Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Structural Dynamics State of the Art and Challenges for the Future

Alvar M. Kabe The Aerospace Corporation

10 April 2013

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Overview
Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Structural Dynamics The Load Cycle Process Structural Dynamic Models and
An indispensable test

Loads Analyses and Why 3 is not three sigma,

Why root-sum-square combinations can under predict the truth, and Why envelope functions are the way to go

Why many spacecraft are not properly qualified while subjected to unnecessary risk before launch Future Needs
2

Courtesy of NASA

They Made it Possible

d mv(t ) = f (t ) Newtons Laws (1642 - 1726) dt

j (ti ) + f l (ti ) w j (ti ) = 0 mj w l j j =1

n

DAlemberts Principle (1717 1783)

Hamiltons Principle (1805 1865)

t2

t1

(T V )dt + WNonconservative dt = 0
t2 t1

Lagranges Equations (1763 1813)

d T T V + f d j = f Nonconservative j dt w j w j w j

Launch Vehicles and Spacecraft Structural Dynamics

During launch and ascent, a launch vehicle, its upper stage, and spacecraft experience severe structural loads In addition, the launch system undergoes dramatic configuration changes

Design and Verification Process is Highly Complex

Numerous organizations involved
Launch vehicle, engines, spacecraft, payloads, etc.

Numerous technical disciplines required

Structures, dynamics, fluids, propulsion, controls, flight mechanics, statistics, atmospheric sciences, etc.

Determination of dynamic loads and stresses involves complex models, analyses, and tests
Fully integrated launch vehicle/spacecraft system needs to be addressed Integrated system cannot be tested prior to flight

Significant engineering judgment involved

Schedule and cost play a major role

Loads Analysis Process

Structural loads are a function of dynamic properties of integrated launch/upper stage/spacecraft system
Design changes in one element can result in load changes in all elements Modeling errors in one element can result in load prediction errors in all elements

Dynamic properties of each element will be a function of structural design of each element
Therefore, design process has to be iterative

No single entity/organization has control over the loads analysis process

Hence, negative outcomes can be problematic

The Load Cycle Process

Air Force Space Command, Space and Missile Systems Center Standard SMC-S-004, Independent Structural Loads Analysis, 13 June 2008.
7

The Load Cycle Process - Models

Loads Analysis Model - Technical Disciplines

Configuration Definition Drawings Static, Mode Survey, other tests Flight Data Mass Properties

Finite Element Model 1 LTM Definition

Mass Properties

Component 1 Dynamic Model LTM Generation

Configuration Definition

Control System Model

Autopilot and Engine Actuator Definitions

Drawings Static, Mode Survey, other tests Flight Data

Finite Element Model 2 LTM Definition

Drawings Static, Mode Survey, other tests Flight Data

Mass Properties

. . .

Component 2 Dynamic Model LTM Generation

Loads Analysis Model and LTM

Hydroelastic Model of Fluids

Propellant Definition

Spacecraft Model

Structural Model n LTM Definition

Component n Dynamic Model LTM Generation

Aerodynamic Loading

Aerodynamic Coefficients

Structural Dynamics Structures

Guidance Analysis Fluid Mechanics

Flight Software

Component Mode Synthesis

Technique allows for significant reduction in size and subsequent coupling of structural dynamic models
From millions of equations in a Finite Element model to a few thousand Modal truncation level depends on frequency content of excitation

Technique invented by Professor Walter Hurty at UCLA in 1965

Craig and Bampton (University of Texas) simplified computation of constraint modes in 1968, hence Hurty/Craig-Bampton models

Benfield and Hruda (MMC) introduced Component Mode Substitution in 1971

Couples Hurty/Craig-Bampton spacecraft models to launch vehicle models Provides for rigorous coupling of substructure damping properties Most likely results in complex modes

10

Component Mode Synthesis (cont.)

