Learn about the GrabCAD Platform
Get to know GrabCAD as an open software platform for Additive Manufacturing
Visit our new homepage
Show off your skills and solve real design problems
Update 1/23/25
Challenge Update: Winners Announced
We are thrilled to reveal the top five winning designs, each showcasing innovative engineering and exceptional execution. These entries stood out for their technical rigor, creativity, and ability to meet the challenge criteria.
Congratulations to all that won, we will be in contact shortly for next steps.
Update 12/25/24
Challenge Update: Finalists Announced
After careful evaluation of 59 exceptional submissions, we're excited to announce the finalists of the Let it Go (After Latching) Challenge. Ten designs stood out through their technical excellence and innovative approaches.
Key Technical Insights from the Challenge
The selected finalists demonstrated excellence across multiple dimensions. Clear operation was paramount – these submissions effectively illustrated both triggering and releasing mechanisms through detailed visuals. Robust and repeatable operation proved essential, with designs incorporating rolling elements or angled sliding contacts performing particularly well by minimizing friction risks.
Physical requirements compliance and model fidelity played crucial roles. The strongest submissions included comprehensive 3D models with detailed attachment systems and clear operational principles. Resistance to accidental release was carefully evaluated, with notable submissions including analysis demonstrating resistance to 250G forces. While innovation was weighted at 6% of scoring, truly novel approaches that excelled across other criteria gained an advantage.
Common successful design patterns included centrally rotating elements, Bowden cables, and rotating rings. However, the most outstanding submissions often brought fresh perspectives to these approaches while maintaining robust engineering principles.
Finalists (Listed Alphabetically by First Name - not representative of Placement)
Bjorn Heide Pedersen (Denmark)
Safe Panel release - Let it go
Design: Safe Panel Release - Let It Go
Braxton Moody (United States)
PULL SYSTEM
Design: Pull System
Darran Douglas (Granada)
Pulley-Cable Mechanism
Design: Pulley-Cable Mechanism
Erhan Taşkın (Turkey)
Yo-Yo and Lock Mechanism
Design: Yo-Yo and Lock Mechanism
Federico Catena (Argentina)
Scissor mechanism with spring for deployment
Design: Scissor Mechanism with Spring
Flaviano Crespi (Italy)
Two entries:
Reversible EGK and SL Secondary Latch
Design: Reversible EGK and SL Secondary Latch
RC - Retaining clamp and - EGK reversible
Design: RC - Retaining Clamp and EGK Reversible
Juan Martín Del Piano (Argentina)
"Hattrick" Egyptian Key
Design: Hattrick Egyptian Key
Marcelo Valderrey (Argentina)
Starburst plus
Design: Starburst Plus
Matthias Etzkorn (Germany)
Latch mechanic system
Design: Latch Mechanic System
Next Steps
Our panel of judges will now begin the detailed evaluation process of these finalist entries. Winner announcement is planned for early in the new year, approximately three weeks from today's announcement, allowing for the holiday season.
We deeply appreciate everyone who contributed their time and expertise to this challenge. The creativity and engineering skill demonstrated across all submissions has been truly impressive.
---
Update 10/28/24
Dear Challenge Participants,
We want to thank you for your participation and feedback regarding the challenge. We understand that some of you experienced delays in accessing crucial files that helped clarify the challenge requirements. In response to this feedback and to ensure everyone has adequate time to develop their best possible submissions, we are extending the challenge deadline.
New Challenge Deadline: December 2, 2024 11:59P Eastern Standard Time
This extension will provide additional time to refine your designs and account for the initial delay in file availability. All other challenge parameters and requirements remain unchanged.
We appreciate your continued engagement with this challenge and look forward to seeing your innovative submissions.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.
----
NASA is seeking innovative solutions for a synchronized antenna deployment system. The primary objective is to develop a mechanism that ensures sequential deployment of antenna panels, addressing a critical aspect of space-based communication technology.
In this challenge, participants are tasked with designing a mechanism that will release hexagonal panels in a predetermined sequence. Specifically, the mechanism should trigger the release of the next hexagon in a stack only after the previous one has successfully latched into place. This sequential deployment is crucial for maintaining the antenna's structural integrity and operational efficiency.
The proposed design must be compatible with one of the winning latch designs from the previous "Let's Connect" challenge. Additionally, it must integrate seamlessly with the provided backing structure model without compromising the parabolic surface of the antenna. Participants should focus on creating a solution that is both effective and adaptable to existing NASA technologies.
Background:
In space, there's a growing need to build large, precise structures like antennas, booms, and telescopes. These structures are too big to fit inside a rocket during launch, so we need a way to deploy them once they reach their orbit.
One idea for deployment is the Starburst architecture, which uses high strain rods to deploy and cables to pull the different parts together after launch. In our last prize challenge on this topic (Positive Connections), we asked participants to design a latching mechanism, that would latch the hexagons after the cable pulls them together. This new challenge will build on the previous results. The goal is to design a mechanism that will release the next hexagon in the series after latching.
Our key example is an Earth observing antenna. The antenna's segments are stacked neatly on top of each other, taking up a compact space (1). After launch, the segments are released from their locked positions, and a set of high strain rods deploy the system into an initial configuration (2). Each element is aligned correctly by two high strain rods, so they can be pulled together. Once the antenna opens up, the cables start retracting, gradually pulling in each segment until they form the final deployed shape (3). The segments are precisely located relative to each other using special joints, with an accuracy of around 20 microns, and held in place by the tension in the cables. (4) Upon fully deploying, the latching mechanism from the “Positive Connections” challenge locks the segments together. The overall surface alignment has a root mean squared (RMS) error of approximately 60 microns. Check out the image below for a visual representation of how the antenna transforms from a packed state to a fully deployed state.
Initially, all the hexagons are stored in a stack. One of the challenges we have realized in our prototyping efforts over the last year, is that we can't just release all the hexagons at once. The result is too dynamic and they may collide with each other! Therefore, our goal is to have a system that will release the hexagons in the stack one at a time, after the previous hexagon is deployed and no longer moving. The goal of this challenge is to design a mechanism that will release the next hexagon after the latch engages, allowing steps 2 and 3 in the figure above to occur in smaller steps. See the second image below, with arrows where the “let it go” system will release the next panel after each deployment.
Your goal is to create a mechanism the “let it go system” which will release the next hexagon after the latch engages. This will then allow our hexagon deployment to be sequenced, consisting of release, deploy, latch... which then triggers the next release, deploy, latch. This is where it connects to the previous GrabCad challenge. You can choose any of the 5 winning latch designs as a starting point for your design.
The Challenge:
The study "Starburst: A Revolutionary Under-Constrained Adaptable Deployable Structure Architecture" demonstrated a unique approach to deploying large antennas to much higher accuracies than ever before. The first system had all the segments release at once, but this created problems with the segments interfering with each other during deployment, except for very simple “Z-fold” stowing patterns. We want to sequentially deploy the segment after the prior segment latches to enable more complex deployments. CAD files of the current segments are provided with the Egyptian key design.
Below identify the key parts of a single hexagon which are useful for understanding the detailed requirements. Each hexagon consists of two key parts, backing structure which serves as the structural background, and a precision parabolic surface on top of the hexagon. The backing structure and precision surface are connected with a set of monopods. On the backing structure, there are face plates where it connects to other hexagons. On each face plate are three kinematic couplings, which connect each hexagon with each other with exactly 6 points of contact.
CAD Files for Download
CAD Files
Explanatory Video: Let It Go NASA Challenge Reference Model
Detailed requirements, assumptions and/or constraints:
1. The release system must work with the existing latch systems as designed. It can be trigger by latch, or by the proximity of the two faces in how close they are together when latching.
2. It can be assumed that the latch produces 25N of force which can be used to trigger the next panel release, or that there is 25N of preload between the panel faces that can be used.
3. The release system must not interfere, contact or penetrate the kinematic couplings, monopods, or parabolic surface at any point before, during or after operation. It should hold on to the backing structure above the prior mount.
4. The release mechanism must not extend more than 60 mm from the backing structure when stowed, and after the panels are deployed cannot extend above the parabolic surface. While additional holes and cutouts can be added to the backing structure, this may only be done in the middle 25 mm (in other words, it cannot remove the top 5mm or bottom 5 mm of backing structure material).
5. The system must be entirely self-contained, and not require any external power sources or signals to operate. It must be able to detect when the latch engages, and use this as the criteria to release the next panel.
6. Release mechanism components should weigh less than 1 kg (2.2lbs). It must work in the vacuum of space, and a variety of temperatures. The mechanism must be able to be triggered at any temperature between -10C to 60 C (14F to 140F) and survive temperatures ranging between -60C to 100C (-76F to 212F).
7. The system cannot be triggered without the latching components coming together. For example, high G-forces or shock loads that come with spacecraft launch should not trigger the release mechanism. Expect that the mechanism could see accelerations up to 250 G’s. It can be assumed that each panel weighs 3 kg, plus the mass of the release mechanism. It can also be assumed that an external device holds all the panels together during launch, so your release device does not need to hold the mass of the entire stack of panels. It just needs to survive the 250 G launch load itself.
