ARTICLE IN PRESS

Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Review

A review on large deployable structures for astrophysics missions

L. Puig a,, A. Barton b, N. Rando a
a
Advanced Studies and Technology Preparation Division, European Space Agency, ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 Noordwijk, The Netherlands
b
Structures and Mechanisms Division, European Space Agency, ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 Noordwijk, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: As the performance of space based astrophysics observatories is directly limited by the
Received 29 June 2009 size of the spacecraft and the telescope it carries, current missions are reaching the limit
Received in revised form of the launchers’ capabilities. Before considering to develop larger launchers or to
15 December 2009
implement formation flying missions or in orbit assembly, the possibility of deploying
Accepted 22 February 2010
structures once in orbit is an appealing solution. This paper describes the different
Available online 19 March 2010
technologies currently available to develop deployable structures, with an emphasis on
Keywords: those that can allow achieving long focal lengths. The review of these technologies is
Deployable structures followed by a comparison of their performance and a list of trade-off parameters to be
Focal length extension
considered before selecting the most appropriate solution for a given application.
Astrophysics missions
Additionally, a preliminary structural analysis was performed on a typical deployable
structure, applied to the case of a mission requiring a 20 m focal length extension.
The results show that by using several deployable masts, it is possible to build stiff
deployed structures with eigen frequencies over 1 Hz. Finally, a discussion on metrology
concepts is provided, as knowledge of the relative position between the telescope and
the deployed focal plane instruments is critical.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1. The need for deployable structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2. Astrophysics missions deployment aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.1. Increased apertures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.2. Increased baselines and focal lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3. Typical astrophysics missions requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Abbreviations: ADAM, able deployable articulated mast; AIV, assembly integration and verification; AO, adaptative optics; AOCS, attitude and orbit
control system; CDF, concurrent design facility; CFRP, carbon fiber reinforced plastic; CM, centre of mass; CP, centre of pressure; CTE, coefficient of
thermal expansion; ESA, European Space Agency; ESTEC, European Space Research and TEchnology Centre; CTM, collapside tube mast; FAST, folding
articulated square truss; FE, finite element; FIRI, far infra red interferometer; FOV, field of view; HALCA, Highly Advanced Laboratory for Communications
and Astronomy; HST, Hubble space telescope; IR, infra red; ISIS, inflatable sunshield in space; ISO, International Space Observatory; ISS, International
Space Station; IXO, Intermational X-ray Observatory; JAXA, Japanese Aerospace eXploration Agency; JWST, James Webb Space Telescope; MLI, multi-layer
insulation; MSS, mobile servicing system; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NIR, near infra red; PSD, position sensitive device; PSF,
point spread function; RF, radio frequency; SFE, surface figure error; SIM, space interferometry mission; SMC, shape memory composite; SRTM, shuttle
radar topographic mission; TPF-I, terrestrial planet finder-interferometer; TRL, technology readiness level; WFS, wave front sensing; XMM, X-ray
multi-mirror mission
 Corresponding author. Tel.: + 31 71 56 58 675.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Puig), [email protected] (A. Barton), [email protected] (N. Rando).

0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.02.021
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 13

2. Deployable booms and masts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.1. Inflatable booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2. Telescopic booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3. Shape memory composite booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4. Articulated booms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5. Deployable truss structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6. Coilable booms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Technology trade-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1. Comparison of different technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2. Trade-off parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Analysis of a deployable truss structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Metrology concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Active mirror surface control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2. Relative positioning control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Considerations for future developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Introduction and cost. Formation flying cannot be tested on ground on

a full system level scale, while specific functional and
1.1. The need for deployable structures performance tests may anyhow require large and specia-
lised test facilities. Finally operating a mission based on
The launchers’ capability is a major constraint in formation flying is likely to enhance considerably the
spacecraft design. Designs based on large rigid and non- complexity of the control centre, requiring a large degree
deployable structures are constrained in size by the of onboard autonomy, including specific anti-collision
fairings’ dimensions. In the case of astrophysics missions, procedures.
this directly constrains the size of the telescopes we can On this basis, deployable structures have the potential
design: it sets a theoretical limit on their configuration, to offer an ideal solution for large apertures (4 10 m
including focal lengths and aperture diameters. Given the diameter) and medium baselines (from 15 to 50 m).
difficulty in developing launchers capable of sending Telescopes using such technologies will hence no longer
larger payloads, the sizes of our telescopes are bound to be limited by the size of the fairing but rather by its usable
fit within the available fairings, meaning that their volume in which the folded structures will need to be
performance (angular resolution, collecting area, etc.) is stored.
intrinsically limited by the fairings’ size.
Unfortunately, this upper limit is already being 1.2. Astrophysics missions deployment aim
reached, as attested by the following examples:
There are 2 main improvements astrophysics missions
 The Herschel telescope has a 3.5 m wide mirror, which (with large telescopes) can gain from deployable
is nearly the maximum width allowed by a 4.5 m wide structures:
Ariane 5 envelope
 The XMM-Newton telescope (X-ray multi-mirror mis-  Increased apertures (e.g. larger collecting area of an
sion) has a 7.5 m focal length, which is nearly the infra red/visible telescope, higher angular resolution)
maximum length allowed by a 10 m long cylindrical  Increased baselines and focal lengths (e.g. longer
Ariane 5 envelope focal length of an X-ray telescope for better response
 The Chandra telescope has a 10 m focal length, which at higher photon energy or an interferometer
is nearly the maximum length allowed by the 18 m baseline)
long shuttle payload bay, which also needs to include
the inertial upper stage used to reach the final orbit 1.2.1. Increased apertures
Increase in the aperture of a telescope means deploy-
Formation flying could be used when long baselines are ing larger surfaces. This can be done with unfold and latch
required. However, mission designs based on a formation mechanisms deploying smaller surfaces (segments) or by
flying concept are characterised not only by additional directly folding one single large surface. This latter option
operational flexibility (e.g. capability to vary the inter- can be implemented with membranes or thin shape
spacecraft distance and/or to change the configuration of memory composite surfaces.
the formation in case of more than 2 spacecrafts) but also Unfolding and latching segments [1–5] is the technol-
by additional development risk, test complexity and ogy baselined for the James Webb Space Telescope
operations challenges. More specifically, formation flying (JWST). The limitations associated with this concept are
implies the development of multiple, fully functional, the areal density of the segments (the volume occupied by
spacecrafts, thus increasing the programme complexity the segments and their mass need to be optimised), the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

