, D Callister and D, G Rethwisch
2009), this is about 20,000 times larger than the shear stresses experienced in the simplified
structural components under an acceleration of 100m/s2. With this safety factor, even
under the simplifications of the structure, the satellite will not yield under the shear forces.
Buckling analysis
To calculate weather the components will fail due to buckling, Eq.
122 is used:
Fcrit =
2 EI
(KL)2
(122)
Where Fcrit is the maximum critical force ( N ), E is the modulus of elasticity ( Pa), I is the
area moment of inertia (m4 ), L is the unsupported length of column (m) and K is the
effective length factor.
E = 71GPa (W, D Callister and D, G Rethwisch 2009)

cxiii
Figure 90: Buckle Bend Direction

The area moment of inertia, I, is calculated by Eq. 123:
z2 dA
Iyy =
(123)
The cross section of the components is a rectangle as shown in Figure 90:
Thus the area moment of inertia becomes is given by Eq. 137:
Iyy =
a3 b
12
(124)
This analysis only applies to components under compressive forces: 1c, 2b, 3a.
As each components could buckle in two directions, only the most likely and therefore
most extreme case for each component is going to be analysed, Eq. 125.
Fcrit I a3 b a2 A
(125)
Eq. 125 shows that the critical force is proportional to a2 and thus buckling is more likely
to happen when a is the smaller of the two dimensions. The second moments of inertia
for the three components are therefore calculated by Eqs. 126, 127 and 128:
Ia =
0.00673 0.008
= 2.005 1010 m4 Second Moment o f Area o f Component c (126)
12
Ib =
0.00333 0.005
= 1.497 1011 m4 Second Moment o f Area o f Component b (127)
12
cxiv
Figure 91: Force in Component Divided by the Critical Force
Ic =
0.00854
= 4.350 1011 m4 Second Moment o f Area o f Component c
12
(128)
Where L is the length of the component (m) and as they are fixed at both ends so K =
0.5.
To demonstrate how close the compressive forces in each component gets to the critical
compressive force a plot of the compressive force divided by the critical force, Eq. 91:
The graph in Figure 91 shows the compressive forces in the structure are less than one
thousandth of the critical force.
cxv
Figure 92: Screw Orientation
Screw Stresses
The screws that are used to hold the side brackets (component a) to the structure sides
(components b and c) are 2.5mm csk 10mm screws, the stresses these screws will have to
withstand will be analysed in the following sections.
Screw Calculations
The Figure 92 shows the orientation of the screws with respect to the structure.
Scenario 1 Acceleration in The Axis

The stress in the screws can be calculated by dividing the force the screws are to
withstand by the cross sectional area of the screws.
The force that the screws are to withstand has been calculated in the previous sections,
this is the reaction force F1aReaction , Eq. 129.
cxvi
F1aReaction =
Fwa
= 0.60726N Reaction Force at The Supports
2
(129)
The screws cross section area is calculated in Eq. 130:
As =
D2
0.00252
=
= 4.9087 104 m2
4
4
(130)
The shear force in the screws if given by Eq. 131:

s =
0.60726
F1aReaction
=
= 1.2371 103 Pa
4
As
4.9087 10
(131)
Scenario 2 Acceleration in The X Axis

The force that the screws are to withstand, thus the stress in the screws, in scenario 2
is the same as that calculated in scenario 1.
Scenario 3 Acceleration in The Y Axis
In scenario 3 the screws are under compressive forces, the stresses experienced by
the screws are the same as that by the ends of component a in this scenario as shown
in scenario 3, component a.
This shows that there is a different compressive force
sv
experienced by the screws at the two different sides of the satellite, these stresses ( ) are
given by Eq. 132 and 133:
Analysis
sc1 = 47030Pa
(132)
sc2 = 24371Pa
(133)
Steel screws, like the 2.5mm, csk, 10mm screws used, have a maximum shear
stress on the order of 100MPa (W, D Callister and D, G Rethwisch 2009), the following
sections will analyse whether the stresses calculated could make the screws fail.
Scenario 1 acceleration is in the z axis
The shear stress experienced by the screws in scenario 1 was calculated to be s =
1237.1Pa. This is far below the maximum shear stress of steel screws and thus these screws
will not fail due to shear stresses.
cxvii
Figure 93: Simplified Panel

Scenario 2 acceleration is in the x axis
As stated previously the screws in this scenario undergo the same stresses as in
scenario 1 and will not fail due to shear stresses.
Scenario 3 acceleration is in the y axis
The compressive stresses experienced by the screws in this scenario aresc1 = 47030Pa
and sc2 = 24371P.
As shown in the Buckling Analysis the amount of compressive stress in this scenario
is far from the critical buckling force that would make the components fail and thus the
screws will not fail due to compressive forces.
Panels
Due to the similarity of the panels to be analysed, one simplification will cover all the
panels, Figure 93:
This simplification is symmetric about the line of symmetry shown, for this reason
only one scenarios will be analysed acceleration in the x axis, scenario 1.
cxviii
H
Assumptions
Along with the assumptions outlined in the previous sections further
assumption will be made in the analyses of the forces acting on the panels:
It will be assumed that the panels will not withstand any of the forces supplied by
the structure, the panels will only have to withstand their own self weight.
In scenario 1 the panels will be fully supported at both ends as shown in the Figure
below
Symbolises the force acting on the panel (Reaction force to the self weight
of the panel
Symbolises that the panel is fully supported, where the panels are fully
supported the deflection and the first derivative of the deflection of the panel are both
zero.
Panel Calculations The following sections will show the calculations of the stresses
experienced by the panels in scenario 1:
Scenario 1 Acceleration in The X Axis
Acceleration in the x axis will cause compressive forces within the panel, this is
calculated as follows.
cxix
.
Figure 94: Compressive Forces in Panel
The weight per unit length, p1 , is equal to the cross section area*density*acceleration,
Eq. 134:
p1 = 0.1 0.001 2730 100 = 27.3N/m
(134)
The reaction force, Fp1 , at the base of the panel is given by Eq. 135:
Fp1 = p1 l = 273 0.1 = 2.73N
(135)
The compressive force, Fpx , experienced in the panel is given by Eq. 136:
Fpx = Fp1 px x N
(136)
Where x is the distance in meters from the base of the panel as shown in Figure 93.
The compressive forces inside the panel are shown in Figure 94
Panel Force Analysis
The following sections go throw the failure analysis of the panels
by analysing failure due to compressive stresses.

Buckling Analysis
To calculate weather the panels will fail due to buckling, Eq. 122 is used.
cxx
Figure 95: Cross Section Area of Panel

The cross section of the components is a rectangle as shown in Figure 95:
From Figure 95 the area moment of inertia is given by Eqs. 137 and 138:
t3 L
12
(137)
0.0013 0.1
= 8.333 1012 m4
12
(138)
Iyy =
Iyy =
Second Moment o f Area o f the Panel Under Compressive Forces

Where L is the length of the panel and as it is fixed at both ends K = 0.5.
To demonstrate how close the compressive forces get to the critical compressive force
a plot of the compressive force divided by the critical force is shown in Figure 96.
Figure 96 shows the compressive forces in the panel are less than one hundredth of the
critical force and are the panel will therefore not fail due to buckling.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis is important due to the simplifications applied to the model and the
analysis. This analysis covers the sensitivity of the stresses in the structure to changes in
the following values:
cxxi
Figure 96: Compressive Force in Panel Divided by Critical Compressive Force

Acceleration, a
Density,
Cross section area, A

Length of components, L
The sensitivity in the calculated shear stress, , to a valriable, y, is given by Eq. 139:
a h
2
3
L1 + A2
A1 L2 + A L3
(139)
y = a, , A1 , A2 , L1 , L2
Subscripts refer to different sections of the structure
This sensitivity analysis is a general analysis for all of the stress calculations to gain an
understanding of the effects of changes in the governing variables. General values for
each of the variables will therefore be used, these are listed in Table 34:
Let y = acceleration, a, Eq. 139 becomes Eq. 140:
Sensitivity to Acceleratin
a h
2
L1 + A2 L 2 + A3 L3
1

A2
A3
=
L1 +
L2 +
L3
2
A1
A1
cxxii
(140)
Table 34: Sensitivity Analysis Values

Variable
Acceleration, a [m/s2 ]
Density, [kg/m3 ]
Cross Section Area of Stressed Section, A1 [m2 ]
Cross Section Area of Section Effecting StressA2 , A3 [m2 ]
Length of Stressed Section, L1 [m]
Length of Section Effecting Stress, L2 , L3 [m]
Value
100
2730
5 105
5 105
0.1
0.1
Eq. 140 shows that if the value of acceleration increases by 10%, the shear stress in
the section increases by approximately4095N/m2 . This increase is 8 104 % of the yield
stress.
Sensitivity to Density
Let y = density,, Eq. 139 becomes Eq. 141:

a h
2
L 1 + A2 L2 + A3 L 3
1

a
A2
A3
=
L1 +
L2 +
L3
2
A1
A1
(141)
Eq. 141shows that if the density of the material increases by 10%, the shear stress in
the section increases by approximately 8190N/m2 . This increase is 1.6 103 % of the yield
stress.
Sensitivity to Cross Section Area of Stresses Section
Let y = area of stressed section,
A1 , Eq. 139 becomes Eq. 142:
A1
a h
2
L1 + A2 L2 + A3 L 3
1
A1
a
=
2
"
A2
A3
L2 + 2 L3
2
A1
A1
#
(142)
Eq. 142 shows that if the cross section area of the stressed section descreases by 10%,
the shear stress in the section increases by approximately 2730N/m2 . This increase is
5.4 104 % of the yield stress.
Sensitivity to Cross Section Area of a Section Effecting the Stressed Section
area of section effecting stress, A2 , Eq. 139 becomes Eq. 143:
cxxiii
Let y =
A2
Eq.
a h
2
L 1 + A2 L2 + A3 L3
1
A2
a L2
2 A1
(143)
143 shows that if the cross section area of a section effecting the stressed
section increases by 10%, the shear stress in the section increases by approximately
1.83 104 N/m2 .
Let y = length of stressed section,L1 , Eq. 139
Sensitivity to Length of Stresses Section

becomes Eq. 144:
L1
a h
2
L1 + A2 L 2 + A3 L3
1
L1
a
2
(144)
Eq. 144 shows that if the length of the stressed section increases by 10%, the shear
stress in the section increases by approximately 1365N/m2 . This increase is 2.7 104 % of
the yield stress.
Sensitivity to Length of Section Effecvting Stressed Section
Let y = length of stress
section,L2 , Eq. 139 becomes Eq. 145:
L1
a h
2
L1 + A2 L2 + A3 L3
1
L2
a A2
2 A1
(145)
Eq. 145 shows that if the length of a section effecting the stressed section increases by
10%, the shear stress in the section increases by approximately 1365N/m2 .
Discussion
The sensitivity analysis shows that a ten percent change in a governing
variable will have a maximum effect of increasing the the shear stress by 1.6 103 % of
the yield stress. This sensitivity analysis justifies the simplifications made to the model.
cxxiv
RANDOM VIBRATION FEA ANALYSIS REPORT
Random Vibration FEA Analysis Report
A random vibration analysis of the structure was conducted in ANSYS, the report for this
analysis is as follows:
cxxv
( "

As part of the final year project Design, build and launch of a small satellite based on CubeSat
designs random vibration analysis was performed for launch vehicle integration qualification. The
project is being undertaken by five undergraduate students and is called AUSAT.
The following
analysis was a preliminary validation to determine whether the satellite structure could withstand
loading due to launch vehicle vibrations. This directly related to the CubeSat standards which state
that to prove flightworthiness random vibration testing must be completed at a level higher than the
published launch vehicle envelope outlined in the Mission Test Plan (MTP).
The finite element analysis (FEA) package, ANSYS Workbench, was used to simulate random
vibrations present during the launch of the satellite. The model of the satellite was constructed in Pro
Engineer Wildfire in sufficient detail to be unambiguously constructed by an external workshop at BAE
Systems. The model was then defeatured to improve mesh quality without significantly altering the
design. Firstly a static structural pre-loading was applied to the internal rails to simulate the loads of
internal electronics. A modal analysis was conducted then conducted in order to determine the natural
frequencies of the satellite. Following the modal analysis, stochastic vibration loads were applied to
the structure to determine the maximum stresses and deformation of vital components.
Flight worthiness of the satellite will be granted if the maximum Von-Mises stresses of the structure
are below the yield stress and also the maximum deflection of the solar panel printed circuit boards
(PCBs) are within specified limits. Success in these two criteria will mean that the structure will not fail
and the solar cells will not break during launch. Although FEA alone is not sufficient to evaluate
launch qualification it provides a preliminary check of any major problems before a prototype is
constructed. Experimental results obtained later in the year will validate launch qualification and FEA
analysis.
'

-" ! "#$ %+
The satellite must comply with the CubeSat Design Specification (CDS), revision 11, constructed by
The California Polytechnic State University. The CDS constraints relevant to the structure and yield
strength of aluminium 6061 are shown in Table 1 and in Appendix B.
Table 1: Specifications of AUSAT 2010
((
Description
Value
Maximum Weight
1 kg
Yield Stress of Aluminium 6061-T6
276 MPa
Maximum dimension of CubeSat
113.5 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm
Position of CG relative to the GC
20 mm
)
&

The objective of the analysis was to conduct a random vibration analysis on a CubeSat structure to
determine whether it will be damaged on a typical Dnepr rocket launch. In particular to determine
whether the structure yields or maximum deformation of the solar cell PCBs is large enough to
damage the solar cells during launch. It was important to evaluate the maximum stress in the structure
to see if the structure will yield and therefore fail during launch. Also it is important to find the
corresponding locations of these stresses to undergo a redesign, if necessary, before the CubeSat is
sent to BAE Systems Workshop for construction. It is also important to know the maximum deflection
of the solar cell PCBs in order to see is the solar cells will undergo brittle failure during launch. The
solar cells are a vital part of the mission and damage to the cells would lead to insufficient power
generation during orbit making operation of the satellite subsystems impossible.
The CubeSat structure will be considered to have passed random vibration analysis if the maximum
stress in the structure is 0.8 times the yield stress. This will ensure that the structure will be
constructed with a safety factor of 1.25, which is deemed an appropriate value given the strict weight
limitation. The CubeSats solar panel PCBs maximum deflection will also have to be under one
millimetre to ensure the solar cells remain operational when delivered to orbit. If these two criteria,
Table 2, are satisfied then the CubeSat structure will be deemed to have withstood random vibration
loading due to launch vehicle vibrations.
Table 2: Random Vibration Analysis Parameters

*

5
7$4
!!1 !!

5
$
$

(
( + ,

In this analysis it was essential to model the entire satellite despite the satellite having an axis of
symmetry. This was due to the asymmetric mode shapes in the modal response. Therefore, modelling
half the satellite and applying symmetric boundary conditions would not accurately model the modal
response of the structure. The model was adapted from a computer aided design (CAD) model, Fig. 1,
which was constructed in Pro Engineer for the final year project, AUSAT. The model was adapted by
defeaturing the model to improve the quality of the mesh. The CubeSat model was simplified in a
number of areas for the ANSYS analysis in order to make the system solvable. The screws and screw
holes were removed to improve the mesh on the side panels. This simplification has also been used to
appropriately perform a random vibration analysis of a similar pico-satellite structure (Pierlot, 2009). As
electronic components have not been finalised in the final year project a detailed model of the boards
were omitted. However, the approximate mass of the boards were know allowing a load to be applied
to the internal rails to simulate the boards. The pre-loading applied represented a static loading of the
mass of the board at 10g. Also all roundings on rails and cross brackets were removed to increase
mesh quality and reduce the number of small angled elements.

Figure 1: Pro Engineer Wildfire detailed CAD model

)
((
+

A static structural pre-loading, representing internal electronic boards, and two types of analysis were
required to determine the launch qualification of the satellite. A modal analysis was conducted in order
to find the natural frequencies of the satellite structure. The launch vehicle standards require any
resonance frequencies below 2000 Hz to be analysed by a random vibration test. The random
vibration analysis that was conducted used a power spectral density (PSD) specified by testing
requirements for the Dnepr launch vehicle, Appendix C.
The mesh was defined in the static pre-loading and verified in the modal analysis before determining
the natural frequencies. As the geometry was imported from a 3D CAD model the automatic element
type where chosen as 3D tetrahedral. Firstly an automatic mesh was applied to the model, Fig. 2.
This mesh size obtained accurate results in the verification model and would be sufficient to model
areas of uniform geometry where detailed solution are not required such as the side panels.
Figure 2: Initial automatic tetrahedral mesh applied to entire structure
The frame structure and cross brackets were not crucial areas of analysis, which was seen in
preliminary random vibration analysis, and therefore the mesh size of these components were left
coarse. The meshes of these components were mapped reducing irregular shaped elements and
improving the quality of the mesh, seen in Fig. 3.
*
Figure 3: Manual meshing of the frame and cross brackets to reduce irregular shaped elements.
The PCBs, which supported the solar cells, were refined to a 5 mm element size, Fig. 4. This was
done after preliminary modal and vibration analysis which indicated that the mode shapes and
vibrations affected the top and bottom panel more so than the structural panels, frame and cross
brackets. Also this was necessary to determine accurate deflections of the PCBs to evaluate whether
the solar cells would be damaged, deflection under 1mm.

Figure 4: Refinement of mesh of PCB to 5 mm.
+
Determination of the damping coefficient was important to model the satellite appropriately. A similar
CubeSat project, OUFTI, analysed random vibrations for launch qualification. The quality factor
(amplification factor) of the OUFTI CubeSat structure was estimated at Q = 10 (Galli, 2008). Using the
following relationship (Roberts, 2009),

the damping coefficient of the satellite could be found by reaaranging to the following,

0 *+
$

$ !* *$*,

$!
$ ! )!!
*
89-
((
+

The frame, structural panels and cross brackets of the satellite are made from aluminium 6061-T6.
This material was chosen for the primary structure as it is lightweight and recommended by CDS
(Munakata, 2008). The PCBs were modelled as RF-4 which is a common material used in electronic
boards (Orly, 2009). The spacers between PCBs and structural panels were modelled as
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) to reduce wear and provide appropriate support to the PCBs. The
internal rails, used to support electronics, were modelled as structural steel as these were vital in
distributing the load of electronics and important to have higher strength than aluminium 6061-T6. The
materials properties used in the analysis can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Material properties used in analysis of CubeSat

Properties
Material
Aluminium 6061-T6
Youngs
Density
Poissons
Tensile yield
Coefficient of thermal
Modulus (GPa)
(kg/m )
Ratio
Strength (MPa)
expansion (10 x C )
68.9
2700
0.33
276
2.4
-5
RF-4
18.6
1820
0.136
276
1.2
PTFE
2200
0.46
20
13
Structural steel
200
7850
0.3
250
1.2
(-(
-1
.

The boundary conditions change for each direction analysed as per the testing requirements for the
Dnepr Launch Vehicle. The testing requirements state that a CubeSat is to be oriented on a shaker in
the x, y and z directions and a vibration analysis performed for each of the three axes. For the x and y
directions the fixed support is located on the surfaces of the rails perpendicular to the axis direction.
For the z direction the fixed support is placed on the bottom of the four rails. In random vibration
analysis all supports that are not fixed are automatically assigned as free boundaries, which would be
the case in determining random vibrations in each axis individually.

(/(
!

First a static structural preloading was applied to the internal rails of the satellite to represent the
weight of electronics, Fig 5. The magnitude of this load was determined by multiplying the mass of the
internal electronics, 500 grams, by a constant acceleration of 10g which is present in the launch of the
Dnepr launch vehicles. The load was applied at the central locations of the rail as exact location of
electronic boards have not been finalised. This would over estimate the stresses in the rails as the
bending moment would be maximised in this instance.
Figure 5: Representation of the loads of electronic boards on internal rails

A number of satellite launch providers offer CubeSat launches, as a secondary payload, to Low Earth
Orbit (LEO) however as a launch has not yet been finalised for this analysis the Dnepr launch vehicle
will be selected to provide random vibration statistics. The Dnepr launch vehicle is a Russian rocket
that has successfully launched seven CubeSats and had one failure during launch, destroying 14
CubeSats. The Dnepr launch vehicle currently has the most severe vibration response and it is likely
if the CubeSat structure can withstand a Dnepr launch it will be qualified for all launch vehicles
(CubeSat, 2009). The spectral density for each frequency range for both the high level and low level
qualification profile for a typical Dnepr Launch are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. The
high level qualification profile must be applied to the CubeSat for 35 seconds and the low level
qualification profile for 831 seconds to simulate a typical launch. These loads will be applied through
the fixed support boundary conditions, simulating the physical connection of the CubeSat and
experimental shaker.


LOWER FREQ. (Hz)
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
HIGHER FREQ. (Hz)
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2000
0.011
0.011
0.033
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.026
SPECTRAL DENSITY
2
(G /Hz)

LOWER FREQ. (Hz)
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
HIGHER FREQ. (Hz)
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2000
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.014
0.014
0.007
0.007
SPECTRAL DENSITY
2
(G /Hz)

(0(
1

To ensure accurate results were obtained from random vibration analysis several steps were taken to
improve the quality of the model before analysis was performed. The major issue that needed to be
overcome was simplifying the model sufficiently to reduce the node below the limit of the student
licence, 32000 nodes. This was achieved through the simplification of cross-brackets and frames by
removing complex curves, roundings and replacing with regular rectangular shapes. The rectangular
components could then easily be modelled using a course mesh without producing irregular element
shapes. Additionally, features such as screw holes were removed from the model to improve the mesh
quality. Although the screw connections would be an important area of analysis to determine whether
screws would shear, it was beyond the scope of the analysis. This area would be validated in
experimental analysis performed on the fully constructed satellite later in the year.
Two verification models were produced to determine appropriate mesh sizes for structural panels and
frame. Analytical solutions, Appendix A, were used to validate the convergence of natural frequencies
obtained in ANSYS for a cantilever beam and clamped flat plate. The validation of these natural
frequencies indicated that a course mesh could be used for cross brackets and frame while a smaller
element size would be needed for PCBs to accurately model the system. A compromise was then
made to improve the mesh around PCBs, course mesh on frame and cross brackets while ensuring
the node limit was not exceeded.

-(
A verification model was first constructed to determine an appropriate mesh size for the CubeSat finite
element model (FEM). Once a converged solution was determine for the verification model by
comparing analytical solutions to FEA the CubeSat FEM was analysed. First a static structural preloading was applied to simulate the electronic boards and then modal response of the satellite
structure was determined and all natural frequencies below 2000 Hz were tabulated. Once the modal
analysis was complete a random vibration analysis was performed for each of the CubeSat primary
axis. Von Mises stress and deformation in each of the CubeSat axis was investigated to determine
whether the qualification parameters, Table 2, were satisfied.
-((
+
In order to validate the fidelity of random vibration analysis of the CubeSat model two verification
models were constructed. The two verification models were of a cantilever beam and a flat plate
clamped at one edge. These simplified models were chosen as the CubeSat structure is a
combination of both beam and plate components. Additionally, analytical solutions have been well
documented to provide a reliable validation method. Hand calculations, Appendix A, were performed
for each of the models to determine the natural frequency using analytical methods. A modal analysis
was then performed using ANSYS Workbench on both models. The geometries of the models were
constructed in the design modeller section and aluminium alloy properties were assigned in the
material library. A detailed material model was not developed in the verification stage as the
aluminium alloy in the general material library was sufficient to validate convergence. The mesh sizes
of both models were varied to determine when the solution had converged. Varying the mesh size also
allowed for the number of nodes and elements to be recorded which would affect the size of the mesh
that could be used in the CubeSat FEM. The following sections detail the verification procedure.

$

#%$ 3'#0
The first model constructed was a simple cantilever beam, Fig. 6. This beam represents the four rails
of the CubeSat that are constrained within the Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD). Hand
calculations were undertaken to determine the fundamental natural frequency of the beam using
theory highlighted in Inham. These analytical solutions were compared to a modal analysis performed
in ANSYS Workbench. Fig. 6 shows the model with a fixed support at the left face to simulate the
cantilever.

Figure 6: Cantilever beam model used in verification, left face is fixed.

'#0 ! "#$ %
A modal analysis was selected in ANSYS Workbench to determine the fundamental natural frequency
using FEA methods. The design modeller was used to first construct a square of width 8.5 mm and
then extruded to form a bar of 100 mm length. Although beam elements would accurately model the
bending modes of a cantilever beam, solid elements was used as it was necessary to model torsional
and lateral modes in the satellite structure. Also, simplifying the CubeSat FEM as beams and plates
removes additional stiffness at thickened joints and therefore would not accurately model the natural
frequencies of the satellite structure.
To test for convergence and determine an appropriate mesh size for the CubeSat FEM the mesh size
for the beam was set at 15 mm to form a coarse mesh and then decreased to 8 mm to form a fine
mesh, Fig. 7 left and right respectively.
Figure 7: Left: Cantilever with 15 mm mesh size. Right: Cantilever with an 8 mm mesh size.
%

#$ #--$ +
The material properties used in both the FEA and hand calculations for the cantilever beam
verification model were generic aluminium alloy, Table 6. This was sufficient as the verification model
was analysing solution convergence of an implicit material not the dependence of material properties
on the solution.
Table 6: Material properties of aluminium alloy used in
verification model
Property
Value
Youngs Modulus
71.0 GPa
Density
2770 kg/m
Poissons Ratio
0.33

'(%#4
% $ %+
A fixed support was applied to one of the end surfaces to form the cantilever, Fig. 6.

'#0 ! "#$ %+($+

The result of the analytical method is compared to the FEA model of the cantilever beam for a variety
of meshes, Table 7. The percent error from the analytical fundamental frequency was found for mesh
sizes of 15, 10, 9 and 8 mm. It can be seen that there is a significant difference in frequencies
between 8 and 9 mm. This is because the element size is larger than the beam width until 8 mm. It
should be aimed to at least have the element size less than the minimum dimension of the beam.

Table 7: Comparison of Analytical and FEA Solutions for Beam Verification Model.
-. /
012
0 /
/64
/64
3445
7/.-3,25
7/.-3,25 385
%
'*$%
(+ )
$
(
*
+
'*$%
(++*
+*
+
)
*
'*$%
'**)
+('

%
)
'*$%
'*'%
+*
%
$

'
. 40
60

#0-#$#$

The second verification model consisted of a flat plate that was clamped at one edge, Fig. 8. The
reason this model was chosen is similar to the cantilever beam, it resembles the panels found on the
satellite and analytical solution have been well documented.

Figure 8: Verification model of a flat plate clamped along left edge.
5
#$#$ ! "#$ %

Similar to the cantilever beam the flat plate was modelled in design modeller by first making a square
plate with length of 100 mm and then extruding by 1.8 mm to form a flat plate. A thickness of 1.8 mm
was chosen in the verification model as this matches the panel thickness used in the CubeSat design.

To test for convergence and determine an appropriate mesh size for the CubeSat FEM the mesh size
for the beam was set at 15 mm to form a coarse mesh and then decreased to 2.5 mm to form a fine
mesh, Fig. 9 left and right respectively.
Figure 9: Left: Flat plate with 15 mm element size. Right: Flat Plate with a 2.5 mm element size.
(
5

#$ #--$ +
Similar to the beam verification model aluminium alloy was chosen from the general materials material
library in engineering data. The specifications for this material are listed in Table 6.

5

'(%#4
% $ %+
A fixed support was applied to one of the edge surfaces to form the clamped plate, Fig. 8.
&
#$#$ ! "#$ %+($+

The result of the analytical method is compared to the FEA model of the flat plate for a variety of
meshes, Table 8. The percent error from the analytical fundamental frequency is not applicable as the
analytical solution only estimates an upper bound for the fundamental frequency. The analysis was
performed at a mesh size of 1 mm as well but this exceeded the node limit of the ANSYS licence.

Table 8: Results of Flat Plate Verification Model
-. /
01 2
/64
0 /
/64
.
60
3445
7/.-3,25
7/.-3,25
385
%
'%
%'%)
9
$*
$'
+
'%
%%%)
9
++
)+
%
'%
%$$(
9
$++
++
%
'%
% *
9
'++
'+

'%
64:.66

40
)
6
+"(++ %! ! "#$ %

The verification models indicated that there were no appreciable differences in natural frequencies by
decreasing the mesh size below 8 mm and 5 mm for panel and beam respectively. The only major
effect of decreasing mesh size below this size is to increase the node count. Also identified was the
significant decrease in errors by limiting the element size to less than the minimum dimension of
meshed component. Therefore, to comply with these results and avoid maximum node limits the frame
and cross brackets were meshed using 8.5 mm tetrahedral elements. As the deflection of the solar cell
PCBs was required to determine whether the solar cells would be damaged the mesh was refined for
these components to 5 mm. The element sizes used in satellite FEM are summarised in Table 9.
Table 9: Mesh Sizes for CubeSat FEM

Component
Mesh Size (mm)
Frame
8.5 mm
Cross Brackets
8.5 mm
Top & Bottom Panel
10 mm
Side Panels
10 mm
Solar cell PCB
5 mm
*
-(2(

Modal and random vibration analysis was performed on the simplified CubeSat FEM constructed
using the appropriate mesh size obtained in the verification model, boundary conditions, damping and
material properties obtained in review of literature highlighted in previous sections. First the modal
response of the satellite was obtained and all natural frequencies below 2000 Hz were tabulated. Von
Mises stress and displacement in each axis were then evaluated using the PSD stated in the CDS for
Dnepr launch vehicles. The stress distribution and maximum deflection of each axis random vibration
analysis were then tabulated to evaluate whether the objectives of the analysis were satisfied.
,
#+-%+
Modal analysis of the CubeSat structure indicated that there were 40 modes, Fig 10 & Table 10, under
2000 Hz that would be of particular interest in random vibration analysis. There were three distinct
frequencies ranges corresponding to modes 1 to 5, 6 to 20 and 21 to 40 which if prolonged excitation
was presented would lead to large increases of stress and deflections. It would be possible to shift the
higher frequency range, modes 21 to 40, above 2000 Hz through the addition of mass to the structure.
This would be advantageous as the launch vehicle and deployer structure would then damp out the
random vibrations above 2000 Hz reducing the likelihood of excitation of CubeSat natural frequencies.
However, as several components of the satellite have not been finalised it was important to model the
empty structure as a worst case scenario.

Figure 10: The modal frequencies of all modes below 2000 Hz of the CubeSat structure

+
Table 10: Modal response of the CubeSat structure

Mode
Frequency
Mode
Frequency
Mode
Frequency
Mode
Frequency
657.14
11
1107.8
21
1674.3
31
1902.9
657.4
12
1116.2
22
1733.2
32
1907.1
658.45
13
1162.1
23
1820.9
33
1920.9
768.58
14
1162.8
24
1850.5
34
1922.6
774.77
15
1163.4
25
1888.4
35
1935.5
1080
16
1208.4
26
1891.4
36
1942.9
1084.6
17
1209.9
27
1896.7
37
1944.6
1084.8
18
1212.4
28
1899
38
1979.5
1086.3
19
1319.5
29
1899.3
39
1980.5
10
1091.1
20
1322.2
30
1901
40
1981.9

,

#%0 )#$ %2. +
To model random vibrations in the x-axis fixed boundary conditions, simulating connection between
test pod and structure, were applied to the side of the rails of the CubeSat. The results of the x-axis
random vibration analysis are summarised in Table 11. The Von Mises stress distribution, shown in
Fig 11, was maximum in the solar cell PCB at the connection between the PCB and the spacers.
Illustrations of the maximum deflection which occurred at the centre of the solar cell PCB and can be
seen in Fig 12.
Figure 11: Von Mises stress for x-axis random vibration analysis.
Figure 12: X-axis displacement for x-axis random vibration analysis.

,

#%0 )#$ %72. +
Similarly y-axis vibrations were modelled with fixed boundary conditions applied to the face of the
frames of the CubeSat. The results of the y-axis random vibration analysis are summarised in Table
11. The Von Mises stress distribution, shown in Fig 13, was maximum in the solar cell PCB at the
connection between the PCB and the spacers. Illustrations of maximum deflection which occurred at
the centre of the solar cell PCB can be seen in Fig 13 and 14 respectively.
Figure 13: Von Mises stress for y-axis random vibration analysis.

Figure 14: Y-axis displacement for y-axis random vibration analysis.

,

#%0 )#$ %82. +
Finally z-axis vibrations were modelled with fixed boundary conditions applied to the bottom face of
the CubeSat rails. The results of the z-axis random vibration analysis are summarised in Table 11.
The Von Mises stress distribution, shown in Fig 14, was maximum in the solar cell PCB at the
connection between the PCB and the spacers. Illustrations of the maximum deflection which occurred
at the centre of the top solar cell PCB can be seen in Fig 15.

Figure 15: Von Mises stress for z-axis random vibration analysis.

Figure 16: Z-axis displacement for z-axis random vibration analysis.

-((

The random vibration analysis indicated that the maximum deflection occurred in the direction of
excitation, as expected. The location of the maximum deflection occurred in the centre of the solar
cell PCB for each loading condition.
All deflections were below the specification of maximum
deflection of the solar cell of 1mm, shown in Table 11. The maximum deflection throughout the
analysis was the X axis excitation, with a deflection of 0.02027mm, which corresponds to a factor of
safety of 49. This ensures the solar cells will survive the launch environment and will be operational on
orbit.
As indicated by previous literature, failure of the structure is unlikely during launch. This has been
verified by the stress distribution obtained during the random vibration analysis, results shown in Table
11. The maximum stress was shown to occur in the Y axis excitation, between the solar cell PCB and
the spacer. The value of stress recorded was 1.41MPa, this results in a factor of safety 14 for the RF4 PCB material. The stresses in the satellite structure were considered negligible, resulting in a
successful result for random vibration analysis.
Table 11: Results of Random Vibration Analysis of the CubeSat

Direction of Vibration
-((
X Deflection
Y Deflection
Z Deflection
Stress
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
0.02027
0.00060
0.00109
1.10
0.00064
0.01980
0.00076
1.41
0.00073
0.00074
0.01692
1.36

During the modelling of the satellite some simplifications that were made would change modal
response. These simplifications include the removal of screw holes and screws, simplifying curves to
rectangular sections and neglecting internal components of the satellite. These simplifications would
change the mass distribution and total mass, resulting in lower natural frequencies. Further analysis is
required upon finalisation of satellite components. Additionally cut outs for wiring on the solar cell
PCB and structural panels were neglected. This would reduce the structural rigidity of the side panels
therefore decreasing the natural frequency. However these simplifications were necessary improve
the mesh quality and satisfy the node limit of 32000 nodes. The mesh body sizing feature in ANSYS
was used after verification modelling to optimise the number of nodes with the quality of the mesh.
The resultant number of nodes utilised was 31343.
Shielding of the satellite from nose cone and deployer would maintain the temperature of the satellite
at ambient conditions. Thermal analysis will therefore not be required in this analysis of the launch of
the satellite.
$
/(

The random vibration analysis using ANSYS posed some potential problems both in the software itself
and also in the system being analysed. Firstly, the ANSYS licence at The University of Adelaide only
allows for a maximum of 32000 nodes, which restricts the refinement of the mesh and therefore the
potential accuracy of the results. The CubeSat CAD model itself also posed a problem in our analysis
due to its complexity. As a result the model had to be simplified in order to for an appropriate mesh to
be generated.
The results of random vibration analysis at Dnepr launch vehicle levels indicated that the maximum
deflections of the solar cell PCBs were well below the specified limit of 1 mm. Additionally, the stress
within all structural components was significantly below the yield strength of aluminium 6061-T6.
These results would indicate that both the structure and solar cells would not be damaged in the
launch environment allowing successful operation of the satellite once in orbit. To further validate the
results of FEA and satisfy launch qualification regulations random vibration testing will also be
performed on the fully constructed structure, including solar cells and internal electronics.
%
MAGNETORQUER TEST THEORY
Magnetorquer Test Theory
The torque created by a magnetorquer has to be calculated so that the attitude of the
satellite can be controlled. A test suggested in the thesis Development of an Active
Magnetic Attitude Determination and Control System for Picosatellites on highly inclined
circular Low Earth Orbits by Jens Gieelmann from RMIT will be implemented.
Test Setup
Apparatus:
Helmholtz Coil Pair
Light Triggered Timer
Retort stand
Coil
Schematic - Figure 97:
Figure 97: Schematic of Experiment Setup
cxlvi
The coil is set up so that it is between the Helmholtz Coil Pair in the uniform magnetic
field. The plane of the coil is to be perpendicular to the magnetic field where to torque is
a minimum. The retort stand will be set up to hold up the coil by a wire supplying the
current to the coil. The wire supporting the coil will allow the coil to oscillate to small
angles and the period of oscillation will be calculated using the Light Triggered Timer.
Theory
To measure the torque as a function of theta created by the coil it is necessary to sum the
forces acting on this system. The two main forces acting on the system are the force due
to the current in the coil and the magnetic field strength and the force due to the torsional
stiffness of wire suspending the coil. The angle
j of the magnetorquer is measured from
perpendicular to the magnetic field, Figure 98.
Figure 98: Schematic of the torqu acting on the system

Calculating the torque due to the current in the coil and the magnetic field strength:
cxlvii
The force acting on the coil that does not cancel out is calculated by Eq. 146:
F = ILBsin ( )
(146)
Where I is the current going through the coil, L is the length of the sides of the square
coil and B is the magnetic field strength. The total torque due to the current in the coil
acting on the wire is minus the product of the force, the length of the side of the square,
the number of turns in the coil, N, this is shown in Eq. 147:
= ILBsin ( )
L
N2 (1)
2
(147)
The cross sectional area, A, will be used instead of L2 , Eq. 147 therefore becomes Eq.
148:
c = AN IBsin ( )
(148)
The magnetic moment, M, a characteristic of a coil is given by M= ANI. Substituting the

magnetic moment into Eq. 148 gives Eq. 149:
c = MBsin ( )
(149)
Calculating the torque due to the torsional stiffness of the wire:

The force due to the torsional stiffness is also a restoring force and therefore acts in the
opposite direction to , Eq. 150:

w = kj
(150)
Where k is the torsional stiffness of the suspension wire.