Criteria:
Each entry is expected to include.
1. CAD model of the release mechanism
2. Rendered images showing the sequence of how the release device works.
a. Cross sections, especially annotated cross sections can be very helpful for the judges to understand how deployment mechanisms work.
3. (Optional but encouraged) Animation showing the how when the panels latch the release device is triggered, and how the release device releases the next panel. Animations are extremely helpful in selecting the finalists.
4. An explanation document in .pdf format
a. This document must include:
i. How the release mechanism will work.
ii. Why an acceleration of 250G’s will not accidentally trigger the device.
iii. That the device can operate at both -10C to 60C and survive temperatures between -60C to 100C.
iv. All written justification should be in one .pdf document.
v. Written justification should include a references/credit section, which includes:
1. Links to any CAD files used as a starting point.
2. Any ideas on GrabCAD or from other sources that inspired your concept. Includes ideas from the current challenge, and prior challenges, and anywhere else on GrabCAD. Be sure to list both the submission name and the username of the person who made the submission.
3. The GrabCAD community excels in collaboration so make sure to give credit to ideas and/or recommendations from other community members that have helped you mature your design as failure to do so may negatively impact scoring.
a. Hint, you must reference at least one of the latch designs from the “lets connect” challenge.
4. If relevant, any publications used to justify the design.
5. (Optional but encouraged): Images of prototypes to help justify the design. Does not need to be a 3D printed prototype, but it can be. Also detailed analysis of device operation can be a substitute for prototyping (this can be included in the prototype above). Images of a prototype greatly help with judging criteria 2 and 8.
Required deliverables (CAD files, reports, images, etc.):
• CAD Files used in model.
• An image of your design, and images or animation of the deployment sequence (animations are strongly encouraged)
Accepted file formats:
• STEP, IGS or native Solidworks files are acceptable for CAD.
• If applicable, use a CAD file naming convention that makes it easy to determine how each file fits into the larger assembly.
• Image files should be .jpg or .png
• All animations should be compatible with embedding in Microsoft PowerPoint and separate viewing in Windows Media Player
• Reports should be in .pdf format (can be saved from MS word to a .pdf).
• If zipped, the file compression shall be compatible with Windows 10 and not require any special software to unzip.
Page limits and file size limits:
• Total size of all files combined should not exceed 250 MB
• There is no page limit to the report.
Eligibility: Solutions from countries listed as Type 1, 2, or 3 on the NASA Designated Countries List are Not eligible for monetary prizes. The list is frequently updated, and the latest version can be found here. This challenge is not open to NASA Personnel.
ENTERING THE COMPETITION The Challenge is open to everyone except employees and families of GrabCAD and the Sponsor. Multiple entries are welcome. Team entries are welcome. By entering the Challenge you: 1. Accept the official GrabCAD Challenges Terms & Conditions. 2. Agree to be bound by the decisions of the judges (Jury). 3. Warrant that you are eligible to participate. 4. Warrant that the submission is your original work. 5. Warrant, to the best of your knowledge, your work is not, and has not been in production or otherwise previously published or exhibited. 6. Warrant neither the work nor its use infringes the intellectual property rights (whether a patent, utility model, functional design right, aesthetic design right, trademark, copyright or any other intellectual property right) of any other person. 7. Warrant participation shall not constitute employment, assignment or offer of employment or assignment. 8. Are not entitled to any compensation or reimbursement for any costs. 9. Agree the Sponsor and GrabCAD have the right to promote all entries. If you think an entry may infringe on existing copyrighted materials, please email challenges@grabcad.com.
SUBMITTING AN ENTRY Only entries uploaded to GrabCAD through the "Submit entry" button on this Challenge page will be considered an entry. Only public entries are eligible. We encourage teams to use GrabCAD Workbench for developing their entries. Entries are automatically given the tag "Let_It_Go" when uploading to GrabCAD. Please do not edit or delete this tag. Only entries with valid tag will participate in the Challenge.
AWARDING THE WINNERS The sum of the Awards is the total gross amount of the reward. The awarded participant is solely liable for the payment of all taxes, duties, and other similar measures if imposed on the reward pursuant to the legislation of the country of his/her residence, domicile, citizenship, workplace, or any other criterion of similar nature. Only 1 award per person. Prizes may not be transferred or exchanged. All winners will be contacted by the GrabCAD staff to get their contact information and any other information needed to get the prize to them. Payment of cash awards is made through Checks mailed to the Winners. All team awards will be transferred to the member who entered the Challenge. Vouchers will be provided in the form of Stratasys Direct Manufacturing promo codes. We will release the finalists before the announcement of the winners to give the Community an opportunity to share their favorites in the comments, discuss concerns, and allow time for any testing or analysis by the Jury. The Jury will take the feedback into consideration when picking the winners. Winning designs will be chosen based on the Rules and Requirements schedule.
Intellectual property considerations:
All content submitted on GrabCAD is considered to be in the public domain. The Government is seeking a full government purpose usage license for further development of the concept. This deployable was initially funded by NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC). It is hoped that the winning concepts can be included in a follow-on study, funded by NASA ESTO Advanced Component Technology (ACT).
Schedule This Challenge ends on December 2nd 2024 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time. Any Changes after the date will be considered as disqualifications.
Evaluation criteria and weighting factors (what you will base your judgment on):
1. The submission clearly shows how the mechanism operates to release the next segment. 20%
2. Mechanism operation appears to be robust and work repeatably. 20%
3. Design is shown to meet the physical constraints. 15%
4. Design provides confidence it will not unintentionally activate. 10%
5. Quality and fidelity of the 3D models and renderings. 10%
6. How innovative the concept is when compared to other submissions. 6%
7. Design is shown that it will activate with 25N of force or less 10%
8. Quality of thermal and structural analysis, giving confidence that design will survive launch and space environment. 6%
9. Feasibility of manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of mechanism. 3%
Evaluation process and timeline:
There are two evaluation processes that will be occurring. First is evaluation of the ideas, and second is for the most referenced idea award:
A subset of the judges will review all the concepts to determine which concepts are finalists. Determination of finalist entries will be primarily based images an animations submitted, and judging the first six of the evaluation criteria. After finalists are selected, the judges will then review all the finalist entries in greater detail, including a detailed examination of the report. Finalist entries will be scored per the full evaluation criteria.
Finalists will be determined two weeks after the contest closes. Winners will be determined within three weeks after the finalists are announced (longer time period due to the holidays during the judging period.
For most referenced design/community member:
• Option 1 (most referenced design/challenge participant by the finalist entries)
o This prize will go to the top two challenge participants/submissions in THIS challenge which are referenced by the most finalist entries in this challenge. References can be due to a design feature that you incorporated into your submission or direct feedback from another challenge participant that helped your submission.
Self-references to do not count. The must be from other participants.
The most referenced design does not need to be a finalist.
If one participant has multiple finalist entries, those finalist entries count as 1 reference instead of multiple. (I.e. maximum of one reference per participant).
Reference chains, will be included. For example, a Finalist references idea A, and idea A references idea B, id. Both idea A and idea B will get scores for being referenced (provided the rules above apply. Circular references will not be counted multiple times.).
CAD-Only Rendering Requirement:
All renderings and visual representations submitted for NASA challenges must be directly generated from CAD software or other approved design tools. The use of generative AI to create or enhance submissions is strictly prohibited. This policy ensures that all entries are original works and prevents the inadvertent inclusion of copyrighted material that may be present in AI-generated content. Participants are responsible for ensuring their submissions comply with this requirement to maintain the integrity of the challenge and respect intellectual property rights.
$7,000
$2,500
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$250
$750
$500
Jonathan Sauder, Mechatronics Engineer, NASA JPL
Kim Aaron, Section Chief Engineer, NASA JPL
Rob Calvet, Senior Structures Engineer, NASA JPL
Jonathan Sauder is a mechatronics engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who invents new deployable antennas and develops innovative spacecraft concepts. He also is a group lead in the technology infusion group
Have an awesome idea for this competition? Want to win cool prizes? Sign-up now to upload your entries.
If you don't receive the email within an hour (and you've checked your Spam folder), email us as confirmation@grabcad.com
122 comments
Braxton Moody 12 months ago
I am unable to find the CAD files of the current segments in the Egyptian key design. Is there a link to the files?
Jonathan Sauder 12 months ago
Hi all, I'm Jonathan, the challenge owner of this challenge at JPL. @Braxton the team at GrabCAD is working on this. There were some issues with uploading the CAD models to the website. In the meantime, I have uploaded the CAD models to my profile so you can access them.
Jonathan Sauder 12 months ago
@ geo, upload your design to the challenge!
Flaviano Crespi 12 months ago
Hello Jonathan,
I tried to simulate the arrangement of the hexagonal sectors. To do this I tried to identify the main axis of the sector using the files you made available, I found some problems, so I ask some questions:
A - Is the surface of the primary reflector a portion of a sphere or is it deformed to meet operating needs? in fact in the model it is not spherical and the edges are not even perfectly hexagonal with differences in length of about 2 mm and angular differences of about 2 degrees.