folded configuration of the segments and the deployment 1.2.2. Increased baselines and focal lengths
scheme (best packing efficiency with space left for the Increasing a baseline via a deployable structure can be
deployment procedure), the impact on the telescope point applied to interferometer baselines or to focal lengths.
spread function due to the lack of a continuous mirror Interferometers with a baseline under the length of a
surface and post-deployment stability (typically micro- typical fairing have been envisaged (as in the case of the
dynamic stability of the mechanisms will be required). space interferometry mission (SIM)), [12–14]) as well as
As an alternative, a large membrane can be deployed formation flying interferometers with much longer base-
by either inflating an enclosed volume [6–8] or using lines (Darwin and the terrestrial planet finder-interfe-
deployable booms (they shall be discussed later on) to rometer TPF-I, [15,16]). Deployable baselines would lie
stretch it. It should be noted that inflated structures have between those 2 concepts. Extending focal lengths has
typically a short lifetime unless they are rigidized after also already been envisaged (International X-ray Obser-
inflation. Additionally, any desired curvature and surface vatory (IXO), [17]).
accuracy cannot be obtained with this technique. Electro- For both applications, an extension mechanism is
static curvature could be used to control the surface required, typically in the form of boom or mast. The only
figure, but this technology has only been demonstrated difference lies in the need for an interferometer to
with reflective coatings for very large radii of curvatures extremely accurately control and measure this baseline
and small apertures [8,9]. as well as to repeatedly operate it by modifying its length
In principle, we could think of combining these 2 within a specified range. Additionally, an interferometer
concepts, but this would mean segmenting a large would use a telescope at each end of the baseline
membrane, unfolding and latching these segments and (possibly weighing several hundreds of kg or more), while
electro-statically controlling their curvature. This could applications for focal length extensions would install
result in large light weight apertures with good surface the payload module at the end of the baseline (with a
accuracy and stability over long periods. typical mass of order 1 ton). Increased baselines for focal
In principle, shape memory composites (SMC) could length extensions are hence the first challenge to be met
also be used to deploy large mirrors. This technology has in the near future. The different extension mechanisms
already been used for large deployable antennas as they already available will be reviewed in Section 2.
do not require stringent surface accuracies, while shape
memory composites with a thin coating of reflective
material for astrophysics applications have only been 1.3. Typical astrophysics missions requirements
demonstrated for small apertures ( o1 m diameter)
[10,11]. Severe challenges would have to be faced for While aiming at increasing the scale of future astro-
larger sizes. physics missions by using deployable structures, one
In order to achieve an adequate level of analysis, we must not forget that the spacecrafts in their deployed
will not discuss these concepts further in this paper. configuration will still need to meet several requirements
Rather, we will focus on the case of deployable structures regarding the quality of the imaging system. Table 1 gives
used to increase baselines and focal lengths. a set of typical astrophysics missions’ requirements based

Table 1
Typical astrophysics missions’ requirements.

Wavelength Requirement Typical values Ref. Comment

X-ray Pointing accuracy 1 arc sec XMM Star trackers are limited, but image reconstruction can
IR/Visible ISO improve the pointing knowledge

X-ray Angular resolution 0.5–5 arc sec Chandra - XMM For diffraction limited telescopes
Sub mm
10 arc min Planck

X-ray Operating temperature 293 K IXO For mirror and/or instruments

NIR 60 K Herschel
IR 5K Spitzer

All Instrument platform weight 1 t max IXO Depends on number of instruments etc.

All Instrument platform stability  10 mm Size of a pixel, depends on detector

X-ray Mirror surface accuracy 0.7 nm rms Chandra Less stringent as wavelength increases
Visible  30 nm HST
Sub mm 10 mm rms Planck

All Instrument lateral alignment with o 1 mm {detector size, to make sure the target image stays within
telescope axis the detector FOV

X-ray Instrument longitudinal alignment  1 mm IXO Depends on resolution required and eventual refocusing
with focal point along focal axis mechanism
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 15

on previous missions depending on the observed materials (carbon fibers or others) and wall thicknesses
wavelength range. The data presented in this table were (from 2 to 30 in) could be used for each particular
extracted from the NASA [18] and the ESA [19] websites. application. The stowed length is around 1/10 of the
Future deployable astrophysics missions will most deployed length, and harness can be accommodated
probably be constrained by similar requirements. inside the boom itself. Unfortunately, the mission it was
designed for was cancelled, meaning this boom has never
2. Deployable booms and masts been flight tested. This solution has the potential for high
stability and could potentially be applied to longer
This section presents different deployable boom and deployment lengths, but this would imply an even larger
mast concepts currently available. The different technol- mass, with a larger cross-section and stowed volume
ogies are described but the list is not intended to be (Fig. 2).
exhaustive of all the solutions and manufacturers. They
are presented in order of deployable length for which they 2.3. Shape memory composite booms
were originally designed for. The reader shall note that
some of these technologies are not well suited for the Different SMC booms are already available, but again
applications we are considering, depending on stiffness their application has only been envisaged for non-
and deployment capability (weight, accuracy and astrophysics missions (e.g. deploying solar sails or solar
stability). shield) [11,27–31]. This is due to the fact that they cannot
deploy heavy structures, and also have relatively low
2.1. Inflatable booms deployment accuracy and post-deployment stability.
Hence, despite being lightweight and requiring low power
To date, inflatable and rigidizable booms have only for their deployment, shape memory composite booms
been envisaged for non-astrophysics missions’ applica- are bad candidates for astrophysics missions’ applications.
tions [20–23], as they cannot deploy heavy structures Shape memory composite booms can be flattened, and
(typically membranes under 10 kg) and have relatively then folded or rolled. Typically, they use carbon fiber
low deployment accuracy and post-deployment stability. reinforced plastic composites (CFRP), with different
They simply have the advantage of being extremely combinations of carbon fiber fabrics and resins. Inflation
lightweight with a very high packaging ratio (up to techniques can help the deployment. The folded booms
1/45) (Fig. 1). have only been manufactured and tested up to 1.3 m long,
but have a very low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)
2.2. Telescopic booms (a few ppm/1C), while rolled shape memory composite
booms have been envisaged for applications up to 15 m
Telescopic booms are typically much stiffer than most long, but thermal tests showed changes in shape of the
other deployable solutions, besides being more precise order of 3% at 50 1C and 10% at 80 1C (Fig. 3).
and stable [24–26]. However, they are much heavier and
have a low packaging ratio. 2.4. Articulated booms
For instance, the inflatable sunshield in space (ISIS)
telescopic boom [24,25] (designed to carry and deploy a Articulated booms have already been used on several
given payload away from the shuttle payload bay) has missions and are currently under study for astrophysics
been designed for a first natural frequency of 1.7 Hz in missions’ applications. For instance, the mobile servicing
deployed configuration, but it weighs up to 50 kg for an
extension of only 6–7 m maximum. However, different

Fig. 2. The ISIS telescopic boom deployed [24].

