Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science Henry Samueli School of Engineering University of California, Irvine

Senior Design Project:

Material Selection and Finite Element Analysis for Structural Support of UCI CubeSat Spacecraft

Faculty Advisor: Farghalli A. Mohammed Group Members: Randy Ting and Alex Yang

March 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents List of Figures 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Information 1.2 Motivation 1.3 Purpose 2. Prior Work 2.1 Literature Survey 3. Design Constraints 3.1 Material 3.2 Monetary 3.3 Technological 3.4 Manufacturability 3.5 Experience 3.6 Environmental Impact 3.7 Health and Safety 4. Design 4.1 Design Processes and Consideration 4.2 Design Sketches and Drawings 5. Results and Discussion 5.1. Materials Selection 5.2. Assumptions in Obtaining Results 5.3. Factor of Safety 5.4. Hand Calculation 5.5. Finite Element Analysis Parameters 5.6. Results 6. Conclusions 6.1. Structural Conclusions 7. Plan for Future Work 7.1. Destructive Testing 7.2. Proof Load Structure Schematic 7.3. Redesign Using Information from Destructive Testing 8. References 8.1. List of Referenced Works Appendix ii iii 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 7 7 9 10 10 10 13 14 14 15

16 17

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure / Table# 4.1.1 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3.1. 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 5.5.3. 6.1.1. 7.3.1. Description Design Process Flow Chart Button-Head Screw Attachments Countersunk Screw Locations Spring Plunger Location Points Hand Calculation for Stresses Principal Stresses for Structural Frame Displacement Depiction for Nodes. Node Plot for FEA Model Maximum Values for Deflection and Stress Proof Load Structure Graphical Representation Page # 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19

iii

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Information The UCI Satellite team is an organization formed with one mission: to design, build, and launch a CubeSat spacecraft, UCISAT-1. It was formed in 2003 after professors from Stanford and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo began a collaborative effort to create a small-scale and costeffective platform for university space research opportunities around the world. UCIs Satellite team is sponsored by several different organizations including Boeing Corporation, UC Irvines Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, and the team members themselves. After four years of designing the Cubesat spacecraft, the team is approaching the fabrication phase of the project. Currently, CAD Models of the Cubesat structure have been generated, but no analysis has been conducted on its survivability after launch. This project is an effort to design of the Cubesat structure material and geometry for fabrication and implementation into the overall system. The UCI Satellite team currently has two programs that can perform finite element analysis: FEMAP with NX Nastran and CATIA. It also has the ability to order a test pod from the Cubesat organization for vibration testing. Also, various machine shops are available for the team to use for fabrication of any parts needed for the project. This project will focus mainly on the analysis using finite element software. 1.2 Motivation This paper provides a process overview for the finite element analysis and materials selection process. From initial project conception to final design release, this project follows the steps that engineers must make in everyday decisions. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) is a tool commonly used by Engineers who are involved with structural design. Nearly every flavor of CAD software contains some type of FEA tool embedded within it. While some are simple, and others are complex, the results are meaningless unless they are verified. In order to confirm that the results obtained through the computer analysis software are true, the results obtained experimentally are compared. 1.3 Purpose The main purpose of this project is to design the material and geometry of UCIs Cubesat spacecraft structure using finite element software and empirical data. The end goal of the project is to successfully fabricate the structure to be integrated into the Cubesat system to support launch in the near future. The structure designed shall meet the following specifications set by the Cubesat organization at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo: Shall not fail under 15g load Shall not fail under vibration testing specified by Cubesat organization Shall not weigh over 1kg Material shall not have coefficient of thermal expansion greater than AL 6061-T6 Shall not be electrically conductive To determine the best material for the structure, the material properties of different polymers as well as metals will be investigated. Among the important parameters being analyzed, density, strength, stiffness, and machinability will be the most critical. Finite element software will be used to simulate the environment that the structure will undergo. It will be used to predict behavior of the complex geometry to be used as the satellites structure. Following fabrication, 1

empirical testing will be performed using a compression test and a vibration test in a test pod provided by Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

