46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference 18 - 21 April 2005, Austin, Texas

AIAA 2005-2049

THE CORD MAT SAIL CONCEPT, MECHANICS, AND DESIGN EXAMPLE

Gyula Greschik , University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Billy Derbes , Gordon Veal LGarde, Inc., Tustin. CA and Jim Rogan , Team Encounter, Houston, TX

Abstract A joint effort by industry and government (LGarde, Inc., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ball Aerospace, and NASA Langley Research Center) is currently under way to mature to Technical Readiness Level 6 a 10,000 m2 class scalable solar sail for the Solar Sentinel and similar missions in the solar system. One key innovation feature in this sail is the accommodation of very low lm tension by surface support with arrays of cords (the cord mat) in each quadrant. Besides enabling operation with negligible lm tension, the cord mat also denes load paths to well approximate the stripped architecture (a hypothetical upper limit on weight efciency for diagonally supported square sails), thereby reducing structural loads in more than one way. Another innovative solution is the used of a spreader system on only one side of the compressive columns a solution to increase weight efciency at the cost of accommodating light pressure from one side of the sail only, still permitting operation for the Solar Sentinel mission. This architecture, and some of its further details, was initially developed, studied, and proposed in 2001 and 2002 by the rst author for the LGardeEncounter solar sail mission by Team Encounter, and was subsequently rened in 2003. The surface fold pattern to match the architecture, as well as sophisticated analytical and design relations and tools for preliminary design, were also developed. This pioneering work, previously documented in technical reports only, is summarized in the present paper. A high level review of the design concept, its history and key mechanical features, is presented. Structural mechanics is discussed in detail, with key design and analytic relations derived. A point design to quantitatively illustrate the design is also presented. x,y,z

Nomenclature the initial boom frame of reference, with x and z the boom- and spacecraft axes x,y,z the deformed boom frame rotating with the boom, x locally tangential, z perpendicular to the boom , the sail surface frame with perpendicular and parallel to the cords p lateral surface pressure; = p0 cos2 ( )/L2 s , with p0 = 9.126 Pa the max. light pressure at 1 AU, the surface reective efciency, the angle of incidence, & Ls the solar distance [units of AU ] P compression r tube radius q line load (traction), e.g., lm surface tension b, L sail square edge and boom length w sail suspension cord spacing v lm billow between adjacent cords normalized lm billow, = v/w l span of lm suspension cord d cord sag from ideal straight line normalized cord sag, = d/l

Introduction The solar sail architecture discussed in the present paper, initially 1 termed the slack design concept but later 2 renamed with a somewhat less misleading terminology as the cord mat design, is historically associated with two missions planned in the Solar System. The rst, the Encounter 2001 effort by Team Encounter, aimed to propel a small payload outside the solar system with continuous 1 Research Associate. Member AIAA. Consultant, Member AIAA. Chief Engineer, Member AIAA. CEO, Team Encounter

Copyright 2005 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

acceleration on a simple diverging trajectory. A privately funded project with only secondary science goals, Encounter could afford higher than usual risks. Accordingly, design could proceed in a highly innovative way, enabled by the development of the cord mat design 1 . Cord mat concept development, the formal understanding of its mechanics via analytical and limited numerical means, and the exploration of some critical design issues have been mostly completed before, in 2002, activity on Encounter slowed down. Concurrently, however, interest by NASA in the second mission ultimately associated with the cord mat concept gave development further momentum. In particular, NASA sought spacecraft (solar sail) technology for the Solar Sentinel (or GeoStorm) missions to monitor solar activity with a satellite placed on the Sun-Earth line nearer to the Sun than the L1 point 3 . This gravitationally unstable location is to be maintained by the continuous thrust of a solar sail. This mission, like Encounter. permits the sail to be illuminated (subjected to light pressure) on one side only. The cord mat design was inherited by the new project, and development (already in the phase of hardware fabrication and testing 4 ) continued in the new context by an industrial-government team (LGarde, Inc., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ball Aerospace, and NASA Langley Research Center). The primary goal of the effort has become 5, 6 to mature the technology by 2005 to Technical Readiness Level 6 (TRL 6, system demonstration in a relevant environment). Hardware development and design continue with a focus on testing and numerical analysis 7, 8 . However, the stream of publication on these projects has not addressed the actual concept development and mechanical studies that paved the way for later development. This trailblazing work has only been documented in internal technical reports 1, 2 so far. With insight into the conceptual design work, with a formal discussion of the critical aspects of structural mechanics, and with a brief review of the early numerical analysis effort on the cord mat design, the present paper intends to ll this gap. Concept development In order to send a payload beyond the solar system in a time frame and on a trajectory only limited with low cost, the Encounter project was forced to adopt very stringent mass specications. For its continuous propellent free thrust, solar sail technology was pursued however, the structural load and weight penalty associated with stretching the lm sheet taut was to be avoided. Accordingly, the rst author of this paper was asked to develop an architecture with virtually no skin stress 2