Fig. 1. EADS ST inflatable and rigidizable solar array breadboard [20]. Fig. 3. The Collapside Tube Mast (CTM) [27].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

on the length of the spacecraft bus in different proposed

concepts. NASA and JAXA have baselined booms going in
the deployable truss structures category (described
later on), while ESA has baselined articulated booms.
Three such booms will be necessary due to the required
stiffness and payload module mass (about 1 ton), and they
will need to be deployed synchronously. Each of these
booms is composed of 3 joints (1 at the centre of the boom
and 1 per tip), 2 passives and 1 motorised. The deploy-
ment accuracy requirement was set for the instruments to
be deployed within a sphere of 71 mm with respect to the
telescope’s focal point.

2.5. Deployable truss structures

In this section, we discuss designs that rely on a truss

like structure containing a number of pinned joints
instead of rigid joints to provide several degrees of
freedom for storage and deployment of the structure
Fig. 4. The Mobile Servicing System [32]. itself. Several such structures exist, such as tensegrity
masts [34], the Japanese masts used to deploy the 8 m
antenna on the highly advanced laboratory for
communications and astronomy (HALCA) mission [35] in
system (MSS) (the international space station (ISS) robotic 1999 (similar longer masts are under consideration for the
arm, better known as the Canadarm2), can be described as Astro-H mission planned for 2013 [36]), or the American
an articulated boom [32]. It is 17.6 m long when fully able deployable articulated mast (ADAM) and folding
deployed, and has 7 motorised joints, each giving one articulated square truss (FAST) masts [26,37].
degree of freedom. Each joint has a full rotation capability. Tensegrity structures are very similar to any other
It is capable of handling payloads up to 116 tons, and is truss structure, but they use cables instead of conven-
equipped with force sensors, cameras and an automatic tional struts where only traction forces are applied. Such
collision avoidance system (Fig. 4). structures allow creating deployable light weight masts
An articulated boom as complex as the MSS is not well extending up to several tens of meters. Tip axial and
suited for astrophysics applications as these do not lateral translation are rather coarse (of the order of a
require deploying payloads heavier than a few tons and centimeter), thus preventing from using this concept for
so many degrees of freedom, but rather translation precision deployment systems. For instance, a 60 m
along 1 direction (the focal axis or the interferometer tensegrity boom would be around 110 kg with eigen
baseline axis), meaning only a single active joint between frequencies about 0.1 Hz (Fig. 5).
2 booms is necessary (or 2 active joints if the required The ADAM mast has a considerable flight heritage and
length cannot be reached with only 2 booms). On this has been flight proven for extensions up to 60 m (shuttle
basis, articulated booms for astrophysics missions should radar topographic mission SRTM in 1999) [37]. It is an
be relatively simpler and less expensive than the MSS. assembly of longeron and batten modules pinned to-
They have been considered as candidate technologies in at gether, with diagonal cables that latch to stiffen each
least 2 mission studies (the far infra red interferometer module once deployed. As such, it could also be
(FIRI) [33] and IXO [17]) but have still to be tested and assimilated to a tensegrity structure. In the case of the
flight proven. SRTM configuration, the tip axial accuracy was better than
FIRI was studied in ESA’s concurrent design facility 1.3 mm, the tip shear translation was under 0.25 mm, the
(CDF) in 2006. This mission consists of a Michelson tip twist in torsion was under 0.021 and the tip rotation in
interferometer composed of two 1.02 m diameter tele- bending was under 0.0051. However, the first eigen
scopes separated by 30 m, each weighing about 500 kg.
Two articulated booms of 14 m were baselined. Both are
composed of two 7 m parts separated by a motorised
hinge. Guiding rails are mounted on booms to allow the
telescopes to translate to the tip of the deployed booms.
The deployment accuracy requirement was set for the
telescopes to be located within a sphere of 5 mm diameter
at the booms’ tips.
The IXO mission is an ESA/NASA/JAXA collaboration
presently undergoing an assessment study (phase 0 level).
It consists of an X-ray telescope with a 20 m focal length.
The deployable arms need to be 10–12 m long, depending Fig. 5. Tensegrity mast [34].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 17

3. Technology trade-off

This section aims at making a comparison of different

deployable booms and masts technologies presented
above. Such a comparison can help one to understand
which technology would be the most suited for each
particular application. A set of trade-off parameters is
then given that could be used to select the appropriate
technology depending on the application, in this case to
increase focal lengths for astrophysics missions applica-
tions.

3.1. Comparison of different technologies

Fig. 6. The ADAM mast deployed and canister (adapted from [37]).
The purpose of the technologies described here is to
extend a focal length. On this basis, the most important
parameter is the deployment length capability. This
parameter shall be used as the reference between all the
following graphs, as it will always be plotted on the x-axis.
The literature provides enough information to make a fair
comparison of the technologies on at least 4 parameters
(3 related to a system analysis and 1 related to a
mechanical analysis):

 Boom diameter
 Boom mass
 Packaging ratio
 Bending stiffness
Fig. 7. The CoilABLE boom [38].