B - Leaving aside the reflector I then investigated the orientation of the sectors edges taking the central hole as a reference, which strictly speaking should be perfectly centered, I placed some coplanar rulers extending them to the point where theoretically they should meet in a single point, but they do not meet! the sides of the sectors are not convergent so they cannot be arranged according to a spheroid.
C- I saw that even the lengths of the sides are not congruent, there are interferences.
I then uploaded the model of the sectors highlighting the points A-B-C in the attached images.
https://grabcad.com/library/sectors-configuration-1
My questions are:
1- How is it possible to achieve the tight assembly tolerances if the topology of the initial model does not allow them?
2 - To design the deployment mechanism should we ignore these problems or fix them?
Thanks for your attention
Regards
Marcelo Valderrey 12 months ago
Hello Jonathan, I have some doubts regarding the functioning of the system on which we have to work:
.
1) In "Background" it is explained that after launching the segments are released from their locked positions and deployed thanks to a set of bars...
.
Is it possible to know what this locking system is like and where and how the set of bars acts to reach the initial configuration (2)?
.
2) It is also indicated that after configuration (2) the segments begin to retract until they reach the final deployed shape (3)...
Is shape (3) not reached by the action of bars instead of cables?
Is shape (4) not reached by the traction of the cables?
.
3) If the hexagons cannot be launched all at once, and you want a system that releases them into the stack one at a time, once the previous hexagon is deployed and no longer moving...
.
Wouldn't it be logical to give precise details of what the stack looks like, and how the hexagons are currently locked and unlocked, and how a hexagon moves out of the stack and into an extended position (stage 3)?
.
Personally (and it's probably a limitation of mine) I don't understand the movement that a hexagon makes at the exact two moments in which they drew the green arrows that represent the action of the "let it go" system. Is it a lateral slide or a turn or something else? How is it achieved?
.
My need to know these details is because, precisely, a design is requested that will act directly at those moments and on this movement that I don't understand, to transform it into sequential instead of simultaneous.
.
Thank you very much for any clarification you can provide. Best regards!
Flaviano Crespi 12 months ago
Hello Jonathan,
I understood why the individual reflectors are not perfectly hexagonal sectors!! If the sectors were arranged on a flat surface they would be rectilinear prismatic solids,( to understand look at the images of the famous basaltic formation "Giant's Causeway" and they would couple perfectly), instead
being arranged with respect to a center of a sphere the convergence at the center forces the sides to be tightened, so that they do not collide with each other. It is therefore problematic to understand how to arrange the sectors because they do not have certain references, if the file contained all 19 sectors deployed it would be easier. As an aggravating factor there are the other various dimensional inconsistencies and the non-perfect sphericity of the reflectors. Can you tell us something about it?
Thanks and greetings
Jonathan Sauder 12 months ago
Hi Flaviano. You are correct that these are not quite hexagons. In the papers we write, we call them Semi-Hexagons. This is because it is impossible to map a hexagonal surface to a parabolic surface, therefore the edges and sides are each slightly altered. Each interface will be slightly unique, and there will be a small gap between each of the panels when deployed. I hope this, and your second post clarifies things on your first question. For the deployment mechanism, you only have to show a mechanism which releases one of the hexagon, not design a slightly different geometry for each of the 19 use cases. We will take the winning designs, and adjust them as needed to work with each Hexagon.
Jonathan Sauder 12 months ago
At Carlos and Flaviano. I realize the CAD models may be a little confusing. I will try to upload a new set of CAD models that better illustrates the deployment step by step, and their final positions. Expect and update later this week.
Jonathan Sauder 12 months ago
Marcelo, thanks for the question. The first image, with the labels 1, 2, 3, and 4, were from an earlier design concept where we released everything at once. We are realizing this concept will not work, so instead we need to release the hexagons one at a time. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, and that things were perhaps not clear in the challenge statement in terms of this point. I will attempt to create a video and upload it to YouTube, showing a small prototype we have on hand that will explain the prize challenge. It may take me a week or two to get the video approved for release by NASA, but this should clarify the challenge.
Flaviano Crespi 12 months ago
Thanks Jonathan for the explanation, in fact dividing the parabolic surface of revolution is even more difficult, it will be a big problem to cut each single sector. So let's wait for the videos to understand better. A simple 2D drawing of the parabolic curve that generates the surface of revolution could be helpful. Thanks and greetings
Marcelo Valderrey 12 months ago
Thanks Jonathan, I am very clear about the limitations of working on protected themes and developments. However, what you reveal will be the compass for all designers and the precision with which it points north will determine the places they will end up.
geo 12 months ago
I'm looking for all different options.
What would be a pull-up knot ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04dyHvY1U90
Nick Man 12 months ago
Hi Johnathan,
IS the CAD Drawing suppose to show the high strain rods that deploy the plates? Or is this something that must be designed in conjunction with the sequential latch mechanism?
Thanks
Murimi Christopher 12 months ago
Am late but let's me take the challenge to design and probably build it.
Nahuel Costa 12 months ago
"On each face plate are three kinematic couplings, which connect each hexagon with each other with exactly 6 points of contact." Following the rules I found empty spaces without the possibility of connection.
diagram: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1292178277691293808/1292377535698436096/HEXAGONAL_TESSELATION.png?ex=670383df&is=6702325f&hm=16e49b5dffe5f166c31a93889475d62ad3323bda183fe14e97e7e87ab5f020f5&
sorry if I didn't understand it correctly
Rishit Jha 12 months ago
Hey Jonathan, so your reply to Flaviano mentions showing the mechanism for only one panel, I just would like to know which orbit we are trying to send the object, since we are using 25N force as the trigger, knowing what value of acceleration of gravity(I am assuming it would be around 7.5 to 8.25(m/s^2), would be essential to design how much force is used to overcome the acceleration due to gravity. This question may be coming from my own ignorance, but this information seemed basic for me to move forward, thank you.
dash_dd 12 months ago
Hi Jonathan,
Can you please reupload the CAD files. As tried assembling 5 Panel assemblies. In certain place 2 panels clash. Reason being Reflector panel is slightly tilted compared to the structure underneath.
Kinematic Coupling:-
Using the current design of mating 6 faces with 6 faces is impossible due to machining constraint and end up costing lot more.
Solution:- To replace the Male 'V' with Cylindrical or Spherical shape. As it is much more easier, cheaper to achieve tolerances on these shapes and recommended when in comes to kinematic design. Secondly these shapes self align, so we end up having line/point contact.
Examples:- Fibre Optic in V-groove, Optical Kinematic Mount or Pipe in V-Block for Drilling.
Natalia Cisneros 12 months ago
What a shame to have lost so many days (15 or more so far) and still not understanding the basics. 😞😞😞
Andrew 11 months ago
Hi Jonathan, thank you for the challenge! I’m looking forward to the additional information once it clears export review—I hope it will provide a clearer picture. In the meantime, I have a quick question: can the release mechanism push off the parabolic surface? I assume it can’t, but I wanted to confirm. Thanks!
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings
I have an idea for the entry
Can anyone help me with maximum number of antenna panel stacks ?
3 or 5 or ?
Thanking you for cooperation
Any input would help with improving entry quality
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
Hi All, I have just uploaded a .mp4 video to my profile under the "Let It Go NASA Challenge Reference Model". This should help make things clearer. Please note that you are designing a mechanism just to release one panel, as the panels are released on at a time. So you don't need to worry about the entire configuration. Just the next panel that gets deployed.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Nick Man, I am working on getting new models uploaded that also show the high strain rods. This should help with clarifying the constraints. They should be uploaded in the next day or two.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
I think the video should cover/clarify many of the questions above. Let me know if there are still open questions that were not resolved in the video.
Hughan 11 months ago
Thanks the video provides clarity.
Andrew 11 months ago
Jonathan, great video! Thank you for the detailed clarification. From the video, my understanding is that the system needs to 1) lock two panels together in the stowed state, and 2) release the lock once fully latched, allowing the next panel(s) to unfold.
I just want to confirm that we’re aligned on the details: Is the mechanism only intended to lock the panels initially and unlock them after latching, or is it also responsible for separating the panels and initiating the unfolding and rotation motion? If the latter, would it be allowed to push off the parabolic surface of the lower panel to achieve this?
Thank you!
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings Jonathan
Thanking you for your video clarification
It inspired me with an appropriate idea
Now one more query please ?
Are three panels identical or different ?
We may require one solution for like and other for dis-like panels ?
Once again thanks for trusting us !!
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings
Addition to my previous comment
suppose we say panel A B C
As per contest guidelines
in Final Deployed Hexagonal pattern
we get 5 possibilities
such as A-A ,B-B,C-C,A-B,B-C
mechanism for A-A might not work for B-C and vice versa
Once again any input is appreciated
Melville 11 months ago
I would like an optimum mechanism for all cases
Ryan Sanders 11 months ago
#1 *frowns* looking at the *locking choosen 5* then looking at models on this webpage. i just do not see how it would be possible. to get 2 panels to lock together ok, if 3rd panel only if this 3rd panel does not have 2 panels it needs to lock into for 3rd panel to lockin. it does not matter if if all panels are flat, or partially sphered, same issue.
