1st Latin American IAA CubeSat Workshop - Techn Session V: SYSTEM DESIGN 1

December 8-11, 2014, Brasília, Brazil

IAA-BR-14-05-06

Design and Development of Guatemala´s first CubeSat

Miranda, Emilio*; Flores, José Eduardo**; Molina, Juan Carlos***; Pérez, José
Andrés****; Ayerdi, Víctor*****; Zea, Luis******

The CubeSat standard provides the opportunity to engage in space related

activities without the need of a major investment. The benefits of developing
the technologies required for a satellite directly impact the students,
engineers and scientists involved, which in turn has a positive effect in the
country as a whole. Universidad del Valle de Guatemala is currently
undertaking the first steps to design and develop a CubeSat bus prototype.
This paper outlines the engineering design process used for developing the
1U CubeSat’s structure, communications, attitude determination and control
(ADCS), and power subsystems. NASA's systems engineering approach was
followed throughout the entire lifecycle of the project. This helped keep
control of decision-making processes at every stage, as well as to coordinate
the work done by everyone involved in the project. The ADCS was designed
with a three-axis control strategy, which broadens the CubeSat’s payload
possibilities. In-house designed reaction wheels (RW) in an orthogonal
configuration provide a mass- and cost-effective method for stabilizing the
CubeSat’s attitude in orbit. Attitude determination is implemented using a 9-
degrees of freedom inertial measurement unit, which provides the necessary
sensor data for RW speed control. The design was tested with a simple
platform that used air pressure acting as a lubricant on a rotating sphere, thus
simulating space-like conditions. The selected components of the
communications subsystem were a low-power transceiver and a software-
defined terminal node controller. The subsystem is equipped with a single
half wavelength long dipole antenna, which uses UHF frequency (433.525

*
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: mir10411@uvg.edu.gt
**
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: flo08192@uvg.edu.gt
***
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: mol09568@uvg.edu.gt
****
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: per08092@uvg.edu.gt
*****
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: vhayerdi@uvg.edu.gt
******
Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, email: luiszea@gmail.com
2

MHz) to transmit and receive data and commands. It is planned to use the
AX.25 protocol, which is standard in the ham radio community. The power
subsystem includes the power source, power storage, and the power
distribution components. The power subsystem was designed considering
power needs of the ADCS and communications subsystems and an
estimation of the payload requirements. Solar panels were located on the
lateral faces of the CubeSat. The structure was designed for the launch
environments of the Soyuz, Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 launch vehicles. Natural
frequency modal analysis, shock response spectrum, random vibration and
quasi-static loads analyses were performed using Autodesk® Simulation
Mechanical 2014®. After the first round of testing it has been concluded that
a reliable and requirement-compliant prototype has been designed,
constructed and tested, in despite of the technological and economic
constraints involved.

Keywords – ADCS, Dipole Antenna, Finite Element Analysis, One-axis

Attitude Control, Reaction wheels, Solar Panel, TNC, Transceiver.

Introduction
The technological capabilities offered by a CubeSat have allowed several
universities, small companies and developing countries to study scientific
phenomena and to venture into aerospace engineering. CubeSats have been
used as research platforms in the fields of astrobiology, astronomy,
atmospheric sciences, earth observation, telecommunications, and
meteorology, as well as in the development of new materials and electronic
components for space applications [1].

In 2014, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala started a project to develop

Guatemala’s first satellite following the CubeSat standard and NASA’s
systems engineering guidelines [2,3]. All of the CubeSat’s bus subsystems
have to be verified and validated before being able to fly in a rocket. At this
point, the bus has been designed to be compliant with the launch
environments of the Ariane 5, Falcon 9 and Soyuz vehicles [4,5,6]. As part of
that effort and aiming to decrease risk and increase the probability of
mission success, a CubeSat bus prototype was produced on which each of
the subsystems, and the satellite as a whole, could be tested in an iterative
fashion. This paper reports the work done thus far in this project.
 3

Objectives
The principal objective of the CubeSat development project is to design and
build a prototype of a functional CubeSat bus for a not-specified payload.
The definition of the payload is work conducted under a parallel project and
reported separately.