2. PRIOR WORK 2.1 Literature Survey Article #1 Jung, Park, Seo, Han, Kim: Structural Vibration Analysis of Electronic Equipment for Satellite Under Launch Environment, Key Engineering materials, Volumes 270-273, pp14401445,2004 The authors investigated the result of impulse on a satellite structure on the PCB boards which are commonly carried on satellites. Similar to the cube structure used by the UCI CubeSAT, the authors analyzed the effects of spacers on the overall effect of one PCB mounted to an aluminum frame. In performing this analysis, the authors found that connection points and method of connection played an important part in the modes of the FE model. Article #2 Conlon, Hambric: Predicting the vibroacoustic response of satellite equipment panels, Soc. Am, Vol. 113, No.3, pp1454-1474, March 2003 In this article, the authors investigated the effects of launch on a large scale satellite. Instead of performing an FEA analysis, the author computes and compares Statistical Element Analysis (SEA) methods in order to provide an alternative to the standard FEA analysis. The author found that the results obtained via both methods are identical. The authors also observed that simply lumping masses is ineffective in conveying the real behavior of a satellite structure containing multiple parts. Article #3 Pater, Curto: Advanced Materials for Space Applications, Acta Astronautica, Vol 61, pp11211129, 2007 In this article, alternative materials used in space applications are discussed. Of particular significance to this project is PETI-5/IM7 composite. This material has been widely used in defense applications, including on the now defunct High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) project. With a high glass transition temperature, high thermal and mechanical properties, and among the highest tensile strengths of any composite structure, PETI-5/IM7 contains many properties which could complement the desired material property requirements for the UCI CubeSat. Article #4 Achutuni, Menzel: Space Systems Consideration in the Design of Advanced Geostationary Operational Enviromental Satellites, Adv. Space Res, Vol 23, No. 8, pp1377-1384, 1999 In this article, the materials of the newer age are discussed. New materials, including Graphite/Epoxy compsites, Titanium, and Silicon Carbide have been found to be viable alternatives to classic materials, such as Aluminum and Beryllium. The major flaws with the materials presented include out gassing in composites containing epoxy and electrical conductivity. Article #5 Flint, Melcher, Hanselka, The Promise of Smart Materials for Small Satellites, Acta Astronautica, Vol 39, No 9-12, pp809-814, 1996.

The uses of smart materials were analyzed. The alternative materials outlined within the article could prove to be useful in the design of the UCI CubeSat, since weight restrictions exist and the potential weight savings could justify their use. Additionally, the materials outlined within this paper could provide higher performance and enhance reliability of the structure.

3. DESIGN CONSTRAINTS There are multiple types of constraints for this project; they include (but are not limited to): material, monetary, and technological, manufacturability, and experience constraints. 3.1 Material Since a great amount of the project deals with materials which are not currently widely used, it is expected that some materials may require significant time to acquire them. Additionally, these materials are generally scarce, and it may be difficult to use them to verify numerical results obtained in the project analysis since they may not be available in the desired sizes. 3.2 Monetary Since the objective is to design and build a proof load structure which will be used in order to simulate a 15g environment, it will be necessary to purchase materials in order to develop this proof load structure. Destructive testing can be very costly, but much engineering analysis will be conducted initially to ensure the data collected from destructive testing will be useful. This structure will compromise approximately $150 in materials. 3.3 Technological In conducting an FEA, large amounts of computing power (CPU time) are required. Similar to the compiling process in a programming language, the compilation of data from an FEA process requires a large amount of time, depending upon the amount of computing power available. In some cases, geometries may not be able to be analyzed using FEA because only desktop computers are available rather than a workstation grade computer. For this reason, it is anticipated that computing power will be a constraint in conducting this project. 3.4 Manufacturability Manufacturing the proof load structure will be difficult because it will assume a complex 3-dimensional geometry. In order to fabricate the proof load structure, work must be outsourced to a machinist with CNC capabilities. This will result in more time required to set up the empirical testing of the structure. The cost of outsourcing fabrication is much greater than inhouse (on-campus) fabrication. The estimated cost of fabrication of the proof load structure is $500. 3.5 Experience While the fundamental concepts of vibration analysis are known to the team members, in order to effectively perform modal analysis of the Cubesat structure, extensive research must be performed to become accustomed to the approach for solving the vibration problems. Textbooks on the modal analysis must be found so that independent learning can be accomplished. 3

3.6 Environmental Impact The fabrication of the proof load structure will produce waste in the form of excess material. Depending on the material used, significant research must be conducted to ensure proper disposal of waste material. Improper disposal can result in pollution of landfills. 3.7 Health and Safety Because of simplicity of geometry, certain parts of the proof load structure can be machined easily on-campus. Machining can produce particles that can be inhaled by the fabricator. In order to decrease the risk of inhaling particles produced from machining, a mask will be worn during fabrication. Also, eye protection will be used to reduce the chance of particles landing in the fabricators eyes.

