4.7 Article

Experimental CanSat Platform for Functional Verification of Burn Wire Triggering-Based Holding and Release Mechanisms

期刊

AEROSPACE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/aerospace8070192

关键词

DHRM CanSat; holding and release mechanism; Dyneema wire; deployable solar panel; functional verification; launch test

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduces the Diverse Holding and Release Mechanism Can Satellite (DHRM CanSat) platform developed by the Space Technology Synthesis Laboratory (STSL) at Chosun University in South Korea to demonstrate the design effectiveness and functionality of three newly proposed holding and release mechanisms.
In this study, we present the Diverse Holding and Release Mechanism Can Satellite (DHRM CanSat) platform developed by the Space Technology Synthesis Laboratory (STSL) at Chosun University, South Korea. This platform focuses on several types of holding and release mechanisms (HRMs) for application in deployable appendages of nanosatellites. The objectives of the DHRM CanSat mission are to demonstrate the design effectiveness and functionality of the three newly proposed HRMs based on the burn wire triggering method, i.e., the pogo pin-type HRM, separation nut-type HRM, and Velcro tape-type HRM, which were implemented on deployable dummy solar panels of the CanSat. The proposed mechanisms have many advantages, including a high holding capability, simultaneous constraints in multi-plane directions, and simplicity of handling. Additionally, each mechanism has distinctive features, such as spring-loaded pins to initiate deployment, a plate with a thread as a nut for a high holding capability, and a hook and loop fastener for easy access to subsystems of the satellite without releasing the holding constraint. The design effectiveness and functional performance of the proposed mechanisms were demonstrated through an actual flight test of the DHRM CanSat launched by a model rocket.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据