Analytical Review of the Common Failures of Satellite Structures: Causes, Effects, and Mitigation Strategies

Full Text

Introduction The need for durable and reliable satellite structures has grown significantly with the rise of commercial space initiatives, Earth observation missions, and space exploration programs [1]. Satellites must be engineered to withstand a wide range of mechanical, thermal, and environmental stresses both during launch and in orbit [2]. Despite advancements, structural failures continue to be a major risk, often resulting in reduced functionality or mission loss. This study provides a comprehensive overview of common failure modes in satellite structures and examines their causes, effects, and mitigation strategies. This review synthesizes the findings from both industry and academia, focusing on failure mechanisms and design approaches that enhance the robustness of satellite structures. 1. Overview of Satellite Structural Components Satellite structures include primary and secondary elements, each tailored for specific roles and designed to withstand unique stresses [3; 4]. The key structural components include the following: Primary Frame (PF): This part provides the fundamental rigidity and load-bearing structure for the satellite [3]. Secondary Structures (SS): These support critical subsystems such as thermal control, propulsion, and payload interfaces. Deployable Mechanisms (DM): This includes solar panels, antennas, and other extendable ele-ments that activate post-launch. Thermal Shielding and Insulation (TSI): Layers designed to manage extreme temperature changes. Each of these components has distinct design requirements and associated failure risks owing to the environmental and operational factors. Figure 1 shows the satellite structural components with personal wireless communications [5]. Figure 1. Diagram of satellite structural components S o u r c e: made by R. Perez [5] 2. Common Causes of Structural Failures in Satellites 2.1. Vibrational and Acoustic Loads During Launch The launch phase subjects satellites to high levels of vibration and acoustic energy [6-8]. These forces often lead to structural fatigue and even catastrophic failure in sensitive areas such as joints and fasteners [9; 10]. Research has shown that vibrational frequencies experienced during launch can amplify stresses in weak points of the satellite structure, leading to fractures and deta-chment. Figure 2 demonstrates the vibration and acoustic testing of the JUPITER 3 satellite [11]. Figure 2. The vibration and acoustic testing on the JUPITER 3 satellite S o u r c e: by Hughes. Available from: https://www.hughes.com/resources/insights/inside-hughes/ theres-whole-lot-shakin-going-jupiter-3-undergoes-vibration-and (accessed: 18.03.2025) 2.2. Thermal Stresses Due to Orbital Environment Satellites are exposed to extreme thermal cycling between the sunlit and shaded sides of the Earth, causing materials to expand and contract repeatedly [11; 12]. Thermal cycling can degrade composite materials, lead to adhesive breakdown, and create microcracks in metals and polymers [13], particularly in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) [14; 15]. A schematic of the thermal exchange between a space-craft and the space environment is pro-vided below [16], (Figure 3). Figure 3. Thermal exchange between spacecraft (solar array) and space environment S o u r c e: by J. Li, S. Yan, R. Cai [16] 2.3. Radiation-Induced Degradation Radiation from solar and cosmic sources causes material degradation, leading to embrittlement and reduced structural integrity over time [17; 18]. Studies on polymer degradation and metal em-brittlement indicate that radiation exposure signifi-cantly shortens the lifespan of structural materials used in satellite construction [19; 20]. 2.4. Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts Micrometeoroids and space debris represent constant hazards in orbit, especially in LEO [21; 22]. Even small impacts can lead to pitting and localized structural damage, compromising shield-ing and initiating fatigue. Figure 4 shows the front and rear sides of the impact feature on a solar array [23]. In this figure, the diameter of the opening on both sides is approximately 5 mm, whereas the central hole has a diameter of 0.5 mm. 2.5. Manufacturing and Assembly Anomalies Manufacturing inconsistencies and assembly errors contribute to structural vulnerabilities. Defects in welding, material inconsistency, and improper alignment can manifest as significant structural issues during the operational lifetime of satellites [24; 25]. 3. Types of Structural Failures in Satellite Components 3.1. Frame and Panel Failures The frame and panels form the primary load-bearing structure of a satellite. Failure modes include: Figure 4. Front and rear sides of impact feature on HST solar array S o u r c e: by G. Drolshagen [23] ® Buckling and Cracking: Occurring under high mechanical loads, especially during launch [26; 27]. ® Corrosion: In LEO, exposure to atomic oxy-gen causes the surface degradation of metal and polymer-based components [28-30]. 3.2. Joint and Fastener Failures Joints and fasteners play a crucial role in maintaining structural integrity [31]. Common failures include the following: ® Thermal expansion discrepancies: Caused by different expansion rates in dissimilar materials, which can weaken the joints over time. ® Cold welding: In a vacuum environment, metals can bond unintentionally, leading to potential joint failures. 3.3. Deployable Mechanism Failures Deployable structures such as solar arrays and antennas face unique challenges: ® Stuck deployments: Due to binding from debris or thermal distortions. ® Spring and hinge fatigue: Resulting from thermal cycling leading to impaired deployment capabilities. 