Total torque acting on the system:
The total torque acting in the system is given by Eq.
151:
= w + c
cxlviii
(151)
Substituting Eqs. 149 and 150 into Eq. 151 gives Eq. 152:
= k MBsin ( )
(152)
The torque acting on the system can be written in terms of the mass moment of inertia
and the angular acceleration of the system Eq. 153:
= J = J
d2
= J 00
dt2
(153)
Where J is the mass moment of inertia of the magnetorquer coil (kgm2 )

Solving Eq. 153:
Eq. 154 can be created by substituting Eq. 152 into Eq. 153:
J = k MBsin ( )
In this experiment
(154)
will be kept small, less than 15, and thus the small angle
approximation, Eq. 155:

sin ( )
(155)
Using Eq. 155, Eq. 154 becomes Eq. 156:

+
k + MB
J
=0
(156)
Eq. 156 is in the form of a standard differential equation and can be solved letting = Aet
and solving the characteristic equation.
The characteristic equation of Eq. 156 is given in Eq. 157:
2 +
k + MB
=0
J
(157)
Solving Eq. 157 gives Eqs. 158 and 159:

s
=
k + MB

= i
J
cxlix
k + MB
= i
J
(158)
= c1 cos ( t) + c2 sin ( t)
(159)
Eq. 159 has the initial conditions listed in Eqs. 160 and 161:
(t = 0) = 0 Initial Angular Displacement
(160)
(t = 0) = 0 Initial Angular Velocity
(161)
From the initial conditions, Eq. 159 becomes Eq. 162:

s
= 0 cos
k + MB
t
J
= 0 cos
2
t
T

(162)
Where T is the period of oscillation of the system (s), as measured by the light
triggered timer
Calculation of J:
J, the mass moment of inertia of the magnetorquer coil can be calculated by Eq. 163:
m c L2
6
J=
(163)
Where mc is the mass (kg) of the magnetorquer coil.

Calculation of K :
To calculate the torsional stiffness of the wire, k , the power to the
coils is to be switched off (making M=0), the coil set to oscillate about
j = 0 (small Dj) and
Tk is to be measured by the light triggered timer. The torsional stiffness of the wire can
then be calculated by Eq. 162, this is shown in Eq. 164:
J4 2
TK2
(164)
J4 2 k
B
T2 B
(165)
k =
Calculation of M:
M=
The torque of the coil:
cl
Now that M is known the equation for the torque of the coil can be found by Eq. 166:
c = MB
(166)
In the case of the satellite, B is the magnet field strength of the earth at a given time. B
would have to be known for the control of the satellite.
Error in Measurement
The total error in the calculation of the torque, c , as calculated by Eq. 167:
2

2 2
2 2
2
2T
2 L
B 2
Mc
c
4 J
+
= M T2 B
+ L
+ B
c
Mc
T
k
B
2 "
Mc
Mc
2
2 L
L
2
2
Tk
2
cli
B
B
2 #
2
B
2
(167)
TESTS RESULTS
Tests Results
The test results that are included in this appendix are for the following tests:
Magnetorquer Tests - K1
Thermal Vacuum Tests - K2
Vibration Tests - K2
K.1
Magnetorquer Tests
The magnetorquer tests were completed for the three magnetorquers. The results of the
tests for each magnetorquer are shown in the following tables.
clii
K.1
Magnetorquer Tests
TESTS RESULTS
Magnetorquer 1:
Table 35: Physical properties of magnetorquer 1
Magnetorquer physical properties
Mass 1
0.0171
kg
Length 1
0.07566
m
Height 1
0.07339
m
average length
0.074525
m
Moment of Inertia, J1
1.58288E-05 kg.m2
wire mass
0.002
kg
wire distance
0.04
m
Tot. Mom of Inertia
1.90288E-05 kg.m2
Mag field strength, Beta
0.00178
T
Table 36: Measured and calculated values for magnetorquer 1

1
Helmholtz Coil Pair: B = 17.8 gauss, V = 8.2volts, I = .75Amps
Magnetorquer volatge and current
V
0volts
7.1volts 13.2volts 18.4volts 26volts 32.2volts
I
0A
0.05A
0.1A
0.15A
0.2A
0.23A
Five measurements of ten periods of oscillation [s]
1
5.811
5.639
5.487
5.374
5.28
5.22
2
5.816
5.638
5.478
5.368
5.291
5.23
3
5.815
5.639
5.479
5.379
5.294
5.233
4
5.81
5.639
5.487
5.376
5.287
5.227
5
5.812
5.639
5.484
5.376
5.287
5.23
k [N.m]
2.223 E-3
Avg. T [s]
0.58128
0.56388
0.5483
0.53746 0.52878
0.5228
M
0
0.078275 0.15477
0.21197 0.26033 0.29506
.[N.m.deg]
0
-1.3932
-2.7550
-3.7732
-4.6340
-5.2521
cliii
K.1
Magnetorquer Tests
TESTS RESULTS
Magnetorquer 2:
Mass 2
0.0168
kg
Length 2
0.07509
m
Height 2
0.0728
m
average length
0.073945
m
Moment of Inertia, J2 1.531E-05 kg.m2
wire mass
0.002
kg
wire distance
0.04
m
tot. Mom of Inertia
1.851E-05 kg.m2
Mag field strength
0.00154
T
Table 38: Measured and calculated values for magnetorquer 2

2
Helmholtz Coil Pair: B = 15.4 gauss, V = 8.2volts, I = .75Amps
V
0volts
7.8volts 13volts 19.6volts 27.5volts 32.2volts
I
0A
0.05A
0.1A
0.15A
0.2A
0.22A
1
5.835
5.679
5.569
5.466
5.369
5.376
2
5.839
5.674
5.564
5.469
5.382
5.372
3
5.84
5.674
5.565
5.472
5.38
5.379
4
5.841
5.673
5.561
5.464
5.388
5.379
5
5.837
5.674
5.565
5.459
5.385
5.391
k [N.m]
0.002143773
Avg. T [s]
0.58384
0.56748 0.55648
0.5466
0.53808
0.53794
M
0
0.08142 0.14024 0.19614
0.24683
0.24769
.[N.m.deg]
0
-1.2538 -2.1598
-3.0206
-3.8013
-3.8144
cliv
K.1
Magnetorquer Tests
TESTS RESULTS
Magnetorquer 3:
Mass 3
0.0175
kg
Length 3
0.07597
m
Height 3
0.07375
m
average length
0.07486
m
Moment of Inertia, J3 1.63451E-05 kg.m2
wire mass
0.002
kg
wire distance
0.04
m
Total mom. Of Inertia 1.95451E-05 kg.m2
Mag field strength
0.00169
T
Table 40: Measured and calculatedvalues for magnetorquer 3

3
Helmholtz Coil Pair: B = 16.9 gauss, V = 8volts, I = .75Amps
V
0volts
6.6volts 12.3volts 18.6volts 25volts 32.2volts
I
0A
0.05A
0.1A
0.15A
0.2A
0.23A
1
5.811
5.639
5.487
5.374
5.28
5.22
2
5.816
5.638
5.478
5.368
5.291
5.23
3
5.815
5.639
5.479
5.379
5.294
5.233
4
5.81
5.639
5.487
5.376
5.287
5.227
5
5.812
5.639
5.484
5.376
5.287
5.23
k [N.m]
0.00217748
Avg. T [s]
0.59528
0.57848 0.56564
0.55416 0.54474 0.53734
M
0
0.07592 0.13856
0.19830 0.25017 0.29284
.[N.m.deg]
0
-1.2831
-2.3418
-3.3513
-4.2278
-4.9490
clv
K.2
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
The results for the thermal vacuum tests are shown in the following tables:
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
21
21.38
21.33
21.09
21.29
21.19
0.21
207.5
0.22
214.3
0.21
21.82
22.01
21.32
21.09
21.27
21.19
0.22
207.4
0.22
214.1
0.21
22.63
22.93
21.27
21.09
21.24
21.19
0.2278
206.9
0.2160
213.8
0.2140
23.45
23.66
21.36
21.19
21.35
21.29
0.2351
207.8
0.2170
214.9
0.2150
24.27
24.50
21.25
21.09
20.31
21.29
0.2435
206.7
0.2160
204.5
0.2150
25.08
25.36
21.24
21.09
21.27
21.09
0.2521
206.6
0.2160
214.1
0.2130
25.90
26.15
21.22
21.19
21.28
21.09
0.2600
206.4
0.2170
214.2
0.2130
26.72
26.64
21.34
21.39
21.52
21.29
0.2649
207.6
0.2190
216.6
0.2150
27.53
28.77
21.48
21.49
21.63
21.29
0.2862
209.0
0.2200
217.7
0.2150
28.35
28.43
21.19
21.29
21.45
21.09
0.2828
206.1
0.2180
215.9
0.2130
10
29.17
29.26
21.25
22.99
22.86
21.89
0.2911
206.7
0.2350
230.0
0.2210
11
29.98
29.99
21.58
21.79
21.76
21.39
0.2984
210.0
0.2230
219.0
0.2160
12
30.80
31.44
21.48
21.79
21.86
21.29
0.3129
209.0
0.2230
220.0
0.2150
13
31.62
31.76
21.56
22.19
22.09
21.69
0.3161
209.8
0.2270
222.3
0.2190
14
32.43
33.00
24.18
23.39
22.44
22.19
0.3285
236.0
0.2390
225.8
0.2240
15
33.25
33.40
21.58
22.19
22.86
21.39
0.3325
210.0
0.2270
230.0
0.2160
16
34.07
34.02
21.45
22.19
22.24
21.29
0.3387
208.7
0.2270
223.8
0.2150
17
34.88
35.45
21.66
22.39
22.46
21.59
0.3530
210.8
0.2290
226.0
0.2180
18
35.70
35.82
21.56
22.49
22.54
21.39
0.3567
209.8
0.2300
226.8
0.2160
clvi
Readings from Multimeters
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
19
36.52
36.83
21.66
22.69
22.74
21.49
0.3668
210.8
0.2320
228.8
0.2170
20
37.33
36.91
21.81
22.99
23.00
21.59
0.3676
212.3
0.2350
231.4
0.2180
21
38.15
38.40
22.16
23.29
23.33
21.89
0.3825
215.8
0.2380
234.7
0.2210
22
38.97
39.02
22.37
23.59
23.86
22.19
0.3887
217.9
0.2410
240.0
0.2240
23
39.78
40.03
22.46
23.59
23.78
22.39
0.3988
218.8
0.2410
239.2
0.2260
24
40.60
41.00
22.31
24.09
23.84
21.99
0.4085
217.3
0.2460
239.8
0.2220
25
41.42
41.34
22.41
24.09
24.25
22.19
0.4119
218.3
0.2460
243.9
0.2240
26
42.23
42.38
22.59
24.49
24.39
22.69
0.4223
220.1
0.2500
245.3
0.2290
27
43.05
42.98
22.78
24.59
24.51
22.49
0.4283
222.0
0.2510
246.5
0.2270
28
43.87
44.07
22.86
24.79
24.75
22.59
0.4392
222.8
0.2530
248.9
0.2280
29
44.68
44.85
23.07
25.09
25.03
22.79
0.4470
224.9
0.2560
251.7
0.2300
30
45.50
45.71
23.26
25.39
25.28
22.99
0.4556
226.8
0.2590
254.2
0.2320
31
46.32
46.50
23.51
25.79
25.76
23.49
0.4635
229.3
0.2630
259.0
0.2370
32
47.13
47.50
23.71
26.19
25.90
23.29
0.4735
231.3
0.2670
260.4
0.2350
33
47.95
48.37
24.58
27.19
26.31
23.69
0.4822
240.0
0.2770
264.5
0.2390
34
48.77
48.95
24.18
27.19
26.60
24.29
0.4880
236.0
0.2770
267.4
0.2450
35
49.58
49.76
24.48
27.29
26.96
24.19
0.4961
239.0
0.2780
271.0
0.2440
36
50.40
51.13
26.58
28.49
28.42
25.29
0.5098
260.0
0.2900
285.6
0.2550
37
51.22
50.39
25.05
28.09
27.64
24.69
0.5024
244.7
0.2860
277.8
0.2490
38
52.03
52.68
25.20
28.29
27.86
24.79
0.5253
246.2
0.2880
280.0
0.2500
39
52.85
53.10
25.49
28.69
28.26
25.09
0.5295
249.1
0.2920
284.0
0.2530
40
53.67
53.74
25.77
29.09
28.56
25.39
0.5359
251.9
0.2960
287.0
0.2560
41
54.48
54.70
26.08
29.49
29.01
25.69
0.5455
255.0
0.3000
291.5
0.2590
42
55.30
55.48
26.44
29.89
29.46
26.09
0.5533
258.6
0.3040
296.0
0.2630
43
56.12
56.31
26.76
30.29
29.86
26.29
0.5616
261.8
0.3080
300.0
0.2650
44
56.93
57.15
27.07
30.69
30.29
26.69
0.5700
264.9
0.3120
304.3
0.2690
45
57.75
57.95
27.43
31.19
30.73
26.99
0.5780
268.5
0.3170
308.7
0.2720
46
58.57
58.56
27.78
31.69
31.18
27.29
0.5841
272.0
0.3220
313.2
0.2750
clvii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
47
59.38
59.42
28.18
32.19
31.69
27.69
0.5927
276.0
0.3270
318.3
0.2790
48
60.20
60.45
28.53
32.59
32.11
28.09
0.6030
279.5
0.3310
322.5
0.2830
49
61.02
61.48
28.98
33.19
32.64
28.49
0.6133
284.0
0.3370
327.8
0.2870
50
61.83
61.90
29.34
33.59
33.10
28.89
0.6175
287.6
0.3410
332.4
0.2910
51
62.65
62.56
29.75
34.09
33.59
29.29
0.6241
291.7
0.3460
337.3
0.2950
52
63.47
63.53
30.17
34.69
34.09
29.69
0.6338
295.9
0.3520
342.3
0.2990
53
64.28
63.68
30.62
35.19
34.63
30.09
0.6353
300.4
0.3570
347.7
0.3030
54
65.10
63.90
31.04
35.69
35.13
30.49
0.6375
304.6
0.3620
352.7
0.3070
55
65.92
66.01
31.50
36.29
35.68
30.99
0.6586
309.2
0.3680
358.2
0.3120
56
66.73
66.88
31.96
36.79
36.26
31.39
0.6673
313.8
0.3730
364.0
0.3160
57
67.55
67.73
32.43
37.29
36.46
31.89
0.6758
318.5
0.3780
366.0
0.3210
58
68.37
68.71
32.92
37.79
37.43
32.39
0.6856
323.4
0.3830
375.7
0.3260
59
69.18
69.21
33.43
38.39
38.02
32.89
0.6906
328.5
0.3890
381.6
0.3310
60
70.00
69.94
33.91
38.99
38.61
33.29
0.6979
333.3
0.3950
387.5
0.3350
61
70.00
70.48
34.56
39.69
39.30
33.99
0.7033
339.8
0.4020
394.4
0.3420
62
70.00
70.19
35.24
40.19
39.86
34.39
0.7004
346.6
0.4070
400.0
0.3460
63
70.00
70.28
35.50
40.69
40.46
34.89
0.7013
349.2
0.4120
406.0
0.3510
64
70.00
70.48
36.13
41.39
41.06
35.59
0.7033
355.5
0.4190
412.0
0.3580
65
70.00
70.39
36.62
41.89
41.66
35.99
0.7024
360.4
0.4240
418.0
0.3620
66
70.00
70.29
37.15
42.39
42.16
36.49
0.7014
365.7
0.4290
423.0
0.3670
67
70.00
70.37
37.73
42.99
42.76
37.09
0.7022
371.5
0.4350
429.0
0.3730
68
70.00
70.27
38.25
43.39
43.26
37.59
0.7012
376.7
0.4390
434.0
0.3780
69
70.00
70.23
38.80
43.99
43.76
38.19
0.7008
382.2
0.4450
439.0
0.3840
70
70.00
70.31
39.34
44.49
44.26
38.69
0.7016
387.6
0.4500
444.0
0.3890
71
70.00
70.31
39.88
44.99
44.76
39.19
0.7016
393.0
0.4550
449.0
0.3940
72
70.00
70.35
43.88
48.99
48.56
45.49
0.7020
433.0
0.4950
487.0
0.4570
73
70.00
70.75
41.28
46.49
46.36
40.89
0.7060
407.0
0.4700
465.0
0.4110
74
70.00
70.35
41.38
46.49
46.36
40.99
0.7020
408.0
0.4700
465.0
0.4120
clviii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
75
70.00
70.17
41.78
46.79
46.66
41.29
0.7002
412.0
0.4730
468.0
0.4150
76
70.00
70.37
42.38
47.39
47.26
41.99
0.7022
0.418
0.4790
0.474
0.4220
77
70.00
70.39
42.88
47.69
47.56
42.39
0.7024
0.423
0.4820
0.477
0.4260
78
70.00
70.30
43.18
47.99
47.96
42.79
0.7015
0.426
0.4850
0.481
0.4300
79
70.00
70.19
43.58
48.39
48.26
43.19
0.7004
0.430
0.4890
0.484
0.4340
80
70.00
70.19
44.08
48.69
48.66
43.69
0.7004
0.435
0.4920
0.488
0.4390
81
70.00
70.23
44.48
49.19
49.16
44.39
0.7008
0.439
0.4970
0.493
0.4460
82
70.00
70.46
45.08
49.69
49.66
44.79
0.7031
0.445
0.5020
0.498
0.4500
83
70.00
70.32
45.28
49.79
49.86
44.99
0.7017
0.447
0.5030
0.500
0.4520
84
70.00
70.95
54.68
50.09
50.16
45.39
0.7080
0.541
0.5060
0.503
0.4560
85
70.00
70.24
46.08
50.39
50.46
45.79
0.7009
0.455
0.5090
0.506
0.4600
86
70.00
70.23
46.38
50.79
50.86
46.19
0.7008
0.458
0.5130
0.510
0.4640
87
70.00
70.18
46.78
51.09
51.16
46.59
0.7003
0.462
0.5160
0.513
0.4680
88
70.00
70.16
47.08
51.39
51.46
46.89
0.7001
0.465
0.5190
0.516
0.4710
89
70.00
70.18
47.48
51.69
51.76
47.29
0.7003
0.469
0.5220
0.519
0.4750
90
70.00
70.22
47.98
46.69
52.06
47.59
0.7007
0.474
0.4720
0.522
0.4780
91
70.00
70.00
48.08
52.19
52.36
47.89
0.6985
0.475
0.5270
0.525
0.4810
92
70.00
70.14
48.38
52.49
52.66
48.29
0.6999
0.478
0.5300
0.528
0.4850
93
70.00
70.18
48.68
52.69
52.96
48.59
0.7003
0.481
0.5320
0.531
0.4880
94
70.00
69.96
48.98
52.99
53.16
48.89
0.6981
0.484
0.5350
0.533
0.4910
95
70.00
69.22
49.18
53.09
53.46
49.19
0.6907
0.486
0.5360
0.536
0.4940
96
70.00
69.50
49.58
53.39
53.66
49.39
0.6935
0.490
0.5390
0.538
0.4960
97
70.00
70.36
49.78
53.59
53.96
49.69
0.7021
0.492
0.5410
0.541
0.4990
98
70.00
68.65
49.98
53.79
54.16
49.99
0.6850
0.494
0.5430
0.543
0.5020
99
70.00
70.93
50.28
54.09
54.46
50.29
0.7078
0.497
0.5460
0.546
0.5050
100
70.00
70.65
50.58
54.29
54.76
50.79
0.7050
0.500
0.5480
0.549
0.5100
101
70.00
70.34
51.08
54.69
55.16
51.09
0.7019
0.505
0.5520
0.553
0.5130
102
70.00
69.83
50.98
54.59
55.06
50.99
0.6968
0.504
0.5510
0.552
0.5120
clix
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
103
70.00
70.54
51.18
54.79
55.16
51.19
0.7039
0.506
0.5530
0.553
0.5140
104
70.00
70.31
51.48
54.99
55.46
51.49
0.7016
0.509
0.5550
0.556
0.5170
105
70.00
70.12
51.68
55.19
55.66
51.69
0.6997
0.511
0.5570
0.558
0.5190
106
70.00
70.29
52.28
55.69
56.26
52.29
0.7014
0.517
0.5620
0.564
0.5250
107
70.00
70.25
52.08
55.49
55.96
52.09
0.7010
0.515
0.5600
0.561
0.5230
108
70.00
70.25
52.28
55.69
56.16
52.29
0.7010
0.517
0.5620
0.563
0.5250
109
70.00
70.08
52.48
55.79
56.36
52.49
0.6993
0.519
0.5630
0.565
0.5270
110
70.00
70.18
52.58
55.99
56.46
52.69
0.7003
0.520
0.5650
0.566
0.5290
111
70.00
70.17
52.78
55.99
56.56
52.89
0.7002
0.522
0.5650
0.567
0.5310
112
70.00
70.35
53.08
56.29
56.86
53.19
0.7020
0.525
0.5680
0.570
0.5340
113
70.00
70.27
53.08
56.29
56.86
53.19
0.7012
0.525
0.5680
0.570
0.5340
114
70.00
70.21
53.18
56.39
56.96
53.39
0.7006
0.526
0.5690
0.571
0.5360
115
70.00
70.14
53.28
56.39
57.06
53.49
0.6999
0.527
0.5690
0.572
0.5370
116
70.00
70.38
53.48
56.69
57.26
53.69
0.7023
0.529
0.5720
0.574
0.5390
117
70.00
70.15
53.58
56.69
57.26
53.79
0.7000
0.530
0.5720
0.574
0.5400
118
70.00
70.27
53.88
56.99
57.56
54.09
0.7012
0.533
0.5750
0.577
0.5430
119
70.00
70.42
53.88
56.79
57.46
53.99
0.7027
0.533
0.5730
0.576
0.5420
120
70.00
70.38
53.88
56.99
57.56
54.09
0.7023
0.533
0.5750
0.577
0.5430
121
69.18
69.68
54.08
57.09
57.76
54.29
0.6953
0.535
0.5760
0.579
0.5450
122
68.37
68.49
54.18
57.29
57.86
54.49
0.6834
0.536
0.5780
0.580
0.5470
123
67.55
67.67
54.08
57.09
57.76
54.39
0.6752
0.535
0.5760
0.579
0.5460
124
66.73
67.25
54.28
57.29
57.86
54.59
0.6710
0.537
0.5780
0.580
0.5480
125
65.92
66.07
54.48
57.49
58.16
54.79
0.6592
0.539
0.5800
0.583
0.5500
126
65.10
64.75
52.58
57.29
57.96
54.79
0.6460
0.520
0.5780
0.581
0.5500
127
64.28
64.25
54.58
57.39
58.06
54.89
0.6410
0.540
0.5790
0.582
0.5510
128
63.47
63.91
54.48
57.29
57.86
54.79
0.6376
0.539
0.5780
0.580
0.5500
129
62.65
63.05
54.48
57.29
57.96
54.99
0.6290
0.539
0.5780
0.581
0.5520
130
61.83
61.93
54.78
57.29
57.96
54.99
0.6178
0.542
0.5780
0.581
0.5520
clx
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
131
61.02
61.17
54.78
57.29
57.96
55.19
0.6102
0.542
0.5780
0.581
0.5540
132
60.20
60.30
54.68
57.09
57.76
55.09
0.6015
0.541
0.5760
0.579
0.5530
133
59.38
59.51
54.68
56.99
57.66
55.09
0.5936
0.541
0.5750
0.578
0.5530
134
58.57
58.84
54.58
56.79
57.46
54.99
0.5869
0.540
0.5730
0.576
0.5520
135
57.75
58.08
54.48
56.59
57.26
54.99
0.5793
0.539
0.5710
0.574
0.5520
136
56.93
53.16
54.38
56.39
57.16
54.89
0.5301
0.538
0.5690
0.573
0.5510
137
56.12
56.35
54.38
56.29
56.96
54.89
0.5620
0.538
0.5680
0.571
0.5510
138
55.30
55.25
54.38
56.09
56.86
54.89
0.5510
0.538
0.5660
0.570
0.5510
139
54.48
54.84
54.28
55.89
56.66
54.79
0.5469
0.537
0.5640
0.568
0.5500
140
53.67
53.95
54.08
55.69
56.46
54.69
0.5380
0.535
0.5620
0.566
0.5490
141
52.85
52.90
53.98
55.49
56.26
54.59
0.5275
0.534
0.5600
0.564
0.5480
142
52.03
51.97
53.78
55.09
55.96
54.39
0.5182
0.532
0.5560
0.561
0.5460
143
51.22
51.43
53.68
54.89
55.76
54.29
0.5128
0.531
0.5540
0.559
0.5450
144
50.40
50.92
53.48
54.59
55.46
54.09
0.5077
0.529
0.5510
0.556
0.5430
145
49.58
50.17
53.48
54.49
55.36
54.09
0.5002
0.529
0.5500
0.555
0.5430
146
48.77
48.92
53.18
54.09
54.96
53.79
0.4877
0.526
0.5460
0.551
0.5400
147
47.95
47.92
52.98
53.69
54.66
53.59
0.4777
0.524
0.5420
0.548
0.5380
148
47.13
47.20
52.78
53.39
54.36
53.39
0.4705
0.522
0.5390
0.545
0.5360
149
46.32
46.58
52.58
53.09
54.06
53.19
0.4643
0.520
0.5360
0.542
0.5340
150
45.50
46.00
52.28
52.69
53.76
52.99
0.4585
0.517
0.5320
0.539
0.5320
151
44.68
45.32
52.08
52.39
53.36
52.79
0.4517
0.515
0.5290
0.535
0.5300
152
43.87
44.57
51.78
51.99
52.96
52.49
0.4442
0.512
0.5250
0.531
0.5270
153
43.05
43.98
51.48
51.59
52.66
52.19
0.4383
0.509
0.5210
0.528
0.5240
154
42.23
43.44
51.28
51.29
52.36
51.99
0.4329
0.507
0.5180
0.525
0.5220
155
41.42
42.90
50.88
50.89
51.96
50.99
0.4275
0.503
0.5140
0.521
0.5120
156
40.60
43.88
54.28
53.89
53.36
53.19
0.4373
0.537
0.5440
0.535
0.5340
157
39.78
43.98
52.38
52.19
53.16
53.09
0.4383
0.518
0.5270
0.533
0.5330
158
38.97
41.65
50.08
49.89
51.16
51.29
0.4150
0.495
0.5040
0.513
0.5150
clxi
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
159
38.15
41.09
49.68
49.39
50.46
50.49
0.4094
0.491
0.4990
0.506
0.5070
160
37.33
40.70
49.38
49.09
50.16
50.19
0.4055
0.488
0.4960
0.503
0.5040
161
36.52
40.33
48.98
48.69
49.76
49.79
0.4018
0.484
0.4920
0.499
0.5000
162
35.70
39.98
48.68
48.29
49.46
49.49
0.3983
0.481
0.4880
0.496
0.4970
163
34.88
39.64
48.38
47.89
49.06
48.79
0.3949
0.478
0.4840
0.492
0.4900
164
34.07
39.33
48.08
47.59
48.76
48.89
0.3918
0.475
0.4810
0.489
0.4910
165
33.25
38.91
47.58
47.19
48.26
48.49
0.3876
0.470
0.4770
0.484
0.4870
166
32.43
38.67
47.38
46.89
47.96
48.19
0.3852
0.468
0.4740
0.481
0.4840
167
31.62
38.37
47.08
46.49
47.66
47.89
0.3822
0.465
0.4700
0.478
0.4810
168
30.80
38.05
46.68
46.19
47.26
47.49
0.3790
0.461
0.4670
0.474
0.4770
169
29.98
37.70
46.38
45.79
46.86
47.19
0.3755
0.458
0.4630
0.470
0.4740
170
29.17
37.32
46.08
45.49
46.56
44.89
0.3717
0.455
0.4600
0.467
0.4510
171
28.35
36.94
45.68
45.09
46.16
46.59
0.3679
0.451
0.4560
0.463
0.4680
172
27.53
36.53
45.38
44.69
45.86
46.19
0.3638
0.448
0.4520
0.460
0.4640
173
26.72
36.18
45.08
44.39
45.56
45.89
0.3603
0.445
0.4490
0.457
0.4610
174
25.90
35.82
44.68
44.09
45.16
45.59
0.3567
0.441
0.4460
0.453
0.4580
175
25.08
35.48
44.38
43.79
44.86
45.19
0.3533
0.438
0.4430
0.450
0.4540
176
24.27
35.15
44.08
43.39
44.46
44.89
0.3500
0.435
0.4390
0.446
0.4510
177
23.45
34.84
43.68
43.09
44.16
44.49
0.3469
0.431
0.4360
0.443
0.4470
178
22.63
34.55
43.38
42.69
43.86
44.19
0.3440
0.428
0.4320
0.440
0.4440
179
21.82
34.24
43.08
42.39
43.46
43.89
0.3409
0.425
0.4290
0.436
0.4410
180
21.00
33.99
42.78
42.09
43.16
43.59
0.3384
0.422
0.4260
0.433
0.4380
181
21.00
33.73
42.38
41.69
42.86
43.29
0.3358
0.418
0.4220
0.430
0.4350
182
21.00
33.48
42.08
41.39
42.46
42.89
0.3333
0.415
0.4190
0.426
0.4310
183
21.00
33.24
41.78
41.09
42.16
42.59
0.3309
0.412
0.4160
0.423
0.4280
184
21.00
32.96
41.38
40.69
41.76
42.19
0.3281
0.408
0.4120
0.419
0.4240
185
21.00
32.59
40.88
40.19
41.26
41.69
0.3244
0.403
0.4070
0.414
0.4190
186
21.00
32.54
40.78
40.09
41.16
41.59
0.3239
0.402
0.4060
0.413
0.4180
clxii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
187
21.00
32.35
40.58
39.89
40.86
41.39
0.3220
0.400
0.4040
0.410
0.4160
188
21.00
32.14
40.18
39.49
40.56
40.99
0.3199
0.396
0.4000
0.407
0.4120
189
21.00
31.90
39.88
39.19
40.26
40.69
0.3175
0.393
0.3970
0.404
0.4090
190
21.00
31.75
39.58
38.89
39.96
40.39
0.3160
0.390
0.3940
0.401
0.4060
191
21.00
31.56
39.38
38.59
39.66
40.09
0.3141
0.388
0.3910
0.398
0.4030
192
21.00
31.37
39.08
38.39
39.36
39.79
0.3122
0.385
0.3890
0.395
0.4000
193
21.00
31.19
38.78
38.09
39.06
39.49
0.3104
0.382
0.3860
0.392
0.3970
194
21.00
31.01
38.48
37.79
38.76
39.19
0.3086
0.379
0.3830
0.389
0.3940
195
21.00
30.83
38.18
37.49
38.46
38.89
0.3068
0.376
0.3800
0.386
0.3910
196
21.00
30.65
37.88
37.19
38.26
38.59
0.3050
0.373
0.3770
0.384
0.3880
197
21.00
30.46
37.58
36.99
37.86
38.29
0.3031
0.370
0.3750
0.380
0.3850
198
21.00
30.29
37.38
36.69
37.66
38.09
0.3014
0.368
0.3720
0.378
0.3830
199
21.00
30.12
37.08
36.39
37.36
37.79
0.2997
0.365
0.3690
0.375
0.3800
200
21.00
29.96
36.78
36.19
37.06
37.49
0.2981
0.362
0.3670
0.372
0.3770
201
21.00
29.73
36.58
35.79
36.66
37.09
0.2958
0.360
0.3630
0.368
0.3730
202
21.00
29.65
36.38
35.69
36.56
36.99
0.2950
0.358
0.3620
0.367
0.3720
203
21.00
29.49
36.19
35.39
36.26
36.69
0.2934
0.3561
0.3590
0.364
0.3690
204
21.00
29.34
35.94
35.19
36.06
36.49
0.2919
0.3536
0.3570
0.362
0.3670
205
21.00
29.20
35.69
34.89
35.86
36.19
0.2905
0.3511
0.3540
0.360
0.3640
206
21.00
29.05
35.43
34.69
35.54
35.89
0.2890
0.3485
0.3520
0.357
0.3610
207
21.00
28.91
35.19
34.49
35.28
35.59
0.2876
346.1
0.3500
354.2
0.3580
208
21.00
28.76
34.94
34.19
35.04
35.39
0.2861
343.6
0.3470
351.8
0.3560
209
21.00
28.64
34.72
33.99
34.82
35.19
0.2849
341.4
0.3450
349.6
0.3540
210
21.00
28.50
34.48
33.79
34.59
34.99
0.2835
339.0
0.3430
347.3
0.3520
211
21.00
28.37
34.25
33.49
34.36
34.69
0.2822
336.7
0.3400
345.0
0.3490
212
21.00
28.25
34.03
33.29
34.11
34.49
0.2810
334.5
0.3380
342.5
0.3470
213
21.00
28.12
33.79
33.09
33.88
34.19
0.2797
332.1
0.3360
340.2
0.3440
214
21.00
27.99
33.58
32.89
33.68
33.99
0.2784
330.0
0.3340
338.2
0.3420
clxiii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
215
21.00
27.87
33.36
32.69
33.46
33.79
0.2772
327.8
0.3320
336.0
0.3400
216
21.00
27.76
33.15
32.49
33.25
33.59
0.2761
325.7
0.3300
333.9
0.3380
217
21.00
27.64
32.93
32.29
33.03
33.39
0.2749
323.5
0.3280
331.7
0.3360
218
21.00
27.53
32.73
32.09
32.83
33.09
0.2738
321.5
0.3260
329.7
0.3330
219
21.00
27.42
32.52
31.89
32.62
32.89
0.2727
319.4
0.3240
327.6
0.3310
220
21.00
27.31
32.32
31.69
32.42
32.69
0.2716
317.4
0.3220
325.6
0.3290
221
21.00
27.21
32.13
31.49
32.23
32.49
0.2706
315.5
0.3200
323.7
0.3270
222
21.00
27.10
31.93
31.29
32.04
32.29
0.2695
313.5
0.3180
321.8
0.3250
223
21.00
27.00
31.74
31.09
31.84
32.09
0.2685
311.6
0.3160
319.8
0.3230
224
21.00
26.89
31.55
30.99
31.64
31.89
0.2674
309.7
0.3150
317.8
0.3210
225
21.00
26.80
31.37
30.79
31.46
31.69
0.2665
307.9
0.3130
316.0
0.3190
226
21.00
26.70
31.18
30.59
31.28
31.49
0.2655
306.0
0.3110
314.2
0.3170
227
21.00
26.59
30.99
30.39
31.08
31.39
0.2644
304.1
0.3090
312.2
0.3160
228
21.00
26.50
30.83
30.29
30.92
31.19
0.2635
302.5
0.3080
310.6
0.3140
229
21.00
26.41
30.65
30.09
30.75
30.99
0.2626
300.7
0.3060
308.9
0.3120
230
21.00
26.31
30.46
29.89
30.56
30.79
0.2616
298.8
0.3040
307.0
0.3100
231
21.00
26.23
30.30
29.79
30.41
30.59
0.2608
297.2
0.3030
305.5
0.3080
232
21.00
26.13
30.14
29.59
30.23
30.39
0.2598
295.6
0.3010
303.7
0.3060
233
21.00
26.05
29.98
29.39
30.07
30.29
0.2590
294.0
0.2990
302.1
0.3050
234
21.00
25.96
29.82
29.29
29.91
30.09
0.2581
292.4
0.2980
300.5
0.3030
235
21.00
25.88
29.66
29.09
29.75
29.89
0.2573
290.8
0.2960
298.9
0.3010
236
21.00
25.79
29.50
28.99
29.59
29.79
0.2564
289.2
0.2950
297.3
0.3000
237
21.00
25.69
29.30
28.79
29.39
29.59
0.2554
287.2
0.2930
295.3
0.2980
238
21.00
25.62
29.17
28.69
29.26
29.39
0.2547
285.9
0.2920
294.0
0.2960
239
21.00
25.56
29.05
28.59
29.14
29.29
0.2541
284.7
0.2910
292.8
0.2950
240
21.00
25.49
28.90
28.39
28.98
29.19
0.2534
283.2
0.2890
291.2
0.2940
241
21.82
25.42
28.76
28.29
28.83
28.99
0.2527
281.8
0.2880
289.7
0.2920
242
22.63
25.36
28.62
28.09
28.70
28.89
0.2521
280.4
0.2860
288.4
0.2910
clxiv
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
243
23.45
25.29
28.48
27.99
28.56
28.69
0.2514
279.0
0.2850
287.0
0.2890
244
24.27
25.23
28.35
27.89
28.43
28.59
0.2508
277.7
0.2840
285.7
0.2880
245
25.08
25.34
28.22
27.79
28.29
28.49
0.2519
276.4
0.2830
284.3
0.2870
246
25.90
26.12
28.08
27.59
28.16
28.29
0.2597
275.0
0.2810
283.0
0.2850
247
26.72
27.16
27.89
27.49
28.03
28.19
0.2701
273.1
0.2800
281.7
0.2840
248
27.53
27.48
27.83
27.49
27.94
28.09
0.2733
272.5
0.2800
280.8
0.2830
249
28.35
28.33
27.71
27.39
27.85
27.89
0.2818
271.3
0.2790
279.9
0.2810
250
29.17
28.90
27.60
27.29
27.78
27.79
0.2875
270.2
0.2780
279.2
0.2800
251
29.98
29.81
27.49
27.29
27.73
27.69
0.2966
269.1
0.2780
278.7
0.2790
252
30.80
30.94
27.39
27.29
27.69
27.59
0.3079
268.1
0.2780
278.3
0.2780
253
31.62
31.78
27.30
27.29
27.68
27.49
0.3163
267.2
0.2780
278.2
0.2770
254
32.43
32.57
27.22
27.29
27.69
27.39
0.3242
266.4
0.2780
278.3
0.2760
255
33.25
33.40
27.15
27.29
27.71
27.29
0.3325
265.7
0.2780
278.5
0.2750
256
34.07
34.29
27.09
27.39
27.76
27.29
0.3414
265.1
0.2790
279.0
0.2750
257
34.88
35.13
27.05
27.49
27.82
27.19
0.3498
264.7
0.2800
279.6
0.2740
258
35.70
35.82
27.02
27.49
27.89
27.19
0.3567
264.4
0.2800
280.3
0.2740
259
36.52
36.77
27.00
27.59
28.00
27.09
0.3662
264.2
0.2810
281.4
0.2730
260
37.33
37.53
27.00
27.79
28.10
27.09
0.3738
264.2
0.2830
282.4
0.2730
261
38.15
38.32
27.02
27.89
28.21
27.09
0.3817
264.4
0.2840
283.5
0.2730
262
38.97
38.90
27.04
27.99
28.34
27.09
0.3875
264.6
0.2850
284.8
0.2730
263
39.78
39.43
27.08
28.09
28.47
27.09
0.3928
265.0
0.2860
286.1
0.2730
264
40.60
40.77
27.14
28.29
28.61
27.19
0.4062
265.6
0.2880
287.5
0.2740
265
41.42
41.56
27.21
28.49
28.76
27.19
0.4141
266.3
0.2900
289.0
0.2740
266
42.23
42.26
27.30
28.69
28.94
27.29
0.4211
267.2
0.2920
290.8
0.2750
267
43.05
43.39
27.40
28.79
29.13
27.39
0.4324
268.2
0.2930
292.7
0.2760
268
43.87
44.08
27.52
28.99
29.33
27.49
0.4393
269.4
0.2950
294.7
0.2770
269
44.68
44.64
27.64
29.19
29.52
27.59
0.4449
270.6
0.2970
296.6
0.2780
270
45.50
45.29
27.77
29.39
29.71
27.69
0.4514
271.9
0.2990
298.5
0.2790
clxv
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
271
46.32
46.50
27.92
29.69
29.91
27.79
0.4635
273.4
0.3020
300.5
0.2800
272
47.13
47.28
28.08
29.89
30.17
27.99
0.4713
275.0
0.3040
303.1
0.2820
273
47.95
47.95
28.25
30.19
30.38
28.09
0.4780
276.7
0.3070
305.2
0.2830
274
48.77
48.90
28.44
30.39
30.62
28.19
0.4875
278.6
0.3090
307.6
0.2840
275
49.58
49.49
28.63
30.69
30.90
28.39
0.4934
280.5
0.3120
310.4
0.2860
276
50.40
50.38
28.85
30.99
31.20
28.59
0.5023
282.7
0.3150
313.4
0.2880
277
51.22
51.42
29.06
31.29
31.46
28.79
0.5127
284.8
0.3180
316.0
0.2900
278
52.03
52.10
29.27
31.59
31.75
29.19
0.5195
286.9
0.3210
318.9
0.2940
279
52.85
53.03
29.51
31.89
32.05
29.19
0.5288
289.3
0.3240
321.9
0.2940
280
53.67
53.94
29.76
32.29
32.39
29.49
0.5379
291.8
0.3280
325.3
0.2970
281
54.48
54.69
30.02
32.69
32.77
29.79
0.5454
294.4
0.3320
329.1
0.3000
282
55.30
55.35
30.30
33.09
33.13
29.99
0.5520
297.2
0.3360
332.7
0.3020
283
56.12
56.08
30.60
33.49
33.54
30.29
0.5593
300.2
0.3400
336.8
0.3050
284
56.93
56.95
30.89
33.89
33.89
30.59
0.5680
303.1
0.3440
340.3
0.3080
285
57.75
57.90
31.18
34.19
34.25
30.79
0.5775
306.0
0.3470
343.9
0.3100
286
58.57
58.65
31.20
34.59
34.63
31.09
0.5850
306.2
0.3510
347.7
0.3130
287
59.38
58.25
32.01
35.19
35.21
31.49
0.5810
314.3
0.3570
353.5
0.3170
288
60.20
57.95
32.23
35.39
35.46
31.79
0.5780
316.5
0.3590
356.0
0.3200
289
61.02
59.87
32.51
35.79
35.77
32.09
0.5972
319.3
0.3630
359.1
0.3230
290
61.83
62.27
32.87
36.29
36.23
32.39
0.6212
322.9
0.3680
363.7
0.3260
291
62.65
62.79
33.22
36.69
36.68
32.79
0.6264
326.4
0.3720
368.2
0.3300
292
63.47
61.55
33.61
37.19
37.18
33.19
0.6140
330.3
0.3770
373.2
0.3340
293
64.28
62.83
33.99
37.59
37.63
33.49
0.6268
334.1
0.3810
377.7
0.3370
294
65.10
64.36
34.30
38.09
38.11
33.89
0.6421
337.2
0.3860
382.5
0.3410
295
65.92
66.14
34.79
38.59
38.64
34.29
0.6599
342.1
0.3910
387.8
0.3450
296
66.73
66.06
35.23
39.19
39.18
34.69
0.6591
346.5
0.3970
393.2
0.3490
297
67.55
67.69
35.65
39.69
39.70
35.19
0.6754
350.7
0.4020
398.4
0.3540
298
68.37
68.53
36.11
40.29
40.36
35.59
0.6838
355.3
0.4080
0.405
0.3580
clxvi
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
299
69.18
68.65
36.58
40.89
40.96
36.09
0.6850
360.0
0.4140
0.411
0.3630
300
70.00
69.59
37.07
41.49
41.56
36.59
0.6944
364.9
0.4200
0.417
0.3680
301
70.00
70.23
37.55
42.09
42.06
36.99
0.7008
369.7
0.4260
0.422
0.3720
302
70.00
70.01
38.07
42.69
42.66
37.49
0.6986
0.3749
0.4320
0.428
0.3770
303
70.00
70.24
38.58
43.19
43.26
37.99
0.7009
0.380
0.4370
0.434
0.3820
304
70.00
70.28
39.08
43.79
43.86
38.49
0.7013
0.385
0.4430
0.440
0.3870
305
70.00
70.25
39.58
44.29
44.36
38.99
0.7010
0.390
0.4480
0.445
0.3920
306
70.00
70.29
40.18
44.89
44.96
39.49
0.7014
0.396
0.4540
0.451
0.3970
307
70.00
70.24
40.58
45.49
45.56
40.09
0.7009
0.400
0.4600
0.457
0.4030
308
70.00
70.29
41.08
45.89
45.96
40.59
0.7014
0.405
0.4640
0.461
0.4080
309
70.00
70.20
41.58
46.49
46.56
41.09
0.7005
0.410
0.4700
0.467
0.4130
310
70.00
70.21
42.08
46.99
47.06
41.69
0.7006
0.415
0.4750
0.472
0.4190
311
70.00
70.31
42.68
47.39
47.46
42.19
0.7016
0.421
0.4790
0.476
0.4240
312
70.00
70.24
43.08
47.89
47.96
42.69
0.7009
0.425
0.4840
0.481
0.4290
313
70.00
70.14
43.68
48.39
48.46
43.19
0.6999
0.431
0.4890
0.486
0.4340
314
70.00
70.37
44.08
48.69
48.86
43.69
0.7022
0.435
0.4920
0.490
0.4390
315
70.00
70.18
44.58
49.19
49.26
44.19
0.7003
0.440
0.4970
0.494
0.4440
316
70.00
70.20
45.08
49.59
49.66
44.59
0.7005
0.445
0.5010
0.498
0.4480
317
70.00
70.18
45.48
49.99
50.06
45.09
0.7003
0.449
0.5050
0.502
0.4530
318
70.00
70.13
45.98
50.29
50.46
45.59
0.6998
0.454
0.5080
0.506
0.4580
319
70.00
70.15
46.38
50.69
50.86
45.99
0.7000
0.458
0.5120
0.510
0.4620
320
70.00
70.16
46.78
51.09
51.26
46.49
0.7001
0.462
0.5160
0.514
0.4670
331
70.00
70.14
50.58
54.29
54.66
50.39
0.6999
0.500
0.5480
0.548
0.5060
332
70.00
70.16
50.88
54.49
54.96
50.69
0.7001
0.503
0.5500
0.551
0.5090
333
70.00
70.17
51.08
54.69
55.16
50.99
0.7002
0.505
0.5520
0.553
0.5120
334
70.00
70.16
51.38
54.99
55.36
51.29
0.7001
0.508
0.5550
0.555
0.5150
335
70.00
70.21
51.58
55.19
55.66
51.59
0.7006
0.510
0.5570
0.558
0.5180
336
70.00
70.20
51.88
55.39
55.86
51.79
0.7005
0.513
0.5590
0.560
0.5200
clxvii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
337
70.00
70.20
52.08
55.49
56.06
52.09
0.7005
0.515
0.5600
0.562
0.5230
338
70.00
70.13
52.28
55.69
54.96
52.29
0.6998
0.517
0.5620
0.551
0.5250
339
70.00
70.04
52.48
55.89
56.46
52.59
0.6989
0.519
0.5640
0.566
0.5280
340
70.00
70.20
52.68
56.09
56.66
52.79
0.7005
0.521
0.5660
0.568
0.5300
341
70.00
70.19
52.98
56.29
56.86
52.99
0.7004
0.524
0.5680
0.570
0.5320
342
70.00
70.13
53.08
56.39
56.96
53.19
0.6998
0.525
0.5690
0.571
0.5340
343
70.00
70.15
53.28
56.59
56.96
53.39
0.7000
0.527
0.5710
0.571
0.5360
344
70.00
70.18
53.48
56.69
56.56
53.59
0.7003
0.529
0.5720
0.567
0.5380
345
70.00
70.16
53.68
56.89
56.96
53.79
0.7001
0.531
0.5740
0.571
0.5400
346
70.00
70.14
53.78
56.99
57.66
53.99
0.6999
0.532
0.5750
0.578
0.5420
347
70.00
70.16
53.98
57.19
57.86
54.09
0.7001
0.534
0.5770
0.580
0.5430
348
70.00
70.24
54.08
57.29
57.96
54.29
0.7009
0.535
0.5780
0.581
0.5450
349
70.00
70.20
54.28
57.39
58.06
54.49
0.7005
0.537
0.5790
0.582
0.5470
350
70.00
70.21
54.48
57.49
58.26
54.59
0.7006
0.539
0.5800
0.584
0.5480
351
70.00
70.21
54.58
57.69
58.36
54.79
0.7006
0.540
0.5820
0.585
0.5500
352
70.00
70.24
54.68
57.79
58.46
54.89
0.7009
0.541
0.5830
0.586
0.5510
353
70.00
70.18
54.88
57.89
58.66
55.09
0.7003
0.543
0.5840
0.588
0.5530
354
70.00
70.16
54.98
57.99
58.76
54.19
0.7001
0.544
0.5850
0.589
0.5440
355
70.00
70.34
55.08
58.09
58.86
55.29
0.7019
0.545
0.5860
0.590
0.5550
356
70.00
70.05
55.28
58.49
58.96
55.49
0.6990
0.547
0.5900
0.591
0.5570
357
70.00
70.03
55.28
58.29
59.06
55.59
0.6988
0.547
0.5880
0.592
0.5580
358
70.00
70.19
55.38
58.39
59.16
55.69
0.7004
0.548
0.5890
0.593
0.5590
359
70.00
70.29
55.48
58.49
59.26
55.79
0.7014
0.549
0.5900
0.594
0.5600
360
70.00
69.92
55.58
58.49
59.36
55.89
0.6977
0.550
0.5900
0.595
0.5610
361
69.18
69.27
55.68
58.59
59.46
55.99
0.6912
0.551
0.5910
0.596
0.5620
362
68.37
68.50
55.78
58.69
59.46
56.09
0.6835
0.552
0.5920
0.596
0.5630
363
67.55
67.62
55.88
58.69
59.56
56.19
0.6747
0.553
0.5920
0.597
0.5640
364
66.73
66.91
55.98
58.79
59.66
56.29
0.6676
0.554
0.5930
0.598
0.5650
clxviii
K.2
TESTS RESULTS
Time
T Aim
T Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
min
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Amb
T1
T2
T3
T4
365
65.92
66.12
55.98
58.79
59.66
56.39
0.6597
0.554
0.5930
0.598
0.5660
366
65.10
65.23
56.08
58.79
59.66
56.39
0.6508
0.555
0.5930
0.598
0.5660
367
64.28
64.46
56.08
58.69
59.56
56.49
0.6431
0.555
0.5920
0.597
0.5670
368
63.47
63.79
56.18
58.69
59.56
56.59
0.6364
0.556
0.5920
0.597
0.5680
369
62.65
62.85
56.18
58.59
59.46
56.59
0.6270
0.556
0.5910
0.596
0.5680
370
61.83
62.08
56.18
58.49
59.46
56.59
0.6193
0.556
0.5900
0.596
0.5680
clxix
K.3
K.3
TESTS RESULTS
The following images are of the vibration profile that was applied to the satellite for the
high and low spectrums. The green line is the planned vibration spectrum and the red
line is the vibration spectrum that was actually applied to the test pod. The red line is
within the error bounds specified by the test plan.
Figure 99: High level spectrum
clxx
K.3
TESTS RESULTS
Figure 100: Low level spectrum