Specific objectives involve the design of four main subsystem: 1) a

communication subsystem between the bus and the ground control, 2) a
power subsystem able to generate, store and distribute energy to others
subsystems, 3) an attitude and determination control subsystem and 4) a
structure able to bear the launch environment.

Design

1. Structure and Overall Design

The CubeSat bus structure was designed to fulfill the requirements and
limitations described in the CubeSat Design Specification (CDS) revision 13
[3]
for a 1U CubeSat. In addition to this and based on an in-house
requirement, the bus was designed to comply with the launch environment
specifications described in the user´s manuals of the Ariane 5 [4], Falcon 9 [5]
and Soyuz [6] launch vehicles. Fig. 1 shows the prototype structure; each
plate has a 2 mm thickness.

Fig. 1. General dimensions and isometric view of the prototype structure.

4

Aluminum 7075 was selected as the material for the structure by performing
a trade study [7,8] between aluminum 7075 and 6061. In this trade study,
material properties such as density, thermal conductivity, breaking stress,
Brinell hardness and Young’s module were considered. The assembly
components material was selected to be stainless steel 316. Split washers
were added to reduce vibration and to keep screws safe, among other
reasons. Fig. 2 shows the designed CubeSat expanded projection.

Fig. 2. CubeSat expanded projection and bill of materials.

Separation springs as described in the CubeSat Design Specification Rev. 13

were placed in the bottom face of the rails. The plates were designed with
ribs to increase the moment of inertia and in turn, the rigidity of the plates [9].

The structure total mass is 269 g and the CubeSat bus is 804 g as a whole.
This leaves a mass budget of about 526 g for the payload. The internal
volume of the designed CubeSat was 743 cm3. The attitude and
determination control subsystem occupied the 39% of this volume, the
 5

power subsystem 41% and communication subsystem 7%. Therefore, 13%

of the total internal volume (96 cm3) was left for the payload.

Another important design consideration was the location of the CubeSat’s

center of gravity. The CubeSat Design Specification describes that it must be
located inside a sphere of 20 mm of diameter centered at the geometric
center. This CubeSat’s center of gravity was calculated, using Autodesk®
Inventor 2014, to be at the (0.783 mm, -0.011 mm, -9.008 mm) coordinates,
with the origin located in the geometric center of the CubeSat. This complies
with the requirements.

2. Communication Subsystem
The principal objective of the Communications Subsystem (COMS) during
this first stage of the project was to design and build a system that could
transmit and receive data packages between the CubeSat bus and a receiver
component installed on the ground. Fig. 3 shows the operation of the COMS
subsystem.

Fig. 3. Operation of the COMS subsystem. GFSK stands for Gaussian Frequency Shift
Keying and RF for Radio Frequency.

The four basic components that define this subsystem are the antenna, radio
frequency (RF) amplifier, transceiver, and terminal node controller (TNC).
The selection of each of these components was conducted through trade
6

studies. Compliance with the requirements defined in the CubeSat Design

Specification (CDS) and for the launch vehicles was kept in mind during
component selection.

Antenna RF Amplifier Transceiver TNC Protocol

Dipole Antenna RF6886 Chipcon CC1101 ATmega328 AX.25
Table 1. Final set of components for the COMS subsystem.

The base frequency for transmission and reception is 433MHz. This

frequency was in part selected based on the survey of COMS subsystems
reported in [10], where it is indicated that almost 80% of the CubeSats
analyzed used a 430-440MHz frequency for data transmission. A half-wave
dipole antenna with a total length of 33 cm, which corresponds with the
transmission frequency, was constructed using metric tape. A software-
defined TNC was implemented on the Atmel® ATmega328
microcontroller’s program, which helps reduce the total number of
components, and therefore, the power consumption, cost, and dimension of
the subsystem. The microcontroller communicates via Serial Peripheral
Interface (SPI) with the CC1101 transceiver, which modulates/demodulates
the signal using Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK). To ensure
compatibility with worldwide ground stations, the AX.25 protocol is used
for data transmission.