3.4. Thermal Shielding and Insulation Failures Thermal management systems are crucial for satellite operation. Failure modes include: ® Insulation degradation: Particularly for multi-layer insulation exposed to prolonged radiation [32; 33]. ® Micro-Cracking: In thermal layers due to extreme expansion and contraction. 4. Case Studies of Structural Failures in Satellite Missions 4.1. ISS Solar Array Deployment Anomaly The 2007 tear in the ISS solar array was attri-buted to fatigue in the deployment mechanism [34]. This case highlighted the importance of material durability in deployable structures and led to the integration of stronger and more resilient materials in later designs. 4.2. Envisat Gyroscope Mount Failure The Envisat mission experienced a gyroscope mount failure, largely due to an under-designed mounting bracket. This case demonstrated the need for robust mounting mechanisms for sensitive instrumentation. 4.3. Orbcomm-1 Series Vibration Damage The Orbcomm-1 satellites suffered structural damage owing to insufficient vibrational damping during launch. Since then, enhancements in damp-ing mechanisms have been implemented to mitigate similar risks. 5. Mitigation Strategies and Emerging Technologies 5.1. Advanced Materials and Coatings In this particular application, research into advanced composites and coatings aims to increase resistance to radiation and thermal cycling: ® Carbon Fiber Composites (CFC): This type of composite is used for primary structures owing to its strength-to-weight ratio [35]. ® Radiation-Resistant Polymers (RRP): They are used to prevent embrittlement and maintain material integrity over extended missions [36-38]. 5.2. Enhanced Testing and Simulation Techniques It is imperative that vibrational and thermal testing be conducted under realistic conditions: ® Accelerated Thermal Cycling Tests (ATCT): It simulates orbital conditions to predict long-term material performance [39]. ® Finite Element Analysis (FEA): It helps anticipate the points of failure under various load scenarios [40-44]. 5.3. Real-Time Structural Health Monitoring Incorporating sensors and diagnostic tools allows for real-time monitoring: ® Embedded strain gauges: These are generally used to detect stress points and initiate predictive maintenance. ® Sensor-Based predictive maintenance: Data-driven models use health monitoring to proactively schedule maintenance or adjustments [45; 46]. 5.4. Reinforcement of Joints And Fasteners Material selection and thermal compatibility improvements enhance joint performance: ® Thermally compatible alloys: It prevents cold welding and differential expansion in joints. ® Improved fastener designs: These were de-veloped to resist both vibrational and thermal cycling stresses. 6. Future Directions in Satellite Structural Design Emerging research in adaptive structures and self-healing materials shows promise for reducing the impact of micrometeorite damage and thermal stress. Additionally, AI-driven simulations and autonomous health-monitoring systems are expected to play a pivotal role in satellite design, enabling smarter and more resilient structures for long-term missions. Conclusion This study critically examined the common structural failures in satellite systems, focusing on their causes, effects, and mitigation strategies. The research employed a comprehensive review of historical and recent satellite failures, integrating case studies, experimental findings, and advance-ments in materials science and structural health monitoring. Through this analysis, we systematically in-vestigated the key structural failure modes, includ-ing vibrational stresses during launch, thermal cycling effects in orbit, radiation-induced degra-dation, and micrometeoroid impacts. The study further evaluated failure-prone components, such as primary frames, joints, thermal shielding, and de-ployable mechanisms. The findings highlight several advancements that can enhance satellite resilience. Notably, the adoption of carbon fiber composites, radiation-resistant polymers, and thermally compatible alloys has shown promise in mitigating structural degradation. Additionally, enhanced testing techniques, real-time structural health monitoring, and improved fastener designs have contributed to reducing failure risks. By synthesizing current knowledge and emerg-ing technologies, this study provides valuable in-sights for the development of more robust satellite structures. The proposed advancements aim to enhance the reliability and longevity of space missions and ensure improved performance under extreme environmental conditions.

About the authors

Kazem Reza Kashyzadeh

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: reza-kashi-zade-ka@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0552-9950

Ph.D. in Technical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Transport Equipment and Technology, Academy of Engineering

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Sergei A. Kupreev

RUDN University

Email: kupreev-sa@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8657-2282
SPIN-code: 2287-2902

Doctor of Sciences (Techn.), Professor of the Department of Mechanics and Control Processes, Academy of Engineering

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Oleg E. Samusenko

RUDN University

Email: samusenko@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8350-9384
SPIN-code: 6613-5152

Ph.D of Technical Sciences, Head of the Department of Innovation Management in Industries, Academy of Engineering

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files