Table 1 Comparison of parabolic membrane antennas with different deploying and forming methods
From: Review of Large Spacecraft Deployable Membrane Antenna Structures
Type | Inflation | Inflation-rigidization | Elastic ribs driven | SMP-inflation | Electrostatic forming |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Research departments | L’Garde in the USA | ESA and Contraves in Switzerland | University of Cambridge | NASA Langley Research Center | SRS and Northrop Grumman Xidian University |
Application | In orbit | Prototype | Prototype | Prototype | Prototype |
Aperture | 14 m | 12 m | 1.5 m | 2 m | 5 m |
Surface Accuracy | 1.5 mm RMS | 0.98 mm RMS | 2 mm RMS | 1 mm RMS | 1.1 mm RMS |
Area density | 0.39 kg/m2 | 0.41 kg/m2 | —— | 1.4 kg/m2 | ~1 kg/m2 |
Precision maintaining ability | Very low | Medium | Low | High | Very high |
Packing factor | Very high | High | High | Medium | Medium |
System complexity | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High |
Pros | Light weight; Large packing factor | No need for gas after rigidization; Strong precision maintaining ability | Light weight | Strong precision maintaining ability; High deployment reliability | High surface accuracy; Strong precision maintaining ability |
Cons | Gas leakage; Easily affected by alternating temperature conditions; Difficult to maintain surface accuracy; Short service life | Membrane wrinkles in rigidization process; Requires further improvement for material thermal stability | Low stiffness; Deployment reliability is affected by complex movements | Requires great heating power, which is difficult to realize in the case of energy shortages | Electrostatic damage and security risks of high voltage; Risks of winding |