4. DESIGN 4.1 Design Processes and Considerations Prior to the beginning of this project, the UCI satellite team generated a preliminary concept for the geometry of the Cubesat frame structure. The preliminary concept geometry was designed to only support the mounting of components from other subsystems. Cuts were made in the CAD model to eliminate mass that was intuitively predicted to not be useful. A material was not specified for the structure. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the optimal material to be used. To determine the material to be used for fabrication of the Cubesat structure, the design process shown in Figure 4.1.1 was used.

Figure 4.1.1 Design Process Flow Chart The CAD model of the structure was simplified to allow for easier meshing into a finite element model. A factor of safety of 2 was chosen to mitigate any failure that could occur due to the deviation of the prototype from the ideal finite element model. From the Cubesat 4

documentation, the organizers state that a force 15 times the force of gravity should be able to be endured by the structure. From this requirement, the load was modeled as a 66.15 lb force equally distributed between the two top surfaces of the structure assembly attached to springs. The two surfaces fastened at the bottom of the structure assembly which were fastened to springs were constrained in the finite element model to be fixed. To determine the possible materials that would satisfy the thermal coefficient of thermal expansion constraint set by the Cubesat organization, an Ashby chart of thermal expansion coefficient vs. Youngs modulus was used. Any material with coefficient of thermal expansion greater than that of aluminum was eliminated from being a possible candidate for the Cubesat structure. A table of material properties for the possible candidates was generated to include density, Youngs modulus, tensile yield strength, and approximate price/weight. Aluminum 6061-T6 was chosen as a baseline material, and a finite element analysis was performed using FEMAP/NX-Nastran and CATIA to ensure consistent results. The maximum solid Von Mises stress was determined for the geometry. Materials with yield strengths less than that of the maximum solid Von Mises stress were eliminated as possible material candidates for the structure. The densities of the remaining candidates were used along with the calculated volume of the structure to eliminate any materials which would result in a structure that exceeds the maximum 1 kg mass constraint set by the Cubesat organization. Youngs moduli of the remaining materials were compared to determine the stiffest material which would result in minimum deflection of holes. This ensures that load will not be transferred to any components that are not part of the structures subsystem. 4.2 Design Sketches and Drawings The design sketches and drawings for the UCISAT satellite can be found in Appendix A.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Materials Selection To narrow down the search for feasible materials for use in the Cubesat structure, an Ashby materials selection chart was used. The maximum thermal expansion coefficient constraint set by the Cubesat organization was used first to filter the vast selection of materials.

Figure 5.1.1 Ashby Chart Used to Filter High Thermal Expansion Coefficient Materials An Ashby Chart was used to filter materials with high coefficients of expansion. A line was drawn along the constant thermal expansion coefficient of Aluminum alloys. The elimination process for the materials was as follows: All materials above the line were rejected as feasible solutions because of high thermal expansion coefficients. The families of materials that remained as feasible solutions were natural materials, ceramics, metals, and composites. The fabrication capability of ceramics was researched, and it was concluded that ceramics should be eliminated as candidates because it is difficult to machine. It was also found that the ceramics are a brittle material, which would increase its chances of failing once its yield strength is reached. Stone and brick were found to not be a feasible solution because their material properties could not be predicted or controlled easily. Carbon fiber reinforced plastics were also eliminated as feasible solutions because research results showed that their mechanical properties were anisotropic. The project team lacked the resources to analyze the behavior of complex threedimensional geometries composed of anisotropic materials under load. The fabrication cost of CFRPs was determined to be greater than that of the projects budget. Metals were kept as feasible solutions because they are capable of good machinability, easy to obtain, and generally isotropic. 6

Table 5.1.1 Typical Metals Mechanical Properties Chart

Material Elas tic Modulus (ksi) 1.00E+04 1.90E+04 2.45E+04 2.90E+04 1.49E+04 Tensile Yield Strength (ksi) 35 37 47.7 32 30 Density (lbm/in^3) 0.098 0.304 0.246 0.28 0.163 Average Thermal Expansion Coefficient (in/in F) 13.1 9.4 5.55 4.8 5.1 Mass (kg) 0.32 1.00 0.81 0.92 0.53