The figures presented in this section allow a comparison

frequencies are quite low (around 0.1 Hz). These masts of different design solutions and are based on points
offer a compact storage volume (less than 5% of the defined by hardware with a sufficient level of analysis and
deployed length). The mass of the system can be selected testing (technology readiness level (TRL) 6 or above, see
for a targeted bending stiffness and load capacity, and the appendix for TRL description [39]) or even flight proven
deployment is motor controlled. NASA has currently hardware in some cases. Additionally, results were
baselined 3 such masts for the IXO mission (Fig. 6). extrapolated with the authors’ judgement when possible,
thanks to data provided in the literature referred to in
the previous sections.
2.6. Coilable booms Fig. 8 is the starting point relevant for understanding
the next ones. For most technologies, a single boom
The Coilable ([26,38]) booms were designed for diameter is not correlated with a specific deployable
applications up to 100 m. This technology relies on some length. Rather, different diameters can be fitted to booms
full length longerons that are coiled as springs in with different lengths. This gives flexibility in the
the stowed configuration. Contrary to the ADAM masts, deployment concept: for each application and its
the longerons are not cut and articulated into different required deployment length, a boom diameter can be
modules. Rather, coiling the full length longerons selected, which results in a specific boom mass and
(elastic deformation) provides the strain energy necessary stiffness.
for their deployment, but this also means the tip of the For instance, typically, telescopic booms do not pass
boom rotates during the deployment (this issue is not the 10 m deployable length limit. Inflatable booms have
present in the ADAM mast, thanks to the reciprocate been envisaged up to 28 m, but no new flight test has been
deployment of each module). The boom storage is even performed since 1996 for such lengths while current
more compact (less than 2% of the deployed length), and developments consider deployments of a few meters only.
the stiffness and weight can also be selected by modifying Articulated booms and SMC booms have not yet been
the boom’s diameter for each specific application. These envisaged for applications over 20 m, while deployable
booms have a long flight heritage but only for applications truss structures have been flight proven up to 60 m and
with a less precise deployment precision and stability coilable booms have the potential to reach 100 m. The
requirement, such as solar arrays or magnetometer booms boom diameter represents the maximum outer diameter
deployments, as they are less stiff than the ADAM mast. of the boom, including canister diameter when appro-
The deployment is also motor controlled (Fig. 7). priate. This diameter is useful for configuration purposes,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

1600

1400

Boom diameter [mm]

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1 10 100
Deployable length [m]
Inflatable booms SMC booms Truss structures

Telescopic booms Articulated booms Coilable booms

Fig. 8. Deployable length versus boom diameter.

1.00
Packaging ratio

0.10

0.01
1 10 100
Deployable length [m]
Fig. 9. Deployable length versus packaging ratio.

in terms of how much volume needs to be allocated on the and coilable booms are the lightest solutions, with a
spacecraft bus to accommodate the selected boom. mass under the level of 10 kg. Telescopic booms are
The packaging ratio in Fig. 9 is expressed as the ratio of heavy relative to their length, as they can easily
the deployment length on the stored length. The stored reach 100 kg while deploying under 10 m. Articulated
length is the canister length when appropriate, or half of the booms are also relatively heavy, and deployable truss
full length in the case of an articulated boom with a single structures require a heavy canister for storage while the
joint in the middle. Along with the boom diameter displayed structure is undeployed. Fig. 10 shows a maximum
in the previous graph, the packaging ratio is also useful for over 1 t, as it corresponds to the Canadarm2. As stated
configuration purposes: combined together, they allow earlier, astrophysics applications do not require such
knowing precisely the volume (expressed as a cylinder) complicated (and hence heavy) booms. Rather, articulated
that needs to be accommodated on the spacecraft for the booms from 10 to 20 m should vary from 50 to 200 kg,
selected boom, in terms of length and diameter. depending on the selected width and the required
Along with the stored volume, the booms mass is the stiffness.
most important parameter from a system’s engineering The bending stiffness is one of the most important
point of view. Typically, inflatable booms, SMC booms mechanical parameters. It states how much deflection
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 19

10000

1000

Boom mass [kg] 100

10

0.1
1 10 100
Deployable length [m]
Fig. 10. Deployable length versus boom mass.

1.E+08

1.E+07
Bending stiffness EI [N.m2]

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02
1 10 100
Deployable length [m]

Fig. 11. Deployable length versus bending stiffness.

should occur at the tip of the boom under certain bending and its damping. This frequency can be expressed
conditions of stress. Regarding stiffness, bending is as a function of the bending stiffness displayed above, the
displayed in Fig. 11 as the booms are usually less stiff in tip mass and the deployment length [40]:
bending than they are in torsion and under axial loading. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Additionally, shear stiffness should also be of a f1 ¼ 1=2p 3EI=mL3 ð1Þ
comparable importance (in the beam deflection equation
when a transversal force is applied to the tip of the In turn, this frequency is of importance for the Attitude
booms), but data on shear stiffness is unfortunately not and Orbit Control System (AOCS). In fact it is necessary to
made available by all the different manufacturers. As ensure there is no resonance with other vibrating parts on
different boom diameters can be applied to different board the spacecraft (e.g. reaction wheels). Additionally, it
boom lengths (any coilable boom from 1 to 100 m could also gives, together with the damping coefficient, the
have a diameter from 150 to 500 mm, as shown in Fig. 8), settling time, i.e. the time the structure needs to
a large range of stiffness can be obtained for booms of the stop vibrating after an external torque was applied
same length. Modelling the deployed spacecraft as a (e.g. thrusters for attitude control when retargeting).
cantilever mass-less beam with a tip mass is valid only if Additionally, the deployment accuracy capability is of
the boom’s structural mass is negligible compared to the great importance: detectors on the instrument platform
tip mass (which corresponds to the instrument platform need to be deployed precisely relative to the telescope’s
mass); this model is characterized by its 1st frequency in focal point. Table 2 gives rough order of magnitudes of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

Table 2
Deployment accuracy and technology readiness level of deployable technologies.

Deployment technology Deployment Technology Comment

accuracy readiness level

Inflatable booms mm to cm 7 The Teledesic mission with inflatable solar arrays was
cancelled, but the prototypes had been tested [22]
Telescopic booms mm to mm 8 The ISIS boom was flight qualified but the mission was
cancelled [25]
SMC booms mm to cm 6 The CTM booms with metal sheets were flown, but the
composite versions are still to be applied to a mission [29]
Articulated booms mm to mm 9 The Canadarm2 is in operation since 2001 [32]
Deployable truss structures mm 9 The ADAM mast was flown on the SRTM mission with a 60 m
deployment in 2000 [37]
Coilable booms mm to cm 9 The 10 m boom on the Cassini mission was successfully
deployed in 1999 [38]

Table 3
Trade-off parameters for selection of a deployable technology.