In order to evaluate the design and performance of the subsystem, a Design

Evaluation Matrix (DEM) was developed. This table describes the tests to be
conducted and records the results of each test. This is done as a Verification
and Validation (V&V) effort, helping ensure the subsystem is compliant
with all applicable requirements.

Design Evaluation Matrix

# Test
1 Encode AX.25 packet
2 Decode AX.25 packet
3 Verify GFSK Modulation
4 Verify GFSK Demodulation
5 Encode and Transmit AX.25 data packet
 7

6 Receive and Decode AX.25 data packet

7 Measure power consumption in TX mode
8 Measure power consumption in RX mode
9 Verify 3 “Deploy Antenna” signals
10 Deploy dipole antenna in 3D printed structure
11 Deploy dipole antenna in Aluminum 7075 structure
Table 2. Design Evaluation Matrix for the COMS subsystem.

3. Power Subsystem

Fig. 4. Power subsystem operational flow to feed the other CubeSat subsystems.

The CubeSat power subsystem was designed to fulfill the requirements and
constrains described in the CubeSat Design Specification (CDS) revision 13,
and its mains objective is to produce, store, and distribute power to the other
subsystems as needed.

Using trade studies, two lithium-ion batteries were selected over other
options, including nickel cadmium, and nickel-metal hydride. Properties
such as memory effect, lifespan, voltage, efficiency, operational
temperatures, and cost were considered. Through another trade study,
Marsfire™ Sanyo batteries were selected due to their weight, capacity, cost,
cycles and diameter. In a similar fashion, solar panels were analyzed through
variables such as volume, current, voltage, efficiency and cost. The DIY
16084 100mA-1V mini solar panel was selected.

The configuration shown in Fig. 5 can produce up to 3V and 300 mA.

Connecting the solar panels in parallel helps produce more amperage while
doing so in series helps obtain a higher voltage.
8

Fig. 5. Solar Panels in a parallel and serial configuration.

The selection of Lithium-ion batteries produced drivers and constrains onto

the battery charger selection. For example, the charger needed to output
4.2V and because each Lithium-ion battery needs its own circuit charger,
two of these devices were needed. Using trade studies, the Microchip®
MCP73811/2 linear charge management controllers were selected. These
devices are designed for use in limited space and have a relatively small
number of external components.

Microchip® MCP1827/MCP1827S were selected as regulators to provide

3V, 3.3V, 3.7V and 5V to the other CubeSat’s subsystems. These are 1.5A
Low Dropout (LDO) linear regulators that output high currents and low
voltages.

4. Active Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS)

The CubeSat’s attitude is measured with respect to a reference frame which
origin is located directly in the CubeSat’s center of mass. The coordinate
system is defined as Local Vertical/Local Horizontal [11], where the x-axis
takes the direction of the CubeSat’s orbital velocity vector, the z-axis points
towards nadir and the y-axis completes a right hand orthogonal system.

Most CubeSats use a passive ADCS, which follows a limited attitude profile
within each orbit. A passive method can only control two rotation angles,
which limits the type of mission that the CubeSat can perform. Therefore, an
active ADCS is ideal as it enables more payload possibilities.
 9

A trade study that compared general characteristics of different control

methods, including gravity gradient stabilization, momentum bias, and Zero
Momentum control was conducted. With this, it was determined that the
most convenient method was a triple-axis control using a combination of
reaction wheels and magnetorquers as actuators.

In order to have an idea about the magnitude of the disturbances acting on an

orbiting CubeSat, a simulation was performed using the CubeSat toolbox in
MATLAB®. The CubeSat toolbox implements validated models to analyze
various aspects of a CubeSat mission. The simulation was carried out
assuming a center of gravity offset of 2 cm, which is the maximum allowed
value according to the CDS. This condition results in the greatest possible
torques produced. Another assumed condition in the simulation was a polar
orbit, because the greatest magnetic torques occur when a satellite is located
directly above the earth’s poles. These assumptions permitted to analyze the
worst-case scenario for the atmospheric, gravitational, magnetic and optical
disturbances in the CubeSats attitude, thus allowing designing a reaction
wheel with enough torque capabilities to reject them.

