National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table of Contents
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ ii
6.0 Structure, Mechanisms, and Materials ........................................................................... 169
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 169
6.2 State-of-the-Art – Primary Structures ......................................................................... 170
6.2.1 CubeSat Standard .................................................................................................... 170
6.2.2 Custom CubeSat Primary Structures ........................................................................ 172
6.2.3 Primary Structure Standard Dispenser ..................................................................... 173
6.2.4 CubeSat Structures Construction Methods .............................................................. 174
6.3 State-of-the-Art – Mechanisms ........................................................................................ 174
6.3.1 Actuators ................................................................................................................... 175
6.3.2 Deployable Structures .............................................................................................. 178
6.3.3 Robotic Manipulator .................................................................................................. 179
6.3.4 Reliability Considerations ......................................................................................... 180
6.4 State-of-the-Art – Additive Manufacturing .................................................................. 180
6.4.1 Applicability of TRL to Polymer AM ..................................................................... 181
6.4.2 Inspection and Testing ........................................................................................ 181
6.4.3 Thermoplastics and Photopolymers .................................................................... 181
6.4.4 AM Design Optimization ...................................................................................... 190
6.5 Radiation Effects and Mitigation Strategies ................................................................ 191
6.5.1 Shielding from the Space Environment ............................................................... 191
6.5.2 Inherent Mass Shielding ...................................................................................... 192
6.5.3 Shields-1 Mission, Radiation Shielding for CubeSat Structural Design............... 194
6.5.4 Ad Hoc Shielding ................................................................................................. 195
6.5.5 Charge Dissipation Coating ................................................................................. 195
6.5.6 LUNA Innovations, Inc. XP Charge Dissipation Coating ..................................... 196
6.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 196
References................................................................................................................................ 197

i
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glossary
(ABS) Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
(ACS3) Advanced Composite Solar Sail System
(AE) Aerospace Corporation Electron
(AM) Additive manufacturing
(AMODS) Autonomous On-orbit Diagnostic System
(AP) Aerospace Corporation Proton
(CAM) Computer Aided Manufacturing
(CFRP) Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers
(CNC) Computerized Numerical Control
(COBRA) Compact On-Board Robotic Articulator
(COTS) Commercial-off-the-shelf
(CSLI) CubeSat Launch Initiative
(CTD) Composite Technology Deployment
(CTE) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
(DCB) Deployable Composite Boom
(DDD) Displacement Damage Dose
(DLP) Digital Light Projection
(DOF) Degrees of Freedom
(EEE) Electrical, Electronic and Electro-mechanical
(EELV) Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(ESD) Electrostatic Discharge
(ESPA) EELV Secondary Payload Adapter
(FDM) Fused Deposition Modeling
(FFF) Fused Filament Fabrication
(FPGAs) Field Programmable Gate Arrays
(FST) Flame, Smoke, and Toxicity
(GCD) Game Changing Development
(GEVS) General Environmental Verification Standard
(HDT) Heat Deflection Temperature
(ISS) International Space Station
(MOSFETs) Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors
(PAEK) Polyaryletherketone
(PC) Polycarbonate

ii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(PCB) Printed Circuit Board

(PEEK) Polyetheretherketone
(PEI) Polyetherimide
(PEKK) Polyetherketoneketone
(PLA) Polylactic Acid
(PLEO) Polar Low-Earth Orbit
(PSC) Planetary Systems Corporation
(RECS) Robotic Experimental Construction Satellite
(ROC) Roll Out Composite
(SADA) Solar Array Drive Actuator
(SEUs) Single Event Upsets
(SLA) Stereolithography
(SLS) Selective Laser Sintering
(SPEs) Solar Particle Events
(STELOC) Stable Tubular Extendable Lock-Out Composite
(TID) Total Ionizing Dose
(TRAC) Triangle Rollable and Collapsible
(TRL) Technology Readiness Level
(ULA) United Launch Alliance

iii
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

6.0 Structure, Mechanisms, and Materials

6.1 Introduction
Material selection is of primary importance when considering small spacecraft structures.
Requirements for both physical properties (density, thermal expansion, and radiation resistance)
and mechanical properties (modulus, strength, and toughness) must be satisfied. The
manufacture of a typical structure involves both metallic and non-metallic materials, each offering
advantages and disadvantages. Metals tend to be more homogeneous and isotropic, meaning
properties are similar at every point and in every direction. Non-metals, such as composites, are
inhomogeneous and anisotropic by design, meaning properties can be tailored to directional
loads. Recently, resin or photopolymer-based AM has advanced sufficiently to create isotropic
parts. In general, the choice of structural materials is governed by the operating environment of
the spacecraft, while ensuring adequate margin for launch and operational loading. Deliberations
must include more specific issues, such as thermal balance and thermal stress management.
Payload or instrument sensitivity to outgassing and thermal displacements must also be
considered.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has increased custom structural solutions for SmallSats and
demonstrated high throughput of complex structures. Materials that were once out of reach of AM
are now readily available in higher end systems. Once only for secondary structures, AM has
seen an expansion in primary structures – especially in small CubeSat or PocketQube buses.
However, for larger CubeSats and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary
Payload Adapter (ESPA) SmallSats, conventionally machined assemblies constructed from
aluminum alloys still have their place for primary structures. Secondary structures, such as solar
panels, thermal blankets, and subsystems, are attached to primary structures. They stand on their
own and transmit little to no critical structural loads. When a primary structure fails, catastrophic
failure of the mission occurs, and while failure of a secondary structure typically does not affect
the integrity of the spacecraft, it can have a significant impact on the overall mission. These
structural categories serve as a good reference but can be hard to distinguish for small spacecraft
that are particularly constrained by volume. This is especially true for SmallSats, as the
capabilities of these spacecraft may be similar to full size buses, but the volume afforded by
dispensers or deployment rings becomes the constraining factor. Therefore, it is imperative that
structural components are as volume efficient as possible. The primary structural components
need to serve multiple functions to maximize volume efficiency. Such functions may include
thermal management, radiation shielding, pressure containment, and even strain actuation.
These are often assigned to secondary structural components in larger spacecraft.
Structural design is not only affected by different subsystems and launch environments, but also
the spacecraft application and intended environment. There are different configurations for spin-
stabilized and 3-axis stabilized systems, and the instrumentation used places requirements on
the structure. Some instruments require mechanisms, such as deployable booms, to create
enough distance between a magnetometer and the spacecraft to minimize structural effects on
the measurement. The spacecraft exterior and interior material and electronic subsystems need
to be understood in the specific mission environment (e.g., in-space charging effects). Mitigation
for charge build-up is provided in section 6.3.2 Thermoplastics and Photopolymers.
Highly configurable or modular systems may be desirable in quick-turn products, as prototyping
and firmware and software development can be extended further into the spacecraft design cycle
with flight hardware in the loop. Card slot systems not only provide those benefits, but when paired

169
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

with certain standards, they can still fulfill the same structural, mechanical, and thermal
requirements as the current CubeSat method of “stacking” electronics and payloads.
Small satellite mechanisms have advanced with deployable structures, actuators, and switches.
Deployable structures enable large structural applications with minimal volume requirements.
Actuator and switch mechanisms expand the capabilities of small satellites with motion and
deployment applications. These mechanisms enable increased small satellite capabilities beyond
original structural volume constraints.
An overview of radiation effects and some mitigation strategies is included in this chapter because
radiation exposure can impact the structural design of small spacecraft. For SmallSats operating
out of low-Earth orbit with increased radiation exposure, mission planners may also want to
consider risk mitigation strategies associated with specific radiation environments. This includes
both interplanetary missions, where solar radiation dominates, and polar low-Earth orbit (PLEO)
missions, where solar radiation risk increases over the poles. In addition, as solar maximum
approaches in 2025 (1) with an increased number of solar particle events (SPEs), mission
planners will need to consider many orbital environments.
The information described below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides an overview of
current state-of-the-art technologies and their development status for a particular small spacecraft
subsystem. It should be noted that Technology Readiness Level (TRL) designations may vary
with changes specific to payload, mission requirements, reliability considerations, and/or the
environment in which performance was demonstrated. Readers are highly encouraged to reach
out to companies for further information regarding the performance and TRL of described
technology. There is no intention of mentioning certain companies and omitting others based on
their technologies or relationship with NASA.

6.2 State-of-the-Art – Primary Structures

6.2.1 CubeSat Standard

Two general approaches are common for Table 6-1: CubeSat Standard Structure
primary structures, often called frames or Dimensions
chassis, in the small spacecraft market: Type Dimension (mm) Average Weight (kg)
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) structures 1U 100 x 100 x 113.5 0.118
and custom machined or printed 1.5U 100 x 100 x 170.2 0.142
components. It is not surprising that most 2U 100 x 100 x 227 0.220
COTS offerings are for the CubeSat market.
3U 100 x 100 x 340.5 0.352
Often COTS structures can simplify
6U 100 x 226.3 x 366 0.916
development, but only when the complexity
12U 226.3 x 226.3 x 366 1.84
of the mission, subsystems, and payload
requirements fall within the design intent of
a particular COTS structure. Custom machined structures enable greater flexibility in mission
specific system and payload design. The typical commercially available structure has been
designed for low-Earth orbit applications and limited mission durations, where shielding
requirements are confined to limited radiation protection from the Van Allen Belts.
The CubeSat standard structure has evolved with increasing use over many years. The CubeSat
standard structures, also referred to as canisterized satellites, include 1U, 1.5U, 2U, 3U, 6U, and
12U. Table 6-1 shows the nominal weight limits and dimensions of each CubeSat structure from
the CubeSat Design Specification document. There is an extra volume (XL) option available for

170
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

3U, 6U, and 12U CubeSats; this additional

volume, commonly referred to as the “tuna
can” volume, is associated with an individual
dispenser type. This cylindrical XL additional
space allows for structural extensions of the
CubeSat that can be used for various
components. Steamjet Space has developed
Steam Thruster, a tuna can-sized
electrochemical thruster specifically
designed for CubeSats. The 3U CubeSat
Elfin mission used this tuna can space for
antenna deployment. Shields mission also fit
a radiator within its tuna can volume. Figure
6.1 shows this optional volume and location
on the CubeSat.

