Space Mechanisms Lessons Learned Study

FOREWORD

There appears to have been a corporate loss of memory in the USA on how to build space mechanisms (mechanically moving components) for long life and reliability.  A large number of satellite failures and anomalies have occurred recently (e.g., Galileo, Hubble, etc.).  In addition, more demanding requirements have been causing failures or anomalies to occur during the qualification testing of future satellite and space platform mechanisms even before they are launched (GOES-NEXT, CERES, Space Station Beta Joint Gimbal, etc.).  For these reasons, it is imperative to determine what worked in the past and what failed so that the best selection of mechanical components can be made as well as to make timely decisions on initiating research to develop any needed technology.  The purpose of this study was to capture and retrieve information relating to the performance of mechanical moving equipment operating in space to determine what components have operated successfully and what components have produced anomalies.

Data were obtained through various sources, such as: (1) An extensive literature review that included government contractor reports and technical journals.  (2) Communication and visits (when necessary) to the various NASA and DOD centers and their designated contractors.  This included contact with project managers of current and prior NASA satellite programs as well as their industry counterparts.  (3) Requests for unpublished information were made to NASA and industry.  (4) A mail survey which was designed to establish specific mechanism experience and also to solicit opinions of what should be included in a future Space Mechanisms Design Guidelines Handbook.

The majority of the work was done at MTI under contract NAS3-27086.  The following acknowledgement section also lists some organizations and individuals who contributed to the work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The literature review required the assistance of knowledgeable technical personnel.  The assistance of Dr. Dantum Rao was helpful.  Dr. E.M. Roberts of the European Space Tribology Laboratory (ESTL) provided the European literature review and a listing of experts; his efforts are acknowledged and appreciated.  Mr. Bobby McConnell of Tribotech Consultants also provided valuable information from his knowledge of Air Force Space Mechanisms programs.  The authors appreciate those who responded to the Space Mechanism Survey.  Special recognition goes to Mr. Richard Fink and David Marks of the Honeywell Electro Components Division, Durham, North Carolina, and to Mr. Bryan Workman of the Honeywell Satellite Systems Operation who organized their many responses.  Recognition also goes to Laurence Bement of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center (NASA-LaRC) for his contribution on Pyrotechnics; to Claudia Woods of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA-GFSC); to Dennis Egan of Applied Innovation; and to Stuart Lowenthal of Lockheed Missile & Space Company, Inc.  We would also like to acknowledge the reviewers of the manuscripts: Dr. Michael Khonsari of the University of Pittsburgh, Mark Siebert of Toledo University and Ralph Jansen of the Ohio Aerospace Institute.

LIST OF FIGURES

  1. Space Mechanisms Survey Form
  2. ESTL Vacuum Chamber
  3. Boundary Lubrication Accelerated Screening Tester
  4. Honeywell Environmental Test Facility
  5. Honeywell Environmental Thermal Chamber
  6. Honeywell Shaker Table Facility and Control Room
  7. Pyrotechnic Test Facility at NASA - Langley
  8. Pyrotechnic Test Cells at NASA - Langley
  9. Pyrotechnic Test Cells Outside at NASA - Langley

LIST OF TABLES

  1. Anomalies of Pyrotechnic Devices
  2. Tribomaterials for Deployment Mechanisms
  3. Lockheed Solutions to Limitations of Conventional Designs
  4. General Guidelines for Worm Gear Systems
  5. Actuators Using Brush Motors
  6. Partial Listing of Momentum/Reaction Wheel, Control Moment Gyroscope, and Gyroscope Experience
  7. Factors Tending to Increase Blocking

INTRODUCTION

Future National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space missions will require advanced performance standards, increased life, and improved reliability of mechanical systems and their components.  Enhancements require learning from past experience and transferring technology to newer generations.  Accordingly, NASA has embarked on a program to produce a Space Mechanisms Handbook that will provide guidelines and recommendations to future mechanism designers.  As part of that program, a Lessons Learned study was performed to determine prior anomalies and how to avoid them in the future.  This report provides the information obtained during the Lessons Learned study.

Three major categories of mechanisms were selected: deployable appendages, rotating systems, and oscillating systems.  Subsystems of these major categories are as follows.