The following figures are resonance plots for the high and low level tests in each axis:
Figure 101: Zaxis, high level resonance plot
clxxi
K.3
Figure 102: Zaxis, low level resonance plot
Figure 103: Xaxis, high level resonance plot
clxxii
TESTS RESULTS
K.3
Figure 104: Xaxis, low level resonance plot
Figure 105: Yaxis, high level resonance plot
clxxiii
TESTS RESULTS
VIBRATIONS TEST POD DESIGN
Figure 106: Yaxis, low level resonance plot
Vibrations Test Pod Design
The test pod design was analysed in ANSYS to ensure the model frquencies were below
2000Hz, this analysis in as follows:
clxxiv
Vibration Test Pod Design

To insure the random vibrations tests are correctly applied to the satellite, the test pod
cannot have a modal frequency below 2000Hz. An ANSYS analysis of the modal
frequencies of the test pod structure has been constructed.
The computer model of the test pod has been simplified so that it can be analysed in
ANSYS with the limited number of nodes available. The mesh of the test pod is
shown in Figure 1. The sizes of the elements are much larger than the optimal size for
this structure, Table 1, due to the 32000 node limit however, the outcome of this
analysis will be used as a guide.
Figure 1 Test Pod Mesh

Table 1 Test pod mesh details
Table XXX Test Pod Mesh Details
Nodes
Elements
31643
15036
To maximise the accuracy of the results a bias has been applied to the mesh of the
structure refining the mesh on sides that would be expected to have the maximum
deflection.
The modal frequencies of the structure are dependent on the material properties of the
test pod. Due to time restraints it will be difficult to machine a test pod out of metal. A
plastic CNC machine is available for the manufacture of the test pod. For this reason
the initial test pod will be designed to be made out of Acrylate Styrene Acrylonitrile
(ASA). ASA has been chosen due to its hardness and the fact that it is readily
available. Some of the material properties of ASA are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 ASA Material Properties

1800-2600
Youngs Modulus (E) [MPa]
700 900
Shear Modulus (G)[ MPa]
32 - 55
Tensile Strength [MPa]
65-80
Bending Strength [MPa]
1.07
Density [g/cm3]
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=335
The outcome of the nodal frequency of this structure is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2
shows that, discounting the first 6 modal frequencies as they relate to degrees of
freedom, the structure has 13 modal frequencies below 2000Hz.
Figure 2 Modal Frequencies of Initial Test Pod Design

The outcome of the modal analysis demonstrates that major changes have to be made
to the test pod structure to increase the modal frequencies of the structure. Possible
changes are listed in Table 3.
Table 3 Possible Methods of Increasing the Modal Frequencies

Increasing the size of the screws
The diameter of the screws may have had a
large effect on the modal frequencies of the
structure test how increasing the diameter
affects the result
Test the affect of using different The worst case scenario values for the
material property values of ASA
material properties were used in the modal
analysis test how changing these values to
best case scenario values would affect the
outcome
Increasing the size of the internal Similar to the size of the screws, the size of
supports and wall tickness
the internal supports and wall thickness may
have had a large effect on the modal
frequencies
2. Test Pod With Larger Screws

the screws used in the structure have been changed from approximately 3mm
diameter to 7mm diameter. The mesh details are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Test Pod Mesh Details 2
Nodes
Elements
The modal frequencies of this structure are shown in Figure 3.
31688
15185
Figure 3 Modal frequencies of test pod with larger screws

Figure 3 shows that increasing the diameter of the screws from approximately 3mm to
7mm has removed two of the modal frequencies from the range.
3. Changing Material Properties

The material properties have been changed from the worst case scenario to the best
case scenario to investigate whether this makes a large difference to the modal
frequencies
The mesh for this analysis is the same as the mesh in Table 4 and the modal
frequencies are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Effect of changing the material properties within the published range
Figure 4 shows that changing the material properties to the best case scenario values
within the published range has very little effect on the modal frequency of the
structure.
4. Increasing Material Thickness

The side, base and internal support thickness of the test pod has been increased to
investigate the effect this would have on the modal frequencies. The mesh used on
this design in shown in Table 5.
Nodes
Elements
30126
15576
The modal frequencies of the structure with increased material thickness are shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5 Modal Frequency for test pod with increased material thickness
Figure 5 shows that increasing the material thickness of the test pod has a large effect
on the modal frequencies of the structure decreasing the modal frequencies to two
frequencies below 2000Hz
5. Test Pod Re-design

Using the results from the previous analyses, the test pod was redesigned The
redesigned test pod is shown in Figure 6, this is designed to be made out of
aluminium and has thicker walls and screws.
Figure 6 Test pod redesign

The mesh used to analyse the redesign of the test pod is shown in Table 5.
Nodes
Elements
31233
12301
The modal frequencies of the redesigned test pod, as predicted from ANSYS, are
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Modal Frequency for redesigned test pod

Figure 7 shows that this design of the test pod has no modal frequencies below
2000Hz. Due to the result of this analysis, this test pod design can be used to support
the satellite throughout the vibrations tests.
L
Drawings of the test pod assembly are as follows:
clxxxi
VIBRATIONS TEST POD DESIGN
46.5
34.5
98.5
86.5
16 X M6 SCREWS
17.25
133
108.75
17.25
34.5
46.5
18.5
6
Mechanical Engineering
North Terrace, Adelaide
+61 8 83035460
133
127
114.5
90.5
66.5
42.5
Title:
Drawn By: SONJA
All dimensions in mm unless otherwise stated
All tolerances 0.1mm or 1 unless stated Checked By:
All surfaces finishes as stated
8 X M6
98.5
86.5
133
133
91.5
RUSSELL
41.5
Material:
No.
133
130
Date:
91.5
Qty:
41.5
133
ID:
108.75
133
133
127
Sheet:
Scale:
Proj:
4X
A3
5.25
28.5
11
19.5
133
130
Drawn By: SONJA
All dimensions in mm unless otherwise stated
All tolerances 0.1mm or 1 unless stated Checked By:
All surfaces finishes as stated
Title:
111.5
Mechanical Engineering
North Terrace, Adelaide
+61 8 83035460
6
11
RUSSELL
28.5
19.5
Qty:
Material:
Date:
No.
ID:
133
130
111.5
Sheet:
Scale:
Proj:
A3
BATTERY LIFE TEST PROGRAM
Battery Life Test Program
The battery life test involved over 2000 measurements, to air with the data logging if this
test a battery data logger program was written as follows:
clxxxiv
/*
Battery Data Logger
Prints out data input from two sources at a frequency of 1Hz
Circuit:
Main battery input via Voltage divider to A2D0
5V regulated line to A2D1
Common Ground between battery and Arduino
Created 2010
by Andrew Wallis
AUSAT2010
AUSAT2010.com
*/
const int BatteryPin = 0;
//Pin Battery Connected
const int RegulatedPin = 1;
//Pin Regulated Line connected
const int ResistorRatio = 0.6; //R2 + R1 / R2
const int maxReadValue = 1023; //Maximum Value of A2D
const int maxVoltage = 5;
//Voltage of Arduino Max Read
void setup()
{
Serial.begin(9600);
Serial.println("Started DataLogger");
Serial.println("time | Main Battery Voltage| 5V line");
}
int i=0; //Second Counter
void loop()
{
int BatteryVoltage = analogRead(BatteryPin)*maxVoltage / ResistorRatio/maxReadValue;
//Scale between 0 and 8.33
int RegulatedVoltage = analogRead(1)*maxVoltage / maxReadValue; //Scale between 0
and 5V
Serial.print(i + " " + BatteryVoltage );
Serial.println(" " + RegulatedVoltage);
delay(1000); //Delay 1 second
i++;
}
BILL OF MATERIALS
Bill of Materials
The bill of materials that was created at the begining of the project is a sfollows:
clxxxvi
Miscellaneous
Thermal Control
Communications
Command & Data

Handling
PDB-C203
HF50HA-1B
3G30%
C1-EPS-0000-CS
C1-BAT-0003-CS-2S
NA
NA
HMC1001 and HMC1021
Stock/Part Number
Can be done locally

Can be done locally
Attitude control
Purchase space in
launch vehicle
Clyde Space
MCF5212
IMU 6DOF Razor - UltraSparkfun Electronics Thin IMU
Misc
SpaceQuest
BLD 1501 H
Amphenol
BNC 50 ohm
Free scale
Sparkfun Electronics GPS-09758
Supplier
Adelaide University
Workshop
Fujinon
AZUR SPACE
Clyde Space
Clyde Space
Workshop
undecided
Honeywell
AUSAT 2010
API
Launch
Vibration testing
Thermal Testing
Comms testing
Transciever - may not be purchased

Insulation
Temperature Sensors
Nuts, Bolts, Adhesives
Accelerometer/Gyro IMU
Breakout/Components
Antenna (Monopole)
Antenna Connector
Microproccessor
GPS
Frame - Aluminium 7075

Camera
Solar Cells (GaAs)
Electric Power System Board
Battery
Copper foil/PCB
Interconnects
Attitude Determination Magnetometers
Magnetorques
& Control
Sun Sensor photodoide
Structure
Imaging
Power Supply
AUSAT 2010
Bill of Materials
Sub-Assembly
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
3
3
6
Quantity
TOTAL
15
300
SUB TOTAL
20000
100
50
550
25
50
60
0
1000
195
3000
1000
0
0
20
50
25
Unit Price
28515 AUD
20000
10
60
300
28515
100
50
550
25
50
60
0
1000
1950
3000
1000
0
0
60
150
150
(AUD)
Project Cost Breakdown
The detailed cost breakdown of the project is as follows:
clxxxviii
PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN
Drawing Supplies
Category
Mock Frame
Eckersleys
Australian Post Ade Uni
Home Hardware Broadview
Bunnings Woodville
Home Hardware Tranmere
Bunnings Windsor Gardens
Purchased From
Bunings Mile End
Date of
purchase Item
9/02/2010 PVC Sheet 3mm
Bracket-Angle Carinya
Adhesive Liquid Nails
Screws-C/Board C/S Buildex PK 50
Screws-Longthread H/Pack Trade PK100
Screws Chipboard CSK H/PK PK100
Pine Clear Solids Dar 30 x 12 x 900
Moulding Dowel Tas Oak 4mm x 1.8m
Moulding Dowel Clear Pine 16mm x 1.2m
Pine Clear Solids Dar 45 x 45 x 1.2m
MDF-plain 3mm 1200X600mm
Plywood panel
11/02/2010 20x12x1200 pine
50 4GX12mm screws
11/02/2010 16mm drill bit
12/02/2010 Metal Charc' spray Paint
Gls Black' Stray paint
18/02/2010 Screw LTHD CSK PH 5Gx50 SP50
Blade Jig Univ wood Scroll CD2
Finish Undercoat Oil Based 1LT
5/01/2010 Fine Art (2*A1 pieces of paper)
5/01/2010 Paper Tube
78
2.56
12.4
5.7
5.92
7.05
6.14
12.88
8.2
5.2
17.2
9.69
4.62
7.66
29.84
4.75
67.76
6.92
3.22
15.93
8.75
9.75
3.95
6.95
31.25
5.9
4.35
Total
[AUD]
78
80.56
92.96
98.66
104.58
111.63
117.77
130.65
138.85
144.05
161.25
170.94
175.56
183.22
213.06
217.81
285.57
292.49
295.71
311.64
320.39
330.14
334.09
341.04
372.29
378.19
382.54
Running total
[AUD]
Vibe Test Rig

Spacers and Washers
Model Electronic
Boards
Magnetorquer
Magnetometer
Blackfin Camera
21/08/2010
13/08/2010
20/08/2010
20/08/2010
Jaycar Electronics
Grange Foodland
Elektrisola
Digi Key
Surveyor Corp
6 Muffin Tray
1kg Bonding Wire
magnetometer
Camera
22/07/2010 300mm x 300mm Blank PCB

17/08/2010 Separation Springs
Frieght
21/08/2010 plastic
17/08/2010 4 x 6 spacers and 4 x 10 plastic washers
Jaycar Electronics
Aviagroup
Bunnings Woodville
Solar Cell Test Rig
29/03/2010 magnets 19mm*28mm

22/07/2010 30mm Wood Screws
Bunnings Woodville
3/03/2010 $10 Calling Card

EPS
Bluetooth Modem - BlueSMiRF Gold
Breakout Board for SD-MMC Cards
CMOS Camera - 1300x1040
32 Channel LS20031 GPS 5Hz Receiver
JTAG USB OCD Programmer/Debugger for ARM
processors
28/05/2010 10 Solar Cells
30/5/210 Webhosting + domain Name
conferene rego
17/02/2010 White Paint undercoat 250mL
17/02/2010 W/KNIGHT spray paint silver
17/02/2010 38mm Paint brush
8/03/2010 Screws-Longthread pk/100
8/03/2010 65mm fixed pin hinge
Jaycar Electronics
Home Hardware
AZUR SPACE
Ventraip
Solar Cells
Website
conference
Mock frame
Magnetorquer Test
Rig
Mock frame
Model electronic
Boards
Structure
K24/7
Clyde-Space
Sparkfun
Calls
Electronics
4
325
870
267.61
19.95
85.62
14.3
15
56.74
8210.51
8535.51
9405.51
9673.12
8034.85
8120.47
8134.77
8149.77
8206.51
8010.95
8014.9
4607.6
7649.89
7723.44
7948.44
7958.42
7981.7
7983.68
7987.57
7991
84.92
3042.29
73.55
225
9.98
23.28
1.98
3.89
3.43
19.95
3.95
392.54
4354.1
4430.75
4451.93
4475.41
4522.68
10
3961.56
76.65
21.18
23.48
70.75
GPS
Transceiver
Scales
Phone Car
Short Separation
springs
Helmholtz coil
Silicone Glue
Brisbane Conference
Flight to Sydney
Taxi in Sydney
Test Pod
Blackfin Camera
Beacon
Postage for
Magnetometer
Screws
Phone Card
Magnetorquers
motors
lazy susan
Gift
JayCar
ikea
Dan Murphys
Australia Post
Fasteners Australia
Surveyor Corp
Astrodev
10/10/2010
14/09/2010
26/08/2010
24/08/2040
15/10/2010
13/10/2010
1/10/2010
Magnetometer Return Postage

100 * 2mm screws
Phone calls
Manufacture materials
motors
lazy susan
Wine

Random Vibe Tests
parts
19/10/2010 BlackFin Camera
15/10/2010 Beacon
separation springs
Helmholtz coil pair
Glue used for solar cells
23/08/2010 500 g Scales
Dick Smith
Maxiloc
Scientrific
Farnell
15/08/2010 GPS
NovAtel
Conference
51.85
21
10
8.4
7.9
16.9
17.99
25.08
161.7
162.22
600
270
63
35.63
267.61
935.91
3626
1482
79.99
0
17434.11
17455.11
17465.11
17473.51
17481.41
17498.31
17516.3
14886.19
15047.89
15210.11
15810.11
16080.11
16143.11
16178.74
16446.35
17382.26
13299.12
14781.12
14861.11
14861.11
TIME SHEET
Time Sheet
To keep track of the time spent on the project by the group, a time sheet was created
to record the hours per day of each group member. The time sheet recorded has been
adapted to list weekly hours and estimated wages as follows:
Table 41: Time sheet and estimated wages for Project AUSAT 2010
Project 955: Project AUSAT 2010
Annual Salary
$50,000
Hourly Rate
$26
Direct Costs
30%
Indirect Costs
130%
Week of Callum Michael
Drew
Sonja Andrew Total
Year
Chartier Mackay Ravalico Russell
Wallis
51
27
21
20
15
34
117
52
1
1
0
8
0
10
53
0
3
4
0
0
7
1
3.5
8
5.5
20.5
13
50.5
2
2
10.5
7.5
24.25
19
63.25
3
12
14
9.5
21
14
70.5
4
5.5
23
8.5
16
20
73
5
17
38
10.5
27
13
105.5
6
34.5
31
25
30
25
145.5
7
16
22.5
20.5
26
17
102
8
11
0
9
3
4
27
9
11
23
5
17.5
32
88.5
10
13
18
9.5
18.5
22
81
11
16.5
16
8
20.25
25
85.75
12
10
14.5
7
15.25
19
65.75
13
14.5
21.25
11
19
11
76.75
14
4
28
12
21.75
17
82.75
15
6
27
13
20.25
32
98.25
16
26
23.5
12
30
17
108.5
17
13
37
13
28
25
116
18
18
24.5
16
27.5
15
101
19
20
40
16
39.5
19
134.5
20
29
47
38
48.5
30
192.5
cxcii
TIME SHEET
Table 42: Time sheet and estimated wages for Project AUSAT 2010 continued.
Week of
Callum Michael
Drew
Sonja Andrew
Total
Year
Chartier Mackay Ravalico Russell
Wallis
21
10
15
9
11.5
27
72.5
22
0
10.5
5
13
14
42.5
23
0
2
2
4.5
2
10.5
24
0
0
0
6
5
11
25
0
0
0
19.5
0
19.5
26
2
6
0
31.5
0
39.5
27
11
11
10.5
25
20
77.5
28
12
28.5
25
28
20
113.5
29
31
37
22
0
33
123
30
12
20.5
16
18
25
91.5
31
21.5
13.5
18.5
13
35
101.5
32
6
23
15.5
32
43
119.5
33
0
39
22.5
41
25
127.5
34
27
38
31
38.5
19
153.5
35
19.5
28.5
24
24
42
138
36
29
29
23
41
45
167
37
27
29
27
55
35
173
38
6
10
14.5
16.5
27
74
39
15
26
37
31
36
145
40
26
32
10
17
40
125
41
41
46
26
42
65
220
42
23
34
25
34
40
156
Sub Total (Hrs)
629.5
970.25
644
1038.75
1021
4303.5
Previous YTD
0
Total YTD (Hrs)
629.5
970.25
644
1038.75
1021
4303.5
Costs YTD
Total (Salary)
$16,141 $24,878 $16,513 $26,635 $26,179 $110,346
Total (Direct)
$4,842
$7,463
$4,954
$7,990
$7,854
$33,104
Total (Indirect)
$20,983 $32,342 $21,467 $34,625 $34,033 $143,450
Total Cost
$41,967 $64,683 $42,933 $69,250 $68,067 $286,900
cxciii
GANTT CHART
Gantt Chart
To assist with time management Gantt charts have been created, the long term Gantt chart
has been included. The resource charts for the Gantt chart are also included.
cxciv
'()*+", -.*/0 !"0 /!."1% 23 ! )4!// )!#(//*#( -!)(0 2" $.-(5!# '()*+")
667897:;<667=76:
!"## $%!&#
>!+( =
+!",-./ 0$,12 ).2 1)$.&( #3 ) "4)11 ")*!11,*! 0)"!2 #. '$0!5)* +!",-."