in the spirit of Fig. 1. The design was to, preferably, approach the performance limit of the stripped design, then recently studied 9 .

the booms experience reduced axial load

the film sheets are suspended with near-zero skin stress

Fig. 1: Design problem specication a slack sail. Clearly, a design to skilfully control sailcraft mechanics was needed because of the uncertainties associated in the mechanics and kinematics of large baggy sheets. Also, obviously, while skin stress may be small, it must remain nite for any propulsion to be realized. The cord mat design One means to streamline structural mechanics according to the stripped design has been identied as the integration of cords with the lm sheet along the preferred load paths. In particular, it was proposed that the lm sheet in each sail quadrant be spread onto (attached to) a set of cords suspended from the booms parallel to the quadrant outer edge, Fig. 2.

chords suspended between the booms

film sheet laid on the chords, loosely billowing between

Fig. 2: The chord mat design concept (illustration from ). In this conguration, Film slack, even if signicant, effects bulging between the cords, little affecting global sail shape and billow. Global mechanics is dened by the cords that, alone, transfer the trust to the booms. Film structural role is limited to the (local) transfer of the light pressure to the cords. As a result, structural weight efciency due to very low lm stress can be realized without the mechanical complexities of three-dimensional slack lm- and billow mechanics. A force path pattern very similar to the stripped sail is realized.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The stripped vs. the cord mat design The stripped design 9 is dened not as a practical architecture but, rather, as an idealized mechanical model with a potential to dene upper bound structural performance. It is, in essence, a benchmark for any square sail design with square diagonal booms. In contrast, the cord mat architecture has been conceived as a technologically feasible concept, a blueprint for hardware development. It reects stripped sail mechanics only as much as permitted by mechanical feasibility and practical details. One key difference between the two concepts is the outer sail edge. This edge is straight for the stripped design, while it is curved with an inward camber in the cord mat design. This camber is needed to develop the skin tension q in the lm surface a perhaps small but nite traction necessary for thrust to develop. This pull can be balanced across all cords internal to the sail surface but, as the lm sheet ends at the outermost cord, the latter needs to be curved to maintain it, Fig. 3. Further, in

perspective view

the intermediate chords are loaded from both sides

inated by proper billow design only if the loads and lm slackness are known with sufcient certainty, which is not necessarily the case. One key aspect of the camber in the outer cord is the actual spatial shape it follows. This shape, in the context of the lm billow, boom deformations, and the vertical contour of the cord camber, effects a force on the boom tip with some follower effects. The presence of this load, as well as the loss of sail surface area as a result of the camber, are perhaps the most signicant global differences between the stripped and the current designs. The details of these effects and of the internal cord mat mechanics can be examined with relatively straightforward means considering: the inter-cord lm billow kinematics, the amount of excess lm material for this billow, the suspension cord shape(s), the thermal environment, and the direction and intensity of solar pressure. While sail attitude and boom curvature may affect the last of these effects, this interaction is herein ignored on the context of preliminary design. Packaging Possible means to integrate in a kinematically compatible manner the cord mat system with a practicable packaging scenario has also been considered. A primary pattern of accordion fold lines parallel to the sail outer edge, along the grooves of which the cords can be threaded, has been proposed. Subsequent accordion folding in the cross direction then forms the nal package. The deployment sequence is illustrated in Fig. 4 with a paper model.

the outermost chord is loaded on one side only

plan view

the outermost cord must laterally curve w/ a scallop that may "spread" to other cords b normalized scallop: =f/b

Fig. 3: Inward camber in the outermost chord(s). the context of real hardware, this camber may indirectly effect similar deformations in other cords as well. This spread of the edge shape to interior cords can be elim3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Fig. 4: Sail sheet folding with integrated cord mat concept demonstration model for one quadrant.