Deployable Appendages

Rotating Systems

Oscillating Systems

Information for the Lessons Learned study was retrieved from a number of sources including:

Available Literature.  The literature review proved to be the most significant source of information.  In particular, the 28 Annual Proceedings of the Aerospace Mechanism Symposium was an extremely valuable resource.  Also, a NASA-Goddard publication on deployable appendages was very informative.  In compiling the literature review, a specific format was adhered to.  The ingredients of the format are described in Volume II, Literature Review.

The constraints of the literature search limited publications to those that described anomalies and/or lessons learned.  Mechanism descriptions contained in these publications were also summarized and documented for subsequent use in generation of the handbook.

Industrial Survey.  A survey form was created, which is presented in the Survey Results section of this report.  Over 600 surveys were mailed with approximately 30 responses.  Some significant information was provided, especially by the Satellite Systems Operation and the Electro Components Division of the Honeywell Corporation, who spent considerable time in preparing information.  Other responses provided additional reference material.

Subcontracts. The European Space Tribology Laboratory (ESTL) contributed a review of the European Literature and provided a listing of European experts.  Also Bobby McConnell, of Tribotech Consultants, who has considerable experience with military applications of space mechanisms contributed information.

This report is organized into two volumes.  Volume I provides a summary of the lessons learned, the results of a needs analysis, the survey responses, a listing of experts, a description of some available facilities, and a compilation of references.  The completed literature reviews comprise Volume II.

SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED

This section summarizes the lessons learned from the Survey Results and from the Literature Review (Volume II) performed for the three main categories (deployable appendages, rotating systems, and oscillating systems) and their respective subsystems.  Authors' names that appear in brackets, e.g., [Farley], indicate that more detailed information on a topic is included in Volume II under the same category, subsystem, and author/expert name.

Deployable Appendages

Solar Arrays

Retention and Release Mechanisms

Table 1: Anomalies of Pyrotechnic Devices
DateProjectFailureSource of FailureResolution
1976RSRAFiring pin assemblies corroded and locked in qualificationBad designRedesigned, requalified
1973ClassifiedPin puller failed during system test (cartridge closure blocking port)Lack of understandingRedesigned, requalified
1979ClassifiedPin puller ruptured during system test (inadequate containment margin and variation in metal grain orientation)Lack of understandingRedesigned, requalified
1987MagellanPin puller failed to stroke against flight side load (NSI output restricted, causing reduced output and housing deformation against working piston)Bad design; misapplication of hardwareReplaced, requalified
1986Magellan OrbiterPin puller failed to function in LAT (NSI produced insufficient pressure caused by coatings of pressurized volume)Misapplication of hardware; lack of understandingChanged manufacturer and design
1986ASATBolt cutter failed LAT (improper compression margin test requirement)Incorrect specificationCorrect specification

Bearings, Lubrication, and Tribology Considerations

Table 2: Tribomaterials for Deployment Mechanisms
MechanismsMission RequirementTechnology ShortfallTribomaterials / Mechanical Solution
Solar Array Drive
  • Reversible fast stow and deploy (10-sec retraction)
  • 360-degree continuous rotation (0.3 to 15 deg/sec)
  • 10- to 15-yr life, high torque with very small ripple
  • Reduced torque and torque noise
  • Lightweight (reduced size) bearings / gears
  • Long-life lubrication (thermal gradients, decontamination)
  • Solid lubricant (wear-resistant films)
  • Traction drives wiht controlled friction solid lubricant coatings
Antennas and Sensor Platforms
  • Synchronous and sequential deployment
  • Pointing accuracy while retracting
  • Consistent friction over 10- to 15-yr life
  • Lubricant life and survivability
  • Low friction, friction noise, and jitter
  • Reliability under quick transition from stowed to deployed
  • Synthetic hydrocarbons (low vapor pressure and additives)
  • Solid lubricant films (low friction and wear)
  • New polymeric retainers for ball bearings
Release Mechanisms
  • Launch load protection
  • Operational performance
  • Shape memory alloy, fatigue / reliability
  • Solid-lubricated mechanical release mechanisms