667897:;<667=76:
!"#$%&!" '()%*
>)-! ?
'!( !"## $%!&#

)*+*,-./*01*,-
!"## $%!&#
2!34 )
+), -).** '()%*

/0102345067023
!"#$%&!" '()%*
8)9! :
ORBITAL SIMULATION
Orbital Simulation
To model the orbital mechanics of the satellite a code was produced in MatLab, this
uses mission specification inputs to output the orbital position, power generation, and
a visualisation of the ground track. The code is as follows:
cxcix
Published
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Sonja/LOCALS~1/Temp/Published.html
%Orbital Simulation Code

%Orbital Prediction
%Power Generation
%Visualisation of Orbit
%Author: Callum Chartier
%Project AUSAT 2010
clear all
clc
tic
sun=[1.49565511*10^11 0 0]';
u=8000*10^3;
r=400*10^3;
x1=[r 0 0]';
y1=[0 r 0]';
z1=[0 0 r]';
negz1=[0 0 -r]';
CONSTANTS AND NECESSITIES

GRAVITATIONAL_CONSTANT = 6.67428 * 10^(-11);
EARTH_MASS = 5.9742*10^24;
EARTH_RADIUS = 6371 * 10^3;
R2D=180/pi;
D2R=pi/180;
%m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

%kg
(wiki)
%m
(wiki)
(wiki)
%INPUT PARANETERS (& INITIAL CONDITIONS)

a=(EARTH_RADIUS/10^3)+820
ecc=0.0010354
inc=98.7244
Omega=256.6524*D2R
w=156.4703*D2R
nu=203.6938*D2R
% Inputs:
%
%
%
%
%
a:
ecc:
inc:
Omega:
w:
nu:
Semi-major axis in km
Eccentricity
Inclination of orbit in radians
Right ascension of ascending node in radians
Argument of perigee in radians
True anomaly in radians
[position,velocity] = randv(a,ecc,inc,Omega,w,nu)
position=10^3*position
velocity= 10^3*velocity
currentDistance= norm(position)
%SIMULATION CONTROLS
timeStart = 0.0;
%s
timeEnd = 3*2*pi * sqrt( (currentDistance^3) / (GRAVITATIONAL_CONSTANT * EARTH_MASS) );
timeDelta = 1;
%time step size
nSteps = (timeEnd - timeStart) / timeDelta;
1 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
Published
speedsim=60;% Speed of simulation ploting

%initial position assuming we start over the equator (you can change this)
earthPosition = zeros(3,1);
%GENERATE HISTORY FILES
historyPosition = zeros(nSteps,3);
historyVelocity = zeros(nSteps,3);
historyLength = zeros(nSteps,1);
acceleration = zeros(3,1);
accelerationMagnitude = 0;
accelerationDirection = zeros(3,1);
h = waitbar(0, 'Simulation running...');
time = timeStart;
for i = 1:nSteps
currentDistance = norm(position - earthPosition);
accelerationMagnitude = GRAVITATIONAL_CONSTANT * (EARTH_MASS / (currentDistance^2));
accelerationDirection = earthPosition - position;
accelerationDirection = accelerationDirection / norm(accelerationDirection);
acceleration = accelerationMagnitude * accelerationDirection;
position = position + timeDelta * velocity;
velocity = velocity + timeDelta * acceleration;
historyPosition(i,:) = position';
historyVelocity(i,:) = velocity';
time = time + timeDelta;
waitbar(i/nSteps,h);
end
close(h)
historyLong = zeros(floor(nSteps/speedsim),1);
historyLat = zeros(floor(nSteps/speedsim),1);
historyPositionSpeed= zeros(floor(nSteps/speedsim),3);
historyEarthvec=zeros(floor(nSteps/speedsim),2);
for j= 1:speedsim:nSteps
Earthvec=[EARTH_RADIUS*cos(j*D2R*4.1666667*10^-3),EARTH_RADIUS*sin(j*D2R*4.1666667*10^-3)];
AdelaideLat=-34.52*D2R;
AdelaideLong=-138.30*D2R;
rz=AdelaideLong;
ry=AdelaideLat;
rx=0;
rotationMatrix=[cos(rx)*cos(ry), -cos(rz)*sin(ry)+sin(rz)*sin(rx)*cos(ry), sin(rz)*sin(ry)+cos(rz)*sin
cos(rx)*sin(ry), cos(rz)*cos(ry)+sin(rz)*sin(rx)*sin(ry), -sin(rz)*cos(ry)+cos(rz)*sin
-sin(rx), sin(rz)*cos(rx), cos(rz)*cos(rx)];
AdelaideVector=rotationMatrix*(1.5.*[Earthvec(1);Earthvec(2);0]);
satvec=[historyPosition(j,1), historyPosition(j,2), historyPosition(j,3)];
satxyvec=[historyPosition(j,1), historyPosition(j,2), 0];
Longrad=mod(atan2(-satxyvec(1)*Earthvec(2)+Earthvec(1)*satxyvec(2),satxyvec(1)*Earthvec(1)+satxyvec(2)
2 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
Published
if historyPosition(j,3)>=0
Latrad=acos((dot(satvec,satxyvec)/(norm(satxyvec)*norm(satvec))));
else
Latrad=-1*acos((dot(satvec,satxyvec)/(norm(satxyvec)*norm(satvec))));
end
Long=Longrad*R2D;
Lat=Latrad*R2D;
if j==1
historyLong(j,:) = Long;
historyLat(j,:) = Lat;
historyPositionSpeed(j,:)=historyPosition(j,:);
historyEarthvec(j,:)=Earthvec;
historyAdelaideVector(j,:)=AdelaideVector;
else
historyLong((j-1)/speedsim,:) = Long;
historyLat((j-1)/speedsim,:) = Lat;
historyPositionSpeed((j-1)/speedsim,:)=historyPosition(j,:);
historyEarthvec((j-1)/speedsim,:)=Earthvec;
historyAdelaideVector((j-1)/speedsim,:)=AdelaideVector;
end
end
historyEarthVec= 1.5.*historyEarthvec;
3D Plot and 2D plot side by side

gcf=figure(1)
subplot(1,5,1:2)
axis([-EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS -EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS -EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS])
axis off
[X,Y,Z] = sphere(20);
X = X * EARTH_RADIUS;
Y = Y * EARTH_RADIUS;
Z = Z * EARTH_RADIUS;
load topo;
subplot(1,5,3:5)
contour(0:359,-89:90,topo,[0 0],'b')
set(gca,'XLim',[0 360],'YLim',[-90 90], ...
'XTick',[0 60 120 180 240 300 360], ...
'Ytick',[-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90]);
hold all
for k= 1:1:length(historyPositionSpeed)
initial=[historyPositionSpeed(k,1),historyPositionSpeed(k,2),historyPositionSpeed(k,3)]';
fakesun= sun-initial;
theta=(90+(-1.75*k))*D2R;
sy
=0*D2R;
phi =0;
rotationMatrix=[cos(theta)*cos(sy), -cos(phi)*sin(sy)+sin(phi)*sin(theta)*cos(sy), sin(phi)*sin(sy)+co

cos(theta)*sin(sy), cos(phi)*cos(sy)+sin(phi)*sin(theta)*sin(sy), -sin(phi)*cos(sy)+co
-sin(theta), sin(phi)*cos(theta), cos(phi)*cos(theta)];
x=rotationMatrix*x1;
y=rotationMatrix*y1;
z=rotationMatrix*z1;
xx=initial+rotationMatrix*x1;
3 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
Published
yy=initial+rotationMatrix*y1;
zz=initial+rotationMatrix*z1;
negzz=initial+rotationMatrix*negz1;
a=initial+rotationMatrix*[r, r,r]';
b=initial+rotationMatrix*[-r, -r,-r]';
c=initial+rotationMatrix*[-r, -r,r]';
d=initial+rotationMatrix*[r, -r,-r]';
e=initial+rotationMatrix*[-r, r,-r]';
f=initial+rotationMatrix*[r, -r,r]';
g=initial+rotationMatrix*[-r, r,r]';
h=initial+rotationMatrix*[r, r,-r]';
anglex=acos(dot(x,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(x)));
angley=acos(dot(y,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(y)));
anglez=acos(dot(z,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(z)));
anglenegx=acos(dot(-1.*x,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(-1.*x)));
anglenegy=acos(dot(-1.*y,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(-1.*y)));
anglenegz=acos(dot(-1.*z,fakesun)/(norm(fakesun)*norm(-1.*z)));
angleCamera=acos(dot(-1.*z,initial)/(norm(initial)*norm(-1.*z)));
angleSun = atan2(norm(cross(initial,sun)),dot(initial,sun));
historyAnglex(k,1)=anglex;
historyAngley(k,1)=angley;
historyAnglez(k,1)=anglez;
historyAnglenegx(k,1)=anglenegx;
historyAnglenegy(k,1)=anglenegy;
historyAnglenegz(k,1)=anglenegz;
historyAngleCamera(k,1)=angleCamera*R2D;
Powerx(k,1)=2.04*cos(historyAnglex(k,1));
Powery(k,1)=2.04*cos(historyAngley(k,1));
Powerz(k,1)=2.04*cos(historyAnglez(k,1));
Powernegx(k,1)=2.04*cos(historyAnglenegx(k,1));
Powernegy(k,1)=2.04*cos(historyAnglenegy(k,1));
Powernegz(k,1)=0;
if angleSun*R2D > 135
Powerx(k,1)=0;
Powery(k,1)=0;
Powerz(k,1)=0;
Powernegx(k,1)=0;
Powernegy(k,1)=0;
Powernegz(k,1)=0;
else
if Powerx(k,1)<0
Powerx(k,1)=0;
end
if Powery(k,1)<0
Powery(k,1)=0;
end
if Powerz(k,1)<0
Powerz(k,1)=0;
end
if Powernegx(k,1)<0
Powernegx(k,1)=0;
end
if Powernegy(k,1)<0
Powernegy(k,1)=0;
end
end
4 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
Published
subplot(1,5,1:2)
axis([-EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS -EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS -EARTH_RADIUS EARTH_RADIUS])

q=line([f(1) a(1)],[f(2) a(2)], [f(3) a(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
axis([-u u -u u -u u])
% hold on
w=line([f(1) d(1)],[f(2) d(2)], [f(3) d(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
roth=line([h(1) d(1)],[h(2) d(2)], [h(3) d(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
t=line([h(1) e(1)],[h(2) e(2)], [h(3) e(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
yy=line([b(1) e(1)],[b(2) e(2)], [b(3) e(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
un=line([b(1) d(1)],[b(2) d(2)], [b(3) d(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
n=line([f(1) c(1)],[f(2) c(2)], [f(3) c(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
o=line([a(1) h(1)],[a(2) h(2)], [a(3) h(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
p=line([c(1) g(1)],[c(2) g(2)], [c(3) g(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
l=line([a(1) g(1)],[a(2) g(2)], [a(3) g(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
i=line([g(1) e(1)],[g(2) e(2)], [g(3) e(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
m=line([c(1) b(1)],[c(2) b(2)], [c(3) b(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
% hold on
qq=line([initial(1) zz(1)],[initial(2) zz(2)], [initial(3) zz(3)],'Color','r','LineWidth',2);
hold on
% qv=line([0 historyAdelaideVector(k,1)],[0 historyAdelaideVector(k,2)], [0 historyAdelaideVector(k,3)
% jj=line([0 1.5*historyEarthVec(k,1)], [0 1.5*historyEarthVec(k,2)]);
% hold on
sss=surface(X,Y,Z,'facecolor','texturemap','cdata',topo);
rotate(sss,[0 0 1],(k*speedsim*4.1666667*10^-3)+180)
subplot(1,5,3:5)
dddd=plot(historyLong(k),historyLat(k), 'r+','MarkerSize',10);
% axis([0 360 -90 90])
pause(0.04)
% saveas(gcf,num2str(k), 'jpg')
delete(q)
delete(w)
delete(roth)
delete(t)
delete(yy)
delete(un)
delete(n)
delete(o)
delete(p)
delete(l)
delete(i)
delete(m)
delete(qq)
% delete(jj)
% delete(qv)
delete(dddd)
delete(sss)
end
contour(0:359,-89:90,topo,[0 0],'b')
set(gca,'XLim',[0 360],'YLim',[-90 90], ...
5 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
Published
'XTick',[0 60 120 180 240 300 360], ...

'Ytick',[-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90]);
hold all
plot(historyLong,historyLat)
% axis([0 360 -90 90])
TotalPower=Powerx+Powery+Powerz+Powernegx+Powernegy;
SumPower=sum(TotalPower);
AvePower=(SumPower/(length(TotalPower)*speedsim))*60*60;
% TimeVec=[0:timeEnd/
figure(2)
subplot(4,3,1)
plot(Powerx, 'k')
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Side 1')
hold on
subplot(4,3,2)
plot(Powery, 'g')
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Side 2')
hold on
subplot(4,3,3)
plot(Powerz, 'r')
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Side 3')
hold on
subplot(4,3,4)
plot(Powernegx)
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Side 4')
hold on
subplot(4,3,5)
plot(Powernegy, 'm')
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Side 5')
hold on
subplot(4,3,6)
plot(Powernegz, 'c')
% xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Camera Side')
hold on
subplot(4,3,7:12)
plot(TotalPower, 'k')
xlabel('Time')
ylabel('Power (W)')
title('Total Power')
mean(historyAngleCamera)
toc
6 of 6
10/21/2010 12:12 AM
SATELLITE DETUMBLE ALGORITHM
Satellite Detumble Algorithm
A detumble algorithm was produced to control and reduce the angular velocity of the
satellite after it is deployed. The detumble code is as follows:
ccvi
Contents
Inputs
Torque
%Detumble Model
%Project AUSAT 2010
%Aurthor Callum Chartier
clc
clear all
format long
D2R=pi/180;% for converting degree to radians
R2D=180/pi;
Inputs
dx=i; dy=3*i; dz=4*i; % euler angles in degree
dx=0;
dy=0;
dz=0;
rx=dx.*D2R;
ry=dy.*D2R;
rz=dz.*D2R; % euler angles in radinas
initial=[dx;dy;dz];
magneticField=[1,0,0];%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
magneticFieldStrength=3.07E-5;%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ANI=8.45; %XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
B=magneticFieldStrength*magneticField;
w(1,:)=[.5,0,0];
% Converting to quarterions
% [w,x,y,z]=euler2quat(rx,ry,rz,'xyz');
% q=[w x y z]'
tic
Torque
for i=1:1:3000
ii=1+i;
deltaT=0.1;
%order of rotation is 'xyz'
% w(1,:)=-1*cross([.5,0,0],[0,0,1])
x1=[1 0 0]';
y1=[0 1 0]';
z1=[0 0 1]';
rotationMatrix=[cos(rx)*cos(ry), -cos(rz)*sin(ry)+sin(rz)*sin(rx)*cos(ry),
sin(rz)*sin(ry)+cos(rz)*sin(rx)*cos(ry);...
cos(rx)*sin(ry), cos(rz)*cos(ry)+sin(rz)*sin(rx)*sin(ry), sin(rz)*cos(ry)+cos(rz)*sin(rx)*sin(ry);...
-sin(rx), sin(rz)*cos(rx), cos(rz)*cos(rx)];
MTx=rotationMatrix*x1;
MTy=rotationMatrix*y1;
MTz=rotationMatrix*z1;
txG=cross(MTx,B);
tyG=cross(MTy,B);
tzG=cross(MTz,B);
txS=[dot(txG,MTx),dot(txG,MTy),dot(txG,MTz)]';
tyS=[dot(tyG,MTx),dot(tyG,MTy),dot(tyG,MTz)]';
tzS=[dot(tzG,MTx),dot(tzG,MTy),dot(tzG,MTz)]';
I=1.667E-3*[1,0,0;0,1,0;0,0,1];
alphaxS=inv(I)*(txS-cross(w(ii-1,:)',I*w(ii-1,:)'));
alphayS=inv(I)*(tyS-cross(w(ii-1,:)',I*w(ii-1,:)'));
alphazS=inv(I)*(tzS-cross(w(ii-1,:)',I*w(ii-1,:)'));
wxcheck(ii,:)=w(ii-1,:)'+deltaT*alphaxS;
if w(ii-1,1)==0
txS=[0,0,0]';
alphaxS=inv(I)*(txS-cross(w(ii-1,:)',I*w(ii-1,:)'))
elseif norm(wxcheck(ii,:))>norm(w(ii-1,:))
txG=cross(-1*MTx,B);
txS=[dot(txG,MTx),dot(txG,MTy),dot(txG,MTz)]';
alphaxS=inv(I)*(txS-cross(w(ii-1,:)',I*w(ii-1,:)'));
currentIx=-1;
end
wycheck(ii,:)=w(ii-1,:)'+deltaT*alphayS;
if w(ii-1,2)==0
tyS=[0,0,0]';
elseif norm(wycheck(ii,:))>norm(w(ii-1,:))
tyG=cross(-1*MTy,B);
tyS=[dot(tyG,MTx),dot(tyG,MTy),dot(tyG,MTz)]';
currentIy=-1;
end
wzcheck(ii,:)=w(ii-1,:)'+deltaT*alphazS;
if w(ii-1,3)==0
tzS=[0,0,0]';
elseif norm(wzcheck(ii,:))>norm(w(ii-1,:))
tzG=cross(-1*MTz,B);
tzS=[dot(tzG,MTx),dot(tzG,MTy),dot(tzG,MTz)]';
currentIz=-1;
end
alphatotal=alphaxS+alphayS+alphazS
w(ii,:)=w(ii-1,:)'+deltaT*alphatotal
% AngleMTx=R2D*atan2(MTx(1)*magneticField(2)+magneticField(1)*MTx(2),MTx(1)*magneticField(1)+MTx
(2)*magneticField(2))
% AngleMTy=R2D*atan2(MTy(1)*magneticField(2)+magneticField(1)*MTy(2),MTy(1)*magneticField(1)+MTy
% AngleMTz=R2D*atan2(MTz(1)*magneticField(2)+magneticField(1)*MTz(2),MTz(1)*magneticField(1)+MTz
%
% Tx=ANI*magneticFieldStrength*sin(AngleMTx*D2R)
% Ty=ANI*magneticFieldStrength*sin(AngleMTy*D2R)
% Tz=ANI*magneticFieldStrength*sin(AngleMTz*D2R)
% txSComp=norm(txS)
% tySComp=norm(tyS)
% tzSComp=norm(tzS)
q(ii-1,:)=[cos(rx/2)*cos(ry/2)*cos(rz/2)+sin(rx/2)*sin(ry/2)*sin(rz/2);...
sin(rx/2)*cos(ry/2)*cos(rz/2)-cos(rx/2)*sin(ry/2)*sin(rz/2);...
cos(rx/2)*sin(ry/2)*cos(rz/2)+sin(rx/2)*cos(ry/2)*sin(rz/2);...
cos(rx/2)*cos(ry/2)*sin(rz/2)-sin(rx/2)*sin(ry/2)*cos(rz/2)];
G=[-1*q(ii-1,2), q(ii-1,1), q(ii-1,4), -1*q(ii-1,3); -1*q(ii-1,3), -1*q(ii1,4), q(ii-1,1), q(ii-1,2); -1*q(ii-1,4), -1*q(ii-1,3), -1*q(ii-1,2), q(ii1,1)];
A=q'*q;
II=G*G';
qdot=.5*G'*w(ii,:)';
q(ii,:)=q(ii-1,:)'+deltaT*qdot;
% Converting back to Euler angles

attitude=[mod(atan2(2*(q(ii,1)*q(ii,2)+q(ii,3)*q(ii,4)),12*(q(ii,2)^2+q(ii,3)^2)),2*pi);asin(2*(q(ii,1)*q(ii,3)q(ii,4)*q(ii,2)));mod(atan2(2*(q(ii,1)*q(ii,4)+q(ii,2)*q(ii,3)),12*(q(ii,3)^2+q(ii,4)^2)),2*pi)];
rx=attitude(1);
ry=attitude(2);
rz=attitude(3);
if norm(w(ii,:))<0.01
timeend=ii*deltaT
end
qq=line([0 B(1)],[0 B(2)], [0 B(3)]);
axis([-2 2 -2 2 -2 2])
axis off
hold on
qh=line([0 MTz(1)],[0 MTz(2)], [0 MTz(3)],'Color','r');
hold on
qj=line([0 MTx(1)],[0 MTx(2)], [0 MTx(3)],'Color','g');
hold on
qk=line([0 MTy(1)],[0 MTy(2)], [0 MTy(3)],'Color','k');
% saveas(gcf,num2str(i), 'jpg')
pause(0.001)
delete(qq)
delete(qh)
delete(qj)
delete(qk)
end
toc
MICROCONTROLLER CODE
Microcontroller Code
The code that was programed onto the microcontroller is as follows:
ccxi
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
Chip type : ATMega640
Clock frequency : 16.000000 MHz
Memory model : Small
External SRAM size : 0
Data Stack size : 256
Author: Andrew Wallis
File: main.c
*****************************************
************/
#define F_CPU 1600000UL
//Include AVR Libraries
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <util/delay.h>
#include <avr/interrupt.h>
//Include Header Files
#include "Serial.h"
#include "Camera.h"
#include "Control.h"
#include "GPS.h"
#include "EPS.h"
#include "Magnetometer.h"
//---------------Define deprecated macros------------#define sbi(port, bit) (port) |= (1 << (bit))
#define cbi(port, bit) (port) &= ~(1 << (bit))
void init()
{
//Data direction configuration
DDRA = 0x7f;
DDRJ = 0x02;
DDRD = 0x0b;
DDRB = 0x40;
DDRE = 0x82;
DDRH = 0x02;
SerialInit();
the devices.
CameraInit();
EPSInit();
GPSInit();
MagnetometerInit();
//Initialize all of
}
void main(void)
{
GPSgetPosition();
if(GPSDestination == true)
{
double rotx =
MagnetometerGetX();
double roty =
MagnetometerGetY();
double rotz =
MagnetometerGetZ();
if(GPSType == 't')
ControlPointEarth();
double cap = EPSGetCapacity();

if(cap >
ControlGetPowerRequired(rotx, roty, rotx,
GPSType))
//Transmit Data
SerialTransmitTelemetry();
SerialTransmitImage();
}
if(GPSType == 'i')
//Capture Image
CameraTakePhoto();
}
}
else if (cap < 0.5*
EPS_TOTAL_CAPACITY)
{
_delay_ms(600000)
//Delay 5 min
}
else
{
double cap = EPSGetCapacity();
double rotx =
MagnetometerGetX();
double roty =
MagnetometerGetY();
double rotz =
MagnetometerGetZ();
ControlDetumble();
if(cap >
ControlGetPowerRequiredDetumble(rotx, roty,
rotz)
//Delay Code Cycle for 10 seconds and

check again
_delay_ms(10000);
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: Serial.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Headers
#include "Serial.h"
#define SerialUBRR 8//(F_CPU/16/SerialBAUD-1)
void SerialInit()
{
//Set Baudrate for Serial Port
UBRR3L=(unsigned char)(SerialUBRR);
UBRR3H=(unsigned char)(SerialUBRR>>8);
// Enable receiver and transmitter
UCSR3B = (1<<RXEN3)|(1<<TXEN3);
//Set frame format: 8data, 2stop bit
UCSR3C = (1<<USBS3)|(3<<UCSZ30);
}
void SerialTransmitByte(unsigned char data)
{
// Wait for empty transmit buffer
while ( !( UCSR3A & (1<<UDRE3)) ){}
//Put data into buffer, sends the data
SerialTransmitByte(data[i]);
i++;
int i = 0;
while(data[i]!='\0')
{
UDR3 = data;
}
void SerialTransmitString(unsigned char data[])
{
}
unsigned char SerialReceiveByte(void)
{
// Wait for data to be received
while ( !(UCSR3A & (1<<RXC3)) ){}
//Get and return received data from buffer
return UDR3;
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: Magnetorquer.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Headers
#include "Serial.h"
#include "Magnetometer.h"
#define MagnetometerUBRR
103//MagnetometerBAUD 9600
int MagCurrentX = 0;
int MagCurrentY = 0;
int MagCurrentZ = 0;
void MagnetometerInit()
{
//Set Baudrate for
UBRR2L=(unsigned
char)(MagnetometerUBRR);
UBRR2H=(unsigned
char)(MagnetometerUBRR>>8);
}
// Wait for empty transmit buffer

while ( !( UCSR2A & (1<<UDRE2)) ) {}
//Put data into buffer, sends the data
UDR2 = data;
void MagnetometerTransmitByte(unsigned char

data)
{
void MagnetometerTransmitString(unsigned char

data[])
{
int i = 0;
{
return;
MagCurrentX = ((res[0])<<8) + res[1];

MagCurrentY = ((res[2])<<8) + res[3];
MagCurrentZ = ((res[4])<<8) + res[5];
MagnetometerTransmitByte(data[i]);
i++;
}
}
unsigned char MagnetometerReceiveByte(void)
{
while ( !(UCSR2A & (1<<RXC2)) ) {} // Wait
for data to be received
return UDR2; //Get and return received
data from buffer
}
void getMagnetometerReading() //Update current
values for magnetometer
{
unsigned char command[] = "*00P";
//Send Polled Response
unsigned char res[7];
int i = 0;
MagnetometerTransmitString(command);
unsigned char tmp =
MagnetometerReceiveByte();
for(i = 0; i< 7; i++)
{
tmp =
MagnetometerReceiveByte();
res[i]= tmp;
}
int getMagnetometerX() //Return value of
magnetometer in X direction
{
return MagCurrentX;
}
int getMagnetometerY()//Return value of
magnetometer in Y direction
{
return MagCurrentY;
}
int getMagnetometerZ()//Return value of
magnetometer in Z direction
{
return MagCurrentZ;
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: Camera.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Headers
#include "Camera.h"
#include "Serial.h"
//Camera Speed
#define CameraBAUD 115200
#define CameraUBRR 8//(F_CPU/16/CameraBAUD1)
#define CameraRes 'A' //Set Camera Resolution at

1280x1024
#define JPEGQuality '1' //8 is smallest depth, 1 is
greatest (better)
void CameraInit()
{
//Set Baudrate for

UBRR0H=(unsigned
char)(CameraUBRR>>8);
UBRR0L=(unsigned char)(CameraUBRR);


CameraTransmitByte(CameraRes);
//Set Resolution of Camera
CameraTransmitByte('q');
//Set Quality of JPG 'qn'
CameraTransmitByte(JPEGQuality);
unsigned char tmp[] = "Camera Initialized\r\n";

SerialTransmitString(tmp);
}
void CameraTransmitByte(unsigned char data)
//Wait for empty transmit buffer

while ( !( UCSR0A & (1<<UDRE0)) )
{}
/* Put data into buffer, sends the data */

UDR0 =data;
CameraTransmitByte(data[i]);
i++;
int i = 0;
{
void CameraTransmitString(unsigned char data[])

{
SerialTransmitByte(tmp);
tmp = CameraReceiveByte();
//Read Byte
unsigned char tmp;
int k = 0;
for(k=0; k<1310720; k++)
{
SerialTransmitByte((unsigned
_delay_ms(100);
//Send Image Capture Tag
CameraTransmitByte('I');
_delay_ms(100);
unsigned char CameraTakePhoto(void)

{
char)k);
return 0;
}
unsigned char CameraReceiveByte(void)
{
while ( !(UCSR3A & (1<<RXC3)) )
{}
return UDR3;
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: GPS.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Headers
#include "GPS.h"
#define GPSUBRR 103 // GPSBAUD 9600
void GPSInit()
{
//Set Baudrate for
UBRR1H=(unsigned char)(GPSUBRR>>8);
UBRR1L=(unsigned char)(GPSUBRR);

}
void GPSTransmitByte(unsigned char data)
{
/* Wait for empty transmit buffer */
while ( !( UCSR1A & (1<<UDRE1)) ){}
/* Put data into buffer, sends the data */
UDR1 = data;
}
void GPSTransmitString(unsigned char data[])
{
int i = 0;
{
GPSTransmitByte(data[i]);
}
}
//Request data
//Returns data in form lat, lon, ht , latsigma,
lonsigma, posave, ave time, samples
void GPSTransmitRequest()
{
unsigned char str[] = "log aveposa
onchanged";
GPSTransmitString(str);
return;
}
unsigned char GPSReceiveByte(void)
{

while ( !(UCSR1A & (1<<RXC1)) )
{}

return UDR1;
}
int convertToInt(unsigned char data[], int start, int
len)
int i = start;;
int res = 0;
int shift = 0;
for(i = start; i < start + len; i++)
{
shift = (len-1-i)*8;
res +=
(data[i]&0x000000FF)<<shift;
}
return res;
}
//Returns the current lattitude of the satellite
int GPSReturnLat()
{
read[i] = GPSReceiveByte();
if(read[i] ==',' && commapos==0)
GPSTransmitRequest();
int i = 0;
unsigned char read[40];
int commapos = 0;
for(i = 0; i<40; i++)
{
commapos = i;
}
int lat =convertToInt(read, 0, commapos1);
return lat;
}
//Returns the current lattitude of the satellite
int GPSReturnLong()
{
GPSTransmitRequest();
int i = 0;
unsigned char read[40];
int start = 0;
int end = 0;
for(i = 0; i<40; i++)
{
read[i] = GPSReceiveByte();
if(read[i] ==',' && start==0) start =
i;
else if(read[i] == ',' && start!=0 &&
end ==0) end = i;
}
return convertToInt(read, start, end);
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: main.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Header Files
#include "Control.h"
//---------------Define dprecated macros-------------
#define sbi(port, bit) (port) |= (1 << (bit))

MagXPWMInit();
MagYPWMInit();
MagZPWMInit();
void MagInit()
{
//Set timer every 1ms;

ICR4 = 1000;
// Clear Counter
TCNT4=0b00000000;
TCCR4A=0x00;
TCCR4B=0b00010010;
void MagXPWMInit()
{
//PWM Magnetorquers
void MagXPWMOn(double dutycycle, char dir)
{
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 1);
}
if(dir=='S')
{
sbi(PORTA, 1);
}
TCNT4=0b00000000;
ICR4 = 1000;
}
sbi(TCCR4A,7);
cbi(TCCR4A,6);
}
//PWM Magnetorquers
void MagYPWMOn(double dutycycle, char dir)
{
cbi(TCCR4A,7); //Clear timing bits

cbi(TCCR4A,6);

cbi(TCCR4A,4);
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 2);
sbi(PORTA, 3);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 3);
}
if(dir=='S')
//Constant on Magnetometers for set time

void MagYOn(int time, char dir)
{ //
sbi(TCCR4A,5);
cbi(TCCR4A,4);
}
void MagYPWMOff()
{
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 3);
}
if(dir=='S')
{
cbi(PORTA,3);
void MagXPWMOff()
{

void MagXOn(int time, char dir)
{ //
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 0);
sbi(PORTA, 1);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 1);
}
if(dir=='S')
{
cbi(PORTA, 0);
sbi(PORTA, 1);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 1);
}
}
void MagYPWMInit()
{
TCCR4A=0x00;
TCCR4B=0b00010010;
// Clear Counter
{
cbi(PORTA, 2);
sbi(PORTA, 3);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 3);
}
}
void MagZPWMInit()
{
TCCR4A=0x00;
TCCR4B=0b00010010;
// Clear Counter
TCNT4=0b00000000;
ICR4 = 1000;
}
//PWM Magnetorquers
void MagZPWMOn(double dutycycle, char dir)
{
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 5);
}
if(dir=='S')
{
sbi(PORTA, 5);
}
sbi(TCCR4A,3);
cbi(TCCR4A,2);
}
void MagXPWMOff()
{
cbi(TCCR4A,2);
}
void MagXOn(int time, char dir)
{
if(dir=='N')
{
sbi(PORTA, 4);
sbi(PORTA, 5);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 5);
}
if(dir=='S')
{
cbi(PORTA, 4);
sbi(PORTA, 5);
_delay_ms(time);
cbi(PORTA, 5);
}
}
/****************************************
*************
AUSAT2010
File: EPS.c
*****************************************
************/
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
//Include Headers
#include "EPS.h"
//EPS Address
#define EPS_ADDR
0x2D
#define I2C_Y_CURRENT
#define I2C_Y_TEMP
#define I2C_Y_VOLTAGE
//ADC Codes
#define I2C_X_CURRENT
#define I2C_X_TEMP
#define I2C_X_VOLTAGE
0x0A
0x0B
0x09
0x01
0x03
0x02
0x07
0x06
0x08
//Init Codes
#define I2C_ADC_CODE
0x00
#define I2C_STATUS_CODE
0x01
#define I2C_HEATER_OFF_CODE 0x05
#define I2C_WATCHDOG_CODE
0x80
#define I2C_Z_CURRENT
#define I2C_Z_TEMP
#define I2C_Z_VOLTAGE
#define I2C_BATTERY_CURRENT
0x1D
#define I2C_BATTERY_VOLTAGE
0x18
#define I2C_BATTERY_TEMPERATURE
0x17
//Define Macros
#define sbi(port, bit) (port) |= (1 << (bit))
#define inb(port) (port)
#define outb(port, val) (port) = (val)
// TWS4:3 set - ACK has been received back
#define TW_MT_SLA_ACK
0x18
// TWS6 set
#define TW_MR_SLA_ACK
0x40
// defines and constants

#define TWCR_CMD_MASK
#define TWSR_STATUS_MASK 0xF8
0x0F
static inline void i2cSendStart(void){

// send start condition
outb(TWCR,
(inb(TWCR)&TWCR_CMD_MASK)|_BV(TWINT)|_B
V(TWSTA));
}
static inline void i2cSendStop(void){

// transmit stop condition
// leave with TWEA on for slave receiving
outb(TWCR,
V(TWEA)|_BV(TWSTO));
}
static inline void i2cWaitForComplete(void){

// wait for i2c interface to complete
operation
while( !(inb(TWCR) & _BV(TWINT)) );
}
static inline void i2cSendByte(uint8_t data){

// save data to the TWDR
outb(TWDR, data);
// begin send
outb(TWCR,
(inb(TWCR)&TWCR_CMD_MASK)|_BV(TWINT));
}
static inline void i2cReceiveByte(boolean ackFlag){
// begin receive over i2c
if( ackFlag ){
// ackFlag = TRUE: ACK the
recevied data
outb(TWCR,
V(TWEA));
}else{
// ackFlag = FALSE: NACK the
recevied data
outb(TWCR,
(inb(TWCR)&TWCR_CMD_MASK)|_BV(TWINT));
}
}
return( inb(TWDR) );
static inline uint8_t i2cGetReceivedByte(void){

// retieve received data byte from i2c
TWDR
}
// Initialiase I2C hardware
void I2C_Init(void){
#define SCL_PORT PORTD
#define SCL_DDR DDRD
#define SCL_PIN PD0
#define SDA_PORT PORTD
#define SDA_DDR DDRD
#define SDA_PIN PD1
// Make the 2 wires into inputs
cbi(SCL_DDR,SCL_PIN);
cbi(SDA_DDR,SDA_PIN);
ACK
}
// and turn on the pullups

sbi(SCL_PORT,SCL_PIN);
sbi(SDA_PORT,SDA_PIN);
// set i2c bit rate to 100KHz
i2cSetBitrate(100);
// enable TWI (two-wire interface)
sbi(TWCR, TWEN);
// set state
i2cState = I2C_IDLE;
// enable TWI interrupt and slave address
// Perform a read function

// This will not send a stop bit at the end
static int read(){
boolean retval = TRUE;
int data;
int length = 2;
i2cSendStart();
i2cWaitForComplete();
i2cSendByte(EPS_ADDR | 0x01);
if( inb(TWSR) == TW_MR_SLA_ACK)
{
// decrement length
i2cReceiveByte(TRUE);
*data++ =
// accept receive data and ack it

while(length > 1)
{
i2cGetReceivedByte();
length--;
// accept receive data and nack it

(last-byte signal)
i2cReceiveByte(FALSE);
*data++ = i2cGetReceivedByte();
}
else
{
// device did not ACK it's address,
// data will not be transferred
// return error
retval = FALSE;
}
if(retval) return data;
else return -1;
}
//Getter Methods
double getXCurrent()
{
write2byte(I2C_ADC_CODE,
I2C_X_CURRENT);
int adcval = readADC();
return -0.5*adcval+515.7;
}
double getXTemp()
{
write2byte(I2C_ADC_CODE, I2C_X_TEMP);
}
double getXVoltage()
{
I2C_X_VOLTAGE);
}
double getYCurrent()
{
I2C_Y_CURRENT);
}
double getYTemp()
{
write2byte(I2C_ADC_CODE, I2C_Y_TEMP);
}
double getYVoltage()
{
I2C_Y_VOLTAGE);
}
double getZCurrent()
{
I2C_X_CURRENT);
}
double getZTemp()
{
}
double getZVoltage()
{
I2C_X_VOLTAGE);
}
double getBattCurrent()
{
I2C_X_CURRENT);
return -2.3*adcval + 2926.22;
}
double getBattTemp()
{
}
double getBattVoltage()
{
I2C_X_VOLTAGE);
}
sucessful = FALSE;
//
}
else
{
i2cSendByte(data);
if( inb(TWSR) == TW_MT_SLA_ACK)