Mechanical parameters System and other sub-systems parameters Programmatic parameters

Deployment accuracy Deployable structure mass Risk

Deployment controllability Power required for deployment TRL
Compatibility with active control mechanisms CM/CP offset pre and post-deployment Cost
Post-deployment dynamic stability AOCS configuration for pre and post-deployment Assembly Integration
spacecraft control and Verification AIV
Stiffness and strength of deployed structure Harness accommodation on deployed structure
Eigen frequencies of deployed spacecraft Deployment redundancy or single point failure
Synchronised deployment in case of several booms Volume allocation for stowed deployable structure
Deployment repeatability Post-deployment thermal stability
Deployed structure damping coefficient Stray light mitigation through deployed structure

achievable deployment accuracies for each deployment  Deployment accuracy in the longitudinal direction
technology, along with its TRL. (parallel to the focal axis of the telescope) can be
improved with additional refocusing mechanisms on
3.2. Trade-off parameters the deployed instrument platform
 In the case of a deployable interferometer, deployment
In order to select a deployment technology for a accuracy along the interferometer baseline can also be
particular mission, many parameters need to be taken improved with optical path delays
into account, among which the ones described above are
only a small fraction. A more detailed list of such A specific deployment technology can hence only be
parameters is given in Table 3, some of which need to eliminated in the early phase of a trade-off if it does not
be applied to every trade-off (e.g. mass of deployable meet the required deployment length. Then, with the
structure, deployment accuracy, etc.), while others might remaining alternative technologies, it is important to
only be specific to a few missions (e.g. active control verify how many such booms would be necessary for the
might not be required for every application). application considered (in terms of post-deployment
However, any technology should not be directly stability, stiffness and eventually deployment repeatabil-
eliminated when not meeting a specific requirement on ity requirements) and if this number is sustainable within
one of these parameters. In fact several drawbacks a pre-estimated cost budget for the deployment system.
associated with these deployable structures can be Finally, the remaining trade-off parameters are
compensated by other means. For instance: considered to identify the optimal solution. For example:

 Deployable booms can be duplicated and deployed  A less expensive deployable boom with a lower
synchronously for an increase in post-deployment longitudinal deployment accuracy could result in an
stiffness and stability optimised solution with a refocusing mechanism,
 The need for harness can be suppressed if power can compared to a more accurate but more expensive
be generated on both parts of the spacecraft and if data boom
can be transmitted wirelessly  A less expensive boom with no or less harness
 Thermal stability can be improved with adequate accommodation capability could result in an optimised
thermal protection added to the deployed structure, solution with a wireless system to connect the
e.g. a deployable shroud of multi-layer insulation (MLI) instrument platform to the spacecraft, as no harness
protecting the booms also means weight savings
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 21

Articulated longeron
Diagonal
Batten

Module

Fig. 12. Structural elements’ nomenclature.

4. Analysis of a deployable truss structure

A preliminary FE analysis (Finite Element) using

Nastran/Patran [41,42] was carried out for application of
Fig. 13. Deployment of the truss structure. The diagonals are not
a typical deployable truss structure on an astrophysics represented to allow for an easier reading. Being cables, they can be bent
mission requiring a focal length extension. For instance, in any way and are hence not an issue during deployment. They will
this could be used for an X-ray telescope with a 20 m focal need to be fitted with a mechanism to lock them in their deployed state,
length, requiring a focal length extension mechanism. giving the stiffness to the whole structure. The structural elements
(longerons and battens) in the initial configuration before deployment of
Typically, a deployable articulated truss structure is at the module are displayed in green, and their final deployed configuration
least composed of longerons (elements in the longitudinal is displayed in blue. The red dotted arrows represent the motion of the
direction of the structure) and battens (elements perpen- joints during deployment. (For interpretation of the references to colour
dicular to the longerons). A square base will be considered in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
here, with extra diagonal elements to complete the
structure (Fig. 12).
Such a structure could deploy by fitting the ends of the
longerons with pinned connections to interface with the K Diagonals are steel or titanium cables:
battens. This would allow the longerons to rotate from a J Es = 200 000 MPa and Et = 120 000 MPa

horizontal stacked configuration to a vertical deployed J rs =7850 kg m  3 and rt = 4506 kg m  3

configuration. This deployment sequence is represented J Diagonal length LD = 0.513 m and diagonal diameter

in Fig. 13. DD = 0.21 cm

Such a structure is similar to the ADAM mast [37]. Hence,
elements’ properties (material and size) similar to the mast
Three such masts would be used to support the
currently baselined by NASA for the IXO mission were used
instrument platform, for an improved stiffness and
in the Patran model, to ensure the model is realistic being
stability. They are disposed 1201 apart on a 1.45 m radius
comparable to a mission currently under study:
circle. To model a whole deployed spacecraft with the
deployable structure, the 3 masts were rigidly connected
K Deployed length: 12.32 m with 40 modules (for a total
at one end to a 5 t mass point, located 5.35 m under the
focal length of 20 m, as the IXO spacecraft bus is
end of the masts (corresponding to the barycentre of the
around 8 m long)
telescope, spacecraft bus, fuel and canisters), and at
K Longerons are cylindrical, in pultruded graphite/
the top to a 1 t point mass with a pinned connection,
epoxy, with the following characteristics:
located at 0.70 m above the other end of the masts
J E= 134 448 MPa
(corresponding to the instrument module platform and
J r = 1630kg m  3
deployable shroud barycentre). Additionally, these point
J Longeron length LL =0.308 m and Longeron dia-
masses have been assumed to have the following inertia:
meter DL = 1.37 cm
K Battens are pipes in pultruded graphite/epoxy, with
the following characteristics:  For the 5 t point mass: Ixx=Iyy= 37400 kg m2 and
J Same E and r as the longerons Izz =10000 kg m2
J Batten length LB =0.419 m, Batten inner diameter  For the 1 t point mass: Ixx= Iyy= 1374 kg m2; Izz =980
IDB =0.91cm, and batten outer diameter ODB =1.14cm kg m2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