There are several companies that provide

CubeSat primary structures. Most are
machined from aluminum alloy 6061 or 7075 Figure 6.1: Optional Extra Volume shown on 3U
and are designed with several mounting and 12U –Z Face (also known as a "Tuna Can").
locations for components to allow flexibility in Credit: Cal Poly CubeSat Laboratory.
spacecraft configuration. The SmallSat
community has witnessed an increase in
CubeSat standard configuration over the
last 10 years from 1U to 3U, to include 6U
and 12U. This was due to a higher demand
for more science on a smaller platform, and
by the need for more volume to design more
complex CubeSats that can handle greater
responsibility. Table 6-2 lists several
commercial primary CubeSat structures. Of
the offerings included here, 1U, 3U and 6U
frames are most prevalent, however 12U
frames are becoming more widely available
as there are now more dispensers for the
12U CubeSat structure. Figure 6.2 shows
some commercial examples of 3U, 6U and
12U CubeSat structures.
8U and 16U CubeSat Structure

Following the trend of larger CubeSat Figure 6.2: Various commercial CubeSat structures.
structures that is driven by the needs of the Top Left: NanoAvionics 3U Structure. Credit:
SmallSat market, several companies are NanoAvionics. Top Right: 6U nanosatellite structure.
now offering CubeSat structures not Credit: GomSpace. Lower Left: 12U Structure. Credit:
officially recognized by the CubeSat C3S Electronics Development, LLC. Lower Right:
standard such as the 8U and 16U. 16U structure. Credit: EnduroSat.
Customized dispensers are available that
will host these larger volumes.

171
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 6-2: Commercial Primary CubeSat Structures

Manufacturer Structure (U)
AAC Clyde Space ZAPHOD 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 12U
C3S Electronics Development LLC 3U/3U Plus, 6U, 12U, 16U
Cervos Space 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U
Cosats Satellite Technology COSTR 1U, 1.5U, 3U, 6U, 8U,12U, 16U
EnduroSat 1U, 1.5U, 3U, 6UXL, 8U 12UXL, 16U
German Orbital Systems 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 12U
GomSpace 3U, 6U, 8U, 12U, 16U
Gran Systems 1U, 1.5U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 6UXL
Gumush n-ART 1U, 2U, 3U
ISISPACE 1U, 2U, 2UXL, 3U, 6U, 8U, 12U, 16U
Ishitoshi Machining MBF-1U, 3U
NanoAvionics 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 12U, 16U
Pumpkin Space Systems Supernova 1U, 3U, 6U, 12U
NPC Spacemind SM 1U, 1.5U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 12U
Nara Space Technology 12U, 16U
6.2.2 Custom CubeSat Primary Structures
A growing development in building custom small satellites is the use of detailed interface
requirement guidelines. These focus on payload designs with the understanding of rideshare
safety considerations for mission readiness and deployment methods. Safety considerations
include safety switches, such as the "remove before flight" pins and foot switch, and requirements
that the spacecraft remain powered-off while stowed in the deployment dispensers. Other safety
requirements often entail anodized aluminum rails and specific weight, center of gravity, and
external dimensions for a successful canister or dispenser deployment.
DiskSat Structure
The Aerospace Corporation is developing a DiskSat (figure
6.3) demonstration flight with support from NASA’s Space
Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). The DiskSat is a
1-m circular disk, 2.5 cm thick, graphite-epoxy composite
sandwich, with a structural mass less than 3 Kg/m2. The
volume is close to 20 liters, which is equivalent to a
hypothetical ‘20U’ spacecraft. While the entire volume will
not be filled, the increased surface area is useful for power,
aperture, thermal management, and for manufacturing
simplification. First launch for the demonstration mission is Figure 6.3: DiskSat structure.
planned for 2024 (2). Courtesy of and reprinted by
permission of The Aerospace
Corporation.

172
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

6.2.3 Primary Structure Standard Dispenser

The box that houses the CubeSats in the launch vehicle is called a dispenser (or deployer), and
they dispense (or deploy) the CubeSat into the desired orbit. The CubeSat uses the entire volume
of the dispenser to make use of its full capacity. Since the CubeSat adopts a standard size and
form factor, CubeSat dispensers have also been standardized with two constraint systems: rail-
or tab-type. This allows spacecraft designers and launch service providers to minimize launch
integration cost, increase access to space, and sustain frequent launches (3). The CubeSat
Design Specification document by the CubeSat Program at Cal Poly was created to provide
CubeSat developers baseline requirements that are compatible with as many CubeSat
dispensers and launch opportunities as possible to eliminate launch interface failures (4). To view
the most updated versions of the CubeSat Design Specification, please visit:
[Link] The CubeSat Design Specification document includes rail systems. The
Canisterized Satellite Dispensers (CSD) tab system created by Planetary Systems Corporation
(now Rocket Lab) is the most widely available tab dispenser that offers design flexibility for
structures that do not require the use of rails. See CSD datasheet for detailed information on tab
dispenser (5).

A tab-style canister deployment system uses tabs that are loaded to hold the CubeSat to a wall
of the canister which are released upon deployment. The vibrational load during launch passes
from the launch vehicle to the canister structure with the pre-loaded CubeSat. A CubeSat using
a rail dispenser is lightly loaded on the z-axis. On the x and y axis a thin gap exists between the
rail of the dispenser and rails on the CubeSat which can cause vibrational chatter. The vibrational
chatter adds to the mechanical load of the CubeSat during testing and launch. For more CubeSat
rail vs tab dispensers, please refer to Chapter 10: Launch, Deployment, Integration, and Orbital
Services.

The required interface documents originate with the rideshare integrator for the specific dispenser
being used with the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle provider typically provides the launch
vibrational conditions. The NASA CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) requires CubeSat or SmallSat
systems be able to withstand the General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) vibration
environment of approximately 10 Grms over a 2-minute period (6). The NASA CSLI rideshare
provides electrical safety recommendations for spacecraft power-off requirements during launch
and initial deployment. The detailed dispenser or canister dimensional requirements provide
enough information, including CAD drawings in many cases, to enable a custom structural
application.

Table 6-3 lists some dispenser and canister companies that provide spacecraft physical and
material requirements for integration. In response to the demand for larger CubeSats, dispensers
for 12U CubeSats are now available through several launch service providers like NanoRacks
and United Launch Alliance (ULA) through the Atlas series. There are several European
companies providing deployment for 16U platforms that expand the limits of the CubeSat Design
Specification. The DSOD, EXOpod, and the Quad Pack are all dispensers that can fit a single 16-
unit CubeSat platform or several smaller CubeSats.

173
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 6-3: Spacecraft Physical Dimension and Weight Requirements from Deployers
Manufacturer U Requirements Available Documents
Dimensions, Follows CubeSat
P-POD by Cal Poly 1U, 3U
Weight, Rail Standard (4)
CSD by Planetary Dimensions,
1U, 3U, 6U, 12U
Systems Corp. Weight, Tab
Tyvak Railpod III, 6U Dimensions, Interface Control
3U, 6U, 12U
NLAS, 12U Deployer Weight, Rail Documentation (8)
Dimensions, Interface Guide, CAD
PSC by Rocket Lab 3U, 6U, 12U
Weight, Tabs Drawings (5)
1U, 2U, 3U, 4U, 6U, Dimensions, Follows CubeSat
ISIPOD ISISPACE
8U, 12U Weight, Rail Standard (7)
Gran Systems
Dimensions,
MyPOD Deployer and 3U, 6U Website (9)
Weight, Rail
Test PODs
Dhruva Space
1U, 3U, 6U, 12U, Dimensions,
CubeSat Deployers Website (10)
16U Weight, Rail
DSOD
Exolaunch EXOpod 1U, 2U, 3U, 6U, 8U, Dimensions,
User Manual (11)
CubeSat Deployer 12U, 16U Weight, Rail

6.2.4 CubeSat Structures Construction Methods

Monocoque Construction
Monocoque structures are load-bearing skins that have significant heritage on aircraft. On small
spacecraft, the intent of this design is several-fold – it maximizes internal volume, it provides more
thermal mass for heat sinks or sources, it allows for more mounting points, and it has more surface
area to potentially reduce total ionizing dose (TID). Monocoque construction is common, and
“extruded” designs are relatively easy to fabricate through computerized numerical control (CNC)
machining, waterjet, or laser cutting.
Modular Frame Designs
Modular frames allow for a flexible internal design for quick-turn missions, while still ensuring strict
adherence to external dimensions of the CubeSat standard, especially when deployment from a
standardized, reusable dispenser is required. Open frames are suitable for low-Earth orbit, as
radiation shielding is not provided by the structure. Care must also be taken to design for thermal
mass requirements, as modular frames are inherently light.

