{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015912897822445562, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033500837520938024, 'mean_word_length': 5.3563829787234045, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Small Satellites SSC 17-IV-01 Improving Launch Vibration Environments for CubeSats

Auxiliary payload accommodations often place CubeSats in unusual locations on the launch vehicle that result in severe dynamic environments. CubeSats and their payloads have recently become more sophisticated and thus, more sensitive to these harsh environments. This is even more relevant for larger CubeSats with very sophisticated but fragile instruments. Developers of this class of CubeSats desire low environmental loads that can be accurately predicted, in order to ensure mission success. One option is to reduce high dynamic loads through the implementation of isolation. Before looking at reducing these levels, it is important to understand the actual levels the CubeSat sees on launch, rather than just the levels input to the CubeSat dispenser. Primary spacecraft load sources are discussed and compared to load sources for auxiliary payloads. CubeSat payload levels for different dispensers are explored, including the transmissibility of a P-POD, an NLAS, and a CSD, both with and without isolation in order to examine the CubeSat levels and how they differ with different constraint mechanisms.