Fig. 6. Total torque acting on a CubeSat’s attitude in a polar orbit and with a center of
gravity offset of 2 cm.

Based on the previous analysis and on simplified equations for actuator

sizing [12], it was possible to estimate the minimum required hardware
10

characteristics to reject possible disturbances and control the CubeSat’s

attitude. This analysis assumed an orbital period of 91 min.

Actuator Parameter Estimated Value Required Minimum

Disturbance
2.50E-07 N·m 2.50E-06 N·m
Rejection
Reaction Wheels Slew Torque 1.74E-09 N·m 1.74E-08 N·m
Momentum
2.41E-04 Nm·s 2.41E-03 Nm·s
Storage
Magnetorquer Dipole Moment 7.03E-03 A·m2 7.03E-02 A·m2
Table 3. Estimated Hardware requirements.

It was concluded that the reaction wheel must have a minimum torque of 2.5
μNm and a minimum momentum storage capability of 2.4 mN·m·s.
Knowing the nominal speed of the selected motor (14700rpm) and the
maximum required torque, it was possible to use equation 1 to calculate the
reaction wheel inertia needed:

𝑇 = 𝑑ℎ⁄𝑑𝑡 = 𝐼 ∙ 𝑑𝜔⁄𝑑𝑡 [1]

This resulted to be about 1.624x10-9 kg·m2. The reaction wheel geometry

was designed in such a way that the required inertia could be generated with
the minimum amount of mass (see Fig. 7). This was accomplished by
creating an internal pocket that lowered the mass by 41% while maintaining
similar inertia properties.

Fig. 7. Reaction wheel dimensions in mm.

 11

Through trade studies, the Faulhaber 1509T micromotor was selected to be

used in conjunction with the designed reaction wheel. Because the selected
motor does not include driving electronics, the Texas Instruments
DRV10963 three-phase sensor-less motor driver was used to complete the
reaction wheel assembly.

For attitude determination, a trade study led to the selection of the CH

Robotics UM6 inertial measurement unit (IMU), which allows attitude
estimation with respect to the Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame.
In order to determine the CubeSats attitude with respect to the sun and
minimizing light’s incidence angle on the solar panels, TSL237 light-to-
frequency converters from ams AG were selected for placing on each of the
CubeSat’s faces.

Assuming a diagonal inertia matrix and simplifying the reaction wheel’s

transfer function, it was possible to model the system as a linear decoupled
system, where attitude dynamics can be treated separately for each rotation
axis. These assumptions facilitated the design of a single-input single-output
(SISO) digital control system for each rotation axis. A closed loop attitude
control system was designed for controlling the vertical axis of a rigid body
with torque commands.

Finally, a control system for angular position over the vertical axis was
tested under conditions similar to those of an orbiting CubeSat. In order to
simulate the microgravity environment, it was necessary to construct a base
that holds the structure while minimizing the friction acting on it. Data was
obtained wirelessly in order to identify a transfer function that best
approximates the systems transient response, with which it was possible to
design a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller for the system.

Results
The structure design was evaluated with finite element analysis (FEA) [13,14].
The structure was analyzed implementing an absolute mesh of 1 mm and
performing a natural frequency – modal analysis to calculate the first five
natural frequencies of the structure. The random vibration, shock response
spectrum and quasi-static loads found in the launch environment of the three
launch vehicles analyzed (Ariane 5, Falcon 9 and Soyuz) were obtained from
12

their respective user’s manuals. Using Autodesk® Simulation Mechanical

2014, the maximum displacements and maximum von Mises stress under
launch conditions were determined as seen in Table 4. The Soyuz launch
vehicle proved to produce the most stringent launch conditions.

Maximum
Maximum von Mises
Analysis displacement
stress (N/mm²)
(mm)
Random Vibration 3.72E-03 1.818
Shock Response 8.08E-03 4.358
Quasi-static Loads 0.182 36.916
Table 4. Maximum displacement and von Mises stress found under the Ariane 5, Falcon
9 and Soyuz launch environments.