These values are given, respectively, in the frames not impact the structure’s dynamic behaviour. However, a
centred on these 2 centres of mass, with the Z direction further extension of the mast by 5 m (a 40% extension)
corresponding to the longitudinal direction of the masts. decreases the 1st torsion mode by 40% and the 1st
This whole FE design is represented in Fig. 14. bending mode by 25%, which is a significant impact.
The mass budget of the deployed structure is given in A deployed spacecraft with a longer focal length would
Table 4. hence require re-scaling the elements of the mast for an
This structural model was used to derive the first eigen improved performance, at the expense of an increased
frequencies of the deployed configuration. A sensitivity mass.
analysis was then performed to assess the impact of other It was stated in Section 3.1 that a vibration mode in
parameters on this frequency, such as material choice, bending should occur before a torsion mode with the
mass and total length increases. The following cases were considered booms and masts. However, the lowest mode
examined: in Table 5 is a torsion mode of the whole structure made
of the 3 masts. This can be explained as the torsion of the
 Case (a): diagonal material changed from Steel to whole structure does not involve torsion of each
Titanium of the 3 masts, but occurs rather when each of the 3
 Case (b): additional non-structural mass added on the masts bends in a different direction. These 2 modes
battens to account for the harness. Battens mass are illustrated in Figs. 15 (torsion mode) and 16
increased from 12.4 to 20.6 kg (8 kg of harness per (bending mode).
mast, which should include power lines and space wire The Patran model was also used to produce prelimin-
connections) ary stiffness results. For this matter, unit forces and
 Case (c): extension from 20 to 25 m with 17.25 m long torques were applied to the structure. The deflections
masts (using 56 modules instead of 40) were measured, and translated into stiffness (assuming a
cantilever model as was done with Eq. (1)). These results
are summarised in Table 6.
Table 5 shows that a first eigen frequency of at least
As this model was intended for preliminary analysis, it
1 Hz should be manageable for a deployed spacecraft with
did not include any non-linear effects such as loss of
a 20 m focal length (a higher first frequency would be
tension in the diagonal cables or axial stiffness reduction
easily achieved with larger truss elements and a lighter
factors due to the joints between the members along the
platform and spacecraft bus at the tips). One can see that
load path. Modelling such effects would lead to a slight
changing the material of the diagonal from steel to
reduction in stiffness.
titanium makes the structure slightly less stiff, for a very
little mass saving. Moreover, taking into account the
5. Metrology concepts
additional (non-structural) mass due to the harness does

Metrology systems are very important for space

telescopes. They can be classified in 2 categories:

 Systems to monitor and control the mirrors’ Surface

Figure Error (SFE)
 Systems to monitor and control the relative position-
ing between the instruments and the telescope [43]

Table 5
Eigen frequencies of the modelled deployed spacecraft.

1st bending 1st torsion

Fig. 14. Patran model of a deployable articulated truss structure mode (Hz) mode (Hz)
application. The yellow and red elements represent the structural
elements (longerons, battens and diagonals) and the joints, respectively, Patran model 1.96 0.96
and the purple elements represent the connections between the masts Patran model- + (a) 1.92 0.94
and the mass points (barycentres of the spacecraft and the instrument Patran model- + (a)-+ (b) 1.91 0.94
module). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure Patran model- + (a)-+ (b)-+ (c) 1.44 0.58
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 4
Articulated structure mass budget.

Longerons Diagonals Battens Fittings Total (kg)

Mass per mast 11.8 kg 4.5 kg (steel) 12.4 kg (battens+ non structural mass to account for the fittings) 28.7
2.6 kg (titanium) 26.8
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 23

Fig. 15. Patran model – 1st torsion mode. A side and a top view of the 3 masts are shown. In the side view, the blue elements show the position of the
undistorted masts, while the white elements show the distortion of these same masts in this fundamental mode. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 16. Patran model – 1st bending mode. Same as previous figure.

Table 6
Patran model stiffness.

Stiffness Axial EA Bending EI Shear GA Torsion GJ

8 8 2 5
Patran model+ (a) +(b) 2.39  10 N 2.49  10 N m 5.73  10 N 1.38  106 N m2

5.1. Active mirror surface control telescope are usually introduced by the following:

For an optimised resolution, the mirrors’ SFE must be  Detector calibration on the instrument platform and
kept as low as possible. This is usually done with active instrument platform calibration with respect to the
mirror surface control techniques, in a closed loop control spacecraft bus and the telescope
system. In the case of increased telescope apertures, this  Deployment errors in the case of a deployable space-
approach is even more relevant to be able to control the craft
relative positioning and orientation of the mirror seg-  Spacecraft thermal distortions (including spacecraft
ments or the shape of the membranes (e.g. JWST). These bus, mirror assembly and deployable structure)
techniques are usually referred to as Adaptative Optics  Spacecraft mechanical distortions (such as 1 g release
(AO) with Wave Front Sensing (WFS) methods. Typically, and moisture release due to CFRP out gassing)
a measurement of the distorted wave front is achieved
with instruments such as a Shack-Hartmann sensor. Other
Several metrology concepts exist for this purpose. They
solutions involve curvature sensors, interferometry
can be categorised into 2 main categories:
measurements, real-time holography or occultation
(Foucault) testing [8]. Actuators placed under the mirror
shell are then used to deform the mirrors’ surface  Optical metrology, involving one or more light sources
accordingly to correct the mirrors’ shape and cancel the placed at one end of the spacecraft, with an imaging
measured distortion. We will not discuss these concepts system at the other end
further in this paper.  Interferometry concepts

The first category involves simpler and less expensive

5.2. Relative positioning control solutions but usually less precise than interferometry
techniques. These solutions have been applied on many
Metrology is also used to control (i.e. to measure and astrophysics missions and have also already been studied
eventually to correct) the relative positioning between the for long deployed spacecrafts, especially for applications
instruments and the telescope. This is essential to ensure to formation flying missions requiring range and lateral
the instruments are well positioned relative to the measurements between two separate spacecrafts.
telescope’s focal point, and to allow accurate on-ground Typically, a pattern of laser diodes is placed on the
reconstruction of the image. Biases affecting the relative instrument platform. This pattern is directly viewed with
alignment of the instruments with respect to the an imaging system (usually referred to as a Position
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