Mechanics The cord mat, in effect, replaces the complex threedimension behavior of an amorphously slack lm sheet, Fig. 1, with a hierarchical and unambiguous load path. Light pressure on the lm is distributed with two dimensional mechanics between the adjacent support cords. The cords, in turn, pass these loads on to the sail booms. Finally, the booms act as nonlinear beam columns their deformations, in turn, affecting sail shape and light pressure via geometric nonlinear effects.

z' normalized billow: =v/w N = p w / (8 ) v = N/t q= N q suspension chords

p w , N = = 0

Fig. 5: Film billow mechanics.

2 p Analysis approximations view boom For an approximate analysis where nonlinear effects are ignore, assume that: m boom 1. Light pressure is perpendicular to the surface. d 2. Small angle approximations are appropriate in billow and sag calculations. F 3. Film billow and cord sag shapes can be approximated l n with a circular arc or a parabola at convenience. These assumptions are justied because, for optimized deQ= m mx normalized sag: signs, sail billow and cord sag tend to be small and boom plan =d/l deformations minor. This has been veried with sophisy x' 45 o view ticated numerical calculations with a spreadsheet sail design program in which all nonlinearities of structural beFig. 6: Suspension chord sag between the booms. havior and light reectance 9 have been accurately or approximately accounted for. However, an additional assumption must also be taken ne the surface tension perpendicular to the cords, Fig. 5. for a symbolic study to be straightforward: scope must be Skin stress in the cord direction is negligible. The cords, limited to a sail attitude directly facing the light source in turn, transfer thrust to the booms in a manner globally this ensures global symmetry and permits the study of de- similar to the stripped design as indicated in Fig. 6 except tails of a single quadrant only. This assumption follows for a surface scallop near the sail edge, Fig. 3. The traction within the sail surface on the adjacent the mold of earlier studies 9 and has been deemed acceptcords by lm strip i is able for preliminary design. Note also that the derivations to follow do not explicq = p wi / (8 i ) (2) itly account for sail inertial effects sail acceleration a in the surface normal direction as a result of the light pres- where w is the suspension cord spacing (strip width) sure p. Therefore, if p is taken as the maximum pressure and = v/w is the normalized billow v . For all cords to at the considered distance Ls from the Sun degraded only sag (locally) perpendicular to the sail surface, therefore, with the surface reective efciency (p = p0 cos2 ( )/L2 s, q = constant (3) with p0 = 9.126 Pa and Ls measured in AU) then the model reects the case of suppressed accelerations, e.g., must hold over the entire sail. (Pressure p slightly varies via a large mass at the sail center. This approximation with surface orientation if the booms bend signicantly.) leads to an upper bound on the structural loads. The greater Employing the second order approximation the system accelerations ignore, the more conservative the w = ( 2 v 2 ) / (4 w) (4) results. For more realistic results, acceleration a and the srf lm surface should also be accounted for for the billow geometry and rearranging, one obtains that 2 2 preal = p0 cos ( )/Ls srf a (1) the excess lm width wi across strip i for proper (parallel) cord sags over the sail is

perspective

w1 w

Symbolic analysis The geometry of the lm billow between the suspension cords and the effective pressure lateral to the surface de4

wi

2 p2 3 w 256 q 2 i 3 0.03855 (p/q )2 wi =

(5)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

To ensure a regular and parallel cord sag pattern between slightly curved booms, the excess lm material for inter-cord billow must scale with the third power of the cord spacing. Further, with the variables in Fig. 6, the force in a cord of length l between strips of widths w1 and w2 is F which reduces to F = p l w / (8 ) (7) = p l (w1 + w2 )/2 / (8 ) (6)

z' z x q1 x'

z' x' z x q2 q3 P x sail axis P x'

for uniform cord spacing. The loads supported by the outermost cord, however, differ from these in two respects. One, the lateral (pressure) loads supported by this member are from the (half) lm strip on the inner side only which, by itself, would result in a force half of Eq. 7: F0,z p b w / (16 ) (8)