Hurty/Craig-Bampton model of a spacecraft
Non-Interface Interface

{x {x

SC SC

(t )

} (t )}

N I

SC N = 0

SC SC C N q (t ) x SC (t ) I

{ {

} }

SC I M SC = SC M Iq

M SC qI M SC II

SC 2 n D SC = 0

0 0 II

SC 2 K SC = n 0

0 K SC II

Benfield/Hruda coupled launch vehicle/spacecraft model

M SC LV CE qI I LV I
SC 2 n D** = 0

SC I M ** = T T LV M SC CE Iq I

0 2 n
LV

SC 2 n K ** = 0

0
2 n LV

11

Loads Analysis Model Validation and Verification

Accurate loads analysis models can only be achieved with test verification Substructure models with over 1,000,000 degrees of freedom typical 5-10 million degrees of freedom not unusual Detail required to model complex hardware makes process costly Significant engineering judgment involved To date, not a single analytical model of a complex structure has had acceptable agreement with its mode survey test data prior to adjustment Significant changes in loads from analytical to test-verified model Static and other tests, which are performed to qualify structure to analytically predicted loads, also used to adjust structural analysis models

12

Mode Survey Tests, an Absolute Requirement

Performed to measure mode shapes, natural frequencies and damping Rigorous success criteria includes:
All modes within frequency range of interest measured Empirical modes, m , satisfy orthogonality requirements of 0.1 , where
m M m =
T

I
T

Tests typically performed with:

Hundreds of accelerometers Multi-shaker, broadband, uncorrelated random excitation

Measured acceleration and force time histories converted to frequency response functions and modal parameters are extracted Parameters used to adjust analytical finite element models with goals of
m M a = M
T

0.95 M ij 0.10 M ij

i= j i j

measured analytical n n 0.03 measured n

13

Mode Survey Data and Model Correlation

Program Program'1 Program'2 Program'3 Program'4 Program'5A Program'5B ''''Subsystem'1 ''''Subsystem'2 ''''Subsystem'3 Program'6 Program'7 Program'8 Program'9 Program'10 Program'11 ''''Subsystem'1 Program'12 Program'13 Program'14 ''''Conf.'1 ''''Conf.'2 ''''Conf.'3 ''''Subsystem'1 ''''Subsystem'2 ''''Subsystem'3 ''''Subsystem'4 Number+of+ Did+Model+ Measured+ Need+ Modes Adjustment 9 20 47 45 35 30 9 4 4 39 16 33 5 23 13 6 11 64 28 42 39 8 5 10 18 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Program Program'15 Program'16'(11) Program'17 Program'18 ''''Subsystem'1 ''''Subsystem'2 Program'19 ''''Subsystem'1 '''''Conf.'1 '''''Conf.'2 '''''Conf.'3 Program'20 Program'21 Program'22' Program'23' Program'24 ''Subsystem'1 Program'25 Program'26 Program'27A Program'27B Program'27C Program'28 Program'29 Program'30 Program'31 Number+of+ Did+Model+ Measured+ Need+ Modes Adjustment 18 24'6'3 20 35 18 9 26 5 6 6 43 9 30 6 15 8 15 23 21 20 6 12 11 25 16 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Program Program'32 Program'33 Program'34 Program'35 Program'36 Program'37 Program'38 Program'39 Program'40 Program'41 Program'42 Program'43 Program'44 Program'45 Program'46 Program'47 Program'48 Program'49 Program'50 Program'51 Program'52 Program'53 Program'54 Program'55 Program'56 Program'57 Number+of+ Did+Model+ Measured+ Need+ Modes Adjustment 23 12 14 6 13 17 25 28 14 8 42 6 40 14 42 28 17 15 15 18 55 17 16 7 7 6 yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

14

The Load Cycle Process Loads Analyses

15

Launch Vehicles and Spacecraft Loads

Critical load producing events include: Liftoff Atmospheric flight (Transonic, Max-q) Engine ignitions and shutdowns Jettison events

16

Liftoff

Courtesy of ULA Courtesy of SpaceX Courtesy of NASA Courtesy of ULA

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Courtesy of NASA

Liftoff

Nonlinear transient phenomenon Vehicle/launch stand interaction Produces critical loads for launch vehicle and spacecraft structure Forcing function Thrust transients and differentials Ignition overpressure pulse Ground winds Gravity Launch stand interaction Dispersions Modeling considerations Up to several thousand modes to 60 Hz Finite Element Models of substructures transformed into component mode models, hydroelastic models of fluids Residual flexibility Coupled system damping
18

Gravity!

Ground! Winds!

Ignition! Overpressure! Launch Stand! Interaction!