{
// Disable interrupts
i2cStartSend();
i2cwWaitForComplete();
i2cSendByte(EPS_ADDR & 0xFE);
boolean sucessful = TRUE;

cbi(TWCR, TWIE);
//Method for sending a byte

boolean write1byte(uint8_t data)
{
thus fail
}
i2cSendStop();
// Send a stop bit

while( !(inb(TWCR) & _BV(TWSTO)) );
sbi(TWCR, TWIE);
// Re-enable interrupts
return sucessful;
while( !(inb(TWCR) & _BV(TWSTO)) );
i2cGetReceivedByte();
// decrement length
length--;
i2cReceiveByte(TRUE);
*data++ =
// accept receive data and ack it

while(length > 1)
{
i2cSendStart();
i2cSendByte(EPS_ADDR | 0x01);
if( inb(TWSR) == TW_MR_SLA_ACK)
{
boolean retval = TRUE;

int data = 0;
int length = 2;
cbi(TWCR, TWIE);
static int readADC()

{
// Re-enable interrupts
return sucessful;
sbi(TWCR, TWIE);
boolean write2byte(uint8_t init, uint8_t data)

{
boolean sucessful = TRUE;
cbi(TWCR, TWIE);
i2cStartSend();
i2cwWaitForComplete();
i2cSendByte(EPS_ADDR & 0xFE);
i2cSendByte(data);
i2cSendByte(init);
if( inb(TWSR) == TW_MT_SLA_ACK)

{
}
else
{
// return error
sucessful = FALSE;
}
i2cSendStop();
// Send a stop bit
//
}
else
{
if(retval) return data;

else return -1;
// Send stop bit

sbi(TWCR, TWIE);
i2cSendStop();

// return error
retval = FALSE;
// accept receive data and nack it

(last-byte signal)
i2cReceiveByte(FALSE);
*data++ = i2cGetReceivedByte();
AUSAT VIBRATION TEST PLAN
Ausat Vibration Test Plan
The AUSAT vibration test plan, that was used to organise vibrations tests with VIPAC
Engineers and Scientists Ltd, is as follows:
ccxxii
AUSAT
Flight Model Vibration Test
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
AUSAT 2010
FLIGHT MODEL VIBRATIONS TEST PLAN
1
1
1
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
2
Contents
AUSAT 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 1
FLIGHT MODEL VIBRATIONS TEST PLAN ...................................................................................... 1
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 3
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 3
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1
Scope ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 4
Documentation ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1
General Test Plan .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1
Test Objectives ................................................................................................................. 5
3.2
Test Facility ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1
Data Channels Available........................................................................................... 5
3.2.2
Ground Support Equipment ...................................................................................... 5
Test Instruction ....................................................................................................................... 6

4.1
Applicable Documents ..................................................................................................... 4
General ............................................................................................................................. 6
Test Details ............................................................................................................................. 7

5.1
Responsibilities ................................................................................................................ 7
5.2
Test Readiness Review (TRR) ......................................................................................... 7
5.3
Preparation of satellite for test ......................................................................................... 7
5.4
Satellite Build Standard .................................................................................................... 7
5.5
Detailed Test Sequence .................................................................................................... 8
5.6
Pass/Fail Criteria .............................................................................................................. 8
5.6.1
Test Abort Conditions ............................................................................................... 8
5.7
Anomalous Test Results ................................................................................................... 8
5.8
Test Levels ....................................................................................................................... 9
5.8.1
5.9
Random Vibration Test Levels ................................................................................. 9
Test Tolerances .............................................................................................................. 10
5.10
Re-Testing Philosophy ............................................................................................... 10
5.11
Test Review Board (TRB) .......................................................................................... 11
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
3
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Accelerometer Positions ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2: Test Pod Outer Dimensions ........................................................................................... 13
Figure 3: Satellite Vibration Test Workflow ................................................................................ 14
Table of Tables
Table 1: Test Point Location ........................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: High Level Qualification Profile ...................................................................................... 9
Table 3: Low Level Qualification Profile ....................................................................................... 9
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
4
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope
This document outlines the Flight Model Vibration Test Plan for the AUSAT satellite that is
being developed by students at the University of Adelaide, Australia.
1.2 Purpose
This document outlines the goals and procedures to be followed to verify that the AUSAT
structure will withstand the launch from the DNEPR rocket.
2 Documentation
2.1 Applicable Documents
AD/1
Compliance DNEPR IV
DNEPR Safety Compliance Recommendations
AD/2
Simulation of Random Vibration Testing on

AUSAT structure
AD/3
Test Pod Structure
Dimensions of Test Pod Structure
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
5
3 General Test Plan

3.1 Test Objectives
The primary objectives of the AUSAT Flight Model Vibration Test Campaign are to:
I.
II.
To test the FM satellite will qualify for launch on the DNEPR launch vehicle
To verify that the AUSAT structure will survive launch conditions
This will be achieved by applying qualification vibration loads for specific durations to the FM
satellite.
3.2 Test Facility

The tests will take place at the VIPAC (Melbourne) Shaker Test Facility.
3.2.1
Data Channels Available
Two data channels will be required for shaker control. The number of accelerometers that will be
required for the mounting onto the FM satellite is eight at a minimum.
3.2.2
Ground Support Equipment
The Ground Support Equipment (GSE) that will be brought with the test item will be a test pod
with the major dimensions shown in Appendix A.
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
6
4 Test Instruction
4.1 General
The accelerometers will be positioned as shown in Appendix A. Table 1 provides a summary of
the test point locations.
Table 1 Test Point Location
Equipment
TP ID
Axis
Location
Remarks
Solar Cell PCB
Under side of solar cell PCB
External
Solar Cell PCB
Under side of solar cell PCB inside the External

magnetorquer coil
Solar Cell PCB
Underside of solar cell PCB
External
EPS board
Centred on EPS board
Internal
CDH board
Centred on CDH board
Internal
Communication PCB
Centred on the communications board
Internal
GPS PCB
Centred on the GPS board
Internal
Wall
Centred on a wall of the structure in the y-z Internal

plane.
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
7
5 Test Details
5.1 Responsibilities
A Test Manager will be assigned and will have overall responsibility for the tests performed. The
Test Manager will have the final say on all major decisions that may have to be made throughout
the test campaign, including those related to logistics, Pass/Fail/Re-test assessment etc.
5.2 Test Readiness Review (TRR)

The tests will not be commenced until a TRR is completed. As a minimum the attendees of the
TRR will include the Testing Manager, the Safety Manager, the Technical Manager and a facility
manager. The TRR should include the following agenda items:
I.
II.
III.
Confirmation of facility readiness to commence testing,

Confirmation of test item readiness,
Acceptance of test item by facility after review of supporting documentation and
physical inspection,
IV.
V.
VI.
Agreement on detailed test sequence and levels,

Agreement on pass/fail criteria,
Agreement on action following anomalies
5.3 Preparation of satellite for test

The satellite flight test model will be constructed and closed-up prior to the testing. The
satellite will be opened-up after the tests for visual inspections.
A test pod will be used to mount the satellite onto the vibration table. The orientation of the test
pod will change between tests.
5.4 Satellite Build Standard

With the following exceptions the satellite will be in its flight configuration:
I.
II.
PC boards replaced with boards of the same mass distribution

Separation springs will not be installed
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
8
5.5 Detailed Test Sequence

Prior to arrival at the test facility shakedown test will be conducted using mass dummy (1 to 2kg)
in order to validate the Protoflight level random noise. This shall be conducted in a lateral
directions.
The test sequence for each of the three orthogonal axes is normally as follows:
I.
II.
III.
Spacecraft functional checkout

Protflight random noise
Spacecraft functional checkout
Note: The test pod should not exhibit significant resonant frequencies below 2000Hz. The order
in which the axis tests are carried out may vary due to the initial configuration of the shaker.
Accelerometer readings will be inspected after each test in order to identify possible anomalies.
Visual Inspection of the FM spacecraft shall be performed after the test sequence.
5.6 Pass/Fail Criteria

The flight test model will have failed the test program if any of the following events occur at any
point in time in the program.
I.
A structural failure of any kind is visibly observed during/after a test run,
II.
A change in dimensions, accelerometer reading irregularity or any other anomaly is
observed
5.6.1
Test Abort Conditions
A test may be aborted if the following takes place:

I.
Fail Criterion is observed during test
II.
Any anomaly detected by the test technician that is deemed to be potentially harmful to
the satellite or the facility
5.7 Anomalous Test Results

In the event of an anomalous situation a Material Review Board (MRB) shall be convened to
determine a suitable course of action. At a minimum the MRB will be made up of an AUSAT
representative and a facility representative.
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
9
5.8 Test Levels

5.8.1
Random Vibration Test Levels
The high level qualification profile shown in Table 2 shall be applied to the flight model for 35
seconds followed by the low level qualification profile shown in Table 3 for 831 seconds. These
tests shall be done in all three axes.
Table 2 : High Level Qualification Profile
FREQUENCY (Hz)
SPECTRAL DENSITY (G2/Hz)
30
0.011
60
0.011
120
0.033
240
0.053
960
1640
0.053 0.026
Power Spectral Density - High Level

Profile
1
PSD [G^2/Hz)
30
300
0.1
0.01
0.001
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 1: High Level Profile
Table 3: Low Level Qualification Profile
FREQUENCY (Hz)
SPECTRAL DENSITY (G2/Hz)
30
0.011
120
0.011
240
0.014
480
0.014
960
0.007
1640
0.007
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
10
Power Spectral Density - Low Level

Profile
1
PSD [G^2/Hz)
30
300
0.1
0.01
0.001
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 2: Low Level Profile
5.9 Test Tolerances

The tests shall be performed within the following tolerances:
Frequency
2%
Power Spectral Density
+3dB/ - 1.5 dB
5.10 Re-Testing Philosophy

If a test item (structural) failure occurs, during any of the tests, the test campaign will be halted,
and a Materials Review Board (MRB) convened to discuss the consequences/corrective actions
required.
In the case of a failure where a repair is possible at the test facility, all tests completed up to and
including the point where the failure occurred will be repeated. In the case of a failure where onsite repair is not possible, the test campaign will be halted completely, and a test report will be
written describing the results of all the tests up to and including that at which the failure
occurred. The test campaign will be started over at a later date, when the repairs/alterations have
been completed.
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
11
Any test failures which are not a result of test item failure (i.e. facility, GSE or software failures)
will not require the test item to be re-tested. However, if the test failure occurred during a
particular test run, then that test run will be repeated.
5.11 Test Review Board (TRB)

As a minimum the TRB will consist of an AUSAT representative and a test facility
representative. The TRB will be help on completion of the tests. All results from the tests will be
presented, and the following post test details will be agreed upon:
I.
Whether the flight test model has passed of failed the test campaign,
II.
Whether any further action/testing is required
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
Appendix A- Accelerometer Positions
X axis
6
Z axis
5
Y axis
Z axis
Y axis
2
X axis
Figure 3 - Accelerometer Positions
1
1
12
AUSAT
Plan
Appendix B- Test Pod Outer Dimensions
Figure 4 - Test Pod Outer Dimensions
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
13
AUSAT
Plan
Doc No:
Issue:
Page:
1
1
14
Appendix C Satellite Vibration Test Workflow

Install test rig
into shaker
SC final vibration
preparation and
TRR
Undertake Z-axis
vibration
Install satellite in
the shaker
Undertake x-axis
vibration
Rotate satellite in
the shaker
Undertake y-axis
vibration
Rotate satellite in
the shaker
Undertake z-axis
vibration
Remove rest rig
Figure 5: Satellite Vibration Test Workflow
RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
Risk Assessment Forms
Risk Assessment (RA) forms were completed for Solar Cell Tests, Magnetorquer Tests,
Structural Machining, Vacuum Chamber Tests.
The following is an example of the RA forms that has been used for these cases:
ccxxxvii
SAFE OPERATING PROCEDURE FORMS
Safe Operating Procedure Forms
Safe Operating Procedure (SOP) forms were completed solar cell tests, magnetorquer
construction and tests and general tools.
The following is an example of the SOP forms that were completed:
ccxliii
SAFE OPERATING PROCEDURE: Solar Cell Test Rig
LOCATION DETAILS
School/Branch: Mechanical Engineering
TASK/ACTIVITY
Use of Solar Cell Test Rig/ solar cell testing
Date: 11/04/2010
PREPARED BY Name, Position and Signature (insert names of the supervisor, HSR, HSO and operator involved)
Name
Position
Drew Ravalico
Signature
Safety officer
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION:
See Risk Assessment dated
RISK ASSESSMENT
11
/ 04 / 2010
SAFE OPERATING PROCEDURE DETAILS
STOP
DO NOT OPERATE PLANT IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED (1) THE COMPULSORY
UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY INDUCTION COURSE,
AND; (2) DO NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATIONS OR TRAINING FOR THIS
PIECE OF PLANT.
Preparation work area check:

Ready access to and egress from the machinery (min of 600mm clearance required)
Area is free from grease, oil, debris and objects, which can be tripped over.
(Use diatomaceous earth (kitty litter) or absorption pillow to soak up grease, coolant, oil and other fluids)
Area is clear of unauthorised people before commencing work.
Personal Attire & Safety Equipment:

Approved closed toe type shoes must be worn at all times.

Approved safety spectacles/goggles must be worn at all times, where required.
Clothing must be tight fitting.
Long hair must be confined close to the head by an appropriate restraint.
Finger rings and exposed loose jewellery (eg bracelets and necklaces) must not be worn. Medic Alert bracelet must be
taped if exposed.
C:\Documents and Settings\a1161355\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.IE5\4DHOSH56\Safe_Operating_Procedure_Doc_Solar_Cells[1].docx
SOP No:
Page 1 of 3
Issue No:
Machine Pre-operational Safety Checks Safety Precautions that MUST be Observed:

Visual inspection of machine to verify it is in good operational order, ensuring no damage to any stationary or moving
parts, electrical cords etc. Any unsafe equipment is to be reported to an authorised staff member and tagged out.
Ensure lighting and power are switched on their respective main switches, where required.
Be aware of other activities happening in the immediate area.
Ensure that no slip and/or trip hazards are present.
Ensure that machine lighting is adequate.
Start machine using the Start Button.
Check that the Emergency Stop is working.
Check that all machine guards, electrical interlocks and Emergency Stop micro-switch are correctly positioned, locked in
place and in proper working condition.

IF IN DOUBT, ASK

Solar Cells must be clean and free from dust

Solar Cell contacts must be cleaned before metering
Gloves must be worn to prevent finger prints on the cells
IF IN DOUBT, ASK

Ensure familiarity with metering equipment (multimeter)

Locate and be familiar with the operation of the ON/OFF starter switch.
Locate and be familiar with the operation of the Emergency Stop button. Check Emergency Stop button is working.
Wear appropriate PPE for task being performed (i.e. safety glasses. Gloves required when cleaning).
Operation:

Ensure light and power is switched on at their respective switches.

Ensure rig is calibrated with angle of source
Return excess stock material to metal storage area.
Clean up machine and surrounding area.

SOP No:
Page 2 of 3
Issue No:
General Safety

Visual inspection of plant prior to use. Unsafe plant to be tagged out and reported to Workshop Manager.
Keep all parts of your body and attire safely clear of the rotating and moving parts, at all times.
Ensure scheduled maintenance for this machine has been carried out; including scheduled testing of Emergency Stop.
Guards must be correctly fitted to the machine at all times during operation. DO NOT attempt to open guards while
machine is in use.
Assistance from other staff or students to be sought and support frames used when handling and drilling large, long
and/or heavy sections of material.
Do not leave cells exposed to light any longer than required to take a measurement
Safety glasses must be worn at all times during the operation of this machine.
Closed Toe Type Shoes must be worn during the operation of this machine.
Loose hair to be securely tied back, loose clothing to be rolled up and/or secured, loose jewellery to be removed.
Hearing protection to be worn, where appropriate to the task being performed.
Leather Safety Gloves to be worn, where appropriate to the task being performed, and;
Ensure fingers and leather safety gloves are kept clear from the drill area, material clamps and from pinch-points under
or around the material being drilled.
Rag or cotton waste (eg for cleaning) must not be used near the machine while the drill is rotating.
Switch Off machine before leaving it unattended.
Note: This Safe Operating Procedure must be reviewed:

a) after any accident, incident or near miss;
b) when training new staff;
c) if adopted by new work group;
d) if equipment, substances or processes change; or
e) within 1 year of date of issue.

SOP No:
Page 3 of 3
Issue No:
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting Minutes
This appendix includes all of the meeting minutes recorded over the course of the year.
The minutes are broken into three sections, these sections are:
Supervised meetings - X1
Internal meetings - X2
Other meetings - X3
X.1
Supervised Meetings
2009/12/04
Time: 10 am
Room: Meeting Room, 2nd Level Engineering South
Minutes:
Sonja is the Communication Manager and Michael is the Technical Manager.
If another Mechatronic student hasntt joined the project by the end of the year then
5 people will be sufficient and no one will be able to join next year.
Everyone is required to have a log book to record all project related activities as a
hard copy. This will also allow the time spent on the project to be recorded.
The satellite should be launched in either October or December of 2010, which means
that we need to find a company capable of launching the satellite. Andrew will be
in charge of finding an appropriate launch vehicle and the corresponding company.
He will need to present his findings on launch requirements and companies in a
presentation of no more than 10 minutes during next weeks supervised meeting
(11/12/09).
Drew is responsible for the electronics both on board satellite and at ground
station. He needs to present an overview, no more than 10 minutes, of the required
ccxlvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
electronics and power requirements of the satellite during next weeks supervised
meeting (11/12/09).
For any major material or component purchases will need to consult Maziar before
purchase.
Michael will be responsible for producing and distributing an agenda for next weeks
meeting while Sonja is away.
Maziar has a list of companies that may provide sponsorship but is waiting for our
group to investigate sponsorship.
Callum will be responsible for organising a sponsorship list by next week while
Sonja is away. The list needs to be broken up into primary, secondary and indirect
sponsorship. Callum will present his findings in a presentation of no more than 10
minutes.
Callum will be responsible for producing a long term Gantt Chart of the project and
Michael a short term Gantt Chart. Both need to be presented during next weeks
meeting (11/12/09)
Need to organise internal meetings to make decision before each supervised
meeting.
Michael needs to present an overview of the project and satellite subsystems of no
more than 10 minutes during next weeks meeting.
Also need to have a presentation selling our project that will be presented during
next weeks meeting. Maximum of 10 minutes. Yet to have decided who will be
presenting this.
Michael will contact School Office about getting access for the group members to the
project room over the holidays.
Need to have a Bill Of Materials (BOM) made by next week. Yet to decide who will
be doing this.
ccxlviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
80% of Project is Peer Assessed.

Were given the 2007 CubeSat design and Final Report.
Tasks (All to be done by 11/12/09):
Andrew: Presentation about launch vehicles, companies, launch requirements.
Maximum 10 mins.
Drew: Presentation of electronics overview. Maximum 10 mins
Michael: Presentation on the whole project maximum 10 minutes, Agenda, Contact
School Office about access to project room and short term Gantt Chart.
Callum: Presentation of possible sponsors maximum 10 minutes, long term Gantt
Chart.
Presentation to sell the project 10 minutes maximum.
Bill of Materials.
2009/12/11
MINUTES OF A SUPERVISED MEETING FOR CUBESAT FINAL YEAR PROJECT
HELD IN S238a FRIDAY DECEMBER 11th 2009
PRESENT: Chairperson of the Meeting Michael Mackay
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Supervisor Dr Maziar Arjomandi
APOLOGIES: Sonja Russell (Holiday)
MEETING COMMENCED AT 10 AM
ccxlix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
1. PREVIOUS MINUTES Minutes and agenda were given to Dr. Arjomandi at the
meeting. In future this must be supplied no later than three days before the meeting.
Additionally the format must be improved and the University logo must not appear
on any documentation.
2. LAUNCH PRESENTATION ANDREW WALLIS Not enough information to make
a decision about which launch vehicles and companies would be best suited to the
project. Requires further research and should produce a decision matrix to make
most appropriate choice.
3. PROJECT NAME Discussion of project name. It was unanimously agreed that
AdeSat was not a suitable name. S.A. Sat seemed like the most appropriate name.
4. MODELS Need to decide on how many models will be constructed and when the
deadlines for there design should be completed so that they can be given to the
workshop with sufficient time to do all required testing.
5. ELECTRONIC PRESENTATION DREW RAVALICO Detailed presentation of the
required electronic systems. Now needs to look in further detail about specific
option such as antenna options (bandwidth). Also needs to provide a summary
of electronics used on previous CubeSat missions.
Drew will be responsible
for primary electronics system and Michael for the secondary such as satellite
deployment.
6. SPONSORS PRESENTATION CALLUM CHARTIER Had broken presentation into
sources of primary, secondary and in-direct sponsorship. Needs to include a wider
range of primary sponsors and funds. Include BAE and Santos as possibilities.
7. GRANT APPLICATION Sonja will need to complete a grant application when she
returns from holidays.
8. CONCEPT DRAFTS Ten concept drafts of the satellite need to be completed by
next weeks meeting (18/1/09).
The 10 concepts should highlight a variety of
different possibility for the CubeSat design. This will help illustrating the project
for sponsorship.
ccl
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
9. TECHNICAL TASK A draft of the technical task needs to be completed highlighting

all the proposed technical requirements of the project. This document will provide
a gauge of how successful the project will be.
10. SPONSORSHIP TASKS When Sonja return she will be responsible for completing
Callums work on sponsors list and will need to prepare letters to companies about
sponsorship.
11. REMAINING ITEMS There was insufficient time for Drews presentation of pitching
the project to possible sponsors, Michaels presentation of the overview of the
project, presentation of the Gantt charts and Bill of Materials. These will be shown
next meeting.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 AM
2009/12/18
MINUTES OF A SUPERVISED MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
HELD IN S238a FRIDAY DECEMBER 18th 2009
PRESENT:
Chairperson: Michael Mackay
Note-taker: Sonja Russell
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisor: Dr Maziar Arjomandi
MEETING COMMENCED AT 9:10 AM
1. PROJECT NAME CONFIRMED AUSAT 2010
2. PREVIOUS CUBESAT ELECTRONICS PRESENTATION DREW RAVALICO Drew
gave a presentation in the electronics utilised by previous CubeSats, from this it was
ccli
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
decided that the best option would be for us to use sun sensors, magnetometers and
magnetorquers in AUSAT. As the main objective of this satellite is just to see if we can do
it we decided we would try not to use momentum wheels as they were rare in previous
CubeSats and could be risky. Tasks:
Look into what would be involved in making a ground station at Adelaide uni Drew - R0008/09
Communicate with Uni SA about the project and the ground station they have there
Drew R0009/09
3. LAUNCH PRESENTATION ANDREW WALLIS Not enough information to make a
decision about which launch vehicles and companies would be best suited to the project.
Requires further research and should produce a decision matrix to make most appropriate
choice. Start looking into later launch dates early 2011. Tasks:
Start contacting companies, let them know we will have a CubeSat of 1kg that
we want to launch late 2010-early 2011 and find out if they can do it Andrew R0010/09
Maziar has an Indian contact that he will give us
One of the aero students is to look into the orbital mechanics of AUSAT - R0011/09
4. SPONSORS PRESENTATION - SONJA RUSSELL Should have the application for the
Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith fund ready by the beginning of February in order to get
feedback before submitting it. Try Bank SA (Westpac), they may be more inclined to fund
us this year as they have a lot of money. Santos used to sponsor the formula SAE project
but as it is no longer running we could try and get them to transfer those funds to this
project. Tasks:
Add Boeing and Raytheon to the list.
Find someone to talk to at DSTO in the right department.
Get Maziar to send past fund application to us.
cclii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Andrew talk to contacts for the SANTOS donations.

Start talking to people to get the project known
Prepare letter to email to companies to ask for a meeting - R0012/09
5. CONCEPT DRAFTS CALLUM CHARTIER Decided that the payload should be
a camera so the satellite will be for imaging, the objective of this project will be to
successfully get a CubeSat into space. Tasks:
Look into having a temperature or a radiation sensor.
Start an excel spreadsheet to keep track of the mass of the satellite aero student R0013/09
Start an excel spreadsheet to keep track of the power the satellite will need (Mass
and power will change constantly as the design changes) mechatronics student R0014/09.
Have a 1:5 drawing ready for next meeting with everything on it, also have ANSYS
done on the design - R0015/09.
6. REMAINING ITEMS There was insufficient time for Michaels or Drews presentations.
Michael will have to do his presentation on the Bill of Materials in the next meeting. Drew
is to send his project pitch presentation to Maziar, he will make comments at another time.
2010/01/08
HELD IN S238A FRIDAY JANUARY 8TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
ccliii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
Bill of materials
Technical tasks
ANSYS
Technical drawing
Orbital mechanics
Scale drawing
Letter to companies
Project pitch
MEETING COMMENCED AT 11AM
1. BILL OF MATERIALS R0016/10 MICHAEL MACKAY Michael presented the first
draft of the bill of materials
The mechatronics students have to communicate extra costs
look into costs of batteries and solar cells to try and reduce costs
2. TECHNICAL TASKS R0006/09 MICHAEL MACKAY
Look at the 2008 technical tasks and use these as templates
Send it to Maziar, he will look at it and send it back
This will go in the preliminary report, it will have to be addressed in the final report
so make sure the primary goals can and will be achieved
ccliv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The goals listed are good but they have to be more detailed, for example talk about
the ground station
3. ANSYS R0015/09 Students doing the subject FEA in first semester should do this part,
it could be credited to the subject
4. TECHNICAL DRAWING R0017/10 ANDREW WALLIS AND DREW RAVALICO
Two of the boards have to be purchased but we will make the other two
Make a list of requirements for all components i.e. the communications board shall
be installed where? Etc.
Make sketches of the boards that we will be building
Prepare the first concept drawing including their positions in the satellite
5. ORBITAL MECHANICS R0011/09 CALLUM CHARTIER
Contact Netherlands launch company or anywhere where orbital mechanics
information is available and figure out the orbital mechanics based on that
Find out what adjustments have to be done so that the orbit passes over Adelaide
Come up with algorithm to show where the satellite is at all times
Have animation of the satellites position over time at next meeting
Talk to Roghan Shamin (Not sure of the spelling) for practical information
6. SCALE DRAWING R0018/10 SONJA, MICHAEL AND CALLUM - Have to give the
exact available dimensions to the mechatronics students - Drawing should include sub
assembly drawings - Find out how P-Pods work
7. LETTER TO COMPANIES R0012/09 SONJA RUSSELL Include in the letter: Introduce self - What we want to do - Request meeting - Dont give too much information
in the email so we get a chance to tell them face to face - Dont use university logo
8. PROJECT PITCH R007/09 SONJA RUSSELL - An extensive list of changes that
have to be done are included in the hand written notes from the meeting
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:20 PM
cclv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/01/15
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
Orbital Mechanics
Scale drawing
Grant Application
Communications
Mechatronics
Weeks tasks
1. ORBITAL MECHANICS R0011/09 CALLUM CHARTIER 11AM
Make sure the equations are understood
See if it is possible to get enough information from the ISIS launch to make a
simulation of what our satellite would do if we used it
Andrew send letter to ISIS asking for information R0020/0
cclvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Andrew Get Maziar to send you the contact details of the Indian guy
2. SCALE DRAWING R0018/10 MICHAEL MACKAY AND SONJA RUSSELL 11:22AM
Make exploded view
Have to decide how to orient the satellite, will we have one side always pointed at
the sun and then take a picture when this lines up with the camera pointing at the
earth or have solar cells on all sides and have the camera always pointing at the
earth?
Having cells on all sides could save on mass and chance of fail due to the
deployment mechanism R0021/10
3. GRANT APPLICATION R0022/10 SONJA RUSSELL 11:30AM

Send the completed grant application to Maziar before the next meeting so we can
discuss it then
Describe the project as a two phase project, launch is 2nd phase and will be planned
later, therefore money will be applied for separately
4. COMMUNICATION GROUP 11:37AM
Use internal meeting to distribute work load and coordinate everyone
Michael, as the technical manager, has to know about all the technical decisions
made, be at meetings and be aware of everything that is going on. He does not have
to be asked for permission he just has to be aware of everything technical that is
going on in the project
Sonja as the communications manager has to be told about all communications made
with external parties, this includes emails, grant applications etc. Again she does not
have to be asked for permission for every little email that is made, she just has to be
updated in the internal meetings so that she can keep an eye on it.
cclvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
5. MECHATRONICS ANDREW WALLIS AND DREW RAVALICO 11:50AM

By next week the technical drawing has to include prices of components
In next weeks meeting give a presentation about the pros and cons of the best 4/5
cubes R0023/10
6. BY NEXT WEEK GROUP 11:55AM
Make presentation of decision matrix of layout of satellite R0021/10 MICHAEL
Try to get the position of everything decided on - Look at the centre of mass of the
satellite, what would happen if it was too high etc., what could be done about it?
R0024/10 CALLUM?
Bill of materials of the two boards that we have to build R0025/10 DREW AND
ANDREW
Find out what has to be tested and find out ways we could go about it R0026/10
MICHAEL?
2010/01/22
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
cclviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Sponsor Pitch
Letter to company
Bill of Materials
Communication
Layout presentation
Grant application
Next week
1. SPONSOR PITCH R0007/09 SONJA RUSSELL 11AM
Change font to white on blue and size between 18 and 24
Arial
Calibri
Verdana
Spend between 40seconds and 1minute
Change head of school to program coordinator
Good picture of CubeSat on one of first slides
Slide 7
More technical information i.e. seems like nanosatellites are the future of. . .
Slide 10
More information
Include drawings and tables
Make it 2/3 pages long
cclix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Slide 11
Two tables for the two phases o Include in kind from uni
Launch
Give prices, say cost between, some of the launches and the one we want to
get on
Include more pictures
Title is most important make interesting
Text is mostly to help the talker
Include pictures to keep people interested
Work as a group to complete the power point
2. LETTER TO COMPANY R0012/09 SONJA RUSSELL
First paragraph
Who we are
What we are doing
Why we are writing purpose of letter o 4/5 lines
Second paragraph
About CubeSats
What we want to achieve
Background information
More technical than other paragraphs
The components etc.
About 10 lines
Third Paragraph o About 4 lines
cclx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
What we want
Include lines such as the university alone cannot fund the whole project and
the university will already be providing a lot of support
We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our project to you
Include another paragraph where appropriate to include info about the company
(5/6 lines)
Include phone number and address at top of letter (letter is sent from Sonja) o Sonja
Russell Telephone no. 0403921885 School of Mechanical Engineering University of
Adelaide SA 5005
Two to three people at the meeting
1. Knows the general picture of the project
2. Payload expert
3. Non technical info i.e. how to go about sponsoring us
Take a report of the meeting i.e. list of questions they ask, how the presentation
could have been improved etc.
3. BILL OF MATERIALS R0016/10 MICHAEL MACKAY
For the second model, only have to make structural model, dont have to get a
second copy of the circuit boards etc.
Everything has to be tested to some degree
Second model can be used to find the reserve factor
4. COMMUNICATION GROUP 11:37AM
Everyone is to fill out a time sheet weekly
Sonja is to make sure time sheets are updated weekly
cclxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Michael is to make sure work is spread out evenly

5. LAYOUT PRESENTATION R0032/10 MICHAEL MACHAY Have to justify all the
coefficients in the decision matrix by next week 6. GRANT APPLICATION R0022/10
SONJA RUSSELL
Split scope up into two stages
Risk mitigation- take out meetings, tech stuff is good
Deliverables-to the School of Mechanical Engineering
Cost Make the two stages more separate
Communication plan Give report to Smith fund
7. NEXT WEEK GROUP
Finalise decision matrix on layout
Cad drawings include positions of solar arrays and boards have a package of
drawings - Start two sets of calculations on the structure- static loading, thermal
loading
Update layout of boards
Calculations done for attitude control
Email chosen meeting times to Maziar
Have an on-line spreadsheet made for time sheets
Next internal meeting is 9am Monday
25/01/2010 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12NOON
cclxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/01/29
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
Meeting times
Grant App
Website
Bill of Materials
Solar cells
Layout presentation
CAD
Cover letter
General
1. MEETING TIMES R0007/09 GROUP Supervised meetings will be held from
3-5pm on Friday afternoons starting from March 5. Maziar will only be at the meeting
cclxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
for the second half (from 4pm) of these meetings as he will be lecturing until 4.
2. GRANT APPLICATION R0022/10 SONJA RUSSELL Due to changes made in the

meeting the grant applications has to be edited and then sent to Maziar so that he can edit
it and send it off.
3. WEBSITE R0037/10 ANDREW WALLIS Andrew has started making a website
for AUSAT 2010. This website will not be able to be hosted by the uni
A summary of the project (R0038/10) is to be written and sent to Maziar so that he
can put it up on his website through the uni
4. BILL OF MATERIALS R0016/10 ANDREW - Update the bill of materials so that the
grant application can be finalised (Refer to Solar Cells next) 5. SOLAR CELLS R0039/10
ANDREW WALLIS
Assume for the bill of materials that they will be bought
Solar cells can break, accommodate for this in the bill of materials
Test solar cells that we have to see if they can be used o Drew Ravalico is elected
safety officer
Will have to have SOP ready before tests
Will have to have risk assessment done before tests o For every test there will be a
test manager
Will have to know what conditions can change for each experiments
Will have to organise the equipment for the experiment
Will have to know what is to be expected from the experiment
Will have to have tables ready for the experiments that have all the varied variables
in it
cclxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Will have to know what processing is to be done with the data afterward
Next week have the three forms ready for the solar cells testing
Send these to everyone beforehand
Technical manager has to be aware of what tests are going to be done and how etc.
All docs have to be reviewed by at least one other person o The test will be done
after next weeks meeting
The test has to be fully designed before this
6. LAYOUT PRESENTATION R0032/10 MICHAEL MACKAY
Clearly non deployable solar cells is the best option
Changes that have to be made to the decision matrix o Reliability should by higher
% o Centre of mass should be higher % as;
If its too high its less stable
If its too low its too stable
7. CAD R0018/10 MICHAEL AND SONJA
Have to show research into o why we chose to have one solid square part of the
frame o effects extra joints will have on the natural frequency
Why would we use split washers
What effect changing that frame will have on the mass, cost etc.
Have to change more corners into curves
Find out the minimum recommended radius for the material used
Look into not having the locating pin as it would be hard to do and would increase
cost as the metal plate would be thicker Technical manager has to make sure all
choices are backed up with sufficient research
cclxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Responsibilities
Sonja drawings
Michael - design issues
Callum talk to workshop to make sure the design can be done in charge of
the design team
XXX in charge of the technical team
All drawings must be finalised by 05/02/2010
Everyone must check the designs before this try to be as critical as possible, ask
questions to make sure design team has thought about everything
8. COVER LETTER R0012/09 SONJA AND CALLUM
Play with words more
For such an ambitious project
Separate the last sentence from the last paragraph
Add statement to that paragraph telling the company how it will bring a lot XXX to
company XXX etc.
Send Letter out to companies before the next meeting R0040/10
9. GENERAL GROUP
- Technical manager has to follow up tasks frequently
- By next week
Effects of heat transfer on layout R0034/10
Stress calculations R0033/10
Finalise complete list of purchase order R0041/10
Finalise Logo R0019/10
Send Sponsor list to Michael so we can all work on sending out the letter
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12NOON
cclxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/02/05
HELD IN S238A FRIDAY FEBRUARY 5TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
Contacting companies
List of purchase order
CAD
Solar cell testing
Electronics update
Layout presentation
Orbital Mechanics
Next week
1. CONTACTING COMPANIES R0040/10 GROUP
Make sure meetings are well organised before hand
Make sure all meetings are followed up
cclxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Follow up on unreplied emails