Fig. 7. Ariane 5 shock response spectrum load case resultant.

To quantify the performance of the link between the COMS subsystem and
the receiver component, a link analysis was conducted. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 5.

LINK ANALYSIS
Link Budget: CubeSat to Ground Station Value Unit
TX Power CubeSat 35 dBm
 13

Antenna Gain CubeSat 2 dBi

Cable Loss CubeSat -1.5 dB
Antenna Gain GS 30 dBi
Cable Loss GS -2 dB
TOTAL GAIN 63.5 dB
Space Loss @400km -137.2 dB
Expected Received Signal Level -73.7 dBm
Sensitivity GS 85 dBm
LINK MARGIN 11.3 dB
Link Budget: Ground Station to CubeSat Value Unit
TX Power GS 35 dBm
Antenna Gain GS 30 dBi
Cable Loss GS -2 dB
Antenna Gain CubeSat 2 dBi
Cable Loss CubeSat -1.5 dB
TOTAL GAIN 63.5 dB
Space Loss @400km -137.2 dB
Expected Received Signal Level -73.7 dBm
Sensitivity CubeSat 95 dBm
LINK MARGIN 21.3 dB
Table 5. Link Analysis for the COMS subsystem.

Tests conducted on the regulators confirmed the importance of following the

rule of 𝑉𝑖𝑛 ≥ 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 to ensure proper functioning of all parts. In terms
of power consumption, the results of the analyses conducted on the COMS
and ADCS subsystems can be seen in Tables 6 and 7.

# Mode Voltage (V) Current (mA) Power (mW)

250kBaud 3.3 45.0 148.5
7 Transmission
2.4kBaud 3.3 43.5 143.6
250kBaud 3.3 32.1 105.9
8 Reception
2.4kBaud 3.3 31.0 102.3
* --- 3.3 700.0 2310.0
Table 6. Power Consumption of the COMS subsystem.
14

Voltage/u Amperage/u power/u Power

Component Quantity
(V) (A)* (W) (W)

Motor DC 3 6.0 0.198 1.188 3.564

IMU 1 3.5 0.052 0.182 0.182
GPS 1 3.3 0.020 0.066 0.066
Light Sensor 6 3.3 0.024 0.079 0.475
Temp. Sensor 6 3.3 0.0004 0.001 0.008
Microcontroller 1 3.3 0.150 0.495 0.495
Magnetic
3 5.0 0.060 0.300 0.900
Torquer
Table 7. Power Consumption of the ADCS Subsystem

The following graphs were obtained using the constructed ADCS testbed
system, where angular position of the vertical axis was to be controlled. The
data was received in real-time and stored in the MATLAB® environment,
where it was possible to analyze the data further.

Fig. 9. Step response of the ADCS testbed using a proportional controller.

 15

Fig. 8. Step response of the ADCS testbed using a PID controller.

Discussion
The structure displacements observed under launch condition simulations are
negligible. For example, a displacement of 0.18 mm was calculated on the
quasi-static loads analysis. The maximum von Misses stress found in the
finite element analysis was 36.9 N/mm2, which is acceptable due to the fact
that the maximum yield strength of aluminum 7075 is 145 N/mm2. In other
words, there is a safety factor of 3.9.

Tests #1 to #10 of the COMS DEM were completed successfully, and it can
be concluded that the proposed design fulfills the requirements and
specifications under laboratory conditions. Test #11 couldn’t be completed
because the real structure (Aluminum 7075 structure) had not yet been
machined at the time of testing. The downlink margin was 11.3dB and the
uplink margin was 21.3dB. Both margins are greater than 10dB, so it is
assumed that a reliable link can be achieved.

Tests on the solar panels’ performance as a function of temperature indicate

that they would be able to survive the spaceflight operational conditions.
However, it is believed that their lifespans will be reduced due to the
frequent changes in temperature. The role of radiation on solar panel life
span was not studied. The tests conducted on the batteries permitted the
quantification of their output voltage and current.