Courtesy of US Air Force

Liftoff Ignition Overpressure Pulse

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation (3.5 sec real time) 30.7 million cells; 120,000 cpu hours or 5000 cpu days

Aerospace Corporation Fluid Mechanics Dept.

19

Atmospheric Flight Loads

Courtesy of NASA

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Atmospheric Flight

Static-aeroelastic Due to relative wind and non-zero angle of attack, which varies slowly relative to the fundamental mode frequency of the system Turbulence/Gust Non-persistent wind features cause changes in local angle of attack Buffet Interaction between separated flow turbulence, attached boundary layer turbulence, and shock wave oscillations Autopilot-induced Maneuvering/steering Autopilot noise Mechanical noise (engine gimbal friction) Other analyses include lack of wind persistence and dispersions
Maneuvering! Forces! Thrust! Gust! Turbulence! Aerodynamic! Loading!

Buffet!

21

Re W lati in v e d! !

Atmospheric Flight Loads

Computed for various times of flight
Ten to twenty Mach numbers (times of flight) Transonic and maximum dynamic pressure (Max-q) times of flight tend to be most critical

Transonic (maximum buffet) will yield design loads for significant portions of spacecraft Maximum dynamic pressure will yield critical launch vehicle loads and some significant spacecraft primary structure loads
Can occur during flight through jet stream and associated high turbulence (gust) loading

Loads analyses incorporate structural dynamic models, aeroelastic effects, control system, atmosphere, and thrust effects

22

Buffet Loads
Buffet event relatively long in duration compared to other transient events Treated as steady state, ergodic random process Objective of analysis is to compute probability density functions of response quantities, such as loads, from which statistical enclosure values can be determined Mean, standard deviation Monte Carlo
!! y(t )

Flight 1

, !

!! y(t )

Flight 2

, !

!! y(t )

Flight n

, !

, !

, !

23

Buffet Loads Analysis Approaches

Time domain - developed in 1984, first used for buffet analysis in 1988 Frequency domain - first large system implementation in 1988
2 (t )} + (t )} + [ I ]{q 2 n {q n {q(t )} = [ ] { F (t )} T

(t )} + [ LTMV ]{ F (t )} { L(t )} = [ LTMT ][ ]{q

Retain Time Domain Definition

{ L2 } = 0 { L2 (t )} dt T
T

mean square values

{F (t )}

Courtesy of NASA

Wind Tunnel Test

{meanL + kL } { L } = {

root mean square (RMS) or standard deviation Convert to PSDs and Cross PSDs

mean square values

{ }

1 L2 = diag 2

T T T * LTM H ( ) G ( ) H ( ) LTM d x f x

Broussinos, P., and Kabe, A. M., Multi-Mode Random Response Analysis Procedure, Aerospace Technical Report SSD-TR-90-53, 1990.
24

Why a Mean Response in a Zero-Mean Process?

Of concern are the peak loads; therefore, we are interested in the statistical description of peaks which have a mean Envelope function of a stationary, narrow-band Gaussian process described by Rayleigh probability density function For broadband, multi-mode peak responses, Rayleigh assumption guarantees reasonable conservatism
Max-Peak Envelope

max x

!) = fx (x !

! x e !2

# "x !2 & % ( $ 2! 2 '

! (t ) x

Rayleigh

! " 2

Normal

x (t )

fx ( x) =

1 2!"

$ # x2 ' & ) % 2" 2 (

25

Turbulence/Gust Loads
Relatively small-scale, short-duration wind features Loads analyses performed with fully integrated structural dynamic / aeroelastic / control system simulations - two types of excitation:
Synthetic profiles (e.g., 1-cos individual cases) Turbulence profiles extracted from measured winds (Monte Carlo)
Turbulence/Gust!

Aerodynamic! Loading!

Turbulence! Gust!

ve! lati d! e R in W

Thrust!

Control! Forces!

Kabe, A. M., Spiekermann, C. E., Kim, M. C., and Lee, S. S., A Refined and Less Conservative Day-of-Launch Atmospheric Flight Loads Analysis Approach, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 453-458 (2000).
26

Lack of Wind Persistence in Gust Loads Analysis

Rapidly and slowly varying wind components can be separated
The boundary is a function of how far into the future (in minutes) one wishes to predict
60 Min 50 45 Min 50 30 Min

50
8000

Average Wavelength (ft.)