Sensitive Device – PSD) on the mirror assembly, or on the This concept can be applied to extensions under a few
instrument platform itself, usually after reflection on retro tens of meters (e.g. SIM). Longer extensions for formation
reflectors or corner cubes placed on the mirror assembly. flying missions have also considered this approach
Much information can be derived from this measurement (Darwin and TPF-I), but this approach has a relatively
technique: low TRL (under 6) as it is not under consideration for any
on-going missions and has never been flight tested.
 The shape of the pattern gives information on the Additionally, a few other metrology concepts do exist.
relative attitude between the 2 bodies They are relatively simpler than the interferometry
 The size of the pattern gives information on the approach. They can involve RF sensing (typical accuracies
relative distances between the 2 bodies can reach the cm level but not pass the mm level) or pulse
 The lateral displacement of the pattern gives informa- timing. Frequency combs are also being considered for
tion on the lateral alignment between the 2 bodies metrology purposes, as they provide an extremely precise
time measurement
Many manufacturers provide such solutions, most of
them being over the TRL 6. Typically, they can be applied 6. Considerations for future developments
to focal length extensions from a few meters to several
tens of meters, up to formation flying concepts with In this section we will consider general developments
structures flying kilometers apart. They usually provide required to improve the current capability of deployable
lateral measurement with an accuracy ranging from the structures for focal length extension applications and
millimeter down to the micron level, and longitudinal focus in particular on potential developments relevant to
measurement from 10 mm down to 100 mm level. They the European industry.
have a mass impact on the level of the kilogram and a As was shown in Section 3.1, only deployable truss
power requirement on the level of the Watt. structures and coilable booms currently give extension
Interferometry concepts simply use one or more capabilities over 20 m, and not many manufacturers
interferometers such as a Michelson scheme. A Michelson provide such solutions. Telescopic booms are the most
interferometer is used to measure the variation in optical precise deployment solution. Hence efforts into extending
path in one of its arm. Putting such an arm along the focal their capability while trying to reduce their mass impact
length axis of a deployable spacecraft will provide a would result in an optimised solution. Articulated booms
measurement of the longitudinal error between the should also provide extensions over 20 m with a fine
instrument platform and the mirror assembly. Putting accuracy, but such concepts have not yet been
additional arms in other directions (as shown in Fig. 17) investigated in details and tested: further developments
can similarly provide a measurement of the biases along in this direction should be fruitful. Regarding the other
these directions, which can then be correlated to the deployable technologies, they could in principle be
lateral bias between the instrument platform and the extended to improved capabilities, but a serious effort
mirror assembly. Typically, sub-micron measurement on increasing their stiffness and deployment accuracy
accuracies can be achieved by this means. would be required if one wanted to apply them to
astrophysics missions, as such applications demand much
more stringent requirements than when deploying solar
Instrument platform arrays or a magnetometer boom.
Articulated booms, deployable truss structures and
coilable booms solutions are available within the
Deployed masts American or the Japanese industry. Articulated booms
are under study for space applications in Europe (e.g. FIRI
and IXO), but are still at TRL 3 and 4. A few years of
development would be necessary to reach TRL 5, while
Interferometers’ arms
further developments over TRL 6 would require the frame
and the budget of a specific mission using this technology.
Regarding deployable truss structures or coilable booms,
there is no directly relevant expertise available in Europe.
The European industry has focused on inflatable and SMC
b a c booms for non-astrophysics applications, which are less
expensive, less precise and less stiff. Additional develop-
S/C bus and mirror ment effort is thus required in Europe for supplying long
assembly deployable structures that meet the requirements of
typical astrophysics missions.
Fig. 17. Interferometry based metrology. The S/C bus and the mirror
assembly are separated from the instrument platform by 2 deployed
masts. Three interferometer lines are shown. Line a gives the long- 7. Conclusion
itudinal measurement along the focal length axis. Lines b and c give a
longitudinal measurement along two other axes. This information can be
directly correlated to both the lateral displacement and the longitudinal As astrophysics mission are reaching the limits
displacements along the focal length axis. (in terms of mass and size) of what current launchers
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26 25

Table 7
Technology Readiness Level definitions [39].

Technology readiness level Description

1 ‘‘Basic principles observed and reported’’

2 ‘‘Technology concept and/or application formulated’’
3 ‘‘Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of concept’’
4 ‘‘Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment’’
5 ‘‘Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment’’
6 ‘‘System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) ‘‘
7 ‘‘System prototype demonstration in a space environment’’
8 ‘‘Actual system completed and ‘‘flight qualified’’ through test and demonstration (ground or space) ‘‘
9 ‘‘Actual system ‘‘flight proven’’ through successful mission operations’’