#2 i get the "face plate", "kentic couplings", and how they are stacked like "plastic cups" you would by at grocery store. Face plate is triangle, with kentic couplings Trianle locations *thumps up* for both. then stacking "plastic cubs" to save space when launching into space *thumps up*.
#3 the rod/bars, and cable/wire to pull things together *THUMBS DOWN* see issue #1. the pins/tit/nubs what ever you want to call them, that sticks out will need to "spring" into each section, in order to get each panel to align up, and only once the alighment per section is done, do the pins "engage" to the other side and lock panel into place. When i say spring in, some fold tables, some crutches, some extend handles for mops/brooms, etc... you push in a little metal tit/button and you can slide things to next notch type of thing, to fold up table or extend table legs, or like.
#4 any type of spring, regardless. will extend/contract or less using certian metal / alloy, etc... that behaves within the tempatures noted. if you can depend on that material to hold within given tolerances ok.
#5 suggestion "no springs" make it bolt/nut, to more importantly rivits even. it could be a 2 base epoxy or something that solidfies and becomes solid. because of space, vacumm of space epxoy or like most likely out. way to many connections need to be made. nuts/bolts. lots of spinning small size threads most likely nuts and bolts both expanding and contracting let alone making full thread contact and becoming deadly space debrie. Rivits i might suggest, as a strong solid connector. But rivits would depend on if you can get enough power to bend the metal of rivit while up in space.
#6 all or nearly all, the connectors that i have seen on website. extend and done. BUT there is no. extend "further" than needed. then contract. and if there is a extend further and contract. it relies on spring in some form of way. *ok so i do not trust springs at all* not for long term alignment.* i would want, a torque setting such as nuts and bolts. to physically keep pressure between the panel sides (face plates) together and in allighment.
#7 i am also ugly on all the "weight" all these connectors will add up, along with complexity, of just one connector or more failing and not making good contact, and work like they should.
#8 if these panels stack like "plastic cups" you get from grocery store. say 25 to 50 cups per bag at store. if they are stacked, then "no folding" between panels. and means some sort of robotic arm if you will, that picks up each cup, places it. then moves to next panel section. this also means no "rod/bar" and/or "wire/cable" that can be used to hold all the panels together. without extra amout of "rod/bar" and/or "wire/cable" going through each panel and connecting each panel.
#9 using "cable/wire" to draw panels together to create tension. and then do locking mechnisim, does not make sense to me. you are applying tension when you pull the "cable/wire" tight, but not at the 3 "kinematic couplings". And for me i would want the "tension" pressure between each panel "face plates" at the "kinematic couplings" more so in a "triangle fashion". if you loose tension at the "face plates" more so at 1 of the 3 "kinematic couplings" the entire panel setup will become loose and become out of alignment.
#10 if stack panels like "plastic cups", good old slots T on one side, and C like on other side. and 2 pieces just slide together. put in a rivit, peg, nut, bolt, a single connector and call it good enough. varity of wood working and vairous joints = lots of type of slots or like can be used for the panels face plate. this would be more of a robotic arm, picks up cup off of stack of cups, then moves out, pushes cup (panel) downward into slots of current panel. rotate panel set, move robitic arm back to stack of cups, pick cup up, move back out, push cup down into slot, and repeat, repeat.
#11 extending off above slots.... quick hitch for 3pt hitch tractors, come to mind, some of the quick hitch styles are just that Triangle in shape. and when you goto equipment to connect to tractor. there are locks that latch into place with spring, while some of them have either eletric or hydraulic setup vs manual, to realse lock so you can unhook from equipment attached to quick hitch.
#12 are you needing to run "physical" communication wires / eletrical power to each panel? example the monopads on each panel? IF YES. can cables be turned in more like a "ribbon cable" such as old IDE drives in computers, and the cable left hanging out on the back side of the panel set?
#13 are the "rods/bars" and/or "cable/wire" required? as in in case a panel gets loose it does not become deadly space junk? IF required to have cable to each panel just so it does not move away in case something happens? Are the rods/bars there for extra support / bracing for the panels?
#14 is there need for "undeplyment", so panel retract and stack up? say end of life and needing to do something? or is it allowed, for once deplyed and panels out, that is it, any thing else consider later and does not matter?
#15 can perment magnets be used? or be used as initial alignment of each panel? or will the magnetic flux off each magnetic be consider no go for the panels?
#16 you are showing 19 panels total. is that max amount? or will there be another layer of panels for 18 panels for totale of 37 panels? or how many total panels/layers?
#17 i guess, i do not get the rod/bar and/or wire/cable *relooking afew times*. I mean there is a varity of telescopic ways for bar and cable setups. from cranes, to manlifts, fork lifts, elevators, etc... and the menchanical aspect of how they either slide and/or unfold and/or hinge. but the current hexagonal panels do not allow for any of it. This also include the internal frame work for each panel. More so when you account for the parabolic of the overall panels in final step.
=====WARNING, I get asked male/female for plugs types. and only way i know how to state difference=========
#18 *frowns* the male/female of the connectors. I just do not like, going back over the choosen 5, let alone the other entries from previous challange. the "male" part that extends out, and the "female" part that accepts the male part of connector. the MALE part is always hard. and does not retract pack into the panels (example not hard). #A stacking the panels like plastic cups. the "MALE" end always hard will have issues when stacking the next panel or panel after that onto the lower panels. #B just trying to save space inside the rocket, having the "male" ends stick out will cause additional space to be needed inside rocket. #C the male ends need to retract back into the panels, inside rocket, and before deployment, and may still want to be kept retracted until, panels are just about to touch.
#19 will ask that different type of "connector" be allowed. than the 5 choosen connectors. and re-adjustment of the faceplates of the panels.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
Hi All, I have uploaded an updated CAD file to my profile. This file better illustrates the deployment sequence (and breaks it into more step), and also has the high strand rods and cables modeled. I hope this solves a number of the questions and concerns in addition to the videos. Please note we are specifically looking to have you develop a latch that releases the system from "GrabCAD_assem4_first_latch_engages.xt" file to the "GrabCAD_assem4_first_stack_released.xt" and then from "GrabCAD_assem4_second_latch_engages.xt" file to the "GrabCAD_assem4_second_stack_released.xt". It can be the same system, or a second system which releases the second stack of panels. I hope this clarifies things.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Andrew, you are correct that the mechanism is "only intended to lock the panels initially and unlock them after latching"
@Melville, The three panels are slightly different. You will be able to see that in the updated CAD files. Note that the hexagons do shift in size somewhat, depending on where the panels are at. However, all panels do have size sides (which are semi hexagons, not all equal sides). I think the updated CAD file will make more sense for the panel order question you asked. If panels are A, B and C, only worry about how Panel A (when latched) will released the B/C stack of panels, and then how panel B will release Panel C after it is latched.
@Ryan, thank you for your very detailed message. I think the CAD model on my profile will answer many of your questions. There are a maximum of 19 panels, but for this challenge, only worry about the 3 panels in the CAD model.
I will be working with GrabCad to also get the files on this page updated (in the spec package) to them same as the ones on my profile, but that may take some time.
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings Jonathan
Thank you for clearing my doubts It is highly appreciated !!
The doubt originated because I was studying Final hexagonal deployment
first I tried with regular hexagons ...Then Hmm they didnt match ?
I make it a policy to check CAD before work ..
I came to understand even in Spherical or Linear deployment
Perfect regular hexagons dont work !!!
You verified it !!
Thanks once agian
Flaviano Crespi 11 months ago
Hi Jonathan,
I noticed the following factor: when the sectors are stacked they must compress the two pins of the Egyptian key device in the rear position so as not to interfere with the next overlapping sector. In fact, on the new models you uploaded I noticed that the two pins push on the triangular part of the upper sector. During the extraction of the sector it is therefore necessary to overcome the friction force of the tip of the two pins. Let's hypothesize the forces in play.
The spring of the device in the hooked position is about 62.5 mm long and at this height it must exert 25N to widen the two hooking wedges. To do this it must be pre-compressed from its maximum free length. When the pin is completely retracted to allow the overlapping the minimum length becomes 20 mm. Since the load diagram of the compression springs is mostly linear it means that the thrust exerted increases to about 80N. So the pair of pins pushes the upper sector sideways in one direction only with a load of about 160N, in my opinion making it very difficult to remove the sectors, because the resistance exerted by the pins will tend to rotate the sector, as happens when you try to open a box with very long lid edges. If the traction is not perfectly balanced it does not slide out but remains stuck.