6000

Slowly Varying Region

40
Altitude (Kft) Altitude (Kft)

40
Altitude (Kft)

40

4000

460

30

30

30

2000

Turbulent Region

20
0 0 50 100 Lack-of-Wind-Persistence Time T (min.) 150

20

20

10 0 40 80 120
Wind Magnitude (ft/sec)

10 0 40 80 120
Wind Magnitude (ft/sec)

10 0 40 80 120
Wind Magnitude (ft/sec)

Spiekermann, C. E., Sako, B. H., and Kabe, A. M., Identifying Slowly Varying and Turbulent Wind Features for Day-of-Launch Flight Loads Analyses, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 426-433 (2000).
27

Lack of Wind Persistence and Day of Launch Placards

Increasing persistent components Increasing turbulent components
28

=!

+!

60 min. before launch

=!

+!

45 min. before launch

=!

+!

30 min. before launch

Kabe, A. M., Spiekermann, C. E., Kim, M. C., and Lee, S. S., A Refined and Less Conservative Day-of-Launch Atmospheric Flight Loads Analysis Approach, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 453-458 (2000).

Statistical Distributions of Atmospheric Flight Loads

Buffet loads Rayleigh

pGB ( x;! , " )

! = "1 # = 0.5 ! =1 " = 0.5
! = 1, " = 0.75

!GB ( x;" , # )
! = "1 # = 0.5
! = 1, " = 1

Turbulence/gust loads Gamma, Gumbel

! = 1, " = 0.5

! = 1, " = 0.75

! = 1, " = 1

pBN ( x , y ) pBN ( x , y )
1 31 ! 3!

x
! BN ( x , y ) ! BN ( x , y )
1.0

Lack of wind persistence, other dispersions Bivariate Gaussian

x x

1.0

y y
5.0

x x
5.0

y y

5.0

5.0

29

Monte Carlo Combination of Atmospheric Flight Loads

Gij (t )
Turbulence/Gust

TOij (t )
Thrust Oscillation

t Bij (t )
Buffet
8 sec

Totalij (t ) = Gij (t ) + TOij (t ) + Bij (t )

i = Load Parameter (1-950)

t
Sako, B. H., Kabe, A. M., Lee, S. S., Statistical Combination of Time-Varying Loads, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 2009.
30

j = Monte Carlo !Run (1-3000)

Monte Carlo Results Compared to Combination Equations

RSS ( G , TO, B ) =

(G ) + (TO ) + ( B )
2 2 99/90 99/90 99/90

CLT ( G , TO, B ) = G Mean + TOMean + BMean +

(G

G Mean ) + (TO99/90 TOMean ) + ( B99/90 BMean ) 99/90

2 2

ENV G , TO, B = 2 G + 2 TO + 2 B +

G99/90 2G

) (
2

+ TO99/90 2 TO

) (
2

+ B99/90 2 B

(Load Combination Equation / Monte Carlo) Ratio Histograms Percent of 950 Loads
Central Limit Envelope Function Root Sum Square

Underprediction

Ratio

Sako, B. H., Kabe, A. M., Lee, S. S., Statistical Combination of Time-Varying Loads, AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 2009.
31

So Why Does an RSS Combination Under Predict ?

Gust and TO Average PSDs for a Load Parameter
Gust

PSD

Frequency Separation

TO

Frequency (Hz) Synthesized Time Histories from Average PSDs

Greater Likelihood of Peaks Adding onto Peaks

Responses

Time (Sec)

32

Ignition and Shutdown Loads

Courtesy of US Air Force

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Ignition and Shutdown Dynamic Responses

Variability in ignition and shut-down transients will produce variability in dynamic responses Expected peak positive and peak negative responses that will occur during future mission are of most interest
Thrust transients from past flights are samples from large family of possible profiles Therefore, no guarantee that worst transients for a given response parameter included in current dataset

If measured thrust transients are random samples of possible excitation, then an estimate of the probability density function of each response quantity can be generated
Estimates of probability of non-exceedance (enclosure level) can then be obtained Accuracy depends on number of samples, hence confidence limits must be computed