Proportional control for the attitude correction was proven insufficient, as

the system can’t generate the necessary reaction wheel accelerations when
16

the error is too small. This results in an inevitable drift from the desired
angular position (see Fig. 9). As can be seen in Fig. 10, the steady state error
in the output angle was considerably reduced by the implementation of a
PID controller in the control loop. The integral element of the controller
compensates the angular drift so that the accelerations of the reaction wheel
are large enough to return the system to its desired position. Further fine-
tuning of the PID controller is still necessary in order to reduce the
amplitude of the steady state oscillations.

Conclusion
It was verified by a finite element analysis that the designed structure is able
to withstand random vibrations, shock response and quasi-static loads found
in the launch environment of the launch vehicles Ariane 5, Soyuz and Falcon
9. The communications subsystem developed can transmit data from the
CubeSat bus to the receiver component and can receive operation commands
from it under laboratory conditions. The tests indicate that the selected solar
panels are suitable for use in a space mission although their lifespan may be
shortened. The selected Lithium-ion batteries are able to supply the required
current and voltage to the regulators. To ensure proper operation of the
regulators, input voltage must be greater or equal to the output voltage plus
the voltage drop. A test bed was constructed and successfully operated to
validate the design of a one-axis attitude control system of a nanosatellite.
Tests results show that the implementation of a PID controller eliminates
steady state angular drift, reduces settling time, and results in better
disturbance rejection.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Erick Tijerino for his advice on
structural testing. Emilio Miranda would like to thank Ing. Rodrigo Aragón
for his support in the manufacture of the CubeSat’s structure and his family,
parents and brothers, for their continuous support and patience throughout
the project. Jose Flores would like to thank Eduardo M. Alvarez M. for his
advice and support during de development of the Communications
Subsystem and his family for their invaluable support during the
development of the project. José Andrés Pérez would like to thank MSc.
Carlos Esquit for his advice on the power subsystem. Juan Carlos Molina
would like to thank his colleague Juan José Paiz for his collaboration in the
development of the testbed system, his father for helping him in the reaction
wheel’s manufacturing process, and to acknowledge the department of
 17

Computer Science in the University of Würzburg for sharing the idea of the
friction-less base. Finally, the authors would like to thank Universidad del
Valle de Guatemala for funding the country’s first satellite design and
development preliminary phase.

References
[1] Swartwout, M. (2014). The First One Hundred CubeSats: A Statistical
Look. JoSS, 2, 213-233.
[2] Shishko, R., & Aster, R. (1995). NASA systems engineering handbook.
NASA Special Publication, 6105.
[3] CalPoly (2014). CubeSat Design Specfication Rev 13
[4] Perez, E. (2008). Ariane 5 User’s Manual. ArianeSpace Service and
Solutions, (5).
[5] SpaceX (2008). Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User´s Guide Rev 1
SCM 2008‐010 Rev. 1
[6] Starsem (2001). Soyuz User´s Manual. ST-GTD-SUM-01 Issue 3 Rev 1
[7] Larson, W. J., & Pranke, L. K. (2000). Human spaceflight: mission
analysis and design. McGraw-Hill Companies.
[8] Brown, C. D. (2002). Elements of spacecraft design. AIAA.
[9] Hasenauer , J, et al. (2007). Optimum Rib Design. Dupont. Retrieved
from:
http://www2.dupont.com/Plastics/en_US/assets/downloads/top_tens/endtip4.
pdf
[10] Klofas, B., Anderson, J., & Leveque, K. (2008, April). A survey of
cubesat communication systems. In 5th Annual CubeSat Developers’
Workshop.
[11] Burlison, T., (2014). Rendezvous and Docking: A User’s Guide for Non
Rocket Scientists. Retrieved from: http://www.baen.com/rendezvous.asp
[12] Wertz, J. R., & Larson, W. J. (1999). Space mission analysis and
design. pp. 354-380.
[13] Abdelal, G. F., Abuelfoutouh, N., & Gad, A. H. (2013). Finite element
analysis for satellite structures. London: Springer. OpenURL.
[14] Wijker, J. J. (2008). Spacecraft structures. Springer.