6.3 State-of-the-Art – Mechanisms

Spacecraft commonly contain onboard devices whose function are based on mechanical
movement (i.e.: slide, roll, rotate, separate, unfold, or spin) to either modify part of the spacecraft’s
geometry or to ensure operational function of a component or instrument. These devices are
known as mechanisms, and as spacecraft become more sophisticated with the advances in
miniaturization of electronics and systems, their reliance of mechanisms greatly increases.
The domain of spacecraft mechanisms is quite broad as there are many different types in the
design and life of a spacecraft that include the moving parts associated in each phase:
• Deployment: dispensing spacecraft into orbit

174
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• Beginning of mission life: deployments of solar arrays, booms, antennas, instrumentation,

etc.
• Mission maintenance: sun tracking, pointing antennas and instruments, active doors or
shields, gyroscopes and reaction wheels, thrusters, etc.
• End-of-life: deorbiting methods
The technology within the mechanism to perform the movement is accomplished with an actuator.
Depending on the actuation method, spacecraft mechanisms are either passively or actively
driven. Passive mechanisms do not consume electric energy and provide driving power via spring
load, and active mechanisms are motorized to produce driving power for mechanism operation.
Most mechanisms can use both passive and active capabilities depending on the application.
Table 6-4 provides an overview of common spacecraft mechanisms and examples of
technologies used.
The state-of-the-art of small spacecraft mechanisms is quantified on their high reliability, low
power, and light weight characteristics, and the common mechanisms listed below are considered
state of the art for small spacecraft use. For the purposes of this chapter, the mechanisms focus
on deployable extensions, robotic manipulations, release actuation, component pointing, and
gimbal mechanisms. Reliability considerations are provided for optimal operational capabilities,
as well as a brief explanation of the factors that affect spacecraft mechanisms.
Table 6-4: Type of Spacecraft Mechanisms
Type of
Description Technology Examples
Mechanism
Reliable stowage and release of
Clamp band systems, Frangibolts,
spacecraft and deployable
Separation and release nuts, pin pullers, bolts, burn
components upon an external
Release wire, hinges, and passive spring-
command (active) or spring-
loaded switches
loaded (passive).
Solar Array Drive Assembly,
Allows for rotatory motion of
Motorized directional antennas, combination of
spacecraft components.
dampeners and absorbers
Provides pointing accuracy and Reaction (momentum) wheel
Attitude Control stability for spacecraft and assembly, gimbals, component
components. pointing, passive methods
6.3.1 Actuators
By classical definition, actuators are devices that convert electrical, thermal, hydraulic, and/or
pneumatic energy into mechanical motion when said energy is allowed to flow. Active, or
commanded, actuators use onboard data links and electrical transistors to determine the transfer
of energy; whereas passive, or reactive, actuators allow the spacecraft environment (including
external launch systems) to dictate actuator energy transfer. Table 6-5 provides some commercial
actuators.
Specifically, spacecraft actuators are used for a variety of purposes, including:
• Attitude control and gimbaling: to control the orientation of either part (gimbaling), or all
(attitude control), of a spacecraft in space. This is important for pointing sensors,
instruments, and/or communications antennas in a direction required for their use.
o Attitude control general types: reaction control thrusters, momentum wheels,
control moment gyros, magnetic torquers, aerodynamic control surfaces, solar
sails, and gravity gradient stabilizers.

175
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

o Gimbal general types: single-axis, dual-axis, and triple-axis system.

• Propulsion: supporting attitude control system operations, maneuvering to a new orbit, or
reducing orbital velocity to begin atmospheric reentry.
o General types: chemical rocket engines (which can be the same as the upper
stage launch vehicle engines), reaction control thrusters, and electric propulsion
systems. These systems typically require actuated valves to operate.
• Deployment, docking and separation: extend and unfold solar panels, antennas, and other
spacecraft components requiring unpacking to function.
o Deployment general types: hinge-&-spring based, linear-actuator-&-scissor-frame
based, roll-out systems, and inflatable structures.
o Docking general types: probe-and-drogue, peripheral, and soft-capture systems.
o Separation general types: spring-powered or gas-powered systems.
• Thermal control: manage all or part of the spacecraft’s temperature. This is important for
protecting internal components from extreme temperatures.
o General types: louvers, heat pipes, thermoelectric/Peltier devices, and pumped
thermal fluid systems.
Mechanical actuation methods/techniques that are found in many of the above systems include:
• Electric & electromagnetic: AC/DC motor, piezoelectric ceramics, and push/pull & rotary
solenoids (including solenoid valves), and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
• Thermal & thermoelectric: Shape memory alloys (SMA), phase-change liquids/solids
(paraffin wax, liquid metals), thermofluidic gas systems, thermal bimorph structures,
harmonic drive micro actuators (HMAs), thermal knife cutters, and magnesium alloy band
systems.

Figure 6.4: (top left) SADM 1500. Credit: Comat. (right) TiNi Aerospace Frangibolt Actuator and
(right) ML50 microlatch. Credit: Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense.

176
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 6-5: Commercial Actuators

Mass Power Actuation
Manufacturer Product Size (mm) Ref
(Kg) Consumption method
Ensign-Bickford Aerospace 13.72x10.1
TiNi™ FD04 Frangibolt 0.007 15 W @ 9 VD SMA (13)
& Defense Company 6
Ensign-Bickford Aerospace
TiNi™ ML50 0.015 - SMA (14)
& Defense Company
Type 2 Side-Drive Solar
Moog Array Drive Mechanism 5 234x278.6 15 - (15)
(SADM)
Honeybee and MMA Solar Array Drive Actuator
3.1 127x210 - Stepper Motor (16)
Design (SADA)
Solar Array
Comat Space Drive 0.465 83x62x46 4 Geared motor (17)
Mechanism - 400
Solar Array
Comat Space Drive 3.5 201x132 13 Geared motor (18)
Mechanism - 1500
100x100x1
DHV Technology MicroSADA-10 <0.25 - Stepper motor (19)
00
DHV Technology MicroSADA-18 <0.95 226x80x18 - Stepper motor (19)
25.5x25.5
DCUBED Micro Pin Puller (uD3PP) 0.08 - SMA (20)
x 25.5
DCUBED Nano Pin Puller (nD3PP) 0.025 17x17x17 - SMA (20)
Micro Release Nut
DCUBED 0.078 25x25x25 - SMA (21)
(uD3RN)
58.5x36x5
Beyond Gravity Separation Nut PSM 3/8B 0.23 - - (22)
6
Solar Array Rotary
Revolv Space <0.35 97x97x23 1 W (average) - (23)
Actuator (SARA)
0.004-
Nimesis Technology Triggy * * SMA (24)
0.271
Data unknown is represented by -
* See reference

177
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

6.3.2 Deployable Structures

Space deployable mechanisms are structures folded into a compact configuration and deployed
into a larger predetermined shape. The development of deployable structures on spacecraft is
appealing to enable greater mission performance. Once deployed, the structures reconfigure,
changing shape and size from folding and unfolding. Common spacecraft deployables include
antennas, radiators, solar panels, gravity assists, and other science instruments. Small spacecraft
are great candidates for using deployable structures to raise the functionality of a smaller platform.
However, there are limited designs for compact, lightweight, low power deployable structures that
can be folded or rolled up for launch and then self-deployed in space to support these kinds of
systems on small satellites.
There are different types of deployment mechanisms to ensure the deployed structure effectively
expands to the desired configuration in-orbit: folding, sleeve, truss, and inflatable. Deployable
solar arrays are a common folded-type of passive deployment mechanism achieved by
connecting the spring and hinge to increase solar energy for the spacecraft. Please refer to the
Power chapter for deployable solar panels and arrays. The sleeve-type deployment mechanism
is implemented using a rolling or sliding screw conveyor and is commonly seen on SmallSats for
various antennas (24). Inflatable deployment structures are light-weight film material typically
used for larger deployed structures, like solar sails. Please refer to the Deorbit Systems chapter
for deployable mechanisms used for deorbit devices.
For SmallSat applications, it is common that
deployable components are on a boom – a
cantilever arm ejected from the spacecraft – that
can perform various tasks once deployed. See
figure 6.5 for NASA’s GPX-2 CubeSat mission with
a Redwire Space deployable boom to create
gravity gradient stabilization as an example. Figure 6.5: GPX-2 CAD image with
SmallSat deployable structures are common and gravity gradient boom deployed. Credit:
are associated with high reliability. Engineers have NASA.
started developing deployables with different
materials to decrease the
stowage area, mass, and power.
Table 6-6 lists a selection of
commercially available
deployable booms.
NASA Langley Research Center
(LaRC) has developed
Deployable Composite Booms
(DCB) through the Space
Technology Mission Directorate
(STMD) Game Changing
Development (GCD) program
and a joint effort with the German Figure 6.6: NASA Deployable Composite Boom (DCB)
Aerospace Center, see figure Technology. Credit: NASA.
6.6. DCBs have high bending
and torsional stiffness, packaging efficiency, thermal stability, and 25% less weight than metallic
booms (25). The Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) project will demonstrate DCB

178
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

technology for solar sailing applications with an anticipated 2024 launch. The DCB/ACS3 7-m
boom technology is extensible to 16.5 m deployable boom lengths (26).
Engineers have started using origami – the art of paper folding – as a strategy of deployable
structure design. Origami structures are flexible in their deployment direction so that they can be
easily collapsed along the same path they are deployed. One advantage of origami-inspired
mechanisms is potentially faster and cheaper prototyping. Instead of relying on laser cutting or
3D-printing, prototyping of origami-inspired mechanisms can be accomplished using inexpensive
materials like paper before moving to other more expensive materials. Many resources and
patterns already exist that detail how designs can be created and modified or adapted for
engineering purposes (27). Solar panels and arrays, solar sails, and sunshades are examples of
ongoing origami engineered SmallSat components.
Table 6-6: Commercial Deployable Booms
Manufacturer Product Reference
Stable Tubular Extendable Lock-Out
Composite Technology Development (28)
Composite (STELOC)
Oxford Space Systems AstroTube deployable boom (29)
Redwire Space Roll Out Composite (ROC) booms (30)
Redwire Space CubeSat ROC Boom Deployer (31)
Redwire Space ROC-FALL system (31)
Magellan Aerospace Deployable Boom (32)
Rolatube Technology Deployable Composite Booms (33)
6.3.3 Robotic Manipulator
The need for in-space servicing is receiving more attention from the SmallSat community with the
increasing demand of more complex SmallSat with greater capability and longer mission life.
These types of challenges are being solved with robotic manipulations that can perform intricate
actions in space. Tasks such as repairing defunct satellites, in-orbit assembly, satellite servicing,
debris capture, spacecraft system up-keep, construction, and repair are important advances for
future space operations; these challenges are currently expensive and risky to perform. Current
robotic solutions for in-space construction and repair involve humans and use very large,
expensive, custom-built robotic arms with limited capabilities, such as the Canadian Arm. As
NASA’s Artemis program prepares for astronaut presence in lunar and deep space missions on
the Lunar Gateway, there is a greater need for more advanced and maneuverable space robotic
systems. The use of these sophisticated robotic systems on a SmallSat are more alluring than
traditional larger platforms as SmallSats present a more cost-effective and agile solution. A more
agile robotic system can be stowed in small space and deployed to perform several tasks
automatically or semi-automatically.
This section provides an overview of the continuous work
occurring to further develop robotic systems on SmallSats.
Table 6-7 lists a non-exhaustive list of the ongoing work. This
type of SmallSat mechanism is maturing with research and
development at government, academia, and commercial
entities (34). For example, the Naval Academy Satellite Team
for Autonomous Robotics (NSTAR) has developed an
autonomous 3U CubeSat robotic arm system called the Robotic Figure 6.7: SLAC 1
Experimental Construction Satellite (RECS) to be tested on the Robotic Arm Credits:
ISS. RECS was launched November 2022 (35). Sierra Lobo.