34

Engine Ignition and Shutdown Thrust Transients

Significant variability in thrust transients from engine to engine, and flight to flight
Frequency content is different for translation (sum: E1 + E 2 ) than rotation (difference: E1 E 2 ) Response Spectra for Two Engines on Same Vehicle
y
E1

( E1 + E 2 )

E2

( E1 E 2 )

35

Small Sample Enclosure and Confidence Levels (Tolerance Bounds)

Since the number of available thrust transients is usually small, we must account for the small sample size

Ten-sample Simulations
One thousand 99% enclosure values First ten of one thousand simulations

Twenty-sample Simulations

One thousand 99% enclosure values

p( x )

p( x )
First ten of one thousand simulations

x
90% confidence 90% confidence

36

Enclosure and Confidence Levels

Closed form solutions exist for normal and Rayleigh distributions
Numerical simulations can be used for other distributions
99% 95%
10
Normal

95% 90%
10

99%

Normal

90% Enclosure

99% Enclosure

90%

50% 50%
1 1 10 100 1 1 10 100

Sample Size n

Sample Size n

Example - eight samples, 99% enclosure with 90% confidence (99/90):

y99/90 = y + 3.783

Kabe, A. M., Sako, B. H., Structural Dynamics, to be published.

37

So, When Does 3 Not Equal Three Sigma ?

Normal One-sided Upper Tolerance Bound Normal Two-sided Tolerance Interval Rayleigh Tolerance Bound

0.5 0.9987

3 0.9973

3 0.9889

Small Sample Size Tolerance Bound k Factors for a Sample Size of 11 (for 90 and 50 percent confidence levels)
Normal Rayleigh

0.9987 / 90 k = 4.4032 0.9987 / 50 k = 3.1112

0.9973 / 90 k = 4.4772 0.9973 / 50 k = 3.3208

0.9889 / 90 k = 3.7555 0.9889 / 50 k = 3.0465

38

The Load Cycle Process Structural Qualification

39

Structural Qualification and Acceptance

Adequacy of structure defined via design qualification and hardware acceptance
Designs qualified to account for part-to-part variability due to assembly procedures, build-to-build tolerances, and uncertainties in redundant load paths Flight hardware accepted to screen out poor workmanship or preclude a hazardous condition such as a leak in a pressure vessel

Verification requires consideration of all potential failure modes and all potential load conditions
Potential failure modes include: detrimental deformation, material yield, ultimate failure, structural collapse, buckling, fatigue, delamination Load conditions include: quasi-static and dynamic launch loads, acoustic environment, pressure, temperature, gravity, handling loads

AIAA S-110-2005, Space Systems Structures, Structural Components, and Structural Assemblies Standard, July 2005.
40

Spacecraft Static Strength and Base Shake Tests

Static Strength Testing
Flight/flight-like structure (system and component level) subjected to envelope of: operational loads (including pressure and thermal), load cycle computed statistical loads, and design requirements Strains, deflections, and applied loads measured Known margin included (e.g., limit to ultimate, temperature effects)

Base Shake Testing

Flight/flight-like structure (less propellants) subjected to unidirectional, swept sinusoidal base excitation Sine environment derived from computed launch vehicle/spacecraft interface responses and/or measured flight responses Base and system response accelerations measured and used to limit test article responses

41

Issues with Base Shake Tests

Spacecraft modes of vibration on a shake table will be different than when coupled to a launch vehicle
Merged launch vehicle/spacecraft modes form coupled system modes Shake tables do not replicate interface impedance of a launch vehicle

Spacecraft dynamic properties on a shake table are not equivalent to those on seismic mass, which are used in mode survey tests
Data from two systems shows 20% difference in fundamental mode frequencies when measured on shake table vs. fixed to a seismic mass Properties on shake table are those of the satellite/shake table system

Assumption inherent in loads analysis models (Hurty/Craig-Bampton model) is that modal coordinates (mode shapes) are relative to a fixed/ cantilevered interface

Rigid body motion and interface stiffness are accounted for by constraint modes

Kabe, A. M., Perl, E., Limitations of Base Shake Analysis and Testing of Flight Configured Spacecraft, 12th European Conference on Space Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing, ESA/ESTEC, March 2012.
42

Issues with Base Shake Tests (cont.)