6061 A luminum T6 Copper Alloy C17000 Cast Iron 60-40-18 1018 Steel Titanium Alloy ASTM Grade 1

Material Properties of typical, easy to obtain metals were researched to be down selected. The mechanical properties of the metals are tabulated in Table 5.1.1. To determine if each material was capable of satisfying the 1kg mass constraint, the approximate mass for each material was calculated using a volume of 7.21 cubic inches as determined by the SolidWorks CAD model generated. The 7.21 cubic inches volume was only considering the volume of the frame structure components without any electrical components. Copper Alloy C17000, Cast Iron 60-40-18, and 1018 steel were determined to result in a frame structure which was too heavy to allow a weight margin for accommodating electrical components. Therefore, 6061 Aluminum T6 and Titanium Alloy ASTM Grade 1 were considered for final analysis in FEA. Aluminum and titanium can be anodized to prevent the conduction of electricity that could short circuit electronics components. Empirical tests were not performed to determine whether or not an anodized surface would be sufficient to prevent electrical conduction, but conductivity values were reduced by a factor of 103 . 5.2. Assumptions in Obtaining Results In order to more effectively analyze the structure of the satellite, assumptions needed to be made which simplified the analysis. Since the side panels of the CUBESAT satellite are used as a structural element, the connection between these points and the support frames needed to be analyzed. The model employs button-head cap screws in conjunction with countersunk screws in order to affix the panels to the structure. Button-head cap screws hold the side, back, and front panels to the support frames. An illustration can be found on the following page on Figure 5.2.1.

Figure 5.2.1. Button-Head Screw Attachments The illustration above shows the typical arrangement of button-head cap screws on the UCISAT model. There are (5) instances of the set of (4) throughout the entire structure. All of the panels, with the exception of the top panel, employ this fixation method. In conducting the analysis, a rigid surface connection was assumed for each of the connectors. The rigid surface connection took the shape of a circle, with the same diameter as the flanged surface of the button-head screw. The connection is an interaction between the plate and the support frame. In addition to button-head cap screws, countersunk screws are also employed on the top panel of the UCISAT structure. They are illustrated on Figure 5.2.2 below.

Figure 5.2.2. Countersunk Screw Locations The countersunk screw locations were approximated in the model using a projection of the flanged face upon the mating surface of the panel and the support structure. There are (8) 8

instances of this connection on our top plate. A rigid surface connection with a circular area equal to the projected area was assumed in order to complete the analysis. Assumptions regarding the forces were also considered during this analysis. It was assumed that a 15g load was applied to the spring plunger points, which are shown in Figure 5.2.3.

Figure 5.2.3. Spring Plunger Location Points. It was assumed that the plungers would remain in contact with the launch mechanism throughout the duration of the launch. For this reason, the 15g force was split among the two plungers. It was also assumed that the opposing surface was held in a fixed position for the analysis. 5.3. Factor of Safety A factor of safety was applied due to uncertainties in the conduction of the analysis. The derivation of the factor of safety can be found below on Figure 5.3.1. Contribution Value Comments Material 1.1 The material purchased to manufacture the panels is not certified with a heat number. For this reason, only the expected properties from the datasheets can be used. Load Stress 1.2 Both members of the group have limited experience in stress analysis methods. Geometry 1.0 The panels will be manufactured using 5-Axis CNC Machining (frames) and WaterJet (panels). These processes can hold true tolerances of less than .003 Failure 1.1 The stresses were derived from the free body diagram, which states the Analysis Reliability 1.4 Since only one satellite will be launched, the reliability is very important. Figure 5.3.1: Chart Showing the Selection for Factor of Safety. 9

It was found that the factor of safety was required to be 2.03. The derivation for the factor of safety can be found in Appendix B. 5.4. Hand Calculation

Figure 5.3.1. Hand Calculation for Stresses As stated in the previous section, the forces were assumed to only exist on the two spring plungers which were attached to the two support structures. The figure above shows a cross section view of only one of the panels. In order to better approximate the amount of force which is endured by the internal cross sectional area, the force was modeled and the stresses were calculated. Since the values for the stresses were less than the yield strengths of both materials being considered, we continued with the FEA analysis of the two structures together. 5.5. Finite Element Analysis Parameters During the FEA, the OCTOTREE mesh utility was used on all of the geometrical elements of the model. The mesh size was set to .050, or 50 thousandths of an inch. A uniform force of the following magnitude was applied. = (. . ) = (2.03)(1 ) 9.8 = 19.894

This stress was distributed evenly upon both of the plunger mounts during the analysis.