Fig. 8: Boom loads. and directions, the cord force becomes F0 =

2 +F 2 F0 ,z 0,

(The reduction of sail area and of the thrust due to the sail edge scallop is ignored.) Two, this cable also supports the cross-cord sail tension which loads it within the sail surface with traction q , Eqs. 2 and 3. This load, on its own, would effect a cable force of F0, = q b / (8)

(10)

Modeling the set of tension cords as a continuum (in (9) mathematical terms, executing limit w 0) with steps similar to those detailed in the precursor study 1 one obwith = f /b the normalized edge scallop, Figs. 3 and 7. tains the set of loads in Fig. 8 which additively combine Via the suspension mechanics and assuming that the cord and can be expressed as: (a) multiple cords (11) q1 = p x 2 / (8 ) involved in scallop q2 = p x (12)

complex billow & cord geometries

q3 Px Px

= q = p w / (8 ) = L q = L p w / (8 ) = F0 2

(13) (14) (15)

(b) outermost cord has a shallow scallop to not intersect other cords high cord tension (c) cords with intersected trajectories anchor into outermost cord joint of 3D curves
Fig. 7: Quadrant edge construction options. shape is the superposition of independent sags in the z 5

A complete representation of the edge scallop would alter these equations by tapering q2 to zero towards the end of the boom. Further, for an edge construction as in Fig. 7 (a), loads Px and Px would need to be distributed over a certain distance near the boom tip. The boom loads Eqs. 11 through 15 can also dene loads for or within design or analysis software, as long as boom deformations are relatively small. In fact, the point design discussed below has been produced this way these equations had been embedded in the software which then proceeded with nonlinear design/analysis, accounting for second order effects (the latter included the loss of thrust due to surface slopes). Boom architecture

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

To increase effective boom exural stiffness despite an extremely light conical tubular boom cross section, the spreader system shown in Fig. 9 was proposed, The sys-

tension wires, Fig. 10. Thus the effective exural stiffnesses is (EI ) = (EI )0 + h2 [2 (EA)0 + (1 )2 (EA)1 ] (17) in which (EI )0 is the boom tube exural stiffness, a function of the tube radius r as the latter varies along the conical boom (EI )0 = r3 t E (18)

perspective view redundant diagonals longeron spreader bar anchor wire boom tube side view

Fig. 9: Tubular boom with redundant spreader system. tem is completed in the outermost cable truss bay (after the last pair of spreader bars) by a single pair of anchor cables connecting to the boom tip. The hardware to follow this design is shown in Ref. 5, Fig. 3, and Ref. 6, Figs. 3, 4, 1518). (These publication also show how the set of spreaders integrate in the stowed conguration of the conically deployed boom.) The replacement of selected cross section bers with cords drew on earlier experience 10 demonstrating the exceptional weight efciency of tension elements. The cost of this weight efciency is that the boom can only support loads on one side a limitation preventing the application of this design in an Earth-orbiting context. The spreader system is redundant as three, as opposed to two, longitudinal cords are used on the top. Note also that the obligatory taut state may easily be perturbed even by minor perturbations. Therefore, special measures were also taken to improve robustness. Cross section properties The mechanical properties of the tubular boom reinforced with a spreader system, Fig. 10, are calculated as if for a composite cross section. The centroid location of this

in which t and E are the equivalent wall thickness and axial Youngs modulus for the composite boom wall. As loads q1 ...q4 and P (Eqs. 11 through 15) are concentric to the tubular boom, they load the hybrid cross section eccentrically. From the resulting axial forces P and bending moments M on the hybrid boom, one obtains the compression P0 and moment M0 experienced by the tubular boom itself as P0 = P (1 ) + M / h [1 (EI )0 /(EI )] M (EI )0 / (EI ) (19) (20)

