As a summer 2021 intern, my second project was to complete the sizing, the geometry selection, and the configuration layout of the Titan Aircraft, based on known parameters and mission requirements. Certain mission requirements were already known and are summarized below:

Known Parameters

Value

Range

Infinite

Cruise Speed

266 m/s

Takeoff Distance

500m

Cruise Altitude

1km

Known Parameters about the Titan Aircraft Mission

Clearly, there are not many well defined parameters, which made initial sizing somewhat vague. The range was based off of the Direct Fusion Drive’s engine capability. The engine acts similarly an electric engine, in that no mass of the aircraft is lost over the course of the mission. Because of this, the typical initial sizing estimates and mass fractions that are calculate to account for fuel burn over the course of the mission were unnecessary. The dry mass was a constant 2000kg.

Given the constant total dry mass, I could then roughly calculate the sizes for each part of the plane: the wing, the vertical tail, and the fuselage. These were back of the envelope calculations, using formulas from Raymer’s Aircraft Design textbook, so that I would be able to get a first sketch of what the aircraft may look like. After I calculated initial sizes of each section, I used NASA’s Open Vehicle Sketch Pad to design the first aircraft configuration, shown below:

As a Summer 2021 intern, my first project was to complete the structural design of a 1U CubeSat that will fly in orbit with and observe the NASA Solar Cruiser. The 1U CubeSat needed to follow the CubeSat design specifications set by the California Polytechnic State University; it needed to have specific dimensions, needed to weigh a certain amount, and needed to be able withstand structural loads and natural frequency/vibrational loads. In order to design and test the CubeSat, I used Fusion360’s design and simulation softwares. I based my design of the CubeSat off of the engineering drawing provided by the California Polytechnic State University’s “CubeSat Design Specification” manual.

I designed the initial model in Fusion360 as one part made up of different components, as shown below:

The top of the CubeSat faces the positive z-direction, while the front faces the negative y-direction and the right side faces the positive x-direction. The CubeSat also needed four deployable solar panels attached by hinge mechanisms to the four edges of the top face. The panels needed to start parallel to the walls and then, when deployed by some mechanism, needed to swing upward in the positive z-direction.

After designing the idealized CubeSat, I ran multiple modal frequency analyses and structural analyses in order to make sure the CubeSat could withstand the proper loads. First, I ran modal frequency analyses, with fixed boundary conditions for a cantilever beam. The natural frequencies for the first four modes of the CubeSat are shown in the following table:

Mode

Frequency (Hz)

1

518.5

2

518.5

3

518.6

4

518.8

CubeSat natural frequencies for the first four modes, calculated by Fusion360

The above natural frequencies calculated in Fusion360 are very similar to the theoretical natural frequencies of a cantilever beam, given by the formula:

Where “E” is the modulus of elasticity (also known as Young’s Modulus), and “I” is the area moment of inertia. This formula can be used to find the natural frequencies of a cantilever beam for any mode of vibration, “n”.

My results were also similar to other experimental results. For example, a study titled “Design, Analysis, Optimization, Manufacturing, and Testing of a 2U CubeSat” published in the International Journal of Aerospace Engineering performed a modal frequency analysis of a 2U CubeSat and found the following natural frequencies for the first four modes:

Mode

Frequency (Hz)

1

490.5

2

506

3

565

4

640

These results are from the following study: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2018/9724263/

These results are similar to the ones I found in my modal frequency analyses.

After running the modal frequency analyses, I ran a few structural load analyses. The CubeSat frame had a honeycomb structure, which I modeled in Fusion360, and was made up of Aluminum 7075 material. The CubeSat needed to be able to withstand a maximum pressure differential of 15.2 psi (0.104 MPa) created by the Space Launch System (SLS) ascent into space, according to NASA’s Space Launch System Program’s White paper.

The maximum displacement of the CubeSat’s structure due to the applied force was 0.009 m, which is very low. Fusion360 calculates Von Mises stresses, and the maximum stress was 16.08 MPa, which is well under Young’s Modulus of Aluminum 7075 (71.7 GPa). The safety factor of the structure was 8+ everywhere on the structure, meaning the structure is much stronger than the 15.2 psi (0.104 MPa) load applied.

After running the modal frequency and static stress analyses in Fusion360 and getting the desired results, the CubeSat was ready to be modeled as 3D printable parts and 3D printed with PLA on the FlashForge Creator Pro printer:

The initial CubeSat design in Fusion360 had to be modified and broken up into different parts that were each 3D printable; after printing each part, I assembled them to form the whole CubeSat. I decided to break the initial design up into the following 3D printable parts: the top, the bottom, four separate side walls, four separate side rails, four deployable solar panels; finally, I needed to add four hinges plus four rods to attach each of the solar panels to the main structure (similar to a door hinge mechanism). This allowed the solar panels to rotate on a hinge from their initial position up to 180 degrees upward and back. Photos of the different 3D printed parts are shown below:

After 3D printing all the necessary parts, I needed to assemble them. I modeled screw holes in Fusion360 on each 3D printed part in specific locations, so that I would not need to bore holes manually after the parts were printed. I ordered screws for plastic from McMaster Carr, so I knew the correct diameter and length for the screw holes I modeled in Fusion360. This way, the parts were ready to be assembled immediately after 3D printing. Images of the final assembled 1U CubeSat are shown below:

3D printing the final product was an iterative process, so I ended up assembling two different CubeSats entirely and printing a multitude of different versions of each part until I assembled the final product correctly. During the printing process I ran into many problems with the design of the parts, as well as issues with the printer itself. Some design problems included incorrect part sizes, incorrect screw hole placement, incorrect screw hole tolerancing/sizing, and incorrect dimensions of the overall assembled cube. Some printer issues included warping and two nozzle clogs. Some of my parts warped due to a lack of adhesion between the printer bed and the filament coming out of the nozzle, meaning the corners of these parts bent upward and were no longer usable. I solved this problem by reducing the heat of the 3D print bed to make sure the filament could cool down correctly on the bed. On a couple of occasions, parts would not print at all or the filament would come out tangled and would not stick to the bed; I solved this problem by taking apart the nozzle and manually unclogging it so that the filament could come out correctly. I also re-leveled the bed, to make sure the nozzle was close enough to the printer bed so that when the filament initially came out of the nozzle it would stick to the bed immediately. Photos of intermediate designs are shown below:

Overall, this project was educational, challenging, and fun! I learned a new CAD software, Fusion360, which will be useful in the future, and I practiced my engineering design and 3D printing skills!

Overall, this project was educational, challenging, and fun! I learned a new CAD software, Fusion360, which will be useful in the future, and I practiced my engineering design and 3D printing skills!