I also noticed a dimensional error on the pin, it can move by 1.1 mm, because its flange does not rest on the internal face of the sector making the assembly unstable, clearly this is a preliminary model that needs to be improved.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
Hi Flaviano, good observations. I used the winning latch design mostly unedited from the prior challenge as an example. However, individuals in this challenge can choose from any of the 5 winning latch designs. We are modifying the latch design at JPL, and combining ideas from the 5 winning concept from the prior challenge to make it work in our application. It is not expected that submissions will have every design detail flushed out. The same is true for this challenge. We choose the winners based on the judging criteria, and usually we can't use the design completely as is. Note that the latch positions do not have to be fixed in their current location. They can move around provided they don't interfere with the other hardware.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
To your question about the forces, while the normal force is high, there are multiple solutions to prevent this from impeding the deployment. First is just ensuring that the contact surface has a low friction coating. A second option would be to put a bearing or rolling surface on the tip of the pin, to drop the friction even more. Rollers would need to be placed on the opposite face, to ensure it doesn't have an issue. Of course, we didn't want to modify the latch design of the previous challenge to much, to keep it consistent with the winning design uploaded previously to Grab CAD. As noted, you can choose any of the winning designs.
Arturo Fuentealba 11 months ago
Hi friend
Would someone be so kind as to convert the x_t files to step.
Please.
Many thanks in advance
Flaviano Crespi 11 months ago
@Jonathan, I understand the spirit of your line of conduct: a pinch of everything to make a good recipe, I hope my two cents contribute, :). Honestly, given the various sector packages must be moved in some way I would leave aside the tension cables and the complicated preliminary movements replicated several times, but with a robotic arm I would assemble the individual pieces, perhaps in a more solid and precise way, but that's another story :)
Arturo Fuentealba 11 months ago
Many thanks to CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO for the Step files
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
Yes @Flaviano Crespi, you are absolutely right about these forces that will be excessive and will interfere with the deployment of the system. This force (160N) will also act from each panel to the system body in the transport state. If it is 19 panels, then it is already 19*160=3040N !!! It seems like this will cause this case to explode or it must be too strong.
That is why in such a proposal as "FriendlySword" it is not solved by a linear force, and due to the change of curvature it is possible to achieve that in the initial state this force will be minimal (for example 1N).
I am convinced that this is possible in other proposals as well, I just gave an example of such foresight.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder
1. As far as I understand, when the panels are stacked, their side surfaces cover the side panel of the lower one (This was also said by @Flaviano Crespi), which means that it covers its kinematic blocks or fasteners. Therefore, the lower panel cannot be attached to another until the upper one comes off. Although this is not related to the task, more precisely, we can abstract from it and assume that it is not our problem at this stage.
2. Your panel connection scheme looks like it is strips. And it turns out that there is no connection between the strips (because there will be no forces that will be sufficient for the connection). So, when this antenna is maneuvered, these strips will start flying in different directions (to a certain extent). This is also not the subject of this task, but I find it interesting in the context of the system.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder
3. In your video, and probably in the system as a whole, cables are used to tighten the panels. And these cables go through all the panels. So, when you pull the first panel, the cable from the second to the third will also be stretched, which will prevent it from being disconnected. So you need to block the movement of the cable to the next panels while they are connected (stacked). This is again not the subject of the task. And you will probably decide on your own.
p.s. I'm just concerned about the simplicity of this task when I see so many other nuances here. It's like a "find a way to turn a screw" contest, and the winner is "use a screwdriver."
Flaviano Crespi 11 months ago
@ Nazarii Vareshchuk ,the 160N are not in series but in parallel, each triangle supports 160N. This is a problem overlooked in the previous challenge; the project stated that during the launch the pins had to be held in position, without specifying how. However, the problem can be solved simply by eliminating the spring. The system can also work without a spring, in fact it becomes simpler by leaving the pin protruding and slightly modifying the sector triangle so as not to interfere with it, as happens for example in the second classified project: Positive Connection
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Flaviano, this system is specifically designed to avoid requiring a robotic arm. Assembly with a robotic arm is actually complex, and slow, and to date, for missions in-space, humans have controlled the robotic arm. Another challenge with robotic arms is that for a small satellite (which this concept is specifically targeting) they would take up a good percentage of the spacecraft mass. That is why we are designing this self assembling system.
@ Nazarii and Flaviano, with regards to the force to keep the plunger in place, remember that this is a preliminary design (once again we copied the winning design). If a second latch was implemented on the pin side, it could be deployed with a much lower force spring. Also there are other design aspects that can be used to reduce the effect of the force on the panels. Finally as Flaviano noted, the protruding pin solution could be used if the latch locations are moved. You, and all the other entrants are welcome to use any of the winning latch designs from the Positive Connection challenges.
@Nazarii, with regards to the connection scheme being strips, that is correct on the architecture. However, forces are very low once the antenna is deployed in space. Our first mode of the deployed system is about 3 Hz, which is sufficient for any attitude control disturbances from spacecraft maneuvers. For spacecraft deployables, we typically only start really worrying if the first mode of the deployed structure is below 1 Hz. With regards to the concern of the cable being tensioned, this can be resolved through cable routing, and potentially adding a feature on the cable like a small ball, which would prevent it from passing through the routing to the next panel when panels 2 and 3 are stacked, until the next set of panels are deployed. Another solution is that the cable could be driven by a motor, which tensions the cable, secures the first pair of latches, then after those latches are engaged, the motor rotates backwards to provide slack in the cable line for deployment.
Thanks you CARLOS SEBASTIAN DI GIULIO for uploading the step files! And I look forward to all the solution the community will generate. Happy CADing!
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@ Nazarii, I'm also not sure if I understand your final comment "p.s. I'm just concerned about the simplicity of this task when I see so many other nuances here. It's like a "find a way to turn a screw" contest, and the winner is "use a screwdriver."", as I'm not sure what the "screwdriver" is in this case? I was wondering if you were thinking of a robotic arm, which as I mentioned is not feasible for this scenario.
Flaviano Crespi 11 months ago
Jonathan, I understood the need to contain the masses of the system and we can limit ourselves to designing the deployment of three panels as exemplified by the Cad files that you made available, but I would like to understand the general point of view in order to stimulate reflection:
1- The sectors are sent into space stacked on top of each other.
2- The system must separate four packages already connected by ropes; (refer to the colored sketch) which therefore contain:
5 Blue
5 Red
5 Red
3 Yellow
+ 1 Yellow
3- For each colored package, two sectors must be positioned on the left and two on the right.
4- When all the sectors are deployed, the various colored groups must be pulled against each other to assume the final position of the dish.
Watching videos of antenna deployment devices I noticed that many times parallelogram extenders are used, but in our case it seems difficult to use them.
Referring to point 3 (movements of the 5 sectors), the central sector will remain still, the other two sectors must not simply be moved away, but must undergo a rotation to allow the ropes to arrange themselves parallel, and this is the difficult thing. Furthermore, the left / right systems must be specular and I suppose that the two on the right are stacked under the central sector. So doing the math the deployment devices must be 5 + 8 = 13 with the relative masses. The challenge is therefore to contain the weight, to be compared with a single robotic arm reduced to the bare minimum that could easily solve the rotation problem. Clearly your experience is superior in evaluating all these aspects, and in conclusion the task remains to design the positioning as represented in the file: "GrabCAD_assem4_third_latch_engages". and then the concepts found can be extended by analogy to the entire system.
I'm curious: what color would the sectors of this file have? and are they the ones on the right or left of the central sector?, I bet they are on the left :)
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@"Flaviano Crespi" I would refine your question to this: "does a whole antenna deployment system need to be developed, or is it just a system for cyclic release of the next segment with an abstraction of the overall system."
Since I have the opinion that it should be a system for releasing the next one, and not the logic of assembling the entire antenna (at least the video clearly tells us about it, and in the conditions as well)
@Jonathan Sauder I'd also like to get that clarification on that nuance again.
Thank you.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@"Jonathan Sauder Thanks for your answers to my questions. Overall you satisfied my curiosity and your suggestions are good.
As for the screwdriver, no, I didn't mean the robot arm, I meant the screwdriver used to tighten screws. That comment of mine was a bit of sarcasm, related to the fact that many of us are looking for complex solutions when solving tasks from NASA, because simple tasks should not pose difficulties for NASA :). Therefore, we are panicking in search of the complexity of the result and what conditions must be fulfilled very carefully, or reliably, or efficiently (for example, if you compare it with the previous task, it is accurate control of force, the presence of striking movements, the formation of force and not fixation, etc. subtleties), but as a result we realized that you will be satisfied with something very simple (in general, this is your right).
So, in my opinion, this task is quite simple, but because it is for NASA, I will try to perform it technically perfectly, and as a result, this ideality will not be required.
Also, due to the simplicity of the task, you will again have a large number of proposals, and it will be very difficult for you to choose the best, because among them there will be really 80% good ones, and almost all these developers will be deprived of the result, although their work was also worthy.
I hope you understand me.
Also, I hope that I did not understand this task that well and it is really more difficult :)
neon 11 months ago
Hello Jonathan,
In your previous file, there was uniform clearance between two stacking panels, but now some sides (legs with thickness 13.49 mm) do not have any clearance.
Can you clarify if there is an uniform clearance between the panels or if it varies?
