Program Management for Concurrent University Satellite Programs, Including Propellant Feed System Design Elements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations Spring 2019 Program management for concurrent university satellite programs, including propellant feed system design elements Shannah Withrow-Maser Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons Department: Recommended Citation Withrow-Maser, Shannah, "Program management for concurrent university satellite programs, including propellant feed system design elements" (2019). Masters Theses. 7894. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7894 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR CONCURRENT UNIVERSITY SATELLITE PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PROPELLANT FEED SYSTEM DESIGN ELEMENTS by SHANNAH NICHOLE WITHROW A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AEROSPACE ENGINEERING 2019 Approved by: Dr. Henry Pernicka, Advisor Dr. Suzanna Long Dr. Warner Meeks ii 2019 Shannah Nichole Withrow All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Propulsion options for CubeSats are limited but are necessary for the CubeSat industry to continue future growth. Challenges to CubeSat propulsion include volume/mass constraints, availability of sufficiently small and certified hardware, secondary payload status, and power requirements. A multi-mode (chemical and electric) thruster was developed by at the Missouri University of Science and Technology to enable CubeSat propulsion missions. Two satellite buses, a 3U and 6U, are under development to demonstrate the multi-mode thruster’s capabilities. Two key challenges related to these missions are the development of the feed system to support the thruster and management of the two bus programs’ personnel, resources, timelines, and budgets. The feed system was designed to support the unique needs of the thruster, within the constraints and budget of a student-designed propulsion system, while minimizing risk as a secondary payload. This resulted in the development of a unique method to pressurize propellant stored in the feed system tubing. Within the expected operating pressure range, the method was experimentally shown to provide sufficient pressure and propellant volume to the thruster to meet mission success criteria. The 3U and 6U CubeSat buses were designed concurrently with complimentary payloads, hardware, objectives, and team structures, and required careful management of resources between the two teams. With proper management, the two programs have been able to support one another through collaboration. Lessons learned include experience with design, testing, and assembly of hardware, team training/mentoring and motivation, improved documentation practices, and risk management. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr. Pernicka, for his encouragement and mentorship throughout my undergraduate and graduate career. I would like to thank Dr. Rovey and Dr. Berg for their contribution of the multi-mode thruster payload to the APEX and M3 missions, and my committee members, Dr. Long and Dr. Meeks for their feedback and time. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support from the Missouri Space Grant Consortium, Academy of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineers, and NASA Ames Research Center’s education program to my education. Thank you to the Missouri S&T Aerospace Plasma Laboratory (Alex Mundahl, Mitch Wainwright, and Andrew Taylor). I am grateful to the APEX Chief Engineers, Kyle Segobiano and Corey Dodd, for their partnership and technical guidance, Zack Fizell for his CAD support, Alex Mundahl for contributing the pressurant tank sizing code, and Matt Klosterman for his STK contributions. I appreciate that these team members (plus Andrew Kueny) continued to take me seriously during my “Veggie Sat” and knee scooter phase after ankle surgery. The contributions and support of all of the M3 and APEX team members have made both of the satellites possible, as well as this thesis. I would like to thank Donna Jennings for her support, willingness to listen, and for challenging me to continually improve. My parents and in-laws have encouraged me throughout my education, and my sister has provided inspiration (and grammar edits) to this thesis. I am grateful to my husband, Jaykob for sharing the graduate school experience with me and enabling me to pursue work I enjoy. Lastly, I want to thank my God who has been a source of strength for me. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………...……………iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....………………....………………………………….….…iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS……………....………………………………...........…........x LIST OF TABLES………………………….....……………………………….........…...xii NOMENCLATURE…………………………………………………………......…...…xiii SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. M-SAT MULTI-MODE MICROPROPULSION MISSIONS ........................... 3 1.1.1. Multi-Mode Micropropulsion Mission (M3) ............................................... 5 1.1.2. Advanced Propulsion EXperiment (APEX) ................................................ 5 1.2. AUTHOR’S INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................... 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................8 2.1. UNIVERSITY NANOSATELLITE PROGRAM……………………………...8 2.1.1. University Nanosatellite Program 4 at Missouri S&T…………………….8 2.1.2. Nanosatellite 4 to Nanosatellite 10……………………….…………..…...9 2.2. MULTI-MODE (CHEMICAL AND ELECTRIC) PROPSULSION FOR SMALL SATELLITES .................................................................................... 12 2.2.1. Propulsion (EP) Overview. ....................................................................... 12 2.2.2. Chemical Propulsion Overview. ............................................................... 14 2.2.3. Systems with Flight Heritage To-Date. ..................................................... 14 2.2.4. Larger Satellites with Dual Propulsion Systems ....................................... 15 vi 2.2.5. Recent Small Satellite Propulsion Developments ..................................... 17 2.2.6. Missouri S&T Multi-Mode Thruster ......................................................... 20 2.2.6.1. Propellant development. ................................................................. 20 2.2.6.2. Computational fluid dynamics. ....................................................... 21 3. APEX AND M3 MISSION DESCRIPTION ........................................................... 22 3.1. PAYLOAD-MULTI-MODE THRUSTER ...................................................... 22 3.2. SATELLITE BUS............................................................................................. 24 3.2.1. M3 .............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.2. APEX ........................................................................................................ 25 3.2.3. Feed System Components ......................................................................... 26 3.2.3.1. Propellant storage ........................................................................... 28 3.2.3.2. Pressurant tank assembly ................................................................ 31 3.2.3.3. Solenoid valves ............................................................................... 32 3.2.3.4. Check valves ................................................................................... 34 3.2.3.5. Pressure relief valve ........................................................................ 35 3.2.3.6. Pressure regulation .......................................................................... 35 3.2.3.7. Thermal sensors .............................................................................. 36 3.2.3.8. Pressure transducers ........................................................................ 37 3.2.3.9. Tubing ............................................................................................. 38 3.2.4. Feed System Layout .................................................................................. 39 3.3. VALIDATING THRUSTER PERFORMANCE ............................................. 41 3.4. RELEVANCE ................................................................................................... 41 3.5. RELAXING STUDENT CONSTRAINTS ...................................................... 42 vii 3.5.1. Component Changes. ................................................................................ 42 3.5.1.1. Propellant storage ........................................................................... 42 3.5.1.2. Pressurant tank assembly ................................................................ 43 3.5.1.3. Number of inhibits .......................................................................... 43 3.5.1.4. Pressure regulation .......................................................................... 43 3.5.1.5. Revised layout................................................................................. 44 3.5.2. Mass and Volume Savings