Only translational motions are applied at base, one axis at a time
Launch vehicle/spacecraft system, however, vibrates simultaneously in all degrees of freedom during flight

Some spacecraft modes will be difficult, if not impossible, to excite through base excitation
For example, to excite fundamental torsional mode requires offset between spacecraft center of gravity and shear center that leads to modal gains that do not cancel

Coupled launch vehicle/spacecraft vibration is broadband, not single frequency sinusoidal, as in base shake tests
Vibration of spacecraft undergoing sinusoidal base shake will be significantly different than in flight Flight response involves significant, simultaneous vibration in many modes

Kabe, A. M., Perl, E., Limitations of Base Shake Analysis and Testing of Flight Configured Spacecraft, 12th European Conference on Space Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing, ESA/ESTEC, March 2012.
43

Issues with Base Shake Tests (cont.)

Because of stroke limitations, shake tables are not capable of inducing steady-state acceleration experienced in flight
Loads must be achieved dynamically, which causes over testing some parts to achieve proper minimum loads elsewhere Thus, spacecraft must be designed to survive test, in addition to flight Results in weight penalty and additional cost to spacecraft program

Most internal loads experienced during base shake testing cannot be measured and must be established with analytical model
Experience indicates that within the frequency range of base shake testing (up to several hundred Hz), these models are highly uncertain, even when adjusted to mode survey test data

Kabe, A. M., Perl, E., Limitations of Base Shake Analysis and Testing of Flight Configured Spacecraft, 12th European Conference on Space Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing, ESA/ESTEC, March 2012.
44

Issues with Base Shake Tests (cont.)

Spacecraft test article will most likely not be in flight configuration
Might not include actual spacecraft launch vehicle adapter Typically, propellants not included in tanks because of safety and contamination concerns

This leads to a test article with different dynamic properties relative to a flight-configured spacecraft Makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to induce proper load levels in many (most) parts of a spacecraft
Invariably requires supplemental static strength tests

Kabe, A. M., Perl, E., Limitations of Base Shake Analysis and Testing of Flight Configured Spacecraft, 12th European Conference on Space Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing, ESA/ESTEC, March 2012.
45

Issues with Base Shake Tests (cont.)

For operational launch vehicles, base excitation environments derived from flight data
Measured with limited number of accelerometers near launch vehicle/ spacecraft interface

Local responses, including warping of interface area, lead to artificially high environments when rigid interface assumption used
Can result in an over test of spacecraft

Assumption that measurements are an input at base of spacecraft is technically not correct
Measurements are those of the response of a coupled system Spacecraft participates in producing the responses

Kabe, A. M., Perl, E., Limitations of Base Shake Analysis and Testing of Flight Configured Spacecraft, 12th European Conference on Space Structures, Materials & Environmental Testing, ESA/ESTEC, March 2012.
46

Impossibility of Inducing Flight-Like Loads in a Base Shake Test

Coupled launch vehicle/spacecraft responses (e.g. accelerations, loads) to broad band excitation computed Computed interface accelerations used to establish base excitation per widely used approach Coupled system responses compared to base excitation results

Tuttle, R. E., Lollock, J. A., Assessment of Base Drive Analysis and Test for Complex Systems, Spacecraft and Launch Vehicle Dynamic Environments Workshop, The Aerospace Corp., 2012.
47

Future Needs

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Future Needs
Increased rigor in statistical analysis, with Monte Carlo analyses offering a way forward
Specify enclosure/confidence levels, not number of standard deviations

Increase complex spacecraft mode survey test limits to 75-100 Hz

Currently 50-60 Hz

Improved techniques for adjusting analytical models to better match mode survey test data
Despite progress, its still trial and error

Reduce/eliminate use of base shake tests of large, flight configured spacecraft

Static and subsystem tests offer proven way forward

49

In Closing, a Few Photographs

The Aerospace Corporation 2013

Launch Vehicles

Courtesy of NASA

Courtesy of NASA

Gemini-Titan II 1965

First Space Shuttle 1981

51

Courtesy of ULA

Delta IV

Courtesy of US Air Force

Launch Vehicles

Titan IV

52

Courtesy of SpaceX

Falcon 9

Courtesy of ULA

Launch Vehicles

Atlas V

53

Earths City Lights

Courtesy of NASA

54

All trademarks, trade names, and service marks are the property of their respective owners

The Aerospace Corporation 2013