Also provide the clearance size as well.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Where to look for winning designs to consider according to the following paragraph!"The proposed design must be compatible with one of the winning latch designs from the previous “Let's Connect” challenge. In addition, it must integrate seamlessly with the supporting structure model provided without compromising the equivalent surface For the antenna, participants should focus on finding a solution that is efficient and adaptable to existing NASA technologies.”
What is the deadline for registering or submitting proposals?
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Flaviano, the CAD model is for the 3 blue sectors, which include the center one and the two to the left.
@Nazarii, the entire system does not need to be developed. Just as you stated the "is it just a system for cyclic release of the next segment with an abstraction of the overall system". This task is not extremely complex, and there are several solutions that seem obvious in my mind, but the beautiful things about prize challenges is getting unique creativity applied to the solution. It is much better to have a number of diverse minds thinking about a problem from around the world, to see what implementations come up.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@ Neon, the height of the stack should be uniform, but the edges of the hexagons are not uniform. Design to the hexagons provided, and we can take the solution and modify it to the other geometries.
@ ali khTEEB, you can find the winning designs at the link below (also references in the description). Please see the count down timer for the deadline: https://grabcad.com/challenges/nasa-challenge-positive-connections-a-mechanism-to-connect-on-contact/results
Melville 11 months ago
Hi Jonathan
As always thanks for being commited to answer our queries
As a token I will share an initial idea then I will ask you query
The solution to the challenge is single input double actuator
Mechanism These were used in textile machinery
Now I do not want to implement this as 250 g force will cause
Dislodging of small components and entire system may fail
So can we use motor and /or electronics ?
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder I have another question that applies to the project as a whole but not to a specific task.
Since your cables are elastic and they untwist the segment, this will cause a cyclical oscillation and the segment will very likely hit the opposite part of the system, then it will happen again. Also, these oscillations will be combined with rotational motion. This will last for a very long time because there is no air resistance in space and fatically such oscillations have no loss of energy.
Therefore, taking into account the mass of the segment (as well as their number, because often it will still be a stack), one cycle can last several hours, and the reduction of such fluctuations to a somewhat stable state takes 1000 cycles.
Also, when you start pulling the rope on it, these oscillations will increase again (law of constant energy), so you have to wait again.
I want to say that such a scheme needs a damper or another way to make the oscillations energetically ineffective so that they do not occur or die out very quickly.
Have you thought about it? Do you have a solution? Can you tell me about it so I can be calm?
Thank you.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Hello.. I sent a test entry.. and it did not appear in the list of entries for the challenge.. but to another page that I do not know much about!
Guido S 11 months ago
Hi Jonathan, thanks for the updates. I have two questions remaining:
1) Do you have an indication of the "lifting" torque of the high strain rods that needs to be counteracted by the latches?
2) The new model you uploaded seems to have some of the lower triangular pieces on the sides of the panels are cut off. Am I correct to assume that this was just done to make the motion more clear and I can use them to latch on to?
Thanks you!
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Well, please excuse me for this question.
How do we open the specifications file? Do we have to convert the format first? Let me learn this. I tried to open the files in NX and Freecad .. but I was unable to access the files.
Guido S 11 months ago
@ ali, have you tried the stepfiles linked by carlos: https://grabcad.com/library/motion-analysis-1/details?folder_id=14043312
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
I did...but it doesn't work for files in (x_t) format.@Guido
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
I mean, I don't know the appropriate program to open that format...and I didn't succeed in importing it into (NX), for example
Guido S 11 months ago
I was able to open it in SolidWorks. Did the stp file not import? What format would work that I can export from solidworks?
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Well, I didn't have SolidWorks.. I'll see what I can do through the program. The goal is only to view the content of files in (x-t) format!
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
I've asked a lot of questions...but perhaps the last question; It's about how to submit a Show Suggestion in the Challenge List?...And what format should the 3D files be uploaded in...Are NX files accepted without conversion?
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Of course it is necessary to ask where the presentations, e-brochure, etc. will be presented, but it may be too early.
Guido S 11 months ago
@Johnathan Can you tell us what direction the 250 G acceleration will be in relative to the panels?
@Ali I believe NX should be able to open X_T files as well as STP files, so I am not sure how to help.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
As I mentioned previously, I am not an expert in design and simulation programs, and I am not an expert in mechanical systems either, but we are pleased to provide a humble summary of what I think.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
:
The acceleration of 250 g's is usually in the longitudinal axial direction of the spacecraft during launch. This means that the panels will face significant forces in this direction. This requires designing a strong system to withstand these forces and ensure the safety and stability of the panels.
Design
Acceleration During Launch:
The panels experience high acceleration during the launch of the spacecraft. Therefore, the panels should align with the longitudinal axis of the spacecraft to reduce the impact on their safety and stability.
Innovation:
In the new design, consider using an innovative mechanism to effectively deploy the hexagonal panels after launch. This mechanism should include gears and lunar disks that hold the panels in place until they are properly released. Using gears ensures that the panels move steadily and smoothly to their final position with a strong locking mechanism to ensure they do not move after being fixed.
Analysis and Simulation:
Use advanced analysis and simulation tools in Siemens NX to test the strength and stability of the system before implementation. Ensure that the mechanism withstands high acceleration and harsh space environments.
Achieving Safety and Stability:
Ensure that the locking system works efficiently in all conditions, whether during acceleration or after the panels are deployed. Additionally, make sure that the panels are correctly fixed to form the required hexagonal canopy without any issues.
Independence:
The system must be completely self-sufficient without the need for external power sources.
It should be able to detect bolt engagement and use it as a criterion for releasing the next plate.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Nazarrii, good question on the oscillations. We have done modeling and shown even with no damping, the panels will not it each other in zero gravity with no atmosphere. We are also using composite rods, which will damp and absorb energy during the deployment. This should ensure the oscillation stops in a reasonable amount of time.
@Guido the lifting force is about 2 lbs. Also, you can latch to those sides where the triangles were cut off. The triangles were cut off to prevent interference during stowing.
@ali khTEEB , STEP, IGS or native Solidworks files are acceptable for CAD. (I will also accept Parasolid .x_t as well).
@Guido and @ali khTEEB. The 250G load could be in any of the three cardinal directions of the panels (so X, Y or Z, but not at the same time). So you should show your latch can hold if a 250G acceleration is applied in either X, Y or Z independently.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Melville, you should avoid motor and electronics, unless you can design the full electrical system that does not require any cables back to the spacecraft (as we can't run electrical cables out to each segment.
@Nazarrii, good question on the oscillations. We have done modeling and shown even with no damping, the panels will not it each other in zero gravity with no atmosphere. We are also using composite rods, which will damp and absorb energy during the deployment. This should ensure the oscillation stops in a reasonable amount of time.
@Guido the lifting force is about 2 lbs. Also, you can latch to those sides where the triangles were cut off. The triangles were cut off to prevent interference during stowing.
@ali khTEEB , STEP, IGS or native Solidworks files are acceptable for CAD. (I will also accept Parasolid .x_t as well).
@Guido and @ali khTEEB. The 250G load could be in any of the three cardinal directions of the panels (so X, Y or Z, but not at the same time). So you should show your latch can hold if a 250G acceleration is applied in either X, Y or Z independently.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Melville, On the question about motors/electronics, see rule 5 under Detailed requirements, assumptions and/or constraints: "5.The system must be entirely self-contained, and not require any external power sources or signals to operate. It must be able to detect when the latch engages, and use this as the criteria to release the next panel."
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings Jonathan
I gratefully take your feedback
I would love to design the electrical system though
the enitire sytem can be powered by 20 v thru harnesses
not from spaceship
Even position sensors are not allowed ?
How do we ensure accuracy in space then ?
How do we check that final deployment is perfect?
Hope the question is not offensive
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
I believe that the use of a free gear system at the center of its rotation represents an encoder to determine the final position of the panels to be distributed accurately and smoothly! But do you support the idea of making the outer shape of the hexagonal panels (from the back side)...represent the gear itself?...or should the hexagonal shapes be connected to the gears? Through the columns!..I thank you all for your valuable contributions and advice
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Melville, as long as your system meets constraint 5 "5.The system must be entirely self-contained, and not require any external power sources or signals to operate. It must be able to detect when the latch engages, and use this as the criteria to release the next panel." then it is ok. Position sensors would be allowed if they meet the above requirement. With regards to checking for final deployment, you can assume if the latch (or latches... remember the system can operate on one or two latches, your choice on how to configure) engages the system is properly deployed. So once the latch engages, you are free to release the next segment.
@ali, I think your question is brainstorming with other solvers, but if it is about the rules or the CAD model posted online, let me know and I will see what I can clarify.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
Dzhanibekov Effect Theory!
: The Dzhanibekov effect, also known as the tennis racket theorem, explains the phenomenon where an object's rotation around its middle principal axis of inertia can become unstable, causing sudden flips. This principle can be observed in various mechanical systems, influencing their stability and dynamics.
Request for Expert Assistance and Design Insights: I'm seeking assistance from experts, designers, and participants in the challenge of designing a satellite deployment system, where the Dzhanibekov effect has caused an issue in the proposed design. The proposed system aims to deploy stacked solar panels into the desired shape of a hexagonal communication dome. I want to ensure the impact of this theory on the system and need help in executing simulations.