10

Additionally, a fixed plane was needed to perform the analysis. For our study, we chose the plane which sat parallel to the plane normal to the tip of the vector which models the direction of the force. 5.6. Results The above parameters were applied, and the structural analysis was performed. Sketches which detail the principal stresses, deflection, and nodes of the frames can be found on the following pages.

Figure 5.5.1. Principal Stresses for Structural Frame On the plot above, the stresses in units of pounds per square inch are conveyed. The mean tensile stress of the structure is -38.8 psi. The maximum stresses in compression and tension are 225 psi and 148 psi, respectively.

11

Figure 5.5.2. Displacement Depiction for Nodes. In the figure above, the displacement of nodes (shown in figure 5.5.3) is shown above. From the above figure, the bottom third of the box closest to the fixed plane (shown in blue) is predicted to have zero displacement. The maximum displacement of the nodes was found to be .214 thousandths of an inch. This maximum is located on the surface where the load is applied, and is shown in red.

12

Figure 5.5.3. Node Plot for FEA Model The figure above shows the nodes which were used to conduct the finite element analysis. They show the location of the finite elements analyzed throughout the structure.

6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Structural Conclusions After investigating the structure, and using the FEA analysis tools, we found that the maximum A table of the key findings can be found below on Figure 6.1.1. Table 6.1.1: Maximum Values for Deflection and Stress Parameter Value Maximum Deflection 2.14 104 Maximum Stress 148

The above table shows the maximum deflection and maximum stress which are experienced by the UCISAT structure. Since all of the applicable constraints for the structure were met, we concluded that 6061-T6 was an acceptable material for use for the stress analysis.

13

7. PLAN FOR FUTURE WORK 7.1. Destructive Testing A proof load structure will be contstructed and used to determine the maximum amount load which can be applied to the UCISAT fixture. The actual loads which cause the UCISAT structure to fail can then be determined. With this information, a designer will re-design the box in order to meet the minimum requirement to minimize weight, producing the optimal box possible. 7.2. Schematic for Proof Load Structure The purpose of a proof load structure is to accurately reproduce the forces which exist on the structure. As modeled in Figure 5.2.3, the forces on the structure are evenly distributed on the two spring plungers. A graphical rendering of a proof load structure can be found below on Figure 7.3.1.

Figure 7.3.1: Proof Load Structure Graphical Representation The graphical rendering above is the proof load structure which will be used to simulate loads on the UCISAT structure. The satellite structure will be sandwiched between the top and bottom plates, which are free to slide in the Z-axis. The UCISAT structure will be placed between the top and bottom plates of the proof load structure, and mass will be added to the top plate until failure in the UCISAT structure is achieved. The ultimate tensile strength of the proof load structure will be found and calculated. This data will be collected for the re-design process which is outlined in Section 7.3.

14

7.3. Redesign Using Information from Destructive Testing After destructive testing is complete, the failure mechanism will be examined. Plastic deformation of the box is expected, with a brittle fracture failure mechanism. The direction of the crack propagation will be carefully examined and analyzed. Material in areas where cracks are minimal will be removed from the panels in order to eliminate mass from the structure. After the panels have been re-designed, the model will be re-analyzed using the finite element analysis method in order to ensure that all of the constraints outlined by the project definition are still being met, and the box will be produced.

15

8. REFERENCES 8.1. List of Referenced Works 1. Jung, Park, Seo, Han, Kim: Structural Vibration Analysis of Electronic Equipment for Satellite Under Launch Environment, Key Engineering materials, Volumes 270-273, pp1440-1445,2004 2. Conlon, Hambric: Predicting the vibroacoustic response of satellite equipment panels, Soc. Am, Vol. 113, No.3, pp1454-1474, March 2003 3. Pater, Curto: Advanced Materials for Space Applications, Acta Astronautica, Vol 61, pp1121-1129, 2007 4. Achutuni, Menzel: Space Systems Consideration in the Design of Advanced Geostationary Operational Enviromental Satellites, Adv. Space Res, Vol 23, No. 8, pp1377-1384, 1999 5. Flint, Melcher, Hanselka, The Promise of Smart Materials for Small Satellites, Acta Astronautica, Vol 39, No 9-12, pp809-814, 1996. 6. Ashby, Michael. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. Massachusetts, Pergamon Press, 1992. 7. Callister, William D. Materials Science and Engineering: an Introduction. NewYork, Wiley, 2006.