Next Fridays meeting will be at 9am
2. LIST OF PURCHASE ORDER R0041/10 ANDREW AND DREW
AZUR has given us the price of their solar cells
Drew will contact spectro lab
Andrew/Drew will talk to Emma from AdeSat
3. CAD R0018/10 MICHAEL AND CALLUM
Make a scale model R0042/10
Can be used for demonstration purposes
Get started, completed in 2 weeks Callum is in charge of making sure this gets
done
Start cost spread sheet to keep track of the cost of everything R0043/10
4. SOLAR CELL TESTING R0039/10 ANDREW/DREW
Pre processing
Find out what should happen
Find out why everything should happen
Find any equations that may be used
Decide what the cut off point is will/wont use the cells
Make up a word doc documenting all of this
Testing
Make up spreadsheet with all the varied variables
Have 2 other people there
Set up experiment before hand
cclxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Post processing
Make the graphs or whatever else could be useful to conclude the experiment
5. ELECTRONICS UPDATE ANDREW AND DREW
Maziar has a $500 voucher that we can use.
We must make sure all the documents for the project are easy to find, in order and
backed up
Every time a decision is made then the reasons have to be documented i.e. if a give
board is selected then a document has to be written up to support the choice
Get price quotes from companies/time for delivery
6. LAYOUT PRESENTATION R0032/10 MICHAEL MACKAY
Clearly non deployable solar cells is the best option
Changes that have to be made to the decision matrix o Reliability should by higher
%
Centre of mass should be higher % as;
* If its too high its less stable
* If its too low its too stable
7. ORBITAL MECHANICS R0011/09 CALLUM CHARTIER Callum gave an update on
the orbital mechanics calculations 8. NEXT WEEK
Started stress and heat transfer hand calculations
Find the CubeSat vibrations standards
Make a better effort of contacting the companies
cclxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/02/12
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Contacting Companies
2. Static loading
3. Magnetorquers
4. Communication with satellite
5. Responsibilities
1. CONTACTING COMPANIES R0040/10 GROUP
For companies that are hard to contact we should go to the office
Ch 9 have showed some interest in final year projects in the past
Try defence SA and other government places
Contact the vice chancellor James M
2. STATIC LOADING R0033/10 SONJA
Use 60g acceleration
Find out the static and dynamic loading in all axis
cclxx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Find out how to calculate dynamic loading by next meeting

3. MAGNETORQUERS R0046/10 DREW
Work out the amount of force needed for a change in 10 change
Now put more focus on the satellite and the forces it will need
Make one here talk to Silvio R0047/10
4. COMMUNICATION WITH SATELLITE - ANDREW/DREW
Uni SA dont do UHF/VHF might have to talk to people overseas to get a ground
station look into it more
5. RESPONSIBILITIES
Have to get launch and communications solved
Callum contact people about orbit stuff
Sonja Keep an eye on the deliverables
Michael keep track on people more
Group help Michael be more pro active
Sonja be more involved in getting sponsorship
Sonja Update Grant App again two year project 1st make, 2nd, launch and
communicate
Group Dont give sponsors more info than they ask for
Next week meeting 11am 19/02/2010
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 AM
cclxxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/02/19
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Mock Satellite
2. Dynamic Loading
3. Magnetorquers
4. Solar Cells Test
5. Sponsors
6. Project Summary
7. Thermal Loading calcs
8. Launch
9. Next Meeting
1. MOCK SATELLITE R0042/10 GROUP
Figure out how we are going to be able to make the boards for the mock satellite
The mock up will be at Callums house till Tuesday 23/02/2010 and then it will be
at Drews house
2. DYNAMIC LOADING R0049/10 SONJA
cclxxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Find out more about PSD, this will probably be the major one
Talk to Gareth/Ben Caz to find out about the shaker we have at the school
May have to make a bigger one ourselves or find somewhere where we can get this
done
Try to do some hand calculations assume any values that are not known at this
stage
Make a list of all the things that you will need to know/assumed values
Come up with a method of testing
3. MAGNETORQUERS R0047/10 DREW
Drew made a magnetorquer
Andrew has to make sure all the documentation is done for all tests
Think of a way of testing the magnetorquer that has been made
4. SOLAR CELLS TEST R0039/10 - ANDREW/DREW
Make a mathematical model for all the solar cells
Think about making an animation at a later date
Once the orbital mechanics is understood these two things could be ties into each
other in the animation
Have the tests done and documents finished by 05/03/2010
5. SPONSORS R0052/10 GROUP
Sponsors CAN get money back in tax if they say its something like a research grant
Send form to Maziar before you send it to Boeing (Michael)
Call Hon Michael OBrien tell him that you talked to Andy Thomas
Michael and Sonja are now responsible for co-ordinating the sponsorship stuff
cclxxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Call everyone as much as you can

Call Thales, 6 weeks is too long
6. PROJECT SUMMARY R0038/10 MICHAEL
Maziar will put up the project summary when he gets the time
7. THERMAL LOADING CALCS R0034/10 MICHAEL
Start assuming some values and do some hand calculations
Find out a method of testing
Have to look into thermal vacuum chamber talk to school of physics
8. NEXT MEETING
Contact Indian guy via e-mail He is a uni prof. (Andrew)
Purchase a phone card and contact launch companies especially from US, Russia,
France and China (Andrew)
Send all launch info etc. to Maz via e-mail before 03/03/2010 as he will be meeting
with the Smith fund on this date (Sonja and Andrew)
Go to my uni, fill out all the forms and bring them to the next meeting so that
everyone can sign them
Think about using glue with the screws so that vibrations wont have as much of an
effect
2010/03/05
HELD IN S238A FRIDAY MARCH 5TH 2010
cclxxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
PRESENT:
Chairperson:
Michael Mackay
Note-taker: Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Apologies: Sonja Russell
MEETING COMMENCED AT 4:00 PM
1. MOCK UP CALLUM
The mock up is completed except for
Paint (Top and Bottom panels)
Trim bottom panel to size
Create spacers for electrical boards
Create camera
Electrical board representation
For the time being the mock up construction has been put on hold till all the
components have been selected
Foam was suggested to create 3D electrical board as it would be a better
representation of the real boards
2. MEETING TIME GROUP
Sonjas lecture time has changed to Friday 3-5pm time slot, therefore meeting time
change was proposed
Possible time 5-6pm on Fridays
cclxxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Need to construct a list of 3 possible times and send them to Maziar

3. SPONSORS MICHAEL/SONJA
Thales will not offer sponsorship
Michael has organised a meeting with Defence SA (Tony Martin) for Wednesday
10/03/2010 at 11pm
BAE has not provided a response
Michael gave the power point presentation to his father to give to people in Telstra
and will hear from him next week
Maziar said to try Optus as well
Maziars lunch with smith fund o Presented the grant application to the chair of the
board and sent him a soft copy as well
Launch will not be included in the smith fund application
Also contacted Jim Wiley
Maziar will send us a copy of the updated grant application
4. LAUNCH ANDREW
Andrew hasnt heard from Indian University Contact
Arian space speak French
India/Russia has not replied
NASA launch only for US companies
Could contact US company to join our project and for them to apply for the NASA
launch
Possibility of collaborating with US School/University
Send Russian launch company in Kazakhstan a fax
cclxxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
5. ORBITAL MECHANICS R0011/09 CALLUM CHARTIER

Callum presented his simulation so far
Simulation will produce a 2D and 3D plot of the orbit of AUSAT 2010
Later simulation will be able to read in orbital information from AUSATs output to
get updated prediction of AUSATs orbit
Everyone needs to learn how to do each area of the project
Will be completed by next week
6. RADIO COMMUNICATION DREW
Contact Professor Collerman for radio communication and hand radio questions
One ways we can get free radio communication is to put up a offer on the internet
for hand radio enthusiasts to receive and send us communications with AUSAT
7. FINAL YEAR PROJECT FORMS
Final year project goals were good
Put names on the project expectations form and submit one
Print and fill in 3 project forms submit each
8. THERMAL LOADING -MICHAEL
Michael completed a simulation to calculate the bulk temperature of AUSAT
Use a software package to calculate the temperature for operation
Need to go to the physics department to either use or borrow a thermal vacuum
chamber
9. OPTICS/ANTENNAS - DREW
Drew is currently contacting people about possible cameras to use
Antenna decided to be made by our group as COTS cost approximately $3000
cclxxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Contact electrical school

10. MAGNETORQUER TESTING - DREW
Drew came up with two possible ways to test the magnetorquers (using string or
bearings)
Maziar suggested using a bath tub of water
Maziar said to talk to Silvio in electronics workshop as they will have a set up we
could use
Maziar wants to see the test results by next meeting
11. SOLAR CELL TESTING ANDREW/DREW
Holden lab have a dark room that we could use
Contact Silvio for assistance
Maziar wants to see the test results by next meeting
Initial test is just the solar cells at various angles
Later tests include with epoxy and at temperatures
12. MAZIAR
Wants invoice/quotation of all the components to build the satellite by next week
All electronics need to be at the start of next meeting
2010/03/16
HELD IN S238A TUESDAY MARCH 16TH 2010
cclxxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Forms
2. Sponsors
3. Purchasing components
4. Solar Cell tests
5. Magnetorquers
6. Launch
7. Orbital Mechanics
8. Workshop
9. Notes
1. Forms R0056/10 Sonja
All SPPA forms have to be signed ASAP and given to Sonja so that they can be
handed into the School of Mechanical Engineering and put into Mizars drop box
Contract has been signed by everyone
2. Sponsors - R0052/10 Sonja and Michael
Will accept the $10,000 from The SRSKS Fund and will use this to purchase
everything other that the communications board
Only Sonja and Michael are to be working on the sponsors but Drew will still come
to the meetings
cclxxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Solve
Communications board problem
Launch money
Keep talking to people and trying to get name out there
Talk to Vice Chancellor (James McWah) or Deputy Vice Chancellor (Mike Brooks)
Talk to dean of faculty (Peter Dowd)
Try to get AZUR space to donate the solar panels
Send Sonja the emails with AZUR space thus far
3. Purchasing components - R0057/10 Andrew and Drew
Ask for invoices for everything
Find out how to pay
By credit card is best as it takes far less time than bank check
Order as much as possible by next week
4. Solar Cell tests R0039/10 Drew
The solar cells are with the workshop who have purchased the conductive glue
needed
Drew is to try and get involved in the workshop activities so that he can understand
the processes involved and therefore what is to be considered in future designing
and planning
5. Magnetorquers R0053/10 Drew
Tests have shown that the magnetorquers can turn 1kg around 90
The amount of torque produced by the magnetorquers can not yet be controlled or
calculated
cclxxx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Make sure the tests are done in an isolated place independent of magnetic fields
produced by surrounding electronics
Figure out how to calculate the acting magnetic field
Make the tests results repeatable
* Talk to Physics
* Talk to elec eng
6. Launch R0001/09 Andrew
Andrew is to give the letters and phone numbers that he wants to send to Russia
and India to Maziar so that he can fax them
Andrew is to email Andrew Thomas about getting a US uni involved
Make sure Maziar is ccd in the email so that Andrew can see that he is involved
7. Orbital Mechanics - R0011/09 Callum
Use the orbital mechanics program to calculate the best places for launch
Make the matlab output make an animation for future demonstration purposes
8. Workshop R0058/10 Callum
Take a set of the drawings down to the workshop so that:
they can get an idea about how complicated the designs will be
How much time it will take them to make it
Make up the drawing of the boards
Find out how long it would take the workshop to make them
Look into other companies for the boards
Make sure drawings are ready by next week so that Maziar can take them to an
outside contact
cclxxxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
9. Notes
When doing tests make sure plenty of photos are taken
Become more active as a group get things done
2010/03/23
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Sponsorship
2. Electronics and Invoices
3. Solar Cells Tests
4. Magnetorquers Tests
5. Sponsors
6. Gantt Chart
7. Workshop
8. Other
1. Sponsorship R0052/10 Sonja 1-1:11
cclxxxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
What talking to the school

Dont ask for sponsorship, ask for money
Tell them about the Smith Fund
Say we will want $150,000 over three years but were only asking for the first
year at this stage
Ask for $25k
Say that we are looking into getting involved with a US uni (Through Andrew
Thomas) so that launch will only cost about $40,000 otherwise $90,000
Smith Fund
Have accepted the $10,000
Tony Martin
If he thinks we should use S band then they should give us more money for it
AZUR SPACE
Tell them to send us a set of 15 and the invoice for a set so we may purchase
some in the future
Tell them we will pay for shipping
Tell them we will test the ones sent to us and then may buy more depending
2. Electronics and Invoices R0054/10 and R0055/10 Andrew 1:11 1:15
No info back thus far Call them
Most of board design is done
3. Solar Cells Tests R0039/10 Drew 1:15 1:20
Drew is booked in to work on it on Wednesday
Talk to elec. eng, see what they have in their workshop
cclxxxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
4. Magnetorquers Tests R0053/10 Drew 1:20 1:35

Showed videos of the tests
Still no able to get any accurate numerical results
Look at the IEEE standards
Talk to Physics Sonja
An accurate and reusable test rig has to be designed for future tests
Sign all the documents and do all the safety documents
Look at interference from the body on the magnetorquers
Use 2007 CubeSat for tests
Think about a 6 DOF hinge
Use drawing to calculate the moment of inertia of the satellite for the tests
See if there is some outside company that can help with testing magnetic torque
5. Sponsors R0052/10 Sonja 1:34 1:38
Michael talked to Scott from Lockhead Martin Australia
He will talk to the board this week
Finalise everything tell companies that we have $10,000 and to let us know what
they are going to do
6. Gantt Chart Michael 1:38 1:39
Finalised gave a copy to Maziar
7. Workshop Callum 1:39 1:42
Have to include space in design for the magnetorquers
cclxxxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Bring package of drawings down to workshop on Tuesday before the next meeting
to be discussed in the meeting
8. Other 1:46 1:49
Send launch stuff to Sonja/Michael so that more time can be spent on the
mechatronics
Next meeting
Go through all electronic components
* Price
* Info
* Installation
* Etc.
Have the design of the board List of essential tests R0060/10
List of preferred tests R0061/10
* Where
* How
* Etc.
Compile
Maziar will not be at the meeting on 06/04/2010
Bring Gantt chart to internal meetings
Let Maziar know about the outcome of the meeting with Peter Dowd
Take minutes
Maziar will drop by at the meeting on the 29th
Room booking is still to be confirmed
cclxxxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/03/30
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Sponsorship
2. Electronics and Invoices
3. Solar Cells
4. Magnetorquers Tests
5. Drawings/Workshop
6. Next Meeting/Other
1. Sponsorship R0052/10 Sonja
Contact Tony Martin often
Email Naomi
Talk to Jackie about Peter Dowd make sure we get $5k
Texas Uni
Have to move fast due to application date
Ask the Texas uni to look after the communications and formal tests etc.
cclxxxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Santos said no to sponsorship

2. Electronics and Invoices R0054/10 and R0055/10 Andrew
Have to find a new micro controller as the one we wanted to use does not have
enough memory
Could look into having two one for coms and one for the rest o the satellite
PC boards can be on the outside of the satellite as we have 6.5mm space on the sides
between the rails
EPS invoice give to Maziar so that it can be signed and order it
Get a low cost coms board for testing
3. Solar Cells Tests R0039/10 Drew
Cant get them to work
Would be easier to purchase as panels but would be more expensive look into
Look into other cells
May use carbon fibre but this may have more issues due to creating a Faraday Cage
Talk to Ian Linkey from Electrical Engineering
Andrew will look into re-flow
4. Magnetorquers Tests R0053/10 Drew, Andrew, Callum, Sonja
Come up with new tests
Could use a torsional string
Just one string
Weight of satellite may effect this
Damping is too low
cclxxxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Try to make less force as it gets closer to the correct angle

Try to write a code to model the damping vibration
Results and set up should be completed by next meeting
Hand over from Drew to aero guys
5. Drawings/Workshop R0058/10 Callum
USB and kill switch may have to move
May have to change mock model
Find out ASAP
Finished by next meeting
Magnetorquer tests and results Sonja, Michael and Callum
Find mass, CG, Ixx, Iyy etc. Of satellite - Callum
Finalise board
Ask Wendy to issue purchase order - Get Maziar to sign
Ask AZUR SPACE for invoice
Start looking at the report
Try not to have more the 3 steps
cclxxxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/04/13
HELD IN S238A TUESDAY APRIL 13TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Absent: Callum Chartier
SUMMARY
1. Electronics
2. Solar Cells
3. Imaging System
4. Transmitter
5. Magnetorquers/Attitude Control
6. Sponsors
7. Other
1. Electronics and Invoices R0054/10 and R0055/10 Andrew
Components have to be radiation tolerant
If not then they could fail within two days
* Only the small components like the memory chip and the micro controller
will be a problem
Some documents confirm this other say that at the altitude we will be aiming
for radiation wont be too much of a problem
cclxxxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Will have to put more research into this

Contact Physics to see if they have radiation testing facilities
Drew will have to make sure he understands the PCB design as he may have to
help out and will have to be able to check over it once it is completed
The Design for the PCB board should be complete by the end of tomorrow
Make sure we have all the quotes for the components by Friday
2. Solar Cells Tests R0039/10 Drew and purchase R0055/10 Sonja
Tried to get in contact with a few other solar cell companies to get quotes but they
are yet to reply
Electrical Engineering have been helpful
Suggested that we use epoxy to hold the contacts together and therefore no
soldering has to be done
* This could be too fiddly, If the epoxy gets between the contacts then the
whole cell will have to be thrown out
* Could look into using conductive glue to hold the contacts together and
therefore if some glue gets between the contacts it wont be catastrophic This could then be further held in place by the epoxy
Drew will call SpectraLab tonight
Get an invoice for 10*good cells from AZUR SPACE
Solar Cell Tests
Made sure the cell started from directly in line with the sun, this was done by
lining the shadow up so that it was exactly behind the solar cell rig and then
making it as small as possible.
Use the values found and calculate the power/current/voltage per unit area
ccxc
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
* This can be used to compare the findings with other cells

Results: Theory max: 1.16W Measured max: 1.021W This is a very good result
Find a tool to measure the exact radiation at the time of the tests and include
this in the equations
Write a matlab code to calculate the power at any time in the orbit
* Expand on Michaels code so that any orbit inclination can be used could
even make the code work for any orbit at a range of altitudes
* Link the simulations in matlab codes (orbital mechanics, temperature)
together
Now the problem of joining the cells has to be solved
Start to order the cells as we might not have time for this later
Get invoice to Maziar tomorrow if we want to get 25 of the lower quality cells
from AZUR SPACE (as we have already got this invoice)
3. Imaging System R0051/10 Drew
Select the best camera for our budget and mass restrictions
Aim for a 1MP camera
Have to look into how long it would take to download an image from the satellite
would like this to be done in one pass, otherwise it might be more difficult to
program
Could look into this more, is it really necessary to download the whole image
in one pass?
Find a reliable supplier
Organise purchase order by the end of the week
4. Transmitter
ccxci
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Get a low cost transmitter for testing purposes

Do we want up-link and down-link?
Do some study on conceptual design
Look into ground station
Design Ground station
5. Magnetorquers Tests R0053/10 Sonja and Michael
Test has been designed, theory, pre processing and post processing documents have
been written up the only problem now is getting hold of a Helmholtz Coil Pair
Talk to VIPAC and DSTO
If we cant get hold of one then we might have to make one ourselves could
look into getting a large amount of permanent magnets (doubtful that this
would make a uniform field
Drew is going to look into the possibility of having a lower current threw the wire
creating smaller amounts of torque on the satellite avoiding disturbance torques
Michael, Callum and Sonja can now be in charge of organising the sensors, etc. for
the attitude control
6. Sponsors R0052/10 Sonja
Scott Thomson from LockHeed Martin is interested
Follow up on this
Telstra interested
Find out what is happening with this
TEXAS Very interested in collaborating
Problem is that the application has to be in by Wednesday (Tomorrow)
ccxcii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Maziar will send her another email today to see if this can be organised
Will talk about the prelim report content next meeting
Get all the electronics stuff completed
Follow up with the faculty about the $5k
Get an article in the newspaper
Email Maziar to get Clara Paddies contact details
Email her and tell her what we are doing and ask weather she would be
interested in printing an article on it
Abstract
Can talk about the novelty of the project at our level
The presentations are not technical, theyre political
2010/04/27
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
ccxciii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
SUMMARY
1. Texas Uni
2. Sponsorship
3. Electronics
4. Matlab
5. CAD
6. Preliminary Report
7. Abstract
1. Texas Uni
Project proposed by Adelaide Uni put them off and they are no longer that
interested in getting involved
Stuttgart Uni in Germany have VHF/UHF and are interested in getting involved
They will not be able to help with launch
Will still have to work out a ground station here
Uni SA is looking less likely to want to work with us
Design the satellite to the ground station in Germany and work alter if we have to
later for ground station here.
Assume we have enough money for transceiver board
Sonja will be going to a meeting on May 24 to get funding
Still have to contact people at Pultney G. School
Sonja Call Mark Blair
Maziar will send you his phone number
ccxciv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Callum, try again to get money from uncle

We will have to outsource machining
Drew will contact BAE to see if we can get it done there
Could talk to Ian T for help too
3. Matlab Code/Simulation R0070/10
Make a virtual environment for the satellite so we can see how a change in variables
effects he model
Scott Thomson from LockHeed Martin is interested
Follow up on this
Telstra interested
Find out what is happening with this
TEXAS Very interested in collaborating
Problem is that the application has to be in by Wednesday (Tomorrow)
Maziar will send her another email today to see if this can be organised
5. Electronics R0055/10 Andrew
Waiting for email about camera before order is places so that everything can be
purchased in the same order
$100 to $150 for board
$10 camera for testing
Send Maziar information to send Uni SA about the ground station they have
Control communications
ccxcv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Payload communications
* EOD
6. Solar cells R0039/10 Drew
Sonja has placed the order for cells from AZUR SPACE
Make two satellites and include any spare old cells on the old one (we still have 10
good old cells)
Soldering the cells with hot air worked on a broken cell
Now trying to connect up a working cell
Drew will find out if the working cell has been successfully soldered after this
meeting
7. Electronics Andrew
Everything but the micro controller has been purchased
8. MatLab Drew and Callum
The orbital mechanics get less accurate with inclination
A model to calculate the power has been made but there are a few errors that have
to be fixed
Make the program such that it can be made available to students in the future
Talk to Rogan Shamin
He might have some hints/tips
Next week have the main model for this package complete
Weight, power, magnetorquer, thermal loading etc.
9. CAD R0058/10 Callum
ccxcvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The workshop has little to do at the moment so if we want them to make the
structure then get the drawings in ASAP
Drawings are complete and Callum will talk to Riese at 4:30 today
10. Report R0071/10 Group
Draft is due next week
Print a hard copy for next meeting
Maziar will look at it and give feedback
Due 21st May
Should have everything ready by 15th
1/2 people read the whole thing to make sure it flows
Michael will be the main editor
Andrew ill also read through the report
11. Abstract/Article
Send it to Maziar before its sent in so he can give his feedback
Contact other newspapers/radio
We will finish the satellite this year
We are looking for more sponsors
Problems:
* Transceiver
* Ground Station
Mention the sponsors
Plan to launch at the end of 2011
ccxcvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/05/04
HELD IN S238A TUESDAY MAY 4TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Sponsorship
2. Solar Cells
3. Magnetorquers
4. Electronics
5. MatLab
6. Drawings
7. Report
8. Transceiver
9. Other
Meeting with BAE on Thursday about the possibility of them making the structure
of the satellite
SolidTech Might sponsor us but we would have to have the structure in SolidEdge
Might be possible to upload the structure from ProE straight onto SolidEdge
ccxcviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Talk to Peter T from VIPAC

The cells have been successfully soldered without damage
They could do the soldering for no cost but if we want them to do any more then we
will have to talk to mechanical workshop and see if funds can be transferred
The cells have not been tested in the sun as there has been no sun
Talk to school of physics or Uni SA to see if we can get equipment for radiation
testing
3. Magnetorquers R0053/10 Sonja and Michael
The magnetorquer prototype was successfully tested on Thursday, results were
constant and repeatable
The results have not yet been analysed
Will have to test art Uni SA again will the real magnetorquers
Will give them a gift once we are done
4. Electronics R0055/10 Andrew
Transceiver cost has increased by about $5k
Talk to
Douglas Grey about coms board
Coleman wrote a book related to satellite communication
Phill Mechanical workshop about camera lens
Ahon Wandonhigle imaging (I cant read my own hand writing)
Most cameras are not usable due to type of connection
Talk to the manufacturer and see if they can help
ccxcix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
A lot of past CubeSat cameras in the past have been hand made
Have all the info on the coms by Next Tuesday
5. Matlab Code/Simulation R0070/10
The way the satellite has been modelled thus far is bad
The code will have to be redone by taking into account the normal vector to the
faces of the satellite
This will have to be done using quaternions will have to get a code for this
6. CAD R0058/10 Callum
The drawings are going through their last stage now and will be ready for the
meeting with BAE on Thursday
BAE might have 6061 T6 (Not 7075)
If we still want to get 7075 we could talk to Parafield Airport
7. Report R0071/10 Group
Prelim report is worth 10% but is very important as this is what the moderators
mark.
8. Transceiver
Found a low cost S band transceiver
More research has to be done on this
Talk to UniSA about the ground station they have there
Try not to order from Canada and America as they often have hidden costs
Find out about sending the S band transceiver to Australia as it says it wont be
exported out of the US
9. Report
ccc
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The pics in the report are too small

The font is too small formatting is not complete
10. Other
If BAE can make the structure then give them the drawings and find out how long
it will take
Bring drawings and a digital copy of the CAD
Take drawings to Michael R on Friday, if we have BAE on board then let Michael
know
Bring a Gantt chart to next weeks meeting outlining detailed tasks till the end of July
Add ground station to the MatLab code
2010/05/11
HELD IN S117 TUESDAY MAY11TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. BAE
2. Transceiver
ccci
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3. Solar Cells
4. Camera
5. Micro Controller
6. Antenna
7. Uni SA ground station
8. Vibration Testing
9. Exhibition
10. Other
11. Report
1. BAE
Will call Michael this week to let us know when it is ready to be picked up
Callum should be their person of contact
2. Transceiver R0071/10 - Drew
The transceiver has been payed for but the company wants some document from
Maziar and the head of uni etc. first
Tests were not complete due to equipment failure
Once fixed we will be able to test at any time
Dont wait for the other cells before the tests as more thing could go wrong
4. Camera R0055/10 Drew and Andrew
5 mega pixel Kodak Sensor
Andrew Emailed Kodak on Saturday, will call them to get a quote
It would take us too long to get one custom made
cccii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Off the shelf cant get what we require as the small cameras with the right
connections are not a good enough quality
Call some of the companies
Tell them what we want and ask them if they can do it
How long?
How much?
Nikon and Cannon are probably the best to call, Kodak may also be good
Drew will work on this with Andrew
5. Micro Controller R0055/10 - Andrew
Purchase both GPS
6. Antenna R0069/10 - Drew
Spoke to Coloman
Use patch antenna
Make it out of PTFE
Easy to make
Will we be able to test it and calculate its gain?
Make a patch antenna and then talk to him about it
7. Uni SA ground station
FEDSAT had a 2W transceiver, we only have one so link budget could be a bit low
but it should be okay
Organise a meeting with Kasparian to see if we can organise to use the ground
station
8. Vibration Testing
ccciii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Shaker at the uni is for mass less than 500g

Civil eng might have one
Colonel Wagner might have one, they are a civil eng company
Bassit vibration testing
Uni SA
9. Exhibition
Can we make a vibration table for the exhibition?
Laptops in the corner to answer questions
Working corner with the report etc.
Greater than 32 for displays never laptops
Times
9am to 5pm to set up
5pm to 7pm open, formal
Next Day open all day
The official poster is what gets judged , have one or two
Could have a table in the middle
Dont set it out like a shop, put everything at the front
Less posters
Have one big cool poster that catches peoples eye
Similar to the front page of the report but include Australia
10. Other
ccciv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Send Michael time tables so he can organise a time for next semesters meetings
Next semester Brad will be a co-supervisor as Maziar will be on study leave and
wont be there as often
11. Preliminary Report R0067/10 Group
50-50 peer asses for the mark
If we get 75%
Michael would get 81%
Sonja would get 79%
Callum would get 79%
Drew would get 76%
Andrew would get 53%
Maziar will moderate this
Include the names of all the people that have helped
Include Smith Fund disclaimer
Some sentences were repeated in the report
Reference a document every time it is used not just at the beginning of the paragraph
Talk more specific to project when introducing a chapter
Dont have blank half pages
Some sentences have been underlined, this indicates that the structure should be
changed
cccv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/05/11
HELD IN S238A TUESDAY MAY 25TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
2. Exhibition
3. Antenna
4. Budget
5. Solar Cells
6. Other
MEETING COMMENCED AT 1PM
1. Preliminary Report R0067/10 Group
Have to include the Smith Fund paragraph in acknowledgments
First paragraph of the chapters are still lecturing too much
Peer Assessment
If anyone gets a low PA mark then they will have to talk to Michael to find a
way of fixing this for the future
2. Exhibition R0072/10
cccvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Outfits R0073/10 have to be organised

We should have formal group outfits for the seminar
Normally cost $40 - $50 own money
Assume space is 3x6m2
Draft of exhibition by next week
3. Antenna
Drew Spoke to Coloman
Ask how to design an antenna
Find out if we can use UniSA ground Station
Organise meeting
Design S band to Uni SA
Maybe also have VHF/UHF for German uni
4. Budget
Update Spread Sheet
May not be able to have a good camera, could look into other sensors
Could test radiation
Gasses
Next meeting bring stats on payloads
Present to group
Pick
Finalise
cccvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
5. Solar Cells
John P from physics has a radiation lamp
Filter can be removed and lamp can be calibrated to imitate orbit radiation
conditions
We can test next week
Can only test cells that have been soldered
Drew is working on the board design
Will get it etched
6. Other
We should do the AIAA comp
Look into vibration tests
2010/06/01
HELD IN S117 TUESDAY JUNE 1ST 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Other
cccviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3. Payload
4. Communications board
5. Exhibition
6. Micro Controller
1. Other
Will have to organise a time for the meetings for the next semester
Wednesday of Friday would be best for Maziar
Next week will be the last supervised meeting for this semester
2. Preliminary Report Draft R0067/10 Group
Maziar will bring the report and the peer assessment values to the next meeting and
well go through it
We should have had the internal deadline earlier, it was evident in the report
Peer Assessment
Group has to work on work load distribution
Organise a meeting to discuss the individual peer assessment as an issue has
been highlighted
Why?
How to fix?
Try to make sure we all get the same coefficient for the final report
Reason could be due to the group not seeing the work that is done
Might have to present work to the group more
cccix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Reason could be because it takes to long for something to be completed or

achieved
Sonja Send Maziar an email to remind him
Bring report to next meeting
Bring peer assessment to next meeting
3. Payload - Michael
50% of past CubeSat missions used a camera as a payload
The best camera used was on a 3U CubeSat
Look into CanX-I - 1 pixel for 100by100m2
That would be 6 pixels for Adelaide
Wont even be able to see rivers
Experimental payloads have not been very successful
2 had a Geiger counter
Will stick to having a camera as a payload
Would it be possible to send a picture to the ground station straight away so
that it doesnt have to store it
Could use an SD card for memory
Military category (for the vibrations )
Could go with a black and white camera
This could allow for better image quality
Use a phone type camera to practice
Get a picture of the moon
Finalise decision by next week
cccx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Due to extra money and S-band try and find a 3/4Mp colour camera
4. Communications board R0071/10 Drew
Micro Hard have 2 S-Band transceivers
19 grams each
$1400 Canadian dollars for the two
Get a proper invoice and order them ASAP as we dont want to wait for them
to make the next batch
Try to order on credit card
Dont go for UHF/VHF at all if UniSA is happy to help
5. Exhibition - Sonja
Get info on Helmholtz Coil Pair so that they can be purchased
Also include one poster/video on bulk temperature analysis
Look at the shaker at the uni
Ask if we can use it for the exhibition
Make sure 3 major tests are included
6. Micro Controller Andrew
Next Meeting
Micro Controller design
Camera selection
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2PM
cccxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/07/07
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY JULY 7TH 2010
PRESENT:
Note-taker: Michael Mackay
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Supervisors: Dr Maziar Arjomandi
Brad Gibson
SUMMARY
1. Meeting
2. Report
3. GPS
4. Scales/Mass Budget and Moment of Inertia
5. Vibrations
6. Solar Panel Design
7. Thermal
8. Testing
9. Tasks
MEETING COMMENCED AT 2 PM
1. Meeting
Davis room booked from 2 pm 3:30 pm
Talk to Brad Gibson from now on for day to day activities. Maziar still needs to be
informed and be in charge of finances.
2. Report Michael
cccxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Michael has a copy of the preliminary report and will be in charge of organising
times to go through it as a group
3. GPS - Andrew
Emailed the CubeSat mailing list
Email Coleman about having an unrestricted GPS that would be cheap enough for
the project.
Get in contact with Clyde Space to see if the have or know anyone who have a GPS
suitable for CubeSats
4. Scales/Mass Budget/Moment of Inertia - Michael
Ask either Silvio or Maziar for a set of scales to measure all the components
Must find the mass and moment of inertia of each board so that mock boards can be
made
5. Vibrations Sonja
Use a prototype that has all the old solar cells. Need to test prototype to check that
adhesive between solar cells and PCB will hold in launch environments.
Need to make mock boards and prototype by the end of the mid year break.
6. Solar Panel Design - Drew
Need to have design into Silvio by Friday the 9th of July so that the solar panels can
be completed asap.
7. Thermal - Michael
Need to complete and update thermal code
Find out about what needs to be done about a thermal vacuum chamber
8. Testing
cccxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Testing needs to be done on prototype, leave launch qualification testing for future
work
Look into a UV testing facility
Need to look into an apparatus to test the functionality of the microcontroller and
whether the positioning algorithms are correct
9. Tasks
Sonja needs to have a financial budget up to date to show Brad and look into
vibration testing
Michael needs to finalise thermal code, look into thermal testing and weigh all
components
Drew needs to have the solar panels design finalised by Friday and start antenna
design theory
Andrew needs to get in contact with a number of people about finding a suitable
GPS and finalise the microcontroller design
Callum needs to work on orbital mechanics simulations and make mock board
models for use in the prototype.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3 PM
2010/07/14
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY JULY 14TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
cccxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Drew Ravalico
Supervisor: Brad Gibson

Absent: Callum Chartier- work
SUMMARY
1. GPS
2. Solar Cells
3. Microcontroller
4. Payload
5. STK
6. Thermal loading
7. Vibration Tests
8. Cost Spread Sheet
9. Spacer Design
10. Antenna Design
1. GPS - Andrew
Waiting on NovAtel GPS price via email
Contacted Clyde Space they use NovAtel GPS
2 types available
OEM V1 1W
OEM STAR
* 0.5W
For now we will finish the satellite with a non space grade board
2. Solar Cells
cccxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Solar cell PCB design has been given to Silvio

This is to be made out of the old cells initially
Should be completed within a few days
Three diff designs (for the three different sides)
One of each design will be made and these will be tested to make sure they
fit/work etc.
Glue still has to be selected
Silicon glue would be:
Flexible enough to damp the vibrations to the cells
Good heat properties
Glue has to be able to withstand the radiation
There must be no air bubbles in the glue
Sonja is waiting to hear back from Anthony Wicht to find out what glue they
used on BLUEsat
3. Micro Controller
Back ordered
Andrew will call the company tonight to find out how long it will take
If it will take too long then we will have to look into other options, may have to
go for a non space grade component for the time being
4. Payload
Andrew has not yet heard back from anyone
5. STK
Organise to get them to give us the full STK version and show us how to use it
cccxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Sonja will email Michael their contact details so that this can get organised while she
is away
6. Vibration Tests
Sonja is waiting on a copy of a vibrations test document from VIPAC so that we
know what information we would have to know before we organise the tests
7. Thermal Loading
Michael has a copy of the AAU Sat thermal testing documents
They only went down to -10 even though the CubeSat standards go down to
-30
Check with Roger Clay from Physics to see if they have a thermal vac chamber
The time dependent model of the temperature of the satellite in orbit is not necessary
as we have already calculated the extreme case temperature
Michael is yet to make the internal thermal loading simulation
8. Cost Spread Sheet
Sonja will email this to Brad
9. Spacer Design
We will have to discuss possible materials for the spacers as a group
Aluminium
Good
* as the boards will have a constant position relationship to each other
Bad
* for vibration of the spacers against the rails and the boards
Bad
cccxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
* The Spacer design would have to be very exact to minimise vibrations