179
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 6-7: Robotic Arms for Small Spacecraft

Actuat
Mas Extendabl Stowed Power
Manufactur Produ or Form
s e length Envelope DOF Consumpti
er ct metho Factor
(kg) (mm) (mm) on (W)
d
6 plus
3U
"claw"
CubeS RECS
end-
U.S. Naval at with 300x100x1 Stepper 3U
4 600 effector -
Academy two 00 motor (Nov
actuati
robotic 2022)
on
arms
ESPA
Redwire 1 to 4 m class
- - - 5 to 7 8 to 65 -
Space reach satellit
es
Sierra
Lobo
100x100x1
Sierra Lobo Arm - 30x50x65 3 1.5 - -
00
(SLAC
1)
Data unknown is represented by -

6.3.4 Reliability Considerations

Mechanisms add capabilities and complexities to small satellite design. Additional integration and
testing are required. NASA Reliability and Maintainability Standard (36) describes maintainability,
and “test as you fly,” in addition to multiple other mitigation strategies and considerations. For
mechanisms, it is important to test the full sub-system and system integration for power
consumption and sub-system dependencies. Mechanisms have lifetimes, so it is important to
have a maintainable mechanism and to understand the lifetime of the mechanism from test to
flight. Because mechanisms add complexity and a single point failure risk in some instances,
such as attitude control or solar panel pointing, directional antenna control, or one-time sub-
system deployment switches, it is important to focus on reliability strategies. Mechanisms have
contributed to over 10% of reported small satellite failures (37). Adding a mechanism to enable a
mission increases risk.
The space environment adds to reliability considerations for operational considerations in
vacuum, plasma, and/or thermal environments. For the reliability of mechanisms, there are
multiple steps that contribute to risk mitigation. Sarafin et al. describes a multi-step approach for
a reliable mechanism from design simplicity, margin, supplier selection, to test (38). The steps
include guidance for torque margin for rotating parts, such as solar panel and antenna pointing
motors (38)(39)(40). During ground testing of mechanisms, it is important to understand the
mechanism lifetime, so that the component performs throughout the planned mission duration.
Materials considerations contribute to mechanism reliability in the space environment, such as
lubricant use and material coatings to avoid corrosion and welding of dissimilar materials
(39)(40)(41). Because mechanisms are critical for advanced spacecraft capabilities for power,
communications, and science/research instruments, it is important to add mechanism margin and
tests to the spacecraft development and/or sub-system and system integration.

180
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

6.4 State-of-the-Art – Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing (AM) processes for primary spacecraft structures have long been
proposed but only recently have such methodologies been adopted for flight. AM has been
common for SmallSat secondary structural elements for many years. Typically, the advantage of
AM is to free the designer from constraints imposed by standard manufacturing processes and
allow for monolithic structural elements with complex geometry. In practice, additive
manufacturing has a separate design space and design process, which has seen tighter
integration into computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, and modal and structural
analysis packages in the past few years. Such tools can enable quicker turnaround times for
SmallSat development, and have been instrumental in mass optimization, using AM materials in
radiation shielding, and enabling high-throughput, high-quality manufacturing. As the AM field is
rapidly evolving, this section makes a best attempt to cover as many materials and printers as
possible that are potentially applicable to SmallSat development.
6.4.1 Applicability of TRL to Polymer AM
While AM systems and platforms might be considered mature and of high TRL, the TRL of AM
parts configured for spaceflight depends on the material, the configuration of the actual part, the
manufacturing process of the material, the postprocessing of the manufactured part, the testing
and qualification process, and many other factors. For example, nylon fabricated with a fused
filament fabrication (FFF) system will have different bulk structural properties from nylon
fabricated with a selective laser sintering system.
In other words, a TRL might be assignable to a component created through a particular
manufacturing process with a specific material. If a particular component manufactured with nylon
on an FFF system was flown to LEO successfully, the TRL for this component would be 7. If this
component was subsequently flown on another mission manufactured with Antero 840 PEEK also
on an FFF system, the TRL would still be 7. Documentation of the manufacturing process is
important to properly account for TRL. This section focuses on polymer AM and does not address
metal AM for SmallSats.
6.4.2 Inspection and Testing
When new materials and/or processes are used, testing must be performed to minimize risk and
bridge the gap between TRL levels. In particular, the only way to validate a tailored structure,
component, or material is through testing, especially if more freedom is allocated to research and
development. For new material types, if there is latitude afforded in upfront research and
development, mechanical, modal, and thermal tests should be performed to compare against a
known, proven structural design.
6.4.3 Thermoplastics and Photopolymers
With the expansion of available open-source AM platforms in the last decade, thermoplastics and
photopolymer materials have rapidly gained traction and acceptance in many applications ranging
from mechanical validation and fit-checking to engineering-grade, low-rate production products.
Photopolymer or “thermoset” resins and associated manufacturing processes have improved to
the point where microfluidics experiments may be additively manufactured, with the microfluidics
channels and growth chambers directly manufactured as one piece, as opposed to the more
traditional microfluidics approach of machining a plastic block.
As of publication, there are three primary methods of conducting AM for plastics: FFF, which uses
thermoplastics in either a spool or pellet form; stereolithography (SLA), which uses photopolymer
resin; and selective laser sintering (SLS), which uses a fine powder. Within SLA, there are two

181
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

methods of curing resin: digital light projection (DLP), which uses a very high-resolution LED
matrix – a monochrome display – to cure the entire layer nearly instantly; and polyjets which
deposit resin from a line array of jets, much like an inkjet printer with a large print head.
Certain thermoplastics are quickly gaining acceptance for high-reliability parts and applications
on Earth, although, as of this writing, they have yet to gain widespread acceptance for space
applications. One reason for this is AM methods cannot yet produce surfaces as smooth as
machined metals, which is often a requirement for parts with tight tolerances. However, some
thermoplastics are machinable, such as Nylon or polyetherimide (PEI). Like the manufacture of
cast iron parts, machining to a final, high tolerance specification may allow these thermoplastics
to gain further acceptance.
Except for some large-format AM centers, almost all thermoplastics are manufactured in spools,
and may or may not be packaged for proprietary solutions. For SLA, almost all resins are used
specifically for commercial solutions and AM centers. Additionally, some manufacturers may mix
in additives to enhance material properties or ease the printing process. Because of this, the
following sections on each material include a table of materials for both open-source and
commercial solutions, and selected properties of interest. Availability of recommended nozzle and
bed temperature is indicative of the ability to be printed on an open-source machine, except
otherwise noted in the material description. Materials are not picked according to preference but
through availability of technical specifications and potential applicability. For various types of AM
solutions, readers are encouraged to use these sections as a rough guide for currently available
commercial filaments. Additionally, the material tables will be expanded as more data is obtained
on the following materials.
Surface discharge, or electrostatic discharge (ESD), is a result of in-space charging effects
and is caused by interactions between the in-flight plasma environment and spacecraft
materials and electronic subsystems (42). The field buildup and ESD can negatively affect
the spacecraft and there are design precautions which must be considered depending on the
spacecraft’s operational environment. Per ESD guidelines from NASA Spacecraft Charging
Handbook 4002A, dielectric materials above 1012 Ohm (Ω) cm should be avoided because
charge accumulation occurs regardless. Please refer to the NASA Handbook 4002A, [Link]
Material Selection for more information. Historically, ESD due to faulty grounding has been a
leading cause of spacecraft or subsystem failures (42).

182
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Polylactic Acid (PLA)

PLA is the most common filament used in AM and table 6-7 lists several PLA filaments. It exhibits
very low shrinkage and is extremely easy to print because it does not require a heated bed or
build chamber and requires a relatively low extruder (nozzle) temperature. It also has low off
gassing during printing, important in open-frame AM systems in rapid prototyping environments
such as lab settings. Unless the application has a very short-term exposure to harsh conditions,
and if the conditions are well characterized and controlled, it is not recommended to use PLA for
an application beyond TRL 3-4. For laboratory settings in controlled environments not subject to
excessive mechanical forces, ESD-compatible filaments are available.

Table 6-7: Polylactic Acid Filaments

ISO 179- ISO
ISO 1 527- ASTM
75/ASTM Hardness 1/ASTM D790/ISO ESD
Filament Nozzle Bed Risk*
D648 (kJ/m2) D638 178 Density
Name Temp Temp
Deflection or Izod ZX Flexural (g/cc) (Ω-
(Citation) (°C) (°C)
Temp D256- Tensile strength cm)
(°C) 10A strength (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
Prusament
55 12 kJ/m2 57 N/A 215 50-60 1.24 No
PLA
Verbatim
50 16 kJ/m2 63 N/A 210 50-60 1.24 No
PLA
ColorFabb
PLA-PHA N/A 30 kJ/m2 61 89 210 50-60 1.24 No
(43)
Stratasys No,
51 27 kJ/m2 26 84 N/A N/A 1.264
PLA (44) 1015
Yes,
3DXSTAT™
55 N/A 55 95 210 23-60 1.26 106-
ESD-PLA
109

183
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS)

ABS has traditionally been the choice for higher strength, lightweight prints from the Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM) process in the open-source community. It is generally temperature
resistant and UV resistant but turns yellow and eventually becomes more brittle over time when
exposed to sunlight. It is a marginally difficult filament to print, especially in open-frame systems.
High temperature gradients during printing may cause warping as parts get larger. Enclosed AM
systems with heated chambers print ABS well. Additionally, ABS shrinks 1 to 2 percent of its
printed size upon cooling – the shrinkage varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. ABS has
flown as the complete structure for KickSat-2, a FemtoSat deployer for chip-scale satellites (45).
The single-use, short mission duration, and intricate dispenser frame made a conventionally
machined deployer mass- and cost-prohibitive. Table 6-8 lists some examples of ABS filaments.

