Topic given: Design a CubeSat for a LEO (low earth orbit) satellite 1U
The challenge was to design a 1U CubeSat for Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The focus was on creating a satellite that fits within the small size constraints of a 1U CubeSat. The goal was to develop a functional design suitable for space deployment in LEO.
CubeSats are compact satellites built in standardized units (1U = 10×10×10 cm), offering a low-cost, modular platform for space missions ranging from scientific research to technology demonstrations. Their standardized form factor has made them a preferred choice for academic institutions, private companies, and space agencies.
In this project, the objective was to design a 1U CubeSat for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with dimensions as the only given constraint. Specific launch vibration requirements were not provided, so it was essential to conduct thorough research into industry standards—such how strong ? what weight limit? or material? could be used to guide the structural design. The focus was on ensuring the CubeSat frame could withstand the mechanical loads experienced during launch since that likely when most of the load would act and on re-entry if it was made to be reusable.
My Approach
Modeling the CubeSat frame using SolidWorks, adhering to CubeSat design standards.
Performing structural FEA for launch loads and using Ansys and data onloads applied during launch.
Selecting materials balancing weight, strength, and thermal conductivity, showing comparison with different possible choices.
Organizing Team and overseeing tasks to be done by others.
Reflections:
If I had to redo this project I would probably have split up the task writing the output and doing the experiment more appropriately since my team member had the same skill set we decided to make our own designs and compare them as the project showcasing how we had tried different things and what came out the best. However since we spent all our time designing the project we nearly missed the creation of the presentation which had to be rushed while our data was sound I believe making the framework for the presentation before hand would have resulted in a better presentation. That where we likely lost points since our final score was 79 whilst first place was 84.
No. of Participating Teams : 41
Final Position : Top 7