2024-08-21 SmallSat Meeting

Louis AFRL Opportunity

Louis

• Discuss potential opportunity for SmallSat

  • Louis University of Tulsa & ATSP Innovations

  • Collaborator at NASA

  • Phase II funding (2.4mil) awarded:

    • Develop new materials that work better with joint

    • Better model of how adhesive molds over time

    • Robotic assembly testing

    • Better understanding of feasibility in spaces

  • Also contacted by AFRL

    • Large pool of funding (secondary option to funding)

    • Raises opportunity for collaboration

  • At Phase I worked to TRL3

    • Technology works, joint works

  • Raise to TRL4

• Second source of funding

  • Idea to raise TRL further for ATSP

  • Operating under 3-4 TRL

  • Looking to raise to a 7 (prototype demonstration in space)

    • CubeSat prototype testing

• Compelling option is to work with funding

• What has Univ. Tulsa done so far?

  • Centered around conceptually developing how joint operates

  • Phase II starting in fall; have joint, can we get a robot to couple the joint

• Deliverables:

  • Million dollars (hypothetically)

  • What would you want to get COTS vs in house

  • What are rational objectives for the mission?

    • How long could it operate for?

    • In-space deployment (optimal)

    • In-space durability test

  • Funding pool would be inter-department pool of R&D fundings

    • No hard deadlines, discretionary funding that AFRL has

    • Goal: have deliverable/document that is relatively brief & builds confidence for this idea

• Concerns:

  • Mass & Space

  • Robust controls

  • Radiation tolerant consultants

• Producing a clear structure for division of work

  • How would you want smallsat team to be involved?

    • Creating mechanical & electrical system is feasible

  • Tiered Mission Structure

    • Pre-assembled test coupon that is not fused

    • Camera for imaging

• Design

  • Add chamfer on socket

• Tricky to get meaningful camera

  • Secondary coupon to fuse would be a simpler solid state test

• Paint joint outside (specks, stripes) machine vision

Recap

All

• Takeaways:

  • Work to develop joint test bed (satellite, electronics, mechanics, etc.)

  • UT provides joints, we provide infrastructure

• Order:

  • Stamper

  • Us + AFRL

  • Proposal

  • Develop smallsat with capital

• Main concern: how work will be distributed

  • ATSP innovations will be the PI on work

  • CubeSat assembled at clean room environment

  • Proposal at a high level includes full project

    • Some funding goes to ATSP

    • Other funding goes to validation

      • Rose outsources for physical test stand hardware

  • Rose has infrastructure to develop test stand hardware, MINDS lab work for assembly and verification.

  • Dr. Marincel, Brian Fair

  • Command & Control for ground station

  • “We will do x, y, break it”

  • Rose is enablers for real-world testing

  • For now: write proposal in terms of assuming that vast majority of work will be done at Rose. Taking direction from ATSP to develop

  • Initial white paper

    • Problem statement, how would this concept work, time and logistic commitments (ground station)

    • Ground station, sat, vibes & radiation testing

    • Rational explanation of budget, technology, facilities, mission conops, CAD or diagram (orbit in LEO), how to collect data (autonomous?)

      • Use Starlink terminal to connect & communicate

      • Comms: Starlink, radio signals

        • Starlink transceiver

    • Need: Ground station, sat, vibes & radiation testing

    • Really basic stuff, how much money, launch services costs, basic layout of proof of concept

    • Propose as rideshare, AFRL would most likely be enough to cover (Firefly DREAM proposal)

• Target white paper 3 working days before meeting with Stamper

• Demonstrate mission maturity

  • If budget smaller, easier for Rose to handle

  • If budget larger, Rose can do less in house

• $1M is a budget target

• Power requirements for heating

  • Solar panels, capacitors

  • Batteries for storage

• Professor developing range of -80-25C

  • Double capacity than state of the art

  • Look for hybrid supercapacitors

    • High discharge limits, some issues

• AFRL already given large pool of money for ground testing (2.4mil)

• $1mil budget for rational target

  • The less the cost, the more straightforward if can be funded

• Est. Timeline

  • 1-2mo for white paper & proposal

  • Ideal: 6 months for funding prepared

  • 2 years from receiving funding

  • Reasonable time limit: 1 year to actually start build process

• Phase II

  • Notified of funding July, starting in September