Table 6-8: ABS Filaments

ISO 179- ISO
ISO 1 527- ASTM
75/ASTM Hardnes 1/AST D790/IS Nozzl Bed ESD
Densit
Filament D648 s (kJ/m2) M D638 O 178 e Tem Risk
y
Name Deflectio or Izod Tensile Flexural Temp p
(g/cc) (Ω-cm)
n Temp D256- strengt strength (°C) (°C)
(°C) 10A h (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
Stratasys 20-51 Marginal
100 21 29-69 N/A N/A 1.0972
ABS-CF10 J/m 104-109
Stratasys Marginal
105 36.2 J/m 35 44 N/A N/A 1.07
ABS-ESD7 104-109
3DXSTAT
™ ESD- Yes, 106-
97 N/A 58 80 230 110 1.09
109
ABS
Verbatim 106 (ISO 240-
21 J/m 47 78 90 1.05 No
ABS 306) 260

184
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Nylon
Versatile and tough, there are multiple formulations for nylon that allow for a very wide range of
applications and material properties. In general, nylon is more difficult to manufacture than ABS
on open-source FFF systems because it requires an enclosure for thermal stability and additional
bed preparation for higher adhesion. Secondary structural pieces have been flown through the
TechEdSat program using Markforged Onyx carbon fiber filaments. Table 6-9 lists some
examples of nylon filaments.

Table 6-9: Nylon Filaments

ISO
ISO
ISO 179-1 ASTM
527-
75/AST Hardnes D790/IS Nozzl ESD
Filament 1/ASTM Bed
M D648 s (kJ/m2) O 178 e Density Risk
Name D638 ZX Temp
Deflectio or Izod Flexural Temp (g/cc)
(Citation) Tensile (°C) (Ω-cm)
n Temp D256- strength (°C)
strength
(°C) 10A (MPa)
(MPa)
(J/m)
Taulman3
250-
D Alloy 910 82 N/A 56 N/A 30-65 N/A Unk
255
(46)
Taulman3
285-
D Alloy 910 112 N/A 56 N/A 55 N/A Unk
300
HDT (46)
Taulman3
D Nylon 250-
N/A N/A 47 N/A 30-65 N/A No
680 Food 255
Grade (47)
Markforged
Yes,
Onyx ESD 138 44 J/m 52 83 N/A N/A 1.2
105-107
(48)
3DXTECH
CARBONX Marginal
™ HTN+CF 240 N/A 87 95 295 130 1.24
109
(49)
Stratasys
71-138
Nylon 12 92-95 33-42 55-57 N/A N/A 1.01 No, 1013
J/m
(50)

185
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Polycarbonate (PC)
Also known as Lexan™, this thermoplastic has some of the highest impact resistance, tensile
strength, and temperature resistance available for most open source-based AM systems. After
manufacturing, it is dimensionally stable and very stiff. However, it is difficult to print on open-
frame, open-source AM systems due to very high warping especially when printing large
components. Very high bed and nozzle temperatures are required, and poor adhesion to the bed
is a typical issue. It is also highly hygroscopic; if possible, the filament should be baked out before
printing, or should be kept in a dedicated dry box while printing. Certain filaments, like the
Prusament PC Blend, have additives to mitigate some of the difficulties of printing PC. If PC is
desired for a SmallSat structure, it should be printed on a commercial AM system. Table 6-10 lists
some polycarbonate filaments.

Table 6-10: Polycarbonate Filaments

ISO 179- ISO
ISO 1 527- ASTM
75/ASTM Hardness 1/ASTM D790/ISO ESD
Filament Nozzle Bed Risk
D648 (kJ/m2) D638 178 Density
Name Temp Temp
Deflection or Izod ZX Flexural (g/cc) (Ω-
(Citation) (°C) (°C)
Temp D256- Tensile strength cm)
(°C) 10A strength (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
Prusament No break
PC Blend 113 for ISO 63 88-94 275 110 1.22 No
(51) 179
Prusament
PC Blend
114 35 kJ/m2 55-65 85-106 285 110 1.16 No
Carbon
Fiber (51)
Stratasys 27-77
143 60 75 N/A N/A 1.20 No
PC (52) J/m

186
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Windform
Manufactured by CRP Technology, these proprietary materials are classified as a carbon fiber
reinforced polymer originally designed for the automotive racing industry. They are unique in that
these composites are manufactured through SLS (53). This results in higher dimensional stability
and more isotropic properties than FFF. Windform XT 1.0 and 2.0 have been used on CubeSat
and PocketQube platforms and have flight heritage through KySat-2 launched on ELaNa IV, and
TANCREDO-1, launched through the ISS via JEM in 2017 (54). Table 6-11 lists CRP Windform
filaments. The NASA GPX-2 Windform XT 2.0 structure launched in July 2022 and is operational.

Table 6-11: CRP Windform

ISO
ISO 179- 527-
ISO 1 1/AST ASTM ES
75/ASTM Hardnes M D790/IS Bed D
Filament Densit
D648 s (kJ/m2) D638 O 178 Manufacturin Tem Risk
Name y
Deflectio or Izod ZX Flexural g process p
(Citation) (g/cc) (Ω-
n Temp D256- Tensile strength (°C)
(°C) 10A strengt (MPa) cm)
(J/m) h
(MPa)
Yes
Windfor 4.72 N/A,
173 84 133 N/A, SLS 1.097 ,
m XT 2.0 kJ/m2 SLS
108
Windfor Yes
10.8
m RS 181 48-85 139 SLS SLS 1.10 ,
kJ/m2
(56) 108

187
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Polyetherimide
Polyetherimide (PEI), also known by the Saudia SABIC trade name Ultem™, is a very tough
thermoplastic resin with high thermal and chemical stability. It is inherently flame-resistant and
can be machined. Some formulations of PEI are FAA-approved for flame, smoke, and toxicity
(FST), and may also have ESD formulations. PEI is also known for extremely low off gassing,
crucial for optical components and sensitive scientific packages. PEI is a common bed material
for higher end open-source FFF systems due to its adhesive properties with other thermoplastics
at higher temperatures. PEI has similar characteristics to polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Due to
these similarities, PEI is only practically printable on commercial FFF systems. Table 6-12 lists
some PEI filaments.

Table 6-12: PEI Filaments

ISO 179- ISO
ISO 1 527- ASTM
75/ASTM Hardness 1/ASTM D790/ISO
Filament Nozzle Bed
D648 (kJ/m2) D638 178 Density ESD
Name Temp Temp
Deflection or Izod ZX Flexural (g/cc) Risk
(Citation) (°C) (°C)
Temp D256- Tensile strength
(°C) 10A strength (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
THERMAX™
Ultem™ 158 N/A 63 90 275 115 1.34 No
9085
3DXSTAT™
Yes,
Ultem™
205 N/A 62 115 395 150 1.34 107-
1010 CF-
109
ESD (57)
Stratasys
22-27 No,
Ultem™ 212 81 82-128 N/A N/A 1.29
J/m 1014
1010 CG(58)
Stratasys
39-88 No,
Ultem™ 153 69 80-98 N/A N/A 1.27
J/m 1015
9085 (59)
Zortrax Z-
PEI 9085 186 N/A 54 90 N/A N/A 1.34 No
(60)

188
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

PAEK
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) – in the polyaryletherketone
(PAEK) family – are the highest performing thermoplastics developed as of this writing. With
certain additives and matrix materials, they can rival the strength of stainless steel and withstand
over 200°C continuously in some formulations, after annealing. PEEK/PEKK are naturally flame-
retardant; they are accepted for use in aviation ducting. They also achieve extremely low off
gassing in operation, which makes these thermoplastics good candidates for compatibility with
optical components in space. Due to the extreme conditions required for manufacturing and the
very high filament cost, these materials are only practically available for printing in extremely
robust commercial FFF systems with sealed and heated chambers. PEEK has heritage on long-
term, external ISS experiments, and structural elements on the Juno spacecraft, making it suitable
for extreme radiation environments (61). Table 6-13 lists some PAEK-based filaments.
Table 6-13: PAEK-based Filaments
ISO 179- ISO
ISO 1 527- ASTM
75/ASTM Hardness 1/ASTM D790/ISO ESD
Filament Nozzle Bed Risk
D648 (kJ/m2) D638 178 Density
Name Temp Temp
Deflection or Izod ZX Flexural (g/cc) (Ω-
(Citation) (°C) (°C)
Temp D256- Tensile strength cm)
(°C) 10A strength (MPa)
(J/m) (MPa)
3DXSTAT™ Yes,
380-
ESD-PEEK 140 N/A 105 141 150 1.32 107-
400
(62) 109
Yes,
3DXSTAT™
185 N/A 109 135 375 140 1.34 107-
ESD-PEKK
109
CarbonX™
Yes,
CF PEKK- 285 N/A 126 178 390 140 1.33
107
Aerospace
Stratasys Yes,
28-43
Antero 840 150 95 87-139 N/A N/A 1.27 104-
J/m
(63) 109
Zortrax Z-
160 N/A 100 130 N/A N/A 1.30 N/A
PEEK (64)

189
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Photopolymers
Otherwise known as “thermosets,” these materials are liquid polymers cured by an optical and
thermal process. Compared to other AM processes, photopolymers and their manufacturing
processes allow for superior isotropic material properties, very high resolution, and the ability to
manufacture optical quality parts. Some formulations, especially from 3D Systems and Stratasys,
are designed for extreme temperature resistance and strength, desirable in aerospace
applications. In some cases, the listed heat deflection temperature (HDT) may be superior to
those of PAEK. As previously discussed, there are three major methods of curing photopolymers,
one of which is proprietary. Many photopolymers are specifically paired for commercial systems.
As a result, the table 6-14 includes the commercial system associated with the photopolymer.
Some of the photopolymers listed below have several additional characteristics not listable in this
table, including, but not limited to, elasticity, tear strength, optical clarity, water absorption, and
medical grade certifications. Such characteristics may be useful for biological experiments in
future SmallSats. Please consult the products’ specific websites and datasheets for additional
information. Additionally, photopolymers have the advantage of being able to be mixed, in-situ,
as the object is being manufactured. This allows for continuously varying material properties
throughout the object. Table 6-14 lists some photopolymers.