Rubber/Plastic
Good
* if in compression then they dont have to be perfect length
Good
* Wont be abrasive against the rails and the boards
Bad
* The boards will be able to vibrate with respect to each other
Bad
* They will have a large effect on the modal frequencies of the structure
Combination
Aluminium with rubber/plastic washers
* Boards will have a fairly constant position relationship to each other
* Design wont have to be too exact
* Wont be abrasive against the boards
* There will still be some effect on the modal frequencies but not as much
* The aluminium spacers will still be able to rub against the rails
May have to look into alternative designs
10. Antenna Design
Drew will design the antenna over the next week
cccxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/07/21
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY JULY 21ST 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisors: Dr Maziar Arjomandi
SUMMARY
1. GPS
2. Antenna Design
3. Mock Board
4. STK
5. Microcontroller
6. Thermal Loading
7. Testing
8. Website
9. Critical Path Method
10. Seminar
1. GPS - Michael
GPS order form has been put into the School Office but with the wrong product
order number. Andrew received an email from Debbie Hughes with the correct PO
number and also informed us that the End User Statement must have the product
number on it.
cccxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
This must be sorted out Friday (23/07/10)

2. Antenna Design - Drew
The dimensions of the patch antenna have been calculated but still need to find out
whether the antenna needs to be linear or circular polarised
At this stage make a linear polarised antenna and then if necessary build a circular
polarised antenna once further research has been conducted so that at least the
communication boards can be tested.
Design to be completed by Friday(23/07/10)
3. Mock Boards Michael and Callum
Designed construction starts tomorrow
4. STK - Michael
Organise a tutorial session for Andrew Guidi to go through the STK package in
CATS A from 9 am till 12 noon on Thursday the 29th of July.
5. Thermal Loading - Michael
Continuing work. Completed by Friday (23/07/10)
6. Microcontroller Andrew Still back ordered
7. Testing
Next week Andrew to present a list of tests that need to be completed. Need to
include:
Procedure of tests
Apparatus
Date
Duration
cccxx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
What are we testing

What are the likely outcomes
8. Website - Andrew
Maziar will check the website to see that it is okay.
Do not upload anymore
information until it is approved

9. Critical Path Method
There are two critical paths that are essential to the completion of the project:
Simulation and Microprocessor
Testing
Need a clear idea of where we want to finish the project
10. Seminar - Michael
Need to present outline next week
11. Next Week
First Item on next weeks agenda
Tests to be presented by Andrew
Second item summary of imaging system option
Either Sonja, Callum or Michael to present into other payloads
Third item
What we want as a working satellite
Last Item
Outline of the seminar
* Title of slides
cccxxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/07028
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY JULY 28ST 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisor: Brad Gibson
SUMMARY
1. Electrical Tests
2. Mechanical Tests
3. Imaging System
4. Glues/Antenna
5. Other Payloads
6. Other
8. Seminar Presentation
1. Electrical Tests - Andrew
Battery Life
Room temperature
The batteries have their own heating element
This test can be completed ASAP complete before the next meeting
Documentation completed
cccxxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Communications Testing
Two computers
1 W should be fine
* would have to get permission to test it at higher powers
1st with the default antenna provided
2nd with the patch antenna
Vacuum Chamber Testing
10-4 Torr = 0.1333Pa
The vacuum chamber at the university will probably not get that low
Sonja
* Organise for Silvio to get the vacuum chamber ready
2. Mechanical Testing Sonja
Vibrations Testing
Test Plan complete this ASAP
Could use the NASA test plan (Saved under GCF...
Also look at the CubeSat vibration test plan
Look into what would be needed for a test pod and how to attach it
Get more information about the VIPAC vibrations table
Add some thermal couples to the satellite internal structure to get an idea about
the temperature distribution
One orbit is approximately 100mins
Drew will make a PC board for thermal testing
cccxxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Magnetorquer Tests
Will have to be on the final structure
Michael is to make a decision on purchasing a Helmholtz coil pair and organise
this ASAP
3. Imaging System - Drew
There is not a lot of options with the imaging system
Decision: Black Fin SRV 1.3MP
This is not as good as we would like but this has been chosen in order to move
forward, this can be changed down the track if need be
May have to be radiation hardened
4. Glue/Antenna - Drew
Glue
Quote: $512/linear yard of glue, minimum of 3
Low outgassing glue
Epoxy not so good for its thermal expansion properties, as the two surfaces
will expand at different rates the glue will have to have some flexibility
Drew will get Silvio to try and glue the panels with the glue that he has in the
work shop
Set in a vacuum chamber
Antenna
Basics of the design are complete
8cm by 6cm
Check the dimensions of in the standards to see if everything else will still be
able to fit on the same side
cccxxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Talk to people to find out how to validate the hand calculations

5. Other payloads - Callum
Most other payload options are already incorporated into our design
Could include a board that has not been space hardened and compare how well it
can function to a space hardened board doing the same thing
Beacon
6. Other
GPS will give the time so a time dependent position of the sun model can be made
in order for the attitude to be determined
Will order a beacon and a UHF VHF trailing edge antenna Drew
7. Orbital Mechanics - Callum
Simulation of the satellite around the earth as it rotates
Will input an arrow pointing towards the sun
Ground track simulations
Will include a shadow from the sun
Attitude simulation with power output
This is using Euler angles at the moment, will be updated to use quaternions
with help from Ben Chartier
8. Seminar Presentation - Michael
We will have to discuss how we will organise who answers what question
Try to share them so that everyone gets to answer at least one question
cccxxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
If one person has not yet answered a question then they could answer a
question about a topic that is not specifically theirs but they do know about
it
We could ask the audience if they have a question specifically for one person
If a question is asked to you but you think someone else would be better suited
to answer it then you can pass it over to them
Michael should allocate questions if they are not asked to a specific person
Sonja and Michael will work on the presentation layout
2010/08/04
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 4TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisors:
Brad Gibson
Maziar Arjomandi
Absent: Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
1. Antenna
2. Other
3. Beacon
4. Micro Controller
cccxxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
5. Glue
6. Tests
8. Seminar
1. Antenna - Drew
May not be able to get the board etched at the uni
Try to find a company outside the uni that can do this
Entec
Callum will call Entec
The antenna could be made out of a different material for testing but the Teflon
allows for a larger band width.
Scan the Design and send them to Chris C for checking
2. Other
Launch may be organised through The University of Toronto
Trying to get our satellite in with their launch of two satellites
UT have all band widths
Maziar is going to talk to them in September
Sonja is to find out about a radiation chamber
3. Beacon antenna Callum
Can send a position if connected to the GPS
Fail safe locate and show that the satellite is there and alive
cccxxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Could be programmed to tell up what isnt working

4. Micro Controller Andrew
Hand drawn design not to scale
The design has three H bridges
These can just be purchased as chips, they dont have to be made up
The design has no tracks yet
This design is important, we need:
Report on design
List of all the components that we have/dont have
Callum and Drew may have to take over the design or at least supervise
Michael or Sonja will have a meeting with Andrew to discuss this and other progress
5. Glue Drew
$1500 too much
If glue is not space grade - test glue on glass before tests are completed on cells
Sonja will organise to get some suitable glass for testing
6. Tests - Sonja
Thermal
Sonja, get Silvio to set up the vacuum chamber so that it can be used
Organise a corner for the vacuum chamber
Vibration
Test pod design by next week Sonja
Might have to get BAE to make the test pod
cccxxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Still have to get more detailed information

Time and place
Method of connecting to vibration table
7. Orbital Mechanics - Callum
Could get STK to test a few cases the we define
Next Step
Quaternions
Put cube into earth model so that the shadow can be calculated
Make wish list for final product
40 days left to complete
8. Seminar Presentation - Michael
Talk to Victoria S to organise invitations for sponsors
Go through completed slides by the end of August
Master Slides
Put the bottom table into the master slides just make multiple masters Sonja
Introduction
1st very general, group etc.
2nd Background and more explanation
Simulation
After conceptual design
Management more time
cccxxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/08/11
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisor: Maziar Arjomandi
SUMMARY
1. Micro Controller
2. Battery/EPS Tests
3. Abstracts
4. Antenna
5. Vacuum Camber
6. Mock Boards
7. Vibration Tests
9. Beacon
10. Other
11. Transceiver
12. Report
13. Seminar Presentation
1. Micro Controller - Andrew
No progress on the micro controller design
cccxxx
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Have to learn how to use the computer program

The board will be designed, ready for etching and submitted to the workshop
tomorrow morning
The only component still outstanding is the H-bridge chip
Camera position is yet to be designed
2. Battery/EPS Tests Andrew
Tests completed
Results will be sent to the rest of the group
There should always be two people present during testing
Tests may have to be repeated
3. Abstracts Michael
The seminar abstract has been submitted
The AIAA abstract has not yet been submitted as no one in the group is a member
Michael will organise this
4. Antenna Drew
An email has been sent to Pavell about making the board but there has been no
response yet
Drew will talk to Pavell after this meeting
5. Vacuum Chamber Sonja
Silvio has the work order and he may take a few weeks to get everything sorted
Sonja will email Silvio about this today
Could organise to get a temperature feedback loop
cccxxxi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
6. Mock Board Michael

The boards are almost complete
The mass is within about 1 gram of the actual boards
The weight distribution has not been modelled, only the CG
7. Vibration Tests Sonja
Complete an ANSYS analysis to see if the mass distribution or slight changes in mass
of the boards makes much difference to the vibration tests
Complete an ANSYS test on the test pod to find out the modal frequencies
The test pod design is almost complete
The test pod might be made out of hard plastic instead of metal if the modal
frequencies are not within the critical range
8. Orbital Mechanics Callum
Wish list has been made
NASA has an Earths magnetic field model
9. Beacon Callum
Yvette will not place the order via the Internet on credit card
Callum has asked for an invoice
Try again to place the order with Wendy while waiting for the invoice
10. Other
Organise a meeting
Make a flow chart for the micro controller and simulation progress
11am tomorrow morning
cccxxxii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
11. Transceiver - Andrew

No progress
Drew will takeover
12. Report Michael
Put dates next to all the sections so that everyone knows when their sections are due
and very little is left to the last minute
Timetable due next week
13. Seminar
Reduce to 27/28 minutes
Micro controller, solar cells and simulation are more important more time
Order (Maziars comments)
Sonja start total 6-7mins
Intro 2mins
Project definition
Feasibility study
General Design
Callum
Simulation 5mins
Andrew 5mins
Microcontroller
Magnetorquer
Drew 5mins
Solar cell tests
cccxxxiii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Communications
Cell assembly
Michael - 5 mins
Manufacture
Tests
Management 30secs
Conclusion
Wrap up 2mins
2010/08/18
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Supervisors: Maziar Arjomandi

SUMMARY
1. Mock Boards
2. Microcontroller
3. Solar Cells
4. Antenna
cccxxxiv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
6. Vibrations Tests
7. Beacon
8. Thermal Tests
9. Transceiver
10. Seminar
11. Report
12. Abstracts
1. Mock Boards Michael/Callum
The mock boards have to be fixed so that they are more similar to the real thing
Use some of the lead that the Wind Turbine group has
2. Microcontroller - Andrew
Board design has been sent to the workshop
Camera will have to be moved
This will be organised after the meeting
Code has been started
3. Solar Cells - Drew
Glue
Low outgassing
What about UV?
Try paste
Can paste be out-gassed?
Test the glue on glass first
cccxxxv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Solar Simulator
All must be completed within the next 2 weeks
4. Antenna Drew
Design has been handed in
5. Orbital Mechanics Callum
De-tumbling code has been started
Still working on the simulation
1 week left to be completed
6. Vibration Tests Sonja
Try to organise two sets of tests
One for when all the boards are completed
One with the mock boards
7. Beacon Callum
Has been ordered
8. Thermal Tests Sonja
Make mock boards with small heaters so the temperatures can be tested
Do two sets of test, one with the heaters and the other with the real electronics
9. Transceiver - Drew
No progress
10. Seminar Group
Go over slides in meeting next week
cccxxxvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Present to BAE on 3rd of September try to organise for this to be pushed back two
weeks
Final slides due Sunday
11. Report Deadline Timetable Michael
Include a column for people to review other peoples parts
12. Abstracts
Accepted to go to Brisbane conference
Michael has signed up for AIAA
Will be submitted by the end of the week
Exhibition draft will be ready by next weeks meeting
2010/08/25
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
1. Seminar run through feedback
2. Other
cccxxxvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
1. Seminar Run Through
Did a run through of the seminar
Received feedback on the seminar
2. Other
Have 2 to 3 hour seminar run through before next meeting
Next week present full run through
2010/09/01
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 1ST 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
1. Microcontroller
2. Magnetorquer
3. Vibrations Tests
4. Antenna
5. Vibrations Tests
cccxxxviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
6. Glue
7. Simulation
8. Attitude Control
9. Seminar
1. Microcontroller Andrew
The microcontroller design was finished today
The microcontroller is being made today and will be finished by the end of
tomorrow
Code
The code was not brought to the meeting, we will meet tomorrow, 9am, to go
through it
Andrew will teach us a little bit about the code so that we can understand
what has to be done
Drew will help Andrew complete the code
Callum, Michael and Sonja will take over the rest of Drews work.
13 DAYS TO HAVE EVERYTHING COMPLETE! The BAE presentation will be done by
Callum and Drew 10/09/2010
2. Magnetorquer - Drew
Will try to make some magnetorquers with a greased bobbin so that they dont get
damaged when they are removed.
Helmholtz coil has been purchased
All the tests (shorts etc.) have to be documented
This has to be completed and installed by the 13th of September
cccxxxix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3. Solar Cells - Drew

Pavell should finish soldering the solar cells by the end of this week
Tests have to be completed by the 13th of this month
4. Antenna Drew
The PTFE design has now been completed
Will send a scan to Christoff for verification
Give the design to Michael and Sonja
Will make an initial mock antenna
Acquire better material so that the good antennas can be made
5. Glue Drew
Vacuum, chamber tests
Bubble appeared under the glass but it did not grow and the glass was
unaffected
The glue for this test corrodes copper no good
Other glues have been too think, they dont flow and can not been used for this
application
Talk to DSTO to find out about other glues
Michael and Sonja will take over this
6. Simulation - Callum
Finding it hard
Struggling with the quaternions
Present this to Sonja and Michael to check if it completed to a satisfactory level
Work on this over the weekend
cccxl
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Deadline is 13th
7. Attitude Control
Say that the program STK will be used for this
All the inputs have been calculated, all that we have to do is purchase the program
8. Seminar
Next week, 8/9/2010, we will go through everyones sections in turn
We will do a few run throughs before hand
2010/09/08
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 9TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
Received feed back on a complete run through of the seminar
cccxli
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/09/15
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
Received feed back on a complete run through of the seminar
2010/09/22
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 22ND 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
cccxlii
X.1
Supervised Meetings

Supervisors:
Maziar Arjomandi
Brad Gibson
SUMMARY
1. Other
2. Publicity
3. Exhibition
4. Microcontroller Code
1. Other
Maziar will be away for the next few weeks
Brad will take over
Bring report to next meeting
2. Publicity
Sell the project
Say it will be launched in 4thQ next year
Engineers Australia
AIAA
The Australian
ABC
etc.
cccxliii
MEETING MINUTES
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3. Exhibition
Exhibition layout draft next week - Sonja
10 min video - Sonja
Posters
Coils - Michael
Solar Cells - Drew
Graded poster - Drew
* Bring first draft next week
* Have three different ideas
4. Microcontroller Code
Drew and Callum work on code
Drew will be in charge
2010/09/29
PRESENT:
Chairperson: Sonja Russell
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Absent:
Michael Mackay - Conference
Drew Ravalico - Conference
cccxliv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Supervisors: Brad Gibson

SUMMARY
1. Microcontroller
2. Vibe Tests
3. Thermal Tests
4. Orbital Mechanics Simulation
5. Beacon
6. Posters
7. Report
1. Microcontroller
Show camera working tonight
email time-line out tonight
next is the EPS code
Next couple of weeks
Has not yet called Honeywell
Will do that tonight
Callum will email out the GPS stuff tonight
2. Vibe Tests
Tests will be on Thursday next week
Have to have solar cells and magnetorquers ready for this
3. Thermal Tests
Have to have at least one solar panel and magnetorquer installed
cccxlv
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Glue may be old, look into replacing

Call glue place tonight
Do tests on Friday
4. Orbital Mechanics Simulation
Update so that inputs can be changed
GUI is to be completed
De-tumble code is still not completely working
Have to vectorise everything
5. Beacon
Wont take our credit card on-line
Still trying to figure it out
This will be organised tonight
6. Posters
Structure poster - keep this background for all posters
Few changes have to be made
Edit the master and email out to everyone so they can use it
Make sure dark text is not on a dark background
7. Report
Brad will email out the nomenclature format that should be used
Will have read through report in next few days
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30
cccxlvi
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/10/06
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 10TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
SUMMARY
1. Microcontroller
2. Conferences
3. Vibration Tests
4. Thermal Tests
6. Beacon
7. Posters
8. Report
1. Microcontroller
Camera might now be working
Magnetometer - Honeywell got back to Andrew, have to check command
Send this email out to everyone
Send out time table of code plans as no-one has received it
cccxlvii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
EPS code has to be changed

This will be done by Friday
Everything is to be up and working by this time next week
Everyone work in CATS E from now on so that w can work together - bring laptops
Remove IMU from report as they are not used
2. Conferences
Drew won best undergraduate presentation - won $300
Tim C is interested in working with us on satellite projects
3. Vibration Tests
Mock boards are installed
Only problem is the glue for the cells
Sonja, send email about glues to Drew
Get some glue for the tape
VIPAC called - test pod had to be altered - tests were delayed
4. Thermal Tests
Drew, Sonja and Michael will do these tests tomorrow
Organise start time tonight
In the process
Videos are in the GUI
Next week organise all the movies etc. for the GUI
cccxlviii
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Complete in 2 weeks
Include talking
6. Beacon
Will post this to a friend in America and they will send it here
Order tonight
7. Posters
Few changes to be made
Include all primary sponsors
8. Report
Michael will make a list tonight of things that still have to be completed
Exec summary has to be fixed
Include nomenclature
Elaborate on orbital mechanics
Fix up past/future
Sum up feasibility study
Include a few more pics
Sum up lit review
Major findings etc.
Concept design - 2 sections
electronics
structure
cccxlix
X.1
Supervised Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Fix electronics section

When saying section use section symbol instead
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30
2010/10/13
HELD IN S117 WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 10TH 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Absent: Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Microcontroller
2. GUI
3. Beacon
4. Posters
5. Exhibition
6. Magnetorquer Tests
7. Vibe Tests
8. Publicity
1. Microcontroller
Camera
cccl
X.1
Supervised Meetings
Sending info but not an image yet

have to have movie of it working
* This will be taken this Friday
Magnetorquer code should be working
EPS not working yet
GPS close to working
By Friday
Camera
Magnetorquer
GPS
2. GUI
Looking very good at the moment
Just have to add more videos
Orbital mechanics now incorporates the earths shadow
3. Beacon
Still on its way
4. Posters
Look into having a darker background
Magnetorquer Poster
Boarder around graph
Get rid of
* Use in other CubeSats
cccli
MEETING MINUTES
X.1
Supervised Meetings
* Too much info

* Less tab size
Graded
More smoke around rocket
Fix red bit
Fix swish
Add lens flare
Make the sun better
Fix caps
Fix full stops
5. Exhibition
Sat spin slowly
Take picture when prompted
Check with Ben Caz about pins in the walls
Give out cold drinks and lollies
Poster on stand on front table
6. Magnetorquer Tests
Tomorrow
7. Vibe Tests
Tuesday next week
8. Publicity
Nothing yet
Get pics for newspaper
Send email to Clair P tomorrow
Tops $80
ccclii
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
X.2
MEETING MINUTES
Internal Meetings
2009/12/15
HELD IN S237 TUESDAY DECEMBER 15th 2009
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
1. LAUNCH ANDREW WALLIS Still has further research to do before the decision
matrix can be made.
2. PROJECT NAME It was unanimously agreed that the project name should be
AUSAT 2010, this is still to be confirmed by Maziar.
3. SPONSORS Callum is to send Sonja his research on possible sponsors including
Maziars comments on his presentation so that Sonja can take over.
4. GRANT APPLICATION Drew is to send Sonja the work he has done on grant
applications so that Sonja can take over.
2009/12/22
MINUTES OF INTERNAL MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL YEAR PROJECT HELD
IN S237 TUESDAY DECEMBER 22TH 2009
PRESENT:
cccliii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Apologies: Andrew Wallis
Summary of Meeting:
Date of next meeting
Task allocation, tasks are;
Orbital Mechanics
Mass and Power spreadsheets
Scale and electronics drawings
ANSYS
Temp/rad sensors
Progress report in project pitch
1. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Tuesday January 5th there will be an internal meeting
to prepare for the supervised meeting on Friday 8th.
2. TASKS ALLOCATED TO EACH STUDENT
Electronics drawings - Drew and Andrew due 8/1/10
Orbital Mechanics - Callum due 8/1/10
Mass spreadsheet - Sonja - On-going
Power spreadsheet - Drew - On-going
Scale detailed drawing - Sonja and Michael will meet at 1pm in S237 5/1/10
ANSYS - Michael, Callum and Drew due 8/1/10
Temperature/radiation sensors - Andrew 8/1/10
3. PROJECT PITCH - DREW Still has to send to Maziar in order to get his comments
cccliv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/01/18
IN LIBRARY MONDAY JANUARY 18TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
Date of next meeting
Technical Tasks
Momentum/Reaction wheels
Launch companies
Bill of materials
Computer programs
Solar cells
Grant application
Mass spreadsheet
Contact UNSW
Logo
Sponsor Pitch
ccclv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
1. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wednesday December20th there will be an internal

meeting to prepare for the supervised meeting on Friday 24th and to make decisions
regarding satellite components
2. TECHNICAL TASKS R0006/09 MICHAEL MACKAY Technical tasks has now
been completed, Michael will add them to drop box tonight
3.
MOMENTUM/REACTION WHEELS R0027/10 CALLUM CHARTIER By
Wednesday 20th January Drew will have sufficient research on momentum wheels,
reaction wheels; a decision matrix will be prepared for Wednesdays meeting so that as
a group we can decide on what we want
4. LAUNCH COMPANIES R0028/10 ANDREW WALLIS Andrew will prepare a
draft letter this week that he can send to companies to find out about launch vehicles
5. BILL OF MATERIALS R0016/10 MICHAEL, DREW AND ANDREW Michael will
put the bill of materials on dropbox, Andrew and Drew will then update it.
6. PROGRAMS SONJA AND MICHAEL Sonja is to bring her laptop into uni so that
Michael can put programs needed onto it.
7. SOLAR CELLS R0029/10 DREW AND ANDREW Callum is to work out how
many solar cells are needed, how much power will therefore be acquired etc., a decision
matrix will be prepared for Wednesdays meeting so that a layout decision can be made
(Deploying solar cells?)
8. CHANGE OF TIMES The default time for internal meetings has now been changed
to 4pm Mondays
9. GRANT APPLICATION R0022/10 Michael is going to do the part of the application
that was sent to him via email by Wednesdays meeting Callum is going to draft a letter
to send to companies by Wednesdays meeting Sonja and Michael will come into uni to
work on this on January 19th
10. MASS SPREAD SHEET R0013/10 Sonja has to improve the mass spread sheet
11. UNSW R0030/10 - SONJA Sonja is to find a contact so that Michael can ask about
the solar cells that UNSW make.
12. LOGO R0019/10 - DREW Drew will look into further designing the logo by
Wednesdays meeting if possible
ccclvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
13. SPONSOR PITCH R0007/09 every one is to look through the pitch and send it back
with their suggested changes by 10pm tonight.
2010/02/01
IN MEETING ROOM S238A MONDAY FEBRUARY 1TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
Meeting Times
Communications
Gantt charts
CAD
MEETING COMMENCED AT 12 NOON 1. INTERNAL MEETING TIMES FOR FIRST
SEMESTER
In first semester internal meetings will be held from 11am-1pm on Mondays.
2. COMMUNICATIONS GROUP
AZUR Space has been emailed about solar cells
Michael will email UNSW about their solar cells this week
Drew will email ISIS this week about their boards
ccclvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
space ready and size modification

3. GANTT CHARTS MICHAEL MACKAY
Michael will now be keeping track on everyone making sure they are up to date
Website to download Gantt project will be emailed out to everyone
4. CAD R0018/10 MICHAEL AND SONJA
Drew will find out if the board size can be changed
CAD will not be working at the uni all week
2010/02/08
IN MEETING ROOM S237 MONDAY FEBRUARY 8TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
Sponsorship contacts
Bill if materials
Finalise Sponsor Pitch
Mock Satellite
MEETING COMMENCED AT 12 NOON
ccclviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
1. SPONSORSHIP CONTACTS - GROUP A few things have to be found out before

some companies are contacted, these are listed in the editgrid document.
Sonja is waiting on replies from companies
Drew will contact companies over the next few days
Andrew is contacting launch companies
Michael is awaiting reply from his companies
Callum has looked into most companies but has to make grant applications/find out
information
2. BILL OF MATERIALS - GROUP
Bill of materials has to be included in documents such as the grant application and
the sponsor pitch
3. FINALISE SPONSOR PITCH DREW
Graph has to be changed
Put the countries in numerical order
Only include operational satellites
Include numbers
Drew is to update his part of the speech
Make sure the idea of the two phases is well explained
4. MOCK SATELLITE GROUP
Callum is to scale up the satellite design and get quotes by the end of tomorrow so
that Maziar can sign off the amount of money we spend
Aim to start building the mock satellite on Wednesday as most people wont be able
to work on it next week
ccclix
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/02/15
IN MEETING ROOM S237 MONDAY FEBRUARY 15TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
Cost spreadsheet
Antenna
Time lapse movie
Time sheets
Sponsors
Contacting Andy Thomas
Mock Satellite
1. COST SPREADSHEET R0043/10 SONJA
Make sure if you spend money on the project give a photocopy of the receipts to
Sonja and make sure you organise either yourself or Sonja to add it to the cost spread
sheet
2. ANTENNA R0050/10 DREW
ccclx
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Drew will look into antennas

3. TIME LAPSE MOVIE SONJA
Finish it
4. TIME SHEETS GROUP
Make sure these are filled in every 2 days, done make Michael ask again or he will
be unhappy
5. SPONSORS GROUP
If a company has not replied by now then email them again by the end of Wednesday
6. CONTACTING ANDY THOMAS ANDREW
Andrew will make sure he keeps A.T. up to date every week - Send him: o Letter to
sponsors (generic) o Technical tasks o Launch letter
7. CONSTRUCT MOCK SATELLITE R0042/10 GROUP - Painting is to be finished by
Wednesday morning - Thursday we will work on construction - Callum has the list of
things that still have to be done
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12 NOON
2010/03/17
IN STUDY ROOM S238 WEDNESDAY MARCH 17TH 2010
PRESENT:
Note-taker: Callum Chartier
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Absent: Sonja Russell
Summary of Meeting:
ccclxi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Project Forms
Electronic Components
Tests
Report
Sponsors
Manufacturing
Progress and Gantt Chart
MEETING COMMENCED AT 1:00PM
1. Project Forms
Project forms have been filled in and sent down to the school office and placed in
Maziar pigeon hole.
2. Electronic components
Michael sent drew and Andrew a possible camera.
Drew has looked into that one and others.
We cannot use the lens and sensor from the 2007 report, due to weight and size
restrictions and complexity of purchasing a lens and sensor separately.
Best course of action is to contact the University of Michigan about the possible
options that they use.
Andrew will be in charge of picking components for the board that is being
constructed as he has more knowledge of
Breakout, IMU, external clocks, temperature sensors on each
Sun Sensor? Possibly we could use the voltage of each of the solar cells for find the
orientation, the magnetic field map will not be enough to determine the orientation
of the satellite.
ccclxii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Need to look into sun sensors before.

Need to find out more information about EPS board- MUST CONTACT SUPPLIERS
BEFORE NEXT MEETING ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF IT.
Electronic components will be selected now (micro-controller) without knowing
what the camera will be. If camera is selected later that needs more processing power
new micro-controller will be selected.
3. Tests
Workshop has not yet completed the solar cell boards.
Magnetorquers testing will be done this Thursday afternoon (tomorrow) by drew,
Andrew, Michael and Callum at Drews house
Current test
Ice-cream container
Turn on
Put into water and held for 30 seconds
Then let go
10V and under (limited by EPS board)
Possible improvements
Draw lines on bottom of tub
Round tub
Compass
To measure magnetic field hold wire and measure current or manometers
Test rig
Need to look at CAD model to size the magnetorquers that will fit in the
CubeSat.
ccclxiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Flat loops
Drew suggested to use sand as the weight
Testing documents-Andrew and drew to send to Michael on Friday for the
magnetorquers and solar panels
USB port has to be included in the Electronic board and the CAD model.
4. Report
Look through report contents and see what you are required to complete/work on.
5. Sponsors
BAE said no. Jim Parks.
Meeting with Dean next Thursday.
Emailed Vice Chancellor for a meeting
Telstra wont reply till next week.
Still need to contact Lockheed Martin
Sonja got an email from Nick Pangelly about sponsorship from AUSPACE, awaiting
reply.
6. Manufacturing
Solar panels in two weeks from ordering
Callum is going to see Mike Riese tomorrow about manufacturing.
Need to fix screws on CAD model.
7. Progress and Gantt Chart
Michael Redid the Gantt chart for submission, everyone needs to look at it for
upcoming tasks and any corrections tell Michael.
Progress We are a few weeks behind
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:53PM
ccclxiv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/03/31
IN STUDY ROOM WEDNESDAY MARCH 31ST 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Absent: Drew
Summary of Meeting:
AZUR SPACE
Invoices
Gantt Chart
Power Point
Hand over of magnetorquer tests
Tests to be done over the year
Tests on solar cells
Electronic components
Drawings
Other
MEETING COMMENCED AT 1:00PM
1. AZUR SPACE - Sonja
The uni can rush through a bank order if need be
ccclxv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Look into finding another group that may want to share costs on solar cells
Look into other places that cells can be purchased
Have to complete the power spread sheet
Can we get cells with enough efficiency for lower costs
2. Invoices - Andrew
By the end of the day the ESP board will have been ordered Andrew
3. Gantt Chart Michael/Group
Has been handed up
Have to start working on the prelim report
Michael will have divided up the report by the end of 01/04/2010
4. Power Point Sonja and Michael
Email D.M. about the power point presentation
Michael has sent the ppp to his dad to present to Telstra should hear about it by
the end of the week
5. Hand over of magnetorquer tests Drew Sonja, Michael and Callum
Talk to Drew at electronics meeting as he is not present
6. Tests to be done over the year - Group
DSCR is on drop box lists tests
Andrew will upload the tests to be done on dropbox tonight
Michael will look at this list and divide it up for further research by the end of
01/04/2010
7. Tests on solar cells Andrew and Drew
ccclxvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Will have talked to Elec Eng by the end of 01/04/2010

Can we calculate how long it will take for the cells to charge the batteries who??
Suns heat flux 1368W/m2 8. Electronic components - Drew and Andrew o
Complete the power spread sheet Andrew
There will now be a second internal meeting every week to talk about the electronic
components
2pm Thursday in study room
9. Drawings Callum, Michael and Michael
CAD has to be updated to incorporate the extra space - Callum
This will have to be made standard so that different cells can be used
Drawings will have to be done by 15/04/2010
Callum will be responsible for organising that this is completed by himself,
Michael and Sonja by this date
10. Other
Everyone MUST update their time sheets Group
Make sure research notebooks are completely updated by the end of the holidays
Group
Follow up all the sponsor contacts Sonja and Michael
Download LYX for the report Group
Complete the website and get it up and running - Andrew
Get the good logo for the site Sonja
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:53PM
ccclxvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/04/06
MINUTES OF AN INTERNAL MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL YEAR PROJECT
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Absent:
Sonja Russell (Flight Lab)
Andrew Wallis (Easter Break)
Callum Chartier (Work Commitments)
SUMMARY
1. Attitude Control
2. Presentation
3. Payload
1. Attitude Control - Drew
More complex than first predicted
Drew is researching into attitude determination. Found that the co-ordinate system
is represented by quaternion
Found a useful theses that details how another CubeSat mission dealt with attitude
control using magnetorquers.
2. Presentation Michael
Sent latest version of presentation to Bill Mackay who will present to Telstra
representatives.
ccclxviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Brett Biddington review latest presentation and had some feedback again.
Need to go over presentation as a group.
3. Payload Drew
Adepth Image solution have been emailed and they may be able to suggest an
appropriate imaging system
2010/04/09
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY APRIL 9TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
EPS
PCB
Preliminary Report
School of Elec. Eng.
FEA
Gantt Chart
Static Loading
ccclxix
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Texas Uni/NASA
Magnetorquers
Power Budget
CAD
CG, Ixx, etc. - Other
1 EPS
Andrew will order it after this meeting
Michael will follow up on this
2 PCB
Has to be space hardened so we may not be able to make this our selves
Space hardened boards (radiation hardened) cost so much because only 1 in 50 made
can be used
Purchasing this board will cost too much. . . we dont have enough funds for this
Drew will keep emailing and calling Adept Solutions
3 Preliminary Report
If choosing to write it up in word that also give the images in a separate file so that
it is easier to compile
Andrew will right up a document explaining how Lyx is used
4 School of Elec. Eng
Drew spoke to Ian Linkey and he told us about the radiation hardening and how it
is too hard to do it here
ccclxx
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Ian spoke to someone who said we could get a free launch if supply our own
deployment mechanism but it wont be as high as we would like
Other issues could arise from this such as:
* The extra speed the satellite would have to travel at such a low altitude
* Aerodynamic drag
Could use this for vibrations testing and not deploy it
5 FEA
Michael and Callum have done extensive dynamic loading analysis on a simplified
structure
Found the range of its natural frequency
* There is only a very small amount of overlap between this and the range of
frequencies to be expected in the random vibrations
The stresses in the structure are very low nothing to worry about
6 Gantt Chart
We are still behind on progress
If we complete the solar cell and magnetorquer tests over the next week then
we could get back on track
7 Static Loading
Michael will put the CAD design on Drop Box so Sonja can do more static loading
analysis
8 Texas Uni/NASA
Andrew will call the lady from Texas Uni tonight
If she can not be reached Andrew will send an email as this is urgent
ccclxxi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Andrew is responsible for making sure the application is made in time

9 Magnetorquers
On Sunday work will be done on these tests at Sonjas house
Michael will come
Callum might come if he is free
Callum has another idea on how these tests could be done
Make sure we read over the document that Drew put on Drop Box before this
10 Power Budget
The power budget is to be done initially without the knowledge of the amount of
power available
This will be used to decide how much power is needed and therefore how
many/what kind of cells are used
Once this is decided the new information on power availability will be used to
update the power budget
The first iteration of the power budget will be done by Tuesdays meeting
11 CAD
Can the camera and the USB/remove before flight pin be on the same side so that
we have more space for the solar cells?
The antennas could go around the camera, Drew will research antennas
As a group we will work on the CAD model on Wednesday
12 CG, Ixx, etc.
This can be read straight from the CAD model
ccclxxii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The value given at the moment will only be a rough estimation as we do not yet
know the weight distribution of the boards
Suggestion that we could make sure that if the CG is off centre then we make sure it
is towards the camera so that there is a chance it helps in aligning with the earth
Do we need to put more research into this?
13 Other
Michaels dad met with Telstra reps and it is looking positive
Tasks:
EPS purchase Andrew
Adept Solutions Drew
PCB design Andrew
Texas uni Andrew
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35AM
2010/04/14
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
PCB
ccclxxiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
Preliminary Report
Magnetorquers
Gantt Chart
Texas Uni
Power Budget
Solar Cells
Imaging System
Transmitter
Abstract/Newspaper
1 PCB
Have to find:
How to connect the EPS/transmitter
Where to put programming header
Where to put the USB
Temperature control
GPS
IMU
* Three DOF gyroscopes (little chips)
Aero team
Look into GPS
Find out about radiation hardened
ccclxxiv
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Find out if the GPS is SPI or I2C or else?