16

Appendix A : UCISAT Sketches

4X
D

.063

4X

.106
D

.063 3.905 3.753 3.653 3.555 3.303

2.853
C

42X 2.403

.250

1.953

3.905

1.503

1.053

.603 .350 .253 .153 0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:

.202 .350 .453

.828 .953

1.278

1.728

2.178

2.628

2.953 3.078

3.453 3.555 3.703

3.905

Bottom Panel
SIZE PROJECT REV

Aluminum 6061

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

R.125 R.063 R.031 R.063

R.125

R.063

R.063

R.063

.585 R.040

D
.070 2X 2-56 UNC .226 .172

R.040 R.040 R.040 R.040 4.469 4.124 3.984 R.031 R.063 R.063 .070 THRU ALL 8X 2-56 UNC THRU ALL R.063 R.063 R.063 R.063 R.063 R.031 R.031 R.063 R.063 3.929 3.884 3.679 3.529 2X .089 THRU .255 X 82 .094 .047 2X 0-80 UNF .070 4X 2-56 UNC .160 .120 .250 .172

R.040 R.031

R.040 R.031

R.063 R.063 R.050 R.063 R.031

R.063 R.050 R.063 .939 .829 .584 .539 .484 .344 0

1.939 1.999

3.199 3.259

3.337 3.469 3.602

.844 .835 .669 .585 .469 .462 .335 0

3.937

0 .335

.469 .600 .679 .739

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:
Left Frame

.469 .679 .739 .969 1.044

1.939 1.999

2.894 2.969 3.199 3.259 3.469

Al 7075-T73

SIZE PROJECT

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

REV

.070 2-56 UNC

.260 .170

0 .080 .167 .205 .469 .585 .679 .739 .919 1.044 1.169

1.939 1.999

2.769 2.894 3.019 3.199 3.259 3.469

R.040 R.040

3.857 3.937

R.040

R.040 R.031

.070 THRU ALL 8X 2-56 UNC THRU ALL 4.469 4.124 3.929 3.884 4.469 4.124 3.934 3.929

R.031

R.063 R.063

R.063 R.063 R.063

3.709 3.559 3.429 3.327 3.234 3.059 2.984 2.609

R.063 R.063

R.063

R.063 R.125 2X .089 THRU .255 X 82 R.063 R.050 R.063 R.063 R.050 R.063 .709 .584 .539 .484 .344 0 1.439

2.434 2.034 1.859 1.459 1.234 1.141

.534 .344 0

1.939

1.999

3.199

3.259

3.469

3.602

.070 4X 2-56 UNC

.250 .170

3.937

.335

.469

.679

.739

.469 .679 .739 .919 .969 1.044 1.169

1.939 1.999

2.769 2.969 3.019 3.199 3.259 3.469

3.937

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:

Right Frame
SIZE PROJECT REV

Al 7075-T73

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

.063 3.780 3.540 3.340 .300

C

4X

.106

12X R.090

2.735 2.321 2X R.063

1.890

3.780

1.459 1.045

.440 .240 0

1.208

1.600

1.992

2.526

2.760

3.075 3.100 3.200

0 .100 .125

.440

.674

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:

Side Panel
SIZE PROJECT REV

Aluminum 6061

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

.063 3.905 3.653 3.555 3.303 4X .106

2.853

42X

.250

2.403 3.905 2X R.063 1.503

1.953

1.053
B B

.603 .350 .253 0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:

.202 .350 .453

.828

1.278

1.728

2.178

2.628

3.078

3.453 3.555 3.703

3.905

Top Panel
SIZE PROJECT REV

Aluminum 6061

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

.063 3.905 3.653 3.555 3.303 4X .106

2.853

42X

.250

2.403 3.905 2X R.063 1.503

1.953

1.053
B B

.603 .350 .253 0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: COMMENTS:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL .01 ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL .01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL .005
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF UCISAT. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UCISAT IS PROHIBITED. MATERIAL FINISH

UCISAT
TITLE:

.202 .350 .453

.828

1.278

1.728

2.178

2.628

3.078

3.453 3.555 3.703

3.905

Top Panel
SIZE PROJECT REV

Aluminum 6061

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING

SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:

2 1

UCISAT-1 A-01
SHEET 1 OF 1

 AppendixB:FactorofSafety