Table 6-14: Photopolymers

ISO
ISO 179- ESD
ISO 527- ASTM
Photopolymer 1/ASTM Density Risk Manufacturing
75/ASTM 1/ASTM D790
Name D256- (g/cc) and/or
D648 D638 Flexural (Ω-
(Citation) 10A at 25°C Machine Type
HDT (°C) Tensile (MPa) cm)
(J/m)
(MPa)
Accura
124- 3D Systems
Bluestone 267-284 13-17 66-68 1.78 ND
154 ProX 800
(65)
VisiJet M2S- 3DS MJP
250 10 51 83 1.15 ND
HT250 (66) 2500 Plus
DSM Somos®
Stratasys
Watershed 50 25 50 69 1.12 ND
V650 Flex SL
XC
Henkel
LOCTITE®
N/A N/A 5.5 N/A 1.068 ND Several
IND402 A70
Flex (67)
Henkel
DLP SLA
LOCTITE® 80 54 60 81 N/A ND
types only
3D 3843 (68)

6.4.4 AM Design Optimization

Design optimization is an integral part of manufacturing validation and testing. As previously
discussed for AM, validation, testing, and optimization encompass all materials and
manufacturing processes. Software platforms help speed up this process, especially those that
integrate toolpathing generation, computer aided manufacturing (CAM), load analysis, and fill

190
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

generation. The inherent advantage of AM to allow monolithic structural elements implies a much-
expanded design space compared to subtractive manufacturing. Software has kept up with the
pace of manufacturing advances and incorporates tools to assist with AM designs.
The manufacturing ecosystem includes software ranging from simple CAM solutions generating
toolpaths (G-code) to complete, structural analysis and high-fidelity manufacturing simulations.
As of this writing, AM has gained significant traction and value in low-TRL demonstrations and
physical validation, partly due to the ease of fabrication in typical AM ecosystems. It is beginning
to displace traditional machining – “subtractive” manufacturing – as AM systems have matured
enough to print advanced thermoplastics, resins, and metals.
Infill Patterns
Due to the flexibility that AM offers, new methods of lightweighting are now possible.
“Lightweighting” refers to the reduction of mass of structural elements, without compromising
structural integrity. The best examples of well-proven heritage methods of lightweighting are
“honeycomb” sandwiched aluminum panels, subtractive machining, and truss structures.
However, such methods have certain limitations. Honeycomb panels for example, do not have
uniform, or isotropic, properties – they do not exhibit the same stiffness in all directions.
Lightweighting in AM encompasses what is called “infill,” or the internal structure of a hollow body
or panel. With a minimal increase in mass, an internal structure manufactured with AM can vastly
increase the strength of a body. Very recently, the AM community has renewed interest in the use
of the gyroid pattern, discovered by NASA researcher Alan Schoen in 1970, due to the ease of
generation in AM toolpath programs. Aside from honeycomb and gyroids, several options for infill
exist. Different options are offered with different AM-focused software packages.
Digital Materials
Both honeycomb panels and AM parts with infill have a common repetitive unit cell. By repeating
this unit cell throughout the interior of a part, or as a structure on its own, a larger structure can
be made. Further, by defining properties into this unit cell, information can effectively be encoded
into the design, allowing for differing behavior of different parts of the structure. Digital materials
can dramatically expand the design space of a structure, allowing for targeted optimization of
various properties such as mass to strength ratios, structural lightweighting, and others. As
previously discussed, with certain resin polyjet AM centers, resins can be mixed in real time to
form an object that has continuously varying properties.

6.5 Radiation Effects and Mitigation Strategies

6.5.1 Shielding from the Space Environment
Radiation Shielding has been described as a cost-effective way of mitigating the risk of mission
failure due to total ionizing dose (TID) and internal charging effects on electronic devices. In space
mission analysis and design, the average historical cost for adding shielding to a mission is below
10% of the total cost of the spacecraft (69). The benefits include reducing the risk of early total
ionizing dose electronics failures (70). Some of the key CubeSat and SmallSat commercial
electronic semiconductor parts include processors, voltage regulators, and memory devices,
which are key components in delivering science and technology demonstration data (71).
Shielding the spacecraft is often the simplest method to reduce both a spacecraft’s ratio of total
ionizing dose to displacement damage dose (TID/DDD) accumulation, and the rate at which single
event upsets (SEUs) occur if used appropriately. Shielding involves two basic methods: shielding
with the spacecraft’s pre-existing mass (including the external skin or chassis, which exists in

191
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

every case whether desired or not), and spot/sector shielding. This type of shielding, known as
passive shielding, is only very effective against lower energy radiation, and is best used against
high particle flux environments, including the densest portions of the Van Allen belts, the Jovian
magnetosphere, and short-lived solar particle events. In some cases, increased shielding is more
detrimental than if none was used, owing to the secondary particles generated by highly
penetrating energetic particles. Therefore, it is important to analyze both the thickness and type
of materials used to shield all critical parts of the spacecraft. Due to the strong omni-directionality
of most forms of particle radiation, spacecraft need to be shielded from the full 4π steradian
celestial sphere. This brings the notion of "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" into the design space,
where small holes or gaps in shielding are often only detrimental proportionally to the hole’s solid
angle as viewed by the concerned electrical, electronic and electro-mechanical (EEE)
components. Essentially, completely enclosing critical components should not be considered a
firm design constraint when other structural considerations exist.
6.5.2 Inherent Mass Shielding
Inherent mass shielding consists of using the entirety of the pre-existing spacecraft’s mass to
shield sensitive electronic components that are not heavily dependent on location within the
spacecraft. This often includes the main spacecraft bus processors, power switches, etc. Again,
the notion of "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" is invoked here, where a component could be well
shielded from its “backside” (2π steradian hemisphere) and weakly shielded from the “front” due
to its location near the spacecraft surface. It would only then require additional shielding from its
front to meet operational requirements. The classic method employed here is to increase the
spacecraft’s structural skin thickness to account for the additional shielding required. This is the
classic method largely due to its simplicity, where merely a thicker extrusion of material is used
for construction. The disadvantage to this method is the material used, very often aluminum, is
mass optimized for structural and surface charging concerns and not for shielding either
protons/ions or electrons. Recent research has gone into optimizing structural materials for both
structural and shielding concerns; currently an active area of NASA’s Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program research and development.
The process to determine exactly how much inherent shielding exists involves using a reverse
ray tracing program on the spacecraft solid model from the specific point(s) of interest. After
generating the "shielding-per-unit-solid-angle" map of the critical area(s) of the spacecraft, a trade
study can be performed on what and where best to involve further additional shielding.
Numerous CubeSat and SmallSat systems use commercial processors, radios, regulators,
memory, and SD cards. Many of these products rely on silicon diodes and metal oxide
semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in these missions. A comprehensive NASA
guidance document on the use of commercial electronic parts was published for the ISS orbit,
which is a low-Earth orbit where the predominant radiation source is the South Atlantic anomaly.
The hardness of commercial parts was noted as having a range from 2 – 10 kRad (73). For typical
thin CubeSat shielding of 0.20 cm (0.080 in) aluminum, yearly trapped dose is 1383 Rad; with an
additional estimated 750 Rad from solar particle events, the total dose increases to 2133 Rad for
the ELaNaXIX Mission environment at 85 degrees inclination and 500 km circular orbit (table 6-
16) (74). Adding a two-fold increase for the trapped belt radiation uncertainty brings the total
radiation near the TID lifetime of many commercial parts (73), even before estimating a SPE TID
contribution. The uncertainty of radiation model results of low-Earth orbit below 840 km has been
estimated as at least two-fold; Van Allen Belt models are empirical and rely on data in the orbital
environment (75). The NASA Preferred Reliability Series “Radiation Design Margin
Requirements” also recommends a radiation design margin of 2 for reliability (76). Currently, The
Aerospace Corporation proton (AP) (63) and The Aerospace Corporation electron (AE) (78)

192
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Models do not have radiation data

below 840 km, and radiation
estimates are extrapolated for the
lower orbits (75). For spacecraft
interplanetary trajectories near the
Sun or Earth, the radiation
contributions from SPEs will be
higher than low-Earth orbit, where
there is some limited SPE
radiation protection by the
magnetosphere. By reducing the
total ionizing dose on commercial
parts, the mission lifetimes can be
increased by reducing the risk of
electronic failures on sensitive
semiconductor parts.
6.5.3 Shields-1 Mission,
Radiation Shielding for CubeSat
Structural Design
Shields-1 has operated in polar
low-Earth orbit and was launched Figure 6.14: Shields-1 Z-shielding structure and final
through the ELaNaXIX Mission in Preship picture, ELaNaXIX Mission. Credit: NASA.
December 2018. The Shields-1
mission increased the
development level of atomic
number (Z) Grade Radiation
Shielding with an electronic
enclosure (vault) and Z-grade
radiation shielding slabs with
aluminum baselines experiments
(figure 6.14) (79). Preliminary
results in table 6-15 show a
significant reduction in total
ionizing dose in comparison to
typical modeled 0.20 cm (0.080 in)
aluminum structures sold by
commercial CubeSat providers.
The 3.02 g cm-2 Z-shielding vault
has over 18 times reduction in
total ionizing dose compared to Figure 6.15: SPE Contribution to TID in PLEO, King Sphere
modeled 0.20 cm aluminum Model, ELaNaXIX Shields-1 orbit. Credit: NASA.
shielding (74).
Z-shielding enables a low volume shielding solution for CubeSat and SmallSat applications where
reduced volume is important. AlTiTa, Z–shielding, at 2.08 g cm-2 reduces the dose from a SPE by
half when compared to a standard 0.2 cm aluminum structure (figure 6.15). NASA has innovated
“Methods of Making Z-Shielding” with patents in preparing different structural shieldings
(80)(81)(82)(83), from metals to hybrid metal laminates and thin structural radiation shielding, to
enable low-volume integrated solutions with CubeSats and SmallSats (84).