Temperature Sensors
IMU
Michael will add to the abbreviations page
2 Preliminary Report
Andrew has started to right up the document that will explain how to use Lyx
First draft by the end of next week
3 Magnetorquer Tests
Have a large coil with low voltage as opposed to small coil and large voltage as this
gives freedom do increase the force if need be
Michael will look into purchasing a Helmholtz Coil Pair in case we cant find one
Will make the decision to purchase one by the end of the week
Have to get the preliminary calculations off Drew
Take into account the temperature as this effects the resistance
4 Gantt Chart
Getting closer to where we want to be but we still have to work fast to get up to date
5 Texas Uni/NASA
o Have not heard back from Maziar
o Andrew will talk to Maziar after this meeting
6 Power Budget
3mW micro controller
No progress 7 Solar Cells
ccclxxv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Drew still has to contact Spectra Lab

Contact 2007 group to find out why the cells were free
Get an invoice from AZUR SPACE for 10 good cells
SpectraLab cells are slightly smaller which is useful 8 Imaging System
Look for a serial port camera 9 Transmitter
Andrew has to look into this 10 Abstract/Newspaper
Sonja will look into this
2010/04/21
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
PCB
Preliminary Report
Gantt Chart
Power Budget
CAD
ccclxxvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
Solar Cells
Imaging System
Transmitter
Magnetorquer Test
Antennae
Sponsors
Abstract
Other
1 PCB
Will purchase a $10 camera
Testing camera for testing
Have to check if the programmer chip is compatible
Comedia company that could be used for cameras
Tonight will purchase from Spark Fun
Camera
GPS
Programmer
Blue tooth $70
DigiKey
Temperature sensors
ccclxxvii
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
May not be able to make this in the workshop as some things are QFN and this is
too difficult
2 Prelim Report
Must have at a least the dot points and general gist by Friday
Due on the 5th May one complete section with images and everything
3 Gantt Chart
Almost up to date, one week off where we want to be
4 Power Budget
Can be started after matlab code
Have to just assume values and get on with it
Include max, min and idle
5 CAD
A lot of things have to be changed with the CAD drawings
There are a lot of double dimensions
Frame
Tolerances
ISO TAP notes have to be changed
Line types have to be changed
Aluminium 7075 is not available in Australia
* We have access to aluminium 6061
Lighter
Not as strong
ccclxxviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Will talk to Michael R to see what we have to do

Can save weight on the cross bracket
Add 10% of the weight that the program approximates
6 Solar Cells
Gave a good cells to the electronics guy today
Has some conductive tape
He would try soldering it or use small wires
Do we have to have the epoxy?
Some cells come with a clear glass coating like the spectra lab cells
Would be added weight
Has soldered one of them but it could not be checked as it was a dead cell
Could be an issue getting the cells delivered due to the ash cloud over Europe at the
moment
Drew will cal spectra lab tonight ask them to deliver in 4 weeks otherwise we will
go with other company
Once we get the invoice from AZUR SPACE we will purchase unless Drew has
spoken to spectra lab
7 Imaging System
Still have to find a good one but we will be getting a $10 camera tonight with the
order from Spark Fun
Hard to cut the hole for the camera after the side piece is made
8 Transmitter
$70 blue tooth transmitter will be purchased for testing purposes
ccclxxix
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
9 Magnetorquer Test
Drew will make a bobbin, wind up the wire and the glue gun the wire in place
Have to know how much power it will use
Make sure the program will not let more than one magnetorquers running at the
same time the satellite could explode
Design for 1W
Higher power
Less resistance
* Thicker wire
* Shorter wire
If you increase the no. Of coils then there will be more resistance which would
require more voltage
Max dimension is 80 by 80 go for a 75 by 75 bobbin
This will be done by the end of the weekend
10 Antennae
Not much progress
11 Sponsors
Callum will be responsible for making sure the documents get sent to the school
12 Abstract
Working on it on the weekend 13 MatLab
Assume an amount of disturbance torque
14 Other
Electronics meeting time change to 3-4
ccclxxx
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/04/28
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
Funding
Workshop
Magnetorquers
Solar cell testing
MatLab
Static Loading
Report
1 Funding
Sonja got in contact with Mark Blair
He is organising to give us $4k for the project o Drew has started contacting
BAE about the machining to the structure
2 Workshop
ccclxxxi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Will have to get the drawings checked one more time by the work shop and then it
will be ready for construction
Will have to get the drawings authorised by Maziar
3 Magnetorquers
Tests will be done tomorrow
Drew will make the magnetorquer prototype tonight o Bring thermo couples to
measure the temperature of the magnetorquer
4 Solar cell testing
Tabs have been successfully soldered on to a solar cell and the cell still seems to work
fine
The cells come with cover glass on them so they dont have to have epoxy on them
This will have to be checked
5 MatLab
The group will come into uni on Saturday to work on MatLab and the preliminary
report
6 Static Loading
The static loading hand calculations on the structure have been completed
Calculations on the panels still has to be done
7 Report
Make sure section 3, the literature review, is completed by Tuesdays meeting with
Maziar
ccclxxxii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/05/05
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY MAY 5TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
BAE
Solar Cell Testing
Sponsorship
Static Loading
Report
MatLab
1 BAE
Shouldnt have more than 3 people going
Callum has to go as he made the drawings
Drew has to go as they are his contacts
Michael will also go
Make sure all the drawings are in a logical named order
ccclxxxiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
CD and Prints
2pm
2 Solar Cell Testing
Have to talk to physics for a radiation sensor and/or an appropriate radiation source
3 Sponsorship
Callum will send the letter to his school tonight
After talking to BAE may have to talk to Parafield airport for Al 7075
4 Static Loading
Should look at the loading on the screws as well as the structure and panels
5 Report
Have to have the prelim compiled by Friday 14/5/2010
Everyone have their parts completed by 12/5/2010
6 MatLab
Orbital Mechanics will be done by Callum
Attitude will be done by Sonja and Michael
Quaternions
2010/05/26
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY MAY 26TH 2010
ccclxxxiv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
- Peer Assessment
- Gantt Chart
- Electronics
- CAD
- BAE
- School
- Solar Cells
- Cost Spread sheet
- Exhibition
- Website
- MatLab
- Payload
- VibrationsTests
1 Peer Assessment
Everyone is to make sure they have sent their peer assessment to Maziar by the end
of the day
2 Gantt Chart
Drew
Ahead of time with the solar cell testing
ccclxxxv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Still have to select antenna and camera

Callum
Make sure the CAD is organised by this weekend
All the titles and numbers line up etc.
3 Electronics
The micro controller that we want can not be purchased because radiation hardened
micro controllers are restricted
Should take a max of 2 weeks to deliver
Will be selected and purchased before exam break
GPS has a 180km limit
Find a new one $50-$60
PCB
Drew will draw up a good copy of the board design
Callum will give Andrew a blue tooth dongle
4 CAD
Nothing new to report
5 BAE
Michael will call BAE on Friday if they have not contacted him yet
6 School
Callum sent off the letters this morning
7 Solar Cells
ccclxxxvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting with Coloman Wednesday 10:30

Michael
Andrew
Drew
8 Cost Spread Sheet
Drew and Andrew will update the cost spread sheet tonight by 10pm
9 Exhibition
Sonja will be in charge of the exhibition although it will be a group effort
Get in early with the exhibition, they get quite busy closer to the date
At the exhibition
Mock model
Both prototypes
One prototype with magnetorquers, in a gimbal in between a Helmholtz Coil
Pair
Posters
3 TVs
Videos
Live feed
Simulation
Sponsors
10 Website
Will be completed this weekend by Andrew
ccclxxxvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
11 MatLab
Will be completed in the holidays after exams
12 Payload
Still want to try to have a camera payload
Drew will call micro hard
13 Vibrations Tests
Sonja will look into organising this
2010/06/02
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY JUNE 2ND 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
- Gantt Chart
- Transceiver
- Solar Cell Tesing
- Meeting Uni SA
- CAD
- Micro Controller
- Conference
ccclxxxviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
- PCB
- School
- Exhibition
- Website
- Vibrations Testing
- Thermal Testing
- GPS
1 Gantt Chart
Antenna Behind
Drew is to have the design ready for the nest supervised meeting 08/06/2010
2 Transceiver
Drew is still trying to organise the order, this will be completed ASAP
3 Solar Cell Tesing
10 am 03/06/2010 One completed cell
Meet at 9:45 in the mechatronics lab

ccclxxxix
X.2
Internal Meetings
Drew will bring a multi-meter
Pre processing document have not been done yet
4 Meeting Uni SA
Ask if we can use their ground station for free
Bring transceiver information
Bring antenna info
5 CAD
Structure at BAE
A part came out of the chuck when they were CNCing
That part has to be remade
CAD is not yet sorted

cccxc
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Callum will do this on the weekend
6 Micro Controller
Got the microcontroller down to two
Purchase both of them as they are not expensive
2 of each?
7 Conference
Group agrees for half of the registration to come from the project funds
Michael would like to also register
8 PCB
Drew will complete this design in the holidays
9 School
cccxci
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
No word from the school yet
Callum will email them on Thursday
10 Exhibition
Will have a brain storming session about the exhibition before the next supervised
meeting
Talk about the posters

*
What?
*
By who?
11 Website
Has been paid for but nothing has been put up
Completed before the end of the holidays
12 Vibrations Testing
cccxcii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Sonja
Look into shaker table at the uni before 08/06/2010
Ask DSTO if they have any facilities
Sonja has spoken to VIPAC, they may be able to help but they are busy so we have
to be organised and make up a detailed plan
Would have to be in either Melbourne or Sydney
Make a test rig or just put the satellite straight into the machine
Organise the test plan first thing in the holidays

13 Thermal Testing
Michael will look into by 09/06/2010

14 GPS
No update
Have info for 08/06/2010

cccxciii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/06/09
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY JUNE 9TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Absent: Sonja Russell
Summary of Meeting:
- Camera
- GPS
- Jumpsuits
- Holidays
- Microcontroller
1 Camera
Kodak & Nikon Andrew will ring
Time Lapse? Lower quality approx 640x480 VGA
2 GPS
Andrew found that it would be 10000 AUD for a space grade GPS or we would have
to go with a 20 W GPS which would be impractical.
Ask if the cheaper have a restrictor that can be removed
Look into a smaller version of the 20 W option.
cccxciv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3 Jumpsuits
Look into purchasing jumpsuits after exams
4 Holidays
Callum will be away for 2 days on the 27th and 28th of June and at work for 2 weeks
Drew can neither confirm or deny whether he will be away at any stage
5 Micro Controller
Got the microcontroller down to two
Order will be placed soon

2010/07/07
IN STUDY ROOM FRIDAY JULY 7TH 2010
PRESENT: Chairperson: Michael Mackay Note-taker: Michael Mackay Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico Summary of Meeting: - Meeting Times - Gantt Chart - Microcontroller Antenna - Mass Budget - Website
Absent: Sonja Russell (Conference) Callum Chartier (Work)
1 Meeting Times
Monday @ 11 am for electronics in the study room
Wednesday @ 2pm supervised in S117
Friday @ 9 am internal meetings in the study room
cccxcv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2 GPS
Email Michael Albanese to learn about quaternions and start orientation and
positioning algorithms
Solar cells to be designed before end of the holidays
3 Microcontroller
Have two test boards that will be coming soon
4 Antenna
Design to be commenced and completed including a link budget
5 Mass Budget
Need to find scales and weigh all components asap
6 Website
Everyone to come in Monday Morning and write sections of the Website to get it up
and running

2010/07/16
IN THE PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY JULY 16TH 2010
PRESENT:
Chairperson:
Michael Mackay
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
cccxcvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Absent: Callum Chartier Work

Summary of Meeting:
- Mock Boards
- Working Boards
- GPS
- Gantt Chart
- AUSpace
- Solar Cells
- Payload
- Simulation/Attitude Control
- Website
- Exhibition
1 Mock Boards
Sonja came up with a way of measuring the position of the CG of the boards
This measurement will be completed today for the boards that we have
Mock boards will be made by Wednesday
Will be able to assume some weights for the micro controller
Will be made by sticking bits of metal to PCBs
We might have 4 boards organise this
2 Working boards
Construct all the boards so that they will work on ground by the end of the holidays
3 GPS
NovAtel
Will take 6 to 8 weeks to get limits removed 1 week before the seminar
cccxcvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Have to get authorisation for this due to its speed and height could be a
missile
$2500 to get authorised
Group have agreed that we should try to get this
Andrew will talk to Maziar today and then organise the purchase
4 Gantt Chart
Antenna design due today
Magnetometer - $1000 HMR 2300
Drew will organise to order this today
Honey Well
Everything is close to the schedule
Report writing will start in 2 weeks
Abstracts
Michael will work on the seminar abstract
Andrew will work in the exhibition abstract
The first draft will be ready by the first week of uni
5 AUSpace
Michael will contact them today
Try to organise for them to come in next week
6 Solar Cells
Silvio has not yet got back to drew about the progress of the solar panel construction
Drew will look into space glue today
cccxcviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
7 Payload
No update
Dont think apogee will be helpful
Order a backup camera
Black fin
Spark fun
Organise this before 21/07/2010
8 Simulation/Attitude Control
Working on it
Have simulated the sun around the earth
Issues getting the quaternion tool box to work in matlab
9 Website
Everyone should upload their own picture
Communications Drew
EPS Andrew
Attitude Control/Simulation Sonja
10 Exhibition
Projector
Documentary style movie with animations
Include ground track
Drew has a good mic
Animation/footage of:
cccxcix
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
* EPS
* Radiation
* Magnetorquer
* Comms
* Solar Cells
* Heat Transfer
* Launch
Posters
2 for marks
1 eye catching
Display
Glass case with mirror base
* One closed satellite with just the solar cells on the outside
* One dismantled satellite
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10AM

2010/07/23
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY JULY 23RD 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Absent: Sonja Russell (Skiing)
cd
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Summary of Meeting:
- GPS
- Antenna
- Mock boards
- Microcontroller
- Testing
- Thermal Loading
- Matlab Simulation
-Report Contents
1 GPS
Andrew talked to Wendy who has organised forms and put in Maziars pigeon
hole so that it will be ordered today.
2 Antenna
UniSA need a circular polarised antenna to be able to communicate with their

ground station so there wouldnt be much point in designing a linearly polarised
patch antenna.
Drew is continuing to work on designing circular polarised patch antenna.
3 Mock Boards
cdi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Callum and Michael will go down to the Mechanical Workshop and get some metal
weights to add to the mock board.
Updated the scale model to included solar panels. Will wait to put finishing
touches on until design is finalised.
4 Microcontroller
Started programming mock microcontroller with transceiver. Still waiting on the

flight micro controller.
5 Testing
Sonja to work on mechanical testing documents with Michaels. These tests include
Vibrations
Thermal/Vacuum
Magnetorquers
Andrew to work on put all the testing documents together and the electronics tests
that include:
cdii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Solar cell
Battery
Communication
GPS
These testing documents needs to be presented by Andrew at next weeks

supervised meeting (27/07/10)
6 Thermal Loading
Finish MatLab for thermal simulations today

7 Matlab Simulation
Continuing working on orbital mechanics simulation

8 Report Contents
Michael will write up the contents page for the final report by tonight

cdiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/07/30
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY JULY 30RD 2010
PRESENT:
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Summary of Meeting:
- STK
- Engineers Australia Article
- PC board for thermal tests
- Project Goals
- Purchases
- Seminar
- Simulation
1 STK
List Questions to ask Andrew
Get Kylie and Cameron to list their questions
2 Engineers Australia Article
Get this written ASAP
Drew will be responsible for this
3 PC board for thermal tests
cdiv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
How many thermo couples

Options
* 5 one in each corner and one in the middle
* 9 as above but one in the middle of each side too
The vacuum chamber already has some wired connected to the inside
wouldnt be many more than 5 5 will be the best option
4 Project Goals
Michael will update these
The goals should be changed to:
Construct the whole satellite
Complete preliminary testing
Show that all the components work and are fully integrated
Leave complete control codes for another years project as this is far too much
work for us to complete this year
5 Purchases
Helmholtz Coil Pair Michael will organise to purchase this
Beacon
Shows that we have attempted to minimise risk
Callum will look into this
6 Seminar
Sonja will be responsible for the presentation of the slides
Michael will send out the info for this today
Organise a 2 hour slot to go through this with the group
cdv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Everyone bring slide info in basic slide layout

Sonja will have Master slides completed
7 Simulation
The simulation that we have makes many assumptions (e.g. the earth is a sphere).
This can be used to get a ball park estimation of the time and whereabouts of a pass
but it will not be accurate and will have to be updated every pass
Will have to use STK for more detailed information
This could be done as a control project next year

2010/08/06
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY AUGUST 6TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Sonja Russell
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
- Seminar Outline
- Solar Cells
- Solar Simulator
- Glue Test
- Silicon Temperature Sensor
cdvi
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
- Microcontroller
- Battery Life Test
- Beacon
- Work Order
1 Seminar Outline
Has been updated as follows
Section
Presenter
Duration
Introduction
Drew
2 min
Feasibility Study
Drew
4 min
Conceptual Design and Component Selection
Andrew
5 min
Simulations
Callum
5 min
Manufacture
Callum
2 min
Prototype
Sonja
1 min
Analysis and Testing
Sonja
5 min
Management
Michael
5 min
Conclusion
Michael
1 min
Acknowledgements
Question Time
3 min
Sonja will make all master slides available by Wednesday 11th August.
Completed slides into Sonja by the 18th August.
Run through seminar end of August
2 Solar cells
Pavel can solder cells and make antenna from PTFE but requires work order, to be
organised by Drew.
Decided to get all cells soldered by Pavel.
cdvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
3 Solar Simulator
John Prescott has fixed the solar simulator. Once solar panels have been constructed
Drew to organise a time to do test
4 Glue Test
Use glass sheet on bad solar panels boards with glue from electronics workshop to
conduct vacuum tests to validate whether glue is appropriate
5 Silicone Temperature sensors
Silvio is making PCB with silicon temperature sensors rather than thermocouples
due to the better sensitivity
6 Microcontroller
Andrew handed up a scale drawing of all the boards. CAD model of boards will be
made.
May need to move the position of the camera
7 Battery Life Test
Will be done over the weekend
8 Beacon
Order a Ne-1 from Astrodev
Trailing antenna design Michael
9 Work order
Send in work order for thermal tests
cdviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/08/13
IN MEETING ROOM S237 MONDAY AUSGUST 13TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Drew Ravalico
Summary of Meeting:
1. Microcontroller
2. Battery life tests
3. Simulation
4. Report
5. Abstract
6. Vacuum Chamber
7. Exhibition
8. Ansys
9. Transceiver testing
10. STK
11. Purchases
12. Antenna
13. Other
1. Microcontroller
Design still not complete
Will be handed into workshop today
cdix
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2. Battery life tests

Everything has to be ready for the report
3. Simulation
Work out power in orbit
Detumbling
Will let us know if this will happen at end of weekend
4. Report
Michael has uploaded due dates for each section - everyone is to make sure this is
done
Uplaod a lyx document
5. Abstract
Brisbane abstract has been submitted
Michael will sign up for for AIAA tonight so he can submit an abstract
Exhibition abstract not ready yet
6. Vacuum Chamber
Get glass glued to PCBs
Drew will talk to Silvio
7. Exhibition
Sonja - a draft plan due wednesday
8. Ansys
weekend
9. Transceiver testing
cdx
X.2
Internal Meetings
Going to go to the beach to get long dist. tests completed

Callum has an adapter
10. STK
Andrew is busy for next few weeks
We probably wont get to use it for our own simulation
11. Purchases
Magnetorquers - waiting on invoice
Sep springs - Michael waiting on invoice
Beacon - Waiting on invoice
Michael will look into purchasing on Monday
Helmholtz Coil Pair
Gyro
GPS - Andrew still going to order this
Will call them today
12. Antenna
Pavell still has not replied
13. Other
Posters - Sonja
Spacers - J-Car
cdxi
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/08/20
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Absent: Callum Chartier unwell
Summary of Meeting:
- Microcontroller
- Report
- Seminar
- Vacuum Chamber
- Mock Boards
- Spreadsheets
- Purchases
-Other
1 Microcontroller Andrew
Workshop will not be able to make it
Could try to get it made by Nick Schulze
The boards will have to be changed somehow because they are too big, they cant be
as close as the connections are
Capacitor will not be on the boards anymore, this took up a lot of space
cdxii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The design is now completely different

The board will have to be soldered by hand
CAD will have to be updated before the mock boards are built
The board design will be completed tonight
ANSYS should be done before the mock boards are built
2 Report
Michael will do the first edit, he will then print it out for each of us to read and edit
Concept Design chapter has now been changed to Concept Design and
Component Selection
Everyone has to upload datasheets or other relevant information for the appendices
by Sunday
3 Seminar
Slides are to be sent to Sonja by Sunday
4 Vacuum Chamber
Andrew will talk to Silvio after this meeting and organise
Boards with heaters for the thermal tests
Find out if we can use the vacuum chamber without Silvio there
Check to see if glue is dry?
Find out if heat sensors are ready
5 Mock Boards
Michael will work with Callum over the weekend to get these made
6 Spread Sheets
cdxiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Cost Spread Sheet

Everyone will make sure this is updated by Sunday
Power and Mass spread sheets will be updated on drop box by Sunday
7 Purchases
Helmoltz Coil Pair
Michael is still going to purchase one
GPS
Second one will be paid for today

2010/08/27
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
- Seminar run through
1 Seminar run through
cdxiv
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Run through of seminar

Received feedback from group on each part
2010/09/03
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 3RD 2010
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
1. Microcontroller
2. Simulation
3. Report
4. Seminar
5. Glue
6. Solar Cells
7. Transceiver
8. Mock Boards
9. Time spread sheet
1. Microcontroller - Drew/Michael
EPS
cdxv
X.2
Internal Meetings
Andrew
Transceiver
Send stuff - Drew
Magnetometer
Get x,y,z etc - Andrew
GPS
GPS coord and time - Andrew
Camera
Send/take picture - Andrew
Andrew - Plan by end of day
Board - after seminar
2. Simulation - Callum
Tomorrow detumble will be working
Monday will be able to show it working
3. Report Michael
Will send out chpaters to each person tonight
Print and then edit with red pen
By Wednesday
4. Seminar
Power budget - Michael has updated
Run throguh 11am Monday
cdxvi
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
BAE - Callum, Drew and Michael

Bring gifts
5. Glue
Ask CubeSat mailing list
Try varnish on copper and then use the copper corrosive glue
6. Solar Cells
Drew has to organise today
Will try to glue on monday
7. Transceiver
Tests will be done on a clear day
Santos building/Uni building/Sonjas house etc.
8. Mock Boards
Still have to cut
weekend
Will complete by monday
9. Time spread sheet
Complete before Wednesday
cdxvii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/09/17
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY SPETEMBER 17TH 2010
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
- Seminar run through
1 Seminar run through
Run through of seminar
Received feedback from group on each part
2010/09/24
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 24TH 2010
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Andrew Wallis
cdxviii
X.2
Internal Meetings
Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
1. Solar Cell Glue
2. Micro Controller
3. Simulation
4. Exhibition
5. Report
6. Other
1. Solar Cell Glue
After 2 days - still wet
2. Micro Controller
Not much more done
Hand over to Callum and Drew today
Call magnetometer people today
Deadlines - Complete by Wed 06/19/2010
3. Simulation
Change a few inputs so orbit can be changed
Michael will organise STK for Friday for error analysis
Get detumble to work
Make it work for the students
4. Exhibition
Call Helmoltz Coil company today - Michael
cdxix
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
Globe - Callum
Sonja - request to Mike R
Good posters
-Edward
Hi five
Posters
Helmholtz Coils - Michael
Solar Cells - Drew
Simulation - Callum
Structure - Sonja
5. Report
Michael will give report to Sonja for meeting
Will make a list of report jobs
6. Other
Next week
Exhibition outline
edit
Week after
code complete
cdxx
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/10/08
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY OCTOBER 08TH 2010
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Absent:
Andrew Wallis
Summary of Meeting:
1. Microcontroller
2. Poster
3. GUI.
4. Report
5. Solar Cells
6. Structure
7. Vibe Tests
8. Exhibition
1. Microcontroller
Progress unknown as Andrew isnot here
2. Poster
Put in 2 more logos
Left side
centred
cdxxi
X.2
Internal Meetings
squish up more
Deadline - next friday 15/10/2010
3. GUI.
Deadline - next friday 15/10/2010
movie this weekend
4. Report
Some parts are due today
May have to send draft to brad today - find out
5. Solar Cells
Solar cells held in the thermal vac tests
Glue is still wet
6. Structure
Holes in structure to be made before end date - Callum
7. Vibe Tests
Table is offline so tests delayed again
They will let us know when it is working
Look into uni shakers
8. Exhibition
Mobie
Michael and Callums TV
42
32
26
tops - organise tomorrow
cdxxii
MEETING MINUTES
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2010/10/15
IN PROJECT ROOM FRIDAY OCTOBER 15TH 2010
PRESENT:
Drew Ravalico
Callum Chartier
Absent:
Andrew Wallis
Summary of Meeting:
1. Report
2. GUI
3. Exhibition
4. Posters
5. Publicity
6. Microcontroller
1. Report
Will print first draft on Monady
Some people have items due Saturday
Give the report to DM on Monday
Everyone will go through the report
Include mass of Sat
cdxxiii
X.2
Internal Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
2. GUI
Wii remote - will test tomorrow
More movies have to be included
Add magnetorquers test movie
3. Exhibition
Will get black fabric
Have a motor for turn table
will have to figure out how to get the tables there
Movie - complete by Wednesday
Have info on it
Get vid edit software
Make a list
who is doing what on the day
Callum is working on getting the lasy susan working today
4. Posters
Complete posters by Tuesday next week so they can be printed etc.
Make a testing poster (structure ) - Sonja
Michael - look at words
5. Publicity
Sent newspaper stuff on 14/10/2010
6. Microcontroller
Will send photo by end of day
Callum will take pics of electronics today
cdxxiv
X.3
Other Meetings
X.3
MEETING MINUTES
Other Meetings
Electronics Meetings
2010/04/01
MINUTES OF AN INTERNAL ELECTRONICS MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL
YEAR PROJECT HELD IN S238A THURSDAY APRIL 1ST 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Sonja Russell
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Solar Cells
2. Magnetorquers
3. Custom PCB
1. Solar Cells
Testing
Need to get solar cell testing done (R0039/10) to finalise power requirements
Can start finding the power requirements of selected components and put into a
spreadsheet- Drew R0014/09
Need to talk to the School of Electrical Engineering (Ian Hinkley) they may be able
to solve soldering issues. Drew and Andrew R0064/10
Need to find attachment details for the SpectraLab solar cells. It would be beneficial
not to have tracks around the side of the cells due to space restrictions.
cdxxv
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Investigation into epoxy layer.

Do we need a layer
Does it need to be epoxy
How thick
What have other CubeSat used.
If we can not easily solve the soldering problem with the AZUR cells than
SpectraLab cell with included tabs may be a solution.
2. Magnetorquers Drew
Have only 3.5 mm maximum space for the magnetorquers.
Can be placed on the back of the solar cell printed circuit boards.
Magnetorquer rig design and testing will be handed over to Michael and Sonja.
R0053/10
Need to look into torsion rod
Get any relevant information of Drew
3. Custom PCB Andrew R0017/10
End of the holidays (16/04/10) will be the last date that the custom PCB will need
to be designed and invoices requested for individual components.
As a rough estimation the following will be needed:
ARM 7/9 chip
9 DOF chip
2/3 temperature sensors
CMOS sensor (camera)
USB port RS232 chip
cdxxvi
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
The board will need to control magnetorquers and possibly monitor solar cell
output.
2010/04/08
MINUTES OF INTERNAL ELECTRONICS MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL YEAR
PROJECT HELD IN STUDY ROOM THURSDAY APRIL 8TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
Absent: Callum Chartier
Summary of Meeting:
Custom PCB
Magnetorquer tests
CAD
Solar Cells
Bill of Materials
Imaging
EPS board
1 Custom PCB
85% sure of which chip is going to be used
cdxxvii
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
ARM 7 chip
Otherwise no progress has been made since last meeting
Andrew will have the PCB design done by Tuesday
2 Magnetorquer tests o Drew found info on magnetorquer tests and other useful
information
This will be posted on Drop Box ASAP
Will have to look into how much power is supplied per coil as the document outlines
that a much smaller amount should be used than we had been using previously
Sonja and Michael will work on the magnetorquer tests on Sunday 11/04/2010
3 CAD
CAD has changed a lot
The whole group will go through it in detail on Friday touch up the final design
Make sure everything will fit and can be installed
Drew suggested the magnetorquers be set up similar to that outlined in the
document mentioned previously this may involve largely changing the CAD
model again
4 Solar Cells
Drew will talk to the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering after this
meeting about the solar cell tests
Tests will be done by Monday night o Will have good results to bring to the meeting
on Tuesday
5 Bill of Materials
This has to be updated by Andrew and Drew
cdxxviii
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
6 Imaging
Have not yet heard back from Adepth Solutions
Call them for further information
An imaging system will be chosen before meeting on Tuesday
7 EPS board
The EPS board still has not been purchased
Andrew will organise for this to be done first thing tomorrow morning
2010/04/15
MINUTES OF AN INTERNAL ELECTRONICS MEETING FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL
YEAR PROJECT HELD IN S238A THURSDAY APRIL 15TH 2010
PRESENT:
Andrew Wallis
Drew Ravalico
SUMMARY
1. Solar Cells
2. Custom PCB
1. Solar Cells
Still need to contact SpectraLab.
cdxxix
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
On their website it said:

There would be a 3-6 month lead time for small orders
300 USD per cell, slightly cheaper than the AZUR cells
Cell come with cover class
No small order outside the USA
For testing need to look up at setting up an experiment where the incidence flux on
the cells can be easily measured and is less variable. Look at what the 2007 AdeSat
project used.
2. Custom PCB Andrew R0017/10
All the components still have not been chosen.
Looking at using an Atmel processor.
Callum to look into GPS.
Michael to look into temperature sensor.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12 NOON
cdxxx
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting at Defence SA
Minutes of a Meeting for AUSAT 2010 Final Year Project with Defence SA March 10th
2010
PRESENT:
Chairperson: Tony Martin
Michael Mackay
Drew Ravalico
Summary
Why Defence SA are interested
Other
Contacts
1. WHY DEFENCE SA ARE INTERESTED
Australian Government want to have a Star Sat by the end of the next decade
What to get Adelaide into the space program
Defence SA want to look into micro satellites
Has a copy of the grant application given to the Sir Ross Fund
Is going to add this project into the request that will be sent to the government
Interested in the work COM DEV is doing on AIS on nanosatellites
2. Other
The letter sent to Hon OBrien MP was sent on to Tony
They will receive feedback on their applications on April 6/7
cdxxxi
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Most defence stuff is done with Canada

ITR have funding from Sir Ross Fund on White Light?
Look into VSEC it is supposed to be good
Look into CDF
Look at the space research program guidelines and see if the project outline could
be slightly altered to fit it more
Could look into getting a communications/marking student on board for an extra
project
3. Contacts
Brett Author of Lost in Space
Get in touch with Prof. Martin from Flinders, he is looking into century 2?
Contact Naomi of Michael at Swinburne about CDF
Talk to John Douglas from Apogee International
COM DEV International might be able to donate parts
Richard Colax
John Keetings
Andrew Parfitt Uni SA
Paul Weiss EMS SAT COM
Peter Nottage Cobham
Talk to Ian Tuohy for use of heat room, clean room
Prof. Andrew Parfett S band coms
Jack Mahoney ??
cdxxxii
X.3
Other Meetings
cdxxxiii
MEETING MINUTES
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting With Brett Biddington and Tony Martin

MINUTES MEETING WITH BRETT BINDDINGTON AND TONY MARTIN
DEFENCE SA FOR AUSAT 2010 FINAL YEAR PROJECT HELD IN N113A TUESDAY
MARCH 30TH 2010
PRESENT:
Michael Mackay
Drew Ravalico
Dr Maziar Arjomandi
Guests:
Brett Biddington
Tony Martin - Defence SA
SUMMARY
ASRP
Adelaide Uni plans
Other companies
Power Point Presentation
1. ASRP
We will have to get involved with other companies
2. Future at Adelaide Uni
10kg satellite will come next 3 year project
3. Other companies
AMU
cdxxxiv
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Mount Stromlo
Could get them involved
Will probably be able to work on satellites besides a shaker table
Keep trying Lockheed Martin
Tell the we understand that they are planning to expand in the future
This shows that we have done our homework
Cobham in UK make a lot of space components more into civil aviation in Adelaide
4. Power Point presentation
Look over it with someone who can edit the spelling and presentation on a whole
Make sure it is clear that AdeSat was not a failed CubeSat project but a theoretical
project
Send presentation to BB to show to BAE
Tell the companies that they will want to expand into the space industry in the next
few years as it will be happening
Make sure it is clear that students will be working on the space program in the future
State that part of the learning is to approach the companies and to ask for money
Show that companies are getting a chance to invest in future employees
Put more info into the QB50 project
What are they doing
Can we get involved?
Who and when?
Australia is on the brink of improving the space program
cdxxxv
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Mention that we will be putting an article into XX newspaper with companies name
in it
Talk less about the launch as it is not a part of AUSAT 2010
Make image of time-line of whole program
When do we want the money by?
5. Other
JPL?
Look into getting a display at MAGIC 2010
Talk to Kimberley Clayfield CSIRO Adelaide Uni Grad
Executive Manager
Space Science and Technology
CSIRO Astronomy, Space and Science
Kimberley.clayfield@csiro.au
+612 6281 8506
Presentation to Brett by Thursday he will tell them that they will get contacted and
to give an hour
cdxxxvi
X.3
Other Meetings
MEETING MINUTES
Meeting with Peter Dowd

MINUTES OF A MEETING WITH PETER DOWD, THE DEAN OF ENGINEERING, ON
THE 25TH OF MARCH 2010
PRESENT:
Peter Dowd
Michael Mackay
Sonja Russell
Peter Dowd told us that he was very hesitant to fund any final year projects because
all the projects would then ask for money we had to show that our project was
different and give good reason as to why he should fund it
Michael and I gave the presentation
Questions asked
Who else have you asked for money?
How soon is the money needed?
Further documentation required including:
Detailed description of what the money will be spent on
What will result?
How to show at the end that the money went to the right place
Other notes
Talk to Douglas Grey about RADAR
Would only be able to give about $5k if at all
He will have to think about it
cdxxxvii

AUSAT Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AUSAT Final Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, COMPUTER &MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

955: Design, Build and Launch of a Small Satellite Based on

demonstrated the functionality of all subsystems. An active attitude determination and

The AUSAT project successfully designed,

manufactured and tested all the components required to demonstrate a functional

The Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund

Engineers Australia National Committee for Space Engineering

The University of Adelaide

Additionally the authors would like to thank the following individuals,

Mr. Pavel Simcik for his work in solar cell soldering,

Michael Mackay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . .

Electronics Conceptual Design

5.2.1 Power Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Detail Design and Analysis

7.2.1 Magnetorquer Construction . . . . . .

A CubeSat Design Specification

B Gravity Gradient Theory

C Structural Drawings for Manufacture

H Static Loading Analysis

Random Vibration FEA Analysis Report

Magnetorquer Test Theory

M Battery Life Test Program

O Project Cost Breakdown

S Satellite Detumble Algorithm

U Ausat Vibration Test Plan

V Risk Assessment Forms

W Safe Operating Procedure Forms

Timeline of related CubeSat projects indicating the scope of AUSAT . . . .

CAD model of satellite within test pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shear Stress in the Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Component CubeSat operating temperatures, adapted from CanX-1 (Wells,

Sensitivity Analysis Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satellite Reference Angle to Sun, Angle between Magnetorquer and Reference

Longitude of Ascending Node

Rotation of the Zenith Axis

Internal Area of Magnetorquer

Aperture Diametre, Earths Equatorial Axis, Semi Major Axis

Magnetic Field Strength

Universal Constant of Gravitation

Orbital Height, Substrate Thickness

Mass Moment of Inertia

Length of Magnetorquer, Patch Antenna Length

Effective Extension of Patch Antenna Length

Mass, Magnetic moment

Number of Turns of Magnetorquer Coil, No

Orbital Radius of Satellite, Distance between two points

Patch Antenna Width

Effective Dielectric Constant

Speed of Light in Free Space

Satellite Precession Rate

Satellite Angular Velocity

Torque Produced by Magnetorquer

Airy Disc Diametre

CMOS Sensor Pixel Size

Receiving Antenna Gain

Transmitting Antenna Gain

Earths Second Dynamic Form Factor

Free Space Losses

Mass of the Earth

Received Transmission Power

Transceiver Transmission Power

Infra Red Radiation Flux of the Earth

Period of Free Oscillation