In this scenario, the moon gears fixed axially and distributed in a beehive shape will make the system relatively more stable compared to the original case. However, the Dzhanibekov effect might still impact the motion of the moon gears due to the rotation and relative position of each gear. When the solar disk rotates, the resulting force can cause the moon gears to experience torque around their axes, especially if these gears are connected by rods as described. The rotational motion can cause slight changes in the distances of the moon gears, leading to some unexpected adjustments in the overall mechanical system. To theoretically or practically experiment with this system, simulation programs can be used to analyze dynamic stability and understand all influencing forces. If the system is accurately designed, the effects of this phenomenon can be somewhat controlled, though it remains a factor to be considered.
aLI KHATEEB 11 months ago
I'm not an astronaut I mean, I don't know what systems might encounter in space
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings Jonathan
Thanking you very much for the feedback
Its a massive pleasure !!
Can I make an entry which is "harness driven"
It will use "minimum mechanisms "
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Melville, sorry for the delay, I was on travel. But yes, as long as it does not require additional inputs other than how the system normally operates. (i.e. like an extra cable which needs to be run through the entire system.
Melville 11 months ago
Greetings Jonathan
Thanks again for your reply 😊
The beauty of this competition is ideas and adaptations
So based on your answer
Is it permissible that each panel can have its own
Internal (tugging ) Cable below reflector or ??
Am rooting for cable as it will be lighter than mechanism
My entry will be Beyblade inspired
Rishit Jha 11 months ago
Greeting Jonathan, I was currently taking this project as my intern project (left about maybe 27 days more) as an undergrad student, I was thinking of using a cylindrical CAM system to allow the system to unfold. I was thinking of this particular task as a challenge alone, but my seniors explained that your solution may or may not work for this challenge but it wouldn't be exactly valuable for replication for 19 panels as a whole...they explained the task problems, and also suggested to not see this as a small challenge alone but rather as a long-term industry relevant project or problem showing the initial stage 1, 2 and 3 as a part of CUBESAT antenna, while I searched for relevant papers I found one(RAINSAT) which used geartrains to deploy an antenna similar to an umbrella system. I would like to raise a question which is the antenna structures as far to the extent of my limited knowledge seems to be different in structure with the parts, we are dealing to be a small part of an integrated system which all lock once deployed alone, but the RAINSATS antenna seems to be of a different nature where the various layers of film of antenna are unfolded to finally reach a shape, so the question how is our particular antenna of the challenge structurally different than the one I mentioned, and also why such a different deployment mechanism is being searched for(is it some relevance study)? Sorry for the long rambling, I am just trying to understand the topic more.
sawyer witkin 11 months ago
CAD-Only Rendering Requirement:
All renderings and visual representations submitted for NASA challenges must be directly generated from CAD software or other approved design tools. The use of generative AI to create or enhance submissions is strictly prohibited. This policy ensures that all entries are original works and prevents the inadvertent inclusion of copyrighted material that may be present in AI-generated content. Participants are responsible for ensuring their submissions comply with this requirement to maintain the integrity of the challenge and respect intellectual property rights.
hi
uwu
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
Hi All, I'll be answering the recent questions later, but just wanted to highlight that the CAD files on my profile have now been updated in the "Download Specification" button. Also, I realize the challenge rules can be hard to read in the website form factor, so I included a .pdf of the rules. There are also a few additional explanatory images in the .pdf document which hopefully makes the rules/requirements more clear. Also, please note that an extra week has been provided on the challenge.
Melville 11 months ago
Hello I mean Dr Jonathan
Thanks to your explanations I got very good idea
My entry wont use mechanisms or many harnesses
Anyway hope it solves the problem ...
Cheers 🍻
Melville 11 months ago
Also to add what can be safe assembly velocity in space ?
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
Hello Jonathan.
I have one question about the cables that tighten the panels. In your description and sometimes in the pictures, I saw that there are 3 of them, but sometimes users draw that there are two of them. So, is it fundamental to reproduce so that there are 3 of them? and are there really 3 of them?
Also, it is a little strange when there is a central cable that will collide with the side triangle of the next panel. So, I get the impression that there may be two of them, or you somehow solve this collision, or in your opinion, such a strong bend is not a problem.
Also, is it a problem if users specify two cables but it doesn't apply to the mechanism method, so is that an important nuance?
Thank you.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Mellville, you can assume the assembly speed will occur no faster than 5 cm/second. Note it is permissible for the mechanism you design to move much faster, as long as there are no major impact forces when it stops.
@Rishit, the key difference with this antenna is that each hexagon is a rigid, non-flexible segment. The Umbrella style antennas with film/mesh can only work up to about 50 GHz, maybe 100 GHz if you get the right mesh technology developed. This antenna will work up to 250 GHz.
@Nazarii, Sorry for the confusion, there are 3 long rod like elements. There are 2 high strain rods (these are on the right and left), and one cable (in the center). The high strain rods unfold the stack. Then the cable is actuated to pull the system together, guided by the high strain rods. I hope this makes more sense. There is a paper with more details on this here, but unfortunately it is behind a paywall by AIAA (unless you have access through your university, etc.). https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2024-0184
@Sawyer, this is standard rules for NASA CAD prize challenges. This is something determined by the NASA Prize challenge organization. Not sure if there is a question there.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder Thanks for your reply.
In general, your answer changes a lot. But this probably does not apply to possible proposals (since it does not apply directly to the unlocking mechanism).
But I'm preparing a somewhat special solution for which it matters.
I cannot access the document you mentioned. But still, I will try in my proposal to offer such a variant that will solve your tasks (both current and future and theoretical) even with a different configuration of cables, or you will be able to adapt these technologies to your other needs.
neon 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder Could you please explain what steps are needed for the challenge?
First: A mechanism to secure two panels together
Second: Unlock the mechanism using a specific trigger
Third: Push the unlocked panel vertically
Fourth: A method to arrange the panel in the provided configuration
The requirements section states that "the proximity of the two surfaces can be used as a trigger," but the PDF only mentions "working with one of the successful latch designs from the previous challenge."
Apologies if this question has already been addressed. Thank you for your continued patience for the community.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Nazarii, I found a copy of a report I can upload without violating copyright agreements. It is entitled "NIAC_Starburst_Final_Report_2024.03_27_accept_all.pdf" I have included it in the files on my profile, with the CAD files for this challenge and the video. I should note this is slightly outdated, but contains much more details on how the system works. Sections 4 and 6 should be helpful, especially 4.1. I hope this is helpful.
@Neon, to clarify this challenge focuses on the first step you mention (lock the panel together), and then the second step, unlock when the prior latch secures into place (note it is also permissible to use the locations of the two surfaces when the latch engages to trigger your unlock action, instead of be directly actuated by the latch). Steps three and four will be done by the deployable system we have already designed, so you don't have to include those on your design. You can assume the system will take care of the push off and mating of the panels together.
Jonathan Sauder 11 months ago
@Nazarii, I found a copy of a report I can upload without violating copyright agreements. It is entitled "NIAC_Starburst_Final_Report_2024.03_27_accept_all.pdf" I have included it in the files on My Models, with the CAD files for this challenge and the video. I should note this is slightly outdated, but contains much more details on how the system works. Sections 4 and 6 should be helpful, especially 4.1. I hope this is helpful.
@Neon, to clarify this challenge focuses on the first step you mention (lock the panel together), and then the second step, unlock when the prior latch secures into place (note it is also permissible to use the locations of the two surfaces when the latch engages to trigger your unlock action, instead of be directly actuated by the latch). Steps three and four will be done by the deployable system we have already designed, so you don't have to include those on your design. You can assume the system will take care of the push off and mating of the panels together.
Note, the report I posted in My Models under My Profile, should help clarify how steps three and four will occur.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 11 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder
Thank you very much for the document. It will be useful for all participants.
I saw some interesting things there that I thought about too, but it was too out of the context of the competition.
Also, I haven't seen what I'm currently working on, so there is a chance that it will be new, possibly useful.
Flaviano Crespi 10 months ago
Hello everyone. I have a doubt about the operation of the Egyptian key, because it is irreversible. Assuming that it was used to close the door of the pharaoh's tomb, closed forever by default, how did the Egyptians open the door to get back into the house?
Beyond the joke, it can be a big problem in the testing phase. After having deployed the sectors, it is not possible to go back unless you disassemble dozens and dozens of fixing screws, it is a problem to consider.
Nazarii Vareshchuk 10 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder From your drawings and instructions and the deployment diagram, when a certain strip of segments uses opposite connecting faces, it is clear that the side triangles (those sides where the kinematic and blocking connections are) overlap each other very often. That is, in addition to the fact that two triangular sides are connected, there is also a third between them, which belongs to the next segment (and it will slide out from between them, which are already connected).
And this means that in the current position of the blocking elements it is a collision with that triangle, so the blocking elements should be on the side where the triangles do not create a collision.
That seems exactly right. I just see that some works ignore it.
So, confirm that it is all correct and that there will be a third between the two connected triangles.