193
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Table 6-15: Shields-1 Experimental Total Ionizing Dose Measurements in PLEO

Areal Density Thickness Trapped Belts TID Total SPE King Sphere
Shielding
(g/cm2) (cm) (Rad (Si)/Year) Model, (Rad (Si))

Al 0.535 0.198 1383+/-47 # 750+/-5

Al 1.26 0.465 90.9 +/-2.7 (SL) 432 +/- 7

Al 1.69 0.624 84.3 +/-2.5 (SL) 345 +/- 9

Al 3.02 1.11 73.6 +/-3.2 (SL) 183 +/- 11

AlTi 1.33 0.378 89.7 +/-2.7 (SL) 451 +/- 6

AlTiTa20 2.08 0.429 84.3 +/-2.5 (SL) 338 +/- 6

81.9 +/-3.4 (SL) 75.6+/-
AlTiTa40 3.02 0.483 253 +/- 6
3.2 (Vault)

Shields-1 Experimental total ionizing dose measurements in PLEO in comparison to typical

0.20 cm aluminum shielding commercially available for CubeSats and SPE additional
contributions to dose. Bold values Shields-1 experimental results. SL = Slab, Vault = Z-
Shielding electronics enclosure. # sphere Space Environment Information System
(SPENVIS) Multi-layered Shielding Simulation Software (MULASSIS) AP8 Min AE8 Max
modeled results. SPE King Sphere Model SPENVIS MULASSIS modeled results.

6.5.4 Ad Hoc Shielding

There are two types of ad hoc shielding used on spacecraft: spot shielding, where a single board
or component is covered in shield material (often conformally), and sector shielding, where only
critical areas of the spacecraft have shielding enhancement. These two methods are often used
in concert as necessary to further insulate particularly sensitive components without
unnecessarily increasing the overall shield mass and/or volume. Ad hoc shielding is more efficient
per unit mass than inherent mass shielding because it can be optimized for the spacecraft’s
intended radiation environment while loosening the structural constraints. The most recent
methods include multiple layer shields with layer-unique elemental atomic numbers which are
layered advantageously (often in a low-high-low Z scheme), known as “graded-Z” shielding, and
advanced low-Z polymer or composite mixtures doped with high-Z, metallic micro-particles. Low-
Z elements are particularly capable at shielding protons and ions while generating little secondary
radiation, where high Z elements scatter electrons and photons much more efficiently. Neutron
shielding is a unique problem, where optimal shield materials often depend on the particle
energies involved. Commercial options include most notably Tethers Unlimited’s VSRS system
for small spacecraft, which was specifically designed to be manufactured under a 3D printed fused
filament fabrication process for conformal coating applications (a method which optimizes volume
and minimizes shield gaps).
6.5.5 Charge Dissipation Coating
The addition of conformal coatings over finished electronic boards is another method to mitigate
electrostatic discharge on sensitive electronic environments. Arathane, polyurethane coating
materials (85), and HumiSeal acrylic coatings (86) have been used to mitigate discharge and

194
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

provide limited moisture protection for electronic boards. This simple protective coating over
sensitive electronic boards supports mission assurance and safety efforts. Charge dissipation
films have decreased electrical resistances in comparison to standard electronics and have been
described by NASA as a coating that has volume resistivities between 108 – 1012 ohm-cm. In
comparison, typical conformal coatings have volume resistivities from 1012 – 1015 ohm-cm (43).
6.5.6 LUNA Innovations, Inc. XP Charge Dissipation Coating
The XP Charge Dissipation Coating has volume resistivities in the range of 108 – 1012 ohm-cm
(table 6-16) and is currently developing space heritage through the NASA MISSE 9 mission and
Shields-1 (86). The XP Charge Dissipation Coatings were developed through the NASA SBIR
program from 2010 to present for extreme electron radiation environments, such as outer planets,
medium-Earth, and geostationary orbits, to mitigate charging effects on electronic boards.

Table 6-16: XP Charge Dissipation Coating and

Commercial Conformal Coating Resistivity
Comparisons
Material Volume Resistivity (Ohm-cm)
XP Charge
108 – 1012, 4.7 x 109 at 25°C
Dissipation Coating
9.3 X 1015 at 25°C, 2.0 X 1013
Arathane 5750 A/B
at 95°C
5.5 x 1014 Ohms (Insulation
Humiseal 1B73 Resistance per MIL-I-
46058C)
The LUNA XP Charge Dissipation Coating has reduced
resistance compared to typical commercial conformal Figure 6.16: Transparent LUNA XP
coatings, which reduces surface charging risk on Charge Dissipation Coating on an
electronic boards. LUNA XP Coating (figure 6.16) on an electronic board. Credit: LUNA
electronic board has transparency for visual parts Innovations, Inc.
inspection. For extreme radiation environments, a
combination of radiation shielding, and charge dissipation coating reduces the ionizing radiation
that contributes to charging and provides a surface pathway for removing charge to ground (43).

6.6 Summary
This chapter has been updated with the current status of structures, materials, and mechanisms
for small satellite missions. Additions include custom structure references with the dimensional
and material requirements of integrating deployment systems, new mechanisms technology to
reflect the ongoing growth in SmallSat mechanical devices, and more commercially procured
deployable booms and larger CubeSat primary structures (12U and 16U), as well as the upcoming
DiskSat structure. The radiation environment section, state-of-the-art radiation shielding, and
charge dissipation materials have been updated. Reflecting the fast pace of development in
additive manufacturing, a selection of available thermoplastics and resin-based materials suitable
for different TRL levels have been detailed.
There has been high focus on deployment mechanisms with respect to light weighting and
reliability. Small spacecraft subsystems related to antenna booms, gravity gradients, stabilization,
sensors, sails, and solar panels are some examples. These technologies are gaining space
heritage through operations and more often are being included in mission planning. The growth

195
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

of these deployment mechanisms increase the capabilities of SmallSat technology and will be a
continued focus in the next edition of this report.
For feedback solicitation, please email: arc-sst-soa@[Link]. Please include a business
email so someone may contact you further.

References
(1) Space Weather Prediction Center. Solar Cycle 25 Forecast Update. [Online]
December 19, 2019. Available at: [Link]
forecast-update
(2) R. Welle, C. Venturini, D. Hinkley, J. Gangestad, S. Grasso, A. Muszynski, R. Hunter,
C. Frost, D. Mayer, and C. Baker, “DiskSat: Demonstration Mission for a Two-
Dimensional Satellite Architecture,” Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on
Small Satellites, Out of this World!, SSC22-VIII-01, 2022.
(3) R. Hevner, W. Holemans, J. Puig-Suari, and R. Twiggs. “An Advanced Standard for
CubeSat.” 2003. 25th Annual AIAA/USU Conference for Small Satellites.
(4) CubeSat Design Specification (1U – 12U), REV 14.1, CP-CDS-R14.1, CubeSat
Program, CAL POLY San Luis Obispo, February 2022.
([Link]
2e0053f00910/1645820809779/CDS+REV14_1+[Link]
(5) Rocket Lab. “Canisterized Satellite Dispenser datasheet version 2002337G”. [Online]
Available at: [Link]
[Link]
(6) NASA Goddard Technical Standards, “GSFC General Environmental Verification
Standard (GEVS) for GSFC Flight Programs and Projects”, GSFC-STD-7000B, 28
April 2021.
(7) ISISPACE. “CubeSat Deployers.” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
[Link]
(8) Tyvak. “Launch Services”. [Online] 2021. [Accessed: August 24, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(9) GranSystems. “Products,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
(10) Dhruva Space. “Launch Services,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
(11) Exolaunch. “EXOpod User Manual,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
(12) Planetary Systems Corporation. “Canisterized Satellite Dispenser.” [Online]
Accessed: August 28, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(13) Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense. “TiNi™ Mini Frangibolt® Actuator: Small,
SImple, Powerful.” [Online] 2022. Available at: [Link]
frangibolt
(14) Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense. “TiNi™ Micro Latch, Developed Specifically
for “New Space” Applications.” [Online] 2022. Available at: [Link]
micro-latch/

196
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(15) Moog, Inc. “Type 2 Side-Drive Solar Array Drive Mechanism,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
assemblies/[Link]
(16) Honeybee Robotics. “Solar Array Drive Assemblies,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
assemblies/#1562267018138-ae149058-3c0374f5-d928
(17) Comat Space. “SADM 200/400200/400: Solar Array Drive Mechanism” datasheet.
(18) Comat Space. “SADM 1500: Solar Array Drive Mechanism” datasheet.
(19) DHV Technologies. “Solar Array Drive Assembly (SADA),” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
(20) Dcubed. “Pin Puller,” [Online] Available at: [Link]
(21) Dcubed. “Release Nut,” [Online] Available at: [Link]
nut/
(22) Beyond Gravity. “Separation Nut PSM 3/8B,” datasheet.
(23) Revolv Space. “Introducing SARA: [Online] Available at:
[Link]
(24) Nimesis Technology. “Triggy – Launch Lock Device,” datasheet. Available online at:
[Link]
(25) Tianyuan Ye et al. “Review of Deployable Mechanism Test Technologies Oriented
Towards Deep Space Exploration,” 2021 IOP Conference Ser.: Material Science
Engineering. 1043 052022
(26) NASA. "Deployable Composite Booms (DCB)." [Online]. August 26, 2020. Accessed
May 18, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
dc
(27) NASA. “Advanced Composite Solar Sail System: Using Sunlight to Power Deep Space
Exploration,” [Online] June 23, 2021. Accessed October 2022. Available at:
[Link]
(28) Brigham Young University. “Origami-Inspired Mechanisms Explained,” [Online] 2022.
Accessed October 2022. Available at:
[Link]
(29) Composite Technology Development, Inc. “STELOC Deployable Composite Booms.”
[Online] 2018. Available at: [Link]
(30) J. Reveles et al. “In-Orbit Performance of AstroTube: AlSat Nano's Low Mass
Deployable Composite Boom Payload.” Proceedings of the AIAA/USU 31st Annual
AIAA/USU Conference of Small Satellites, Logan, UT, 2017.
(31) B.L. Davis, W.H. Francis, J.A. Goff, M.C. Cross, and D.J. Copel. “Big Deployables in
Small Satellites”, Proceedings of the AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, The
Commerce of Small Satellites, SSC12-XII-1, 2014.
(32) Redwire Space. “Open Lattice Mast Boom (OLM),” [Online] 2022. Accessed October
2022. Available at: [Link]
boom/?rdws=[Link]&rdwj=57342-41850-43938-1-44045-35348-41850-
41622\
(33) Magellan Aerospace. “Deployable Booms,” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
%20Digital%[Link]
(34) Rolatube. “Space Satellite Technology: Deployable Composite Booms,” [Online]
Available at: [Link]