M0 =

For the design and analysis discussed below, Eq. 19 was replaced by the conservative approximation P0 = P (1 ) + M / h Point design The point design presented next, which is representative of an early state of the Solar Sentinel mission design, has been produced with the equations presented above embedded in a nonlinear MS Excel solar sail design and optimization program. Sail inertial effects (pressure calculated with Eq. 1) and a number of nonlinearities, including the dependence of pressure on surface slopes, boom nonlinear exure-compression effects. etc., have been explicitly accounted for. Specications Dene overall sail size indirectly via the boom length, and assign boom tube dimensions according to: length diameter at base diameter at tip L=77.277 m 253.53 ft d0 =10.0 cm 3.937 in d0 = 7.5 cm 2.953 in (21)

spreader longerons & diagonal: centroid boom tube:

(EA)1 total h h

(EA)0 , (EI)0
Fig. 10: Cross section assumed for stiffness calculations. hybrid shape can be expressed via the fraction of the cross section height h

The boom length, consequently, dene a sail square edge of b=L 2 =109.286 m 358.55 ft, which subtends a nominal 12, 000m2 gross surface.

Next, dene the boom wall monocoque equivalent properties as: = (EA)1 / [(EA)0 + (EA)1 ] (16) wall thickness t=51.3 m 2.02 mil axial Youngs modulus E=28.7 GPa 4.16 Msi where subscripts 0 and 1 refer to the boom tube and the 6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

For the spreader system, Figs. 9 and 10, use hybrid cross section height spread bar half-V angle tension wire Youngs mod. t.wire cross section area h=51.96 cm 20.457 in =30o 0.524 rad E=66.19 GPa 9.60 Msi A=0.2191 mm2

perspective view

incident light 90 ' x

Dene bagginess via the normalized out-of-atness of various components, Figs. 5, 6, and 3: lm strip billow lm suspension cord sag sail edge scallop =0.01 =0.01 =0.0608

c section: line c (asymmetric) surface section light pressure

max. surface slope: max z c axis in the x-y plane

Other sailcraft components, with contingency, be dened as follows: lm surface density (lm + s =3.03 g/m2 suspension cords) boom linear density (tubu- b =50.14 g/m lar boom + spreader system + auxiliary elements such as bladder, rings, etc.) mass at boom tip (control mtip =0.6 kg vanes + mechanism) mass at sailcraft centroid mctr =95.8 kg (bus + payload + control and support systems) No jettison mass is considered as assume that the sailcraft is illuminated during deployment and rigidization with an offset great enough to signicantly reduce thrust and inertial loads. The critical solar distance of 0.48 AU is considered. Effective lm reective efciencies of 0.9 are used to produce conservative (higher) thrust loads. Offset illumination effects are conservatively modeled with scaled solar pressure as described next. Offset illumination effects The directions of illumination with respect to the sailcraft axis z (the beta angle or the illumination offset angle , Fig. 11) is mission specic. A conservative max =65o is assumed for the present point design. As a result of offset illumination, an asymmetric deformed shape and some torsion in the booms (in addition to the dominant exure) may develop. Further, the responses will depend not only on the beta angle but also on the direction of illumination, in Fig. 11. For the current design example, torsion is ignored and boom exural performance is checked in a simplied but conservative manner. In particular, offset illumination is replaced with an axial substitute to effect boom exural responses more severe than the offset load pattern. This procedure is described next. 7

= p0 pa,max C c

pc pa

B c=0

pa: actual pressure profile pc : profile used in calculations

Fig. 11: Offset illumination non-zero beta angle. A conservative bound on offset effects In order to derive an upper bound procedure for the assessment of offset load effects, begin with considering an axis c in the global sail plane x-y. The sail surface section along this axis is generally asymmetric and corresponds to an overall light pressure distribution as illustrated with a dashed line in Fig. 11. (This prole is symmetric only if the illumination is axial.) The overall asymmetric pressure prole depends on the maximum effective light pressure p0 and on the local angle of incidence via the cosine square law p = p0 cos2 () (22)

where p0 , the pressure for a right angle of incidence, depends on light intensity and surface reective efciency and local surface billow patterns are ignored. The angle is the surface slope (the latter measured in the sailcraft coordinate system xyz) only for axial illumination. (This slope generally differs from the slope of the surface section along c, Fig. 11.) According to Eq. 22, the maximum of pa in Fig. 11 whether it is at one end of a monotonic prole as shown, or at an intermediate location cannot exceed p0 pa ,max p0 (23)