are capable of sending into orbit, developments [5] M.S. Lake, Launching a 25 meter Space Telescope: Are Astronauts a
of deployable structures become inevitable before con- Key to the next Technically Logical Step After NGST?, NASA Langley
Research Centre, Hampton, VA, 2000.
sidering formation flying or in orbit assembly. Several [6] J.B. Breckinridge, A.B. Meinel, M.J. Meinel, Inflation deployed
deployable structure technologies already exist. Some camera and hyper thin mirrors, 1998.
already have the extension capability and accuracy [7] R.E. Freeland, G.D. Bilyeu, G.R. Veal, M.M. Mikulas, Inflatable
deployable space structures technology summary, in: Proceedings
required for application to astrophysics missions invol- of the 49th International Astronautical Congress, Australia, 1998.
ving deploying long focal lengths, while others were [8] C.H.M. Jenkins, Gossamer spacecraft: membrane and inflatable
designed for deploying membranes, solar arrays, magnet- structures technology for space applications, Progress in Astro-
nautics and Aeronautics, vol. 191, 2001.
ometers, etc. and are hence currently inadequate for such
[9] R. Angel. J. Burge, K. Hege, M. Kenworthy, N. Woolf, Stretched
applications. Specific effort would be required in Europe membrane with electrostatic curvature (SMEC): a new technology
to bridge this gap. Based on these preparatory activities, for ultra lightweight space telescopes, 2000.
[10] S.J. Varlese, L.R. Hardaway, Laminated electroformed shape
even more demanding missions will become possible,
memory composite for deployable lightweight optics, 2003.
such as deploying several telescopes to create a space [11] J.K.H. Lin, C.F. Knoll, C.E. Willey, Shape memory rigidizable
based interferometer. inflatable (RI) structures for large space systems applications, in:
Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2006.
[12] R.A. Laskin, Successful Completion of SIM-PlanetQuest Technology,
2006.
Acknowledgements [13] S.C. Unwin, Taking the measure of the universe: precision
astrometry with Sim PlanetQuest, Publications of the Astronomical
Many thanks are to be given to all the ESTEC staff who Society of the Pacific 120 (2008) 28–88.
[14] R. Goullioud, J.H. Catanzarite, F.G. Dekens, M. Shao, J.C. Marr IV,
have provided their support, advice and constructive Overview of the SIM Planet Quest Light mission concept, 2008.
criticism on this topic. I cannot name them all, but they [15] ESA, RAL and PPARC website for the Darwin mission, /http://www.
include the SRE-PA team, the IXO team and TEC engineers. darwin.rl.ac.uk/S, last updated in 2005, accessed in 2008.
[16] Proceedings of the Conference on Toward Other Earths: Darwin/TPF
D. Messner from ATK was also very collaborative in and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets, Heidelberg,
providing information and documentation on the ADAM Germany, ESA SP-539, 2003.
mast, and must be acknowledged in this respect. [17] M. Bavdaz, P. Gondoin, K. Wallace, T. Oosterbroek, D. Lumb, D.
Martin, P. Verhoeve, L. Puig, L. Torres Soto, A. Parmar, IXO system
studies and technology preparation, submitted to SPIE, July 2009.
[18] NASA missions website, /www.nasa.gov/missions/index.htmlS,
Appendix accessed in 2008.
[19] ESA science missions website, /http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/
area/index.cfm?fareaid=1S, accessed in 2008.
See Table 7. [20] V. Peypoudat, B. Defoort, D. Lacour, P. Brassier, O. le Couls, S.
Langlois, S. Lienard, M. Bernasconi, M. Gotz, Development of a 3.2 m
References long inflatable and rigidizable solar array breadboard, AIAA-2005-
1881, 2005.
[21] D.P. Cadogan, S.E. Scarborough, Rigidizable materials for use in
[1] M.S. Lake, L.D. Peterson, M.R. Hachkowski, J.D. Hinkle, L.R. Gossamer Space Inflatable Structures, in: Proceedings of the 42nd
Hardaway, Research on the problem of high precision deployment AIAA/ASME/ASCEAHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
for large aperture space based science instruments, presented at the Materials Conference & Exhibit, AIAA Gossamer Spacecraft Forum,
1998 Space Technology & Applications International Forum, Seattle, 2001.
Albuquerque, NM. [22] M.S. Grahne, D.P. Cadogan, Inflatable Solar Arrays: Revolutionary
[2] M.S. Lake, L.D. Peterson, M.M. Mikulas, J.D. Hinkle, L.R. Hardaway, J. Technology?, ILC Dover, Inc, 1999.
Heald, Structural concepts and mechanics issues for ultra-large [23] R.E. Freeland, G.D. Bilyeu, G.R. Veal, M.D. Steiner, C.E. Carson,
optical systems, presented at the 1999 Ultra Lightweight Space Large inflatable deployable antenna flight experiment results,
Optics Workshop, Napa Valley, CA. IAF-97-1.3.01, 1997.
[3] M.S. Lake, J.E. Phelps, J.E. Dyer, D.A. Caudle, A. Tam, J. Escobedo, E.P. [24] ISIS telescopic mast, /www.st.northropgrumman.com/astro-aeros
Kasl, A deployable primary mirror for space telescopes, in: paceS, last updated in 2004, accessed in 2008.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Optical Science, [25] D.J. Rohweller, Qualification of the Inflatable Sunshield in Space
and Instrumentation, 1999. (ISIS) mast, in: Proceedings of the 36th Aerospace Mechanisms
[4] D. Lester, D. Benford, H. Yorke, C.M. Bradford, K. Parrish, H. Stahl, Symposium, Glenn Research Center, 2002.
Science Promise and Conceptual Missions Design for SAFIR: the [26] ATK website, space section, subsystems and components sub
Single Aperture Far Infrared Observatory, NASA Goddard and section, /www.atk.com/Customer_Solutions_SpaceSystems/cs_ss_
Marshall Space Flight Centres, 2006. subsys_default.aspS, last updated in 2006, accessed in 2009.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
26 L. Puig et al. / Acta Astronautica 67 (2010) 12–26

[27] M. Aguirre Martinez, D.H. Bowen, R. Davidson, R.J. Lee, T. Thorpe, [34] G. Tibert, Deployable Tensegrity Structures for Space Applications,
The development of a continuous manufacturing method for a Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2002.
deployable satellite mast in CFRP, 1986. [35] Institute of Space and Astronautical Science website, JAXA, /www.
[28] C. Sickinger, L. Herbeck, Deployment strategies, analyses and tests for isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/halca/index.shtmlS, last updated in
the CFRP booms of a solar sail, German Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2002. 2008, accessed in 2009.
[29] C. Sickinger, L. Herbeck, E. Breitbach, Structural engineering on [36] Astro-H website, ISAS, JAXA, /http://astro-h.isas.jaxa.jp/index.
deployable CFRP booms for a solar propelled sailcraft, German html.enS, last updated in 2008, accessed in 2009.
Aerospace Centre (DLR), 2005. [37] D. Gross, D. Messner, The able deployable articulated mast –
[30] M. Leipold, H. Runge, C. Sickinger, Large SAR membrane antennas enabling technology for the shuttle radar topography mission, in:
with leightweight deployable booms, in: Proceedings of the 28th Proceedings of the 33rd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, 1999.
ESA Antenna Workshop on Space Antenna Systems and Technol- [38] AEC-ABLE website, /www.aec-able.com/Booms/coilboom.htmlS,
ogies, ESA/ESTEC, 2005. last updated in 2004, accessed in 2009.
[31] S.E. Scarborough, D.P. Cadogan, Applications of inflatable [39] J.C. Mankins, Technology Readiness Levels, a white paper, , 1995.
rigidizable structures, 2006. [40] R.C. Roark, W.C. Young, Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th ed,
[32] Canadian Space Agency website, /www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/iss/mss. McGraw-Hill, 1976.
aspS, last updated in 2001, accessed in 2009. [41] MSC Software Corporation, MSC.PATRAN User’s Guide, 2005.
[33] R. Lindberg, A. Lyngvi, N. Rando, P. Verhoeve, F. Safa, The challenges [42] MSC Software Corporation, MSC.NASTRAN User’s Guide, 2005.
posed by future far-IR and sub-mm space missions – an overview, [43] Z. Sodnik, Formation flying optical metrology technologies. ESA
in: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 7010, 2008. Technical Note, Harmonisation Technical Dossier, 2008.