Thank you.
aLI KHATEEB 10 months ago
I would like to know whether the diameter between the vertices of the hexagon = 0.56 meters or whether this distance is the length of its sides
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
@Flaviano, the Egyptian key design may require additional tooling or a fixture to unlatch it, or new features in the design. It is expected that modifications will need to occur on the designs to enable it to be used.
@Nazarii, I’m trying to understand your question without pictures, but I think you are talking about the unused “face plates” with the kinematic mounts. While it should be clear the face plates in contact with each other in the model need to allow assembly, we never specified in the rules whether the other triangle faces can or can’t be used. Therefore, it should be assumed these faces can be used, even if it would prevent future deployments on those faces. Note, not all the faces with triangles will connect to other panels. Only the root or “base” panel will, with another set of two panels extending to the right. If you can consider this in the design, that is helpful for us, but given this was not explicitly written in the rules, it will not be part of the judging criteria. If i misunderstood your question, please let me know, or feel free to upload a diagram on your profile to explain and I can take a look.
@Ali Khteeb, I will get back to you on this.
Andres Long 10 months ago
Hi, I have a question similar to flavianos, in my design (havent posted due to testing) when the plates are locked into position the mechanism will not be able to go back to do another run (being able to keep doing its purpose again).
So, it should be reusable after being locked and the mechanism should be able to run backwards (as retrieving the plates to initial position)?
Nazarii Vareshchuk 10 months ago
@Jonathan Sauder
This is an additional explanation to my question.
SinglePart
There is a file "1.jpg" (you can save it for better detail).
Thank you.
Rishit Jha 10 months ago
Hey Jonathan, I was just curious, the lifting force you mentioned as 2lbs, should it be considered as a point load or uniformly distributed load?
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
@Andres, the design does not have to be reusable (i.e. it could have parts that are replaced) but the best case scenario is that it could be reset by hand for ground testing. However, once it is in space it only needs to work once, and will not be reset. So you can assume for the ground testing, someone will be able to work with the device to reset it (judging criteria 2), and then once it is deployed in space, it will not need to be reset.
@Nazarii, thank you for the clarifying figure! Good question, and I'm glad to see you are thinking about the future implications of having multiple panels in the row. For the purpose of this challenge, going beyond the three panels provided does not need to be solved, but doing so would provide extra points to judging criteria 6 and 9. Note that for the four sets of four substacks (the only set of 4 to 5 panels in a row), with the design as shown, we can stack them in such a way where this is not an issue (as the side panels are at an angle, so don't have a triangle covering the latching interfaces for four in a row, and then by the time we get to the next sub-stack in height, the triangle is already far enough away it does not cover the latches).
@Rishit, you can consider this as 2x 1 lb point loads being applied to the location where the high strain rods go through the holes.
@AN 816, Please click on the "Download Specification" button, near the bottom of the rules, right before the description of the Prizes. This will provide you a zip file of the CAD files, and other helpful resources.
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
Also I had one question in my private messages, that I will post the answer to here (note, please post questions on the comments, instead of sending private messages... I will just refer you to the comments page): "Would it be allowed to add a small component to the Egyptian Key to serve as an additional segment lock and is it allowed to change the position of the Egyptian key as in the file titled 'single part' uploaded in number 22?" The answer is yes.
Rishit Jha 10 months ago
Thanks for the reply Jonathan, I was also thinking if this same process could be used for CUBESATS or small satellites, if yes, how would you recommend it? Take maybe a CUBESAT of 3U size maybe...
a_g_nuswantoro 10 months ago
1. what mechanism triggered the first release (before 1st latch) ?
2. I cannot find the explanation video. (I use chrome as a browser)
GODSWILL UDOH 10 months ago
@Augustine Uyah, I am working on a Crab-like model for submission. I almost finished but a way to bridge it all was difficult. Going through your 'J-W Latch' model and understanding the idea behind it gave me my aha moment. So as required I give credits and reference. Please check out my design when I finally upload and tell me what you think.
Adeoye Oluwatobi 10 months ago
I need to contact the admin, cant download CAD files
aLI KHATEEB 10 months ago
@GODSWILL UDOH Can we work as a team? I have the same idea... but it is more like an octopus instead of a crab.. The idea aims to collect the pieces of hexagonal shapes and start moving them all at once through the mechanical clock system... and attaching them with latches if possible; As far as there being a choice... I need someone to fine-tune the model simulation... I can't do the simulation with the new path I chose to master NX instead of SketchUp>>>It is also important to adjust the latch by removing the spring... lengthening the moving piece in the latch and making it rotatable for locking... This also allows the locking to be achieved with a hook
Sudhan V 10 months ago
cad file not download
GODSWILL UDOH 10 months ago
@aLI khATEEB I had to collaborate to run a simulation, and we're still not yet done. Try Fusion 360, it's a very resourceful software. I hope I could help, friend
Augustine Uyah 10 months ago
@Godswill Thank you for the reference. I'd love to see your work. But before that, can you let me know what part of my mechanism inspired your work?
Augustine Uyah 10 months ago
@aLI khATEEB If you don't yet know how to animate a spring getting extended in your CAD software, then you can simply create an illusion that the spring is getting extended. This can be done by creating multiple springs of the same profile and translating them relative to each other during the animation. That'll work well enough.
I personally did something similar because as far as I know, in Fusion 360, you can't animate a spring.
The main goal is to explain your mechanism and illusions like this can be sufficient.
GODSWILL UDOH 10 months ago
@Augustine Uyah Just like yours, I refined the idea of making edits to the male half of the Egyptian key to release a tensioned component of the latch. I also made edits to the receiver components and duplicated everything for synchronization
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
Hi All, I love seeing the collaboration on here, exchange of ideas, and creating better designs together! Just a few more days left to go!
@nuswantoro, there is a launch lock which will release the panels for the first deployment. This will likely be a separation nut attached to the spacecraft, but we can't use this on the individual panels, because it would require wires running to it. That being said, depending on the design being submitted, we may modify the winning designs to enable this release as well.
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
Also, as a reminder please remember that challenge ends on December 2nd 2024 at 11:59PM Eastern Standard Time. I know there have been some issues in the past with the count down timer, so I wanted to post a reminder about the challenge end date/time. Please plan accordingly. All submissions will be downloaded at the challenge end time, and this is what will be judged. To be fair to all the entries, we need to adhere to the deadlines, so be sure to submit a little before the deadline to be safe. Enjoy the challenge!
Donald Jacob 10 months ago
Hi, @Augustine Uyah. I also borrowed a leaf from your model- synchronization and stability. Thank you for being an inspiration. You get my reference.
naw 9911 10 months ago
Oh no, just found this challenge . I'm hoping a deadline extension 😬😅
Jonathan Sauder 10 months ago
@naw 9911, unfortunately there will not be any last minute deadline extensions.
Augustine Uyah 10 months ago
I love the quality and caliber of submissions I've seen here. It makes me so glad to be in this profession and be part of this amazing community.
I'm honestly happy for the judges as I'm sure the designs here will be worth their time and effort and it should put a smile on their faces as it has on mine. I suspect it would surely be hard to pick finalists because there are so many excellent designs.
Good luck everyone. May the best designs win!
aLI KHATEEB 10 months ago
my regards..
You have really great ideas
Will you run out of time by the end of the day?
Or has time already run out?
Can you even get past that?
Maybe a few extra hours
Note: The fact that the release mechanism does not rely on wire tension...is it an option?
It would be a good idea to remove related extensions (if the option is available)
Marcelo Valderrey 9 months ago
Congratulations to all the finalists!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Marcelo
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 9 months ago
Congratulations to all the finalists, it is very enriching to see the 59 projects. greetings and congratulations.
Augustine Uyah 9 months ago
Congratulations to the finalists!
From the pattern of finalists, it appears after the requirement was for the latching operation to release a latch on a different face (either the opposite face, or a face at an angle).
It has been a beautiful learning experience. Even if we don't succeed, we get to study the pattern of those who succeeded and learn from that.
Merry Christmas to everyone! Can't wait to see the winners.
Jonathan Sauder 8 months ago
Hi Augustine, that is not necessarily true, as we did not write that into the requirements. For example, the design RC - Retaining Clamp, did not meet this requirement. It just happened that many of the most detailed, and well thought out designs also looked at how various faces could be released.
To all, thanks for your patience. As you may have heard JPL was recently impacted by a wildfire. The campus is safe, but many in the JPL community have been impacted, which has caused delays. The winners will be posted shortly.
Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago
@Johathan Sauder
Ohhh, I'm so sorry to hear about the wildfire. I hope everyone is safe and that the community can recover soon from the material losses and emotional trauma. Sending a hug from afar!
Carlos Sebastián Di Giulio 8 months ago
Hello @Jonathan Sauder , my question is whether we are going to see what is the final design that NASA is going to implement? . Greetings and my wishes for a speedy recovery to those affected by the fire.
Marcelo Valderrey 8 months ago
Congratulations to all the participants for their valuable contributions and to the judges for the difficult task of evaluating them.
Please log in to add comments.
Log in