An axial illumination load specied such that its minima (at the prole ends) equal p0 will thus be strictly greater and thus more conservative than the pa distribution from

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the actual offset loads. Further, the sail surface slopes were found to be generally less than 4o for a near-optimal design. Boom design for the worst case offset illumination scenario was, therefore, performed by scaling the pressure loads in a Sun-facing conguration with kp = cos2 (4o ) 1.005 (24)

critical cross section, from which the margin of safety strictly increases toward the tip). Here. the hybrid boom cross sections normalized centroid location (Fig. 10), the exural stiffness EI , and the stiffness EIused for deformation calculations to account for shear compliance are EI EIused = 0.08597 = 11315 N m2 = kEI EI = 6789 N m2 (26) (27) (28)

Software In the analysis, the booms were subjected to loads in accordance to Eqs. 11 through 15 and the member loads obtained were then used to verify boom cross section design. The booms have been modeled as beam-columns, with all geometric nonlinear effects accounted for. The sail and the boom solution was performed with an MS Excel program derived from SqS, originally written to explore the stripped sail architecture 11 and subsequently modied for the cord mat design. Akin to SqS, the modied program is also fully geometrically nonlinear not only in terms of boom response, but also sail deformations, and local illumination offset effects, to capture thrust degradation when local surface illumination angle changes as a result of boom deformations. Note that the boom is modeled as a standard EulerBernoulli beam. In reality, however, the less than rigid connection between the spreader system ange cords and the boom tube via spreader bars and anchor wires deteriorates effective stiffness. To counter this effect, a knockdown factor kEI = 0.60 (25)

The boom tip deection is ez,tip = 1.336 m (29)

Compression P , shear Q, and bending moment M in the hybrid cross section are, with respect to the centroid, P = 1.6057 N Q = 0.0680 N M = 5.0083 N m (30) (31) (32)

from which the compression P0 and bending moment M0 in the tubular boom, and the tension F1 in the spreader longerons and diagonal P0 M0 F1 = 11.106 N = 0.2559 N m = 9.5003 N (33) (34) (35)

The consequent compressive and bending stresses are P M = 689.1 kP a = 635.2 kP a (36) (37)

determined with numerical testing was used to lower exural stiffness for the calculation of boom deformations. Further modeling assumptions included: 1. The cord-reinforced sail quadrants were modeled as homogeneous. 2. The loss of surface area and of the associated thrust due to the sail edge scallop were ignored. 3. The tubular boom and spreader system was modeled as a hybrid composite cross section. 4. For the stiffness calculations, the redundant diagonals in the boom spreader system were ignored. 5. Mass for components not explicitely modeled (wires, support cords. etc.), are added to the sail surface and boom linear densities. Results member loads and safety For the critical solar distance of 0.48 AU and worst offset illumination simulated with kp =1.005 overpressure, the results for the design specied above are as follows. Boom performance, checked via the margin of safety against local buckling at the boom base (the base is the 8

The critical axial stresses 12 for the compressive and bending conditions, P ,cr and M ,cr , after the application of the k=0.5 knockdown factor to account for the composite nature of the cross section are P ,cr M ,cr = 2023 kP a = 3323 kP a (38) (39)

from which, via Eqs. 36 and 37, the capacities are RP RM = P /P ,cr = 0.3406 = M /M ,cr = 0.1912 (40) (41)

which combine to the resultant capacity R = RP + RM = 0.5318 (42)

The margin if safety is then the reciprocal of the capacity 1/R = 1.880 (43)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Summary