197
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(35) NASA. “In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) State of Play,” 2023
Edition. Available at: [Link]
[Link]
(36) A. Nance and M. Thibault. “CubeSat-scale Robotic Arms in Space,” US Naval
Academy. CubeSat Developer’s Workshop Conference 2023. Available at:
[Link]
n6_ThibaultNance.pdf
(37) NASA Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) Standard for Spaceflight and Support
Systems, NASA-STD-8729.1A – 2017-06-13.
(38) Raja Pandi Perumal, Holger Voos, Florio Dalla Vedova, Hubert Moser. “Small Satellite
Reliability, A Decade in Review”, SSC21-WKIII-02, 35th Annual Small Satellite
Conference, Logan, UT, 2021, p.12.
(39) Thomas P. Sarafin Ed, Spacecraft Structures and Mechanisms. Damon D. Phinney
and William R. Britton, Ch.19 “Developing Mechanisms”, pp.665-734.
(40) NASA Standard 5017B, “Design and Development Requirements for Mechanisms”,
12/06/2022, p. 117
(41) MIL-A-83577B (USAF), 2/1/1988, “Assemblies, Moving Mechanical, for Space and
Launch Vehicles, General Specification For”, p.70.
(42) MIL-PRF-8625F w/amendement 2, 11/23/2020, “Anodic Coatings for Aluminum and
Aluminum Alloy”, p.20.
(43) NASA. Technical Handbook, “Mitigating In-Space Charging Effects – A Guideline.”
NASA-HDBK-4002A. October 19, 2017.
(44) ColorFabb. “PLA/PHA.” Technical Datasheet, [Online] April 8, 2020. Available at:
[Link]
pd
(45) Stratasys. “PLA: Economy Thermoplastic for Stratasys F123 Series Printers.”
Technical Datasheet 2018. Available at:
[Link]
prod/Public1/Materials/FDM/PLA/PLA%20-
%20EN%20Data%20Sheet%20FDM%[Link]?sv=2017-04-
17&sr=f&sig=colFyWKHIkaQ9GUZsyg0%2FFwD%2Fllpuft2a2SR%2FYKqFEg%3D&
st=2022-11-27T23%3A00%3A27Z&se=2023-11-28T23%3A00%3A27Z&sp=rwl
(46) NASA. “What is KickSat-2?” [Online] June 3, 2019. Accessed July 12, 2021. Available
at: [Link]
(47) Taulman3D. “Alloy 910 Specifications.” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(48) Taulman3D. “Alloy 680 Specifications.” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(49) Markforged. “Onyx ESD™.” Technical Datasheet, [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021.
Available at: [Link]
(50) 3DXTech Additive Manufacturing. “CARBONX HTN+CF [HIGH TEMP CF NYLON].”
[Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(51) Statasys. “Nylon 12.” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(52) Prusa Polymers. “Prusament PC Blend.” Technical Datasheet, [Online] Available at:
[Link]
df

198
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(53) Stratasys. “PC (Polycarbonate): FDM Thermoplastic Filament.” Technical Datasheet,

[Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at: [Link]
/media/files/material-spec-sheets/mds_fdm_pc_0920a.pdf
(54) CRP Technology. "High performance composite materials for SLS.” [Online] 2018.
Available at: [Link]
(55) CRP Technology. “Windform 3D Printing materials launch into Orbit on KySat-2.”
[Online]. Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at: [Link]
printing-materials-launch-orbit kysat-2/
(56) CRP Technology. “Winform XT 2.0” Technical Datasheet, [Online] Accessed July 12,
2021. Available at: [Link]
(57) CRP Technology. “Winform RS” Technical Datasheet, [Online] Accessed July 12,
2021. Available at: [Link]
(58) 3DXTech Additive Manufacturing. “3DXSTAT™ ESD-Ultem™ 3D Printing Filament.”
Technical Datasheet, [Online] Available at: [Link]
content/uploads/2020/11/ESD_Ultem_v3.pdf
(59) Stratasys. “ULTEM 1010 Resin” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(60) Stratasys. “ULTEM 9085 Resin” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(61) Zortrax. “Aerospace-Grade Flame-Retardant Filament.” Technical Datasheet, [Online]
October 9, 2020, Updated June 22, 2021. Available at: [Link]
content/uploads/2020/10/Z-PEI_9085_Technical_Data_Sheet_eng.pdf
(62) TechBriefs. “Plastic Components Ride Juno Spacecraft to Jupiter.” [Online] August 1,
2012. Available at:
[Link]
486
(63) 3DXTech Additive Manufacturing. “3DXSTAT™ ESD-PEEK 3D Printing Filament.”
[Online] Available at: [Link]
(64) Stratasys. “Antero 840CN03 High-Performance PEKK-Based ESD Thermoplastic.”
[Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(65) Zortrax. “Z-PEEL.” [Online] Accessed July 12, 2021. Available at:
[Link]
(66) 3D Systems Inc. "Accura Bluestone Technical Data." [Online] September 2020.
Available at: [Link]
[Link]
(67) 3D Systems, Inc. “VisiJet M2S-HT250 (MJP).” [Online] Accessed June 24, 2021.
Available at: [Link]
(68) Henkel Corporation, Loctite. “IND402TM: PhotoElastic A70 High Rebound Black.”
Technical Datasheet, [Online] March 22, 2022. Available at:
[Link]
High-Rebound-2022_03_22.pdf
(69) Stratasys. “LOCTITE ® 3D 3843 High Toughness by Henkel.” [Online] Available at:
[Link]
3843-high-toughness/
(70) J.R. Wertz and W.J. Larson. “Space Mission Analysis and Design, Third Edition.”
Space Technology Library, Space Technology Series, Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm
Press and New York: Springer, 1999, p.976.

199
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(71) D. Hastings and H. Garrett, "Spacecraft Environment Interactions." New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.292.
(72) M. Langer and M. Boumeester. "Reliability of CubeSats – Statistical Data, Developers’
Beliefs and the Way Forward", 30th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites,
August 2016, Logan, UT, SSC16-X-2, 1-12.
(73) NASA Preferred Reliability Series PD 1258, “Space Radiation Effects on Electronic
Components in Low Earth Orbit”, August 1996.
(74) D.L. Thomsen. "Shields-1 Preliminary Radiation Shielding Dosimetry in Polar Low
Earth Orbit", Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), Small Satellites for
Sustainable Science and Development, Herzliya, Israel, 7 November 2019.
(75) Vampola, A. L. “The Space Particle Environment”, NASA/SDIO Space Environmental
Effects on Materials Workshop, NASA Conference Proceedings 3035, part 2, NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA June 28 – July 1, 1988, pg. 367.
(76) NASA Preferred Reliability Series PD 1260, "Radiation Design Margin Requirement",
May 1996.
(77) D.M. Sawyer and J.I. Vette, “AP-8 Trapped Proton Environment for Solar Maximum
and Solar Minimum.” NSSDC/WDC-A-R&S 76-06, 1976.
(78) J.I. Vette. “The AE-8 Trapped Electron Model Environment.” NSSDC/WDC-A-R&S 91-
24, 1991a.
(79) D.L. Thomsen III, W. Kim, and J.W. Cutler. “Shields-1, A SmallSat Radiation Shielding
Technology Demonstration”, 29th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, SSC15-
XII-9, August 2015.
(80) D.L. Thomsen III, R.J. Cano, B.J. Jensen, S.J. Hales, and J.A. Alexa. “Methods of
Making Z-Shielding.” U.S. Patent No. 8,661,653, 4 March 2014.
(81) U.S. Patent No. 10,039,217, July 31, 2018, “Methods of Making Z-Shielding.” D.L.
Thomsen III, R.J. Cano, B.J. Jensen, S.J. Hales, and J.A. Alexa.
(82) D.L. Thomsen III. “Method of Making Thin Atomic (Z) Grade Shields.” U.S. Patent No.
10,600,52212, March 24, 2020.
(83) D.L. Thomsen III, S.N. Sankaran, and J.A. Alexa. “Atomic Number (Z) Grade Shielding
Materials and Methods of Making Atomic Number (Z) Grade Shielding.”U.S. Patent
No. 10,919,650, February 16, 2021.
(84) D.L. Thomsen III and W.R. Girard. “Method of Making Atomic Number (Z) Grade Small
SAT Radiation Shielding Vault.” U.S. Patent No. 11,043,311, June 22, 2021.
(85) Arathane. [Online] Available at:
[Link]
untsman%20Advanced%20Materials/English%20US/Long/Arathane%205750%20A
B_LV_US_e.pdf
(86) Chase Electronic Coatings. "HumiSeal® 1B73 Acrylic Conformal Coating Technical
Data Sheet." [Online] Available at: [Link]
content/uploads/sites/12/2018/10/[Link]
(87) LUNA. "Luna coating provides radiation protection in space." [Online] February 2,
2018. Accessed June 28, 2020. Available at: [Link]
provides-radiation-protection-space

200