Antennas and Masts

Actuators, Transport Mechanisms, and Switches

Table 3: Lockheed Solutions to Limitations of Conventional Designs
ProblemSolution
Dynamic rangeUse of an electromagnet actuator in an analog closed-loop using special low-noise sensor electronics
BandwidthUse of electromagnetic actuator and moderate equivalent gear ratio
Stiction / frictionNo bearings or lubricants; exclusively flex pivots
High power consumptionFour-bar linkage (lever) and force unload system
Inability to cancel static frictionForce unload system

General and Miscellaneous

General anomalies and lessons learned (guidelines) for deployment mechanisms are given below: [Farley]

Rotating Systems

Momentum Wheels

Reaction Wheels

Control Moment Gyroscopes

Gears

Table 4: General Guidelines for Worm Gear Systems
GuidelineReason
Make the hob as nearly identical to the worm as possible.  Use slightly larger center distance for hobbing. Optimize contact prior to break-in.
Make face width a maximum of 50% of worm diameter. Avoid high-contact load on outer edges of gear teeth.
Avoid low-pressure angles on low-tooth-count gears. Avoid undercutting.
Total count (worm gear) should be a minimum of 40. Avoid geometric interference.
Avoid low speeds and stall. Low speed promotes severe boundary lubrication.
Grease lubrication may require special techniques to maintain performance. Oil film benefits from replenishment such as an oil bath.
Use fine surface finishes. Improves lube and wear.
Set the gear setup so that initial contact pattern is on the leaving side of the gear. Provide oil reservoir on the entering side.  Pattern will grow to cover entire width over life.
Break in gradually with loads and abundant lubrication. Break-in greatly increases life.

Motors

Table 5: Actuators Using Brush Motors
DescriptionApplicationCustomerProgram
High-torque gear motor150 ft-lb torque driverNASA-Goddard Solar Maximum Repair
Latch gear motorTool latchingNASA-Goddard Solar Maximum Repair
Gear motorCaging mechanismMartin MariettaFTS
Linear actuator (1000 lb)UnknownGrummanUnknown
Linear acutator (15 lb)OSSE experimentBall Aerospace Gamma Ray Observatory
Rotary actuatorUmbilical disconnect mechanismLockheed Classified
Rotary actuatorRocket nozzle extension actuatorAllied SignalAtlas Centaur II
dc common drive unitSolar drive deploymentFokkerEureka
dc gear motorSolar array deploymentAstroOlympus (L-SAT)
Gear motors (various sizes)Various drive functionMartin MariettaClassified
Gear motorUnknownMartin MariettaTOS
Gear motorSolar boom deploymentISRO (India)India Communication Satellite
High-torque actuatorAntenna deploymentGE AStroUpper Atmosphere Research Satellite
Redundant drive motorAstromast deploymentFordGOES
Worm gear drive unitClassifiedHarrisClassified
Center drive unitClassifiedHarrisClassified
Payload spin motor (integral hp)Deploy spinner satellitesMartin MariettaTitan Launch Vehicle

Bearings and Lubrication

Table 6: Partial Listing of Momentum / Reaction Wheel, Control Moment Gyroscope, and Gyroscope Experience
ProgramWheel TypeProblemCauseAction
Navstar / GPSReaction wheel; four per satellite On-orbit and test failures; high torqueLubricant depletion New lubrication qualification
GPS IIRReaction wheelHigh-speed cage instability Force, mass resonanceForce, mass; biased cages
DMSPReaction wheelBearings / lubricant could not be delivered Lubricant degradationExtensive bearing run-in and screening
DSPLarge momentum wheelTorque / temperature anomalies Lubricant starvationRedundant wheels
MILSTARRate gyroscopesDrive rate / torque instabilityLubricant starvationImproved lubrication, cage processing
CDPLarge control moment gyroscopes; > one per satellite Extensive torqueLube loss, cage instabilityActive oiler system, new oil
DSCS IIIReaction wheelTorque noise, vibrationUnknownRedundant wheels

Slip Rings and Roll Rings

Miscellaneous

Potentiometers

Cryogenic Grating Drive Mechanism

Payload Spin Assembly

Multichannel Chopper System

Vapor Compressor

Oscillating Systems