The development and mechanical analysis of the cord mat design, an innovative light weight solar sail architecture initially developed for the Encounter project and later implemented in the LGarde solar sail for NASAs [6] D. Lichodziejewski, W. Derbes, R. Reinert, K. Belvin, K. Slade, and T. Mann. Development Solar Sentinel mission, has been discussed. The design and ground testing of a compactly stowed scalable concepts critical features have been discussed, and key inatably deployed solar sail. In The 45th AIAA/mechanical relations necessary for system and component ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dydesign have been presented. Finally, the use of the latter namics, and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME has been illustrated with a point design. Adaptive Structures Forum, Technical Papers, Palm Springs, CA, April 1922 2004. AIAA-2004-1507. Acknowledgments [7] D. Sleight, Y. Michii, T. Mann, K. Slade, J. Wang, D. Lichodziejewski, and B. Derbes. Finite element All concepts and results presented in this paper are the analysis and test correlation of a 10- meter ination work of the rst author, who thanks LGarde, Inc., the deployed solar sail. In Ref. 13. AIAA-2005-2121. leader of the Encounter and Solar Sentinel structural development projects, for its support that enabled these con[8] D. Lichodziejewski, B. Derbes, K. Slade, T. Mann, tributions. The equations, plots, and illustrations are taken and R. Reinert. Vacuum deployment and testing of from the technical reports 1, 2 initially documenting this a 4-quadrant scalable inatable rigidizable solar sail work. system. In Ref. 13. AIAA-2005-2122. The rst author also wishes to personally thank Billy Derbes and David (Leo) Lichodziejewski for leadership [9] G. Greschik and M. M. Mikulas. Design study of a square solar sail architecture. In The 42nd AIAA/and for inspiring conversations. ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME References Adaptive Structures Forum, Technical Papers, Seattle, WA, April 1619 2001. Session 12-GSF-2, [1] G. Greschik. Preliminary assessment of boom loads Advanced Concepts and Applications of Gossamer for the Encounter 2001 Solar Sail slack design. InSpacecraft. AIAA-00-2001-1259. terim report, LGarde, Inc., 15181 Woodlawn Ave, [10] G. Greschik and M. M. Mikulas. The solar parachute Tustin, CA 92780-6487, February 6 2002. concept for solar power satellites and solar sails. In [2] G. Greschik. ROSS NRA Cycle 1 LGarde The 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Solar Sail General Structural Design and AnalyStructural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and sis. LGarde Structural Report 2003/3, LGarde, AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Atlanta, Inc., 15181 Woodlawn Ave, Tustin, CA 92780-6487, GA, April 36 2000. Published on CD-ROM. SesNovember 21 2003. Revision 1 of March 25, 2003, sion ISS-4, Inatable Space Structure. AIAA-00original report. 2000-1794. [3] D.C.) NASAs In-Space Propulsion Program [11] G. Greschik and M. M. Mikulas. Design study of a (managed by NASAs Ofce of Space Science, square solar sail architecture. Journal of Spacecraft Washington. Tech ISP In-Depth Technical and Rockets, 39(5):653661, SeptemberOctober Information About Space Propulsion Tech2002. Journal version of paper AIAA-00-2001nologies / Solar Sails / Potential Mission Ap1259, presented at the 2001 SDM Conference. plications. www.inspacepropulsion.com/tech/ sails missionapps.html, Link veried on April 10, [12] Anon. Buckling of thin-walled circular cylinders. NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Structures) 2005. WWW page. NASA SP-8007, NASA Langley Research Center, [4] B. Derbes, R. Veal, J. Rogan, and C. Chafer. Team Langley Station, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, August Encounter solar sails. White paper, LGarde, Avail1968. Revision of September, 1965, version. able from the web site of LGarde, Inc., 2003. [13] The 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, [5] D. Lichodziejewski, W. Derbes, J. West, R. ReinStructural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and ert, K. Belvin, and R. Pappa. Bringing and effective AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Austin, 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

solar sail design toward TRL 6. In The 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Huntsville, AL, July 2023 2003. AIAA2003-4659.

TX, April 1821 2005. AIAA. Proceedings published on CD-ROM AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, Disc 6, 2005

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics