Satellite Services

Mission Goal

Add a streamer/tail system that improves stability during descent by reducing tumbling and increasing the chance your payload lands on its “landing face.”

Why it matters

Before you can recover data, you must recover the payload. Streamers are a simple, low-cost way to improve orientation and reduce chaotic impacts—like early sounding rocket recovery methods.

Inputs from other teams

• Payload/Data team: preferred landing orientation; fragile side(s)
• Structures team: attachment points that won’t tear out
• Aerodynamics team (if present): stability tips (center of mass, drag placement)
• Mission Control: standardised test log template

Design rules

• Repeatability & measurement: run multiple trials and quantify improvement.
• Keep variables controlled: change one thing at a time (tail length, width, material).
• Evidence matters: show before/after stability with video or consistent observations.

Shared Space.craft.ed challenge principles apply. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Build steps

1. Pick tail material: plastic bag strip, ribbon, crepe paper, thin fabric, or packing tape strip.
2. Choose attachment location: ideally behind the center of mass (so drag trails the mass).
3. Build a strong mount: reinforce with tape, cardstock patch, or a small “eyelet” hole.
4. Set initial tail dimensions: start simple (e.g., 40–80 cm length; 2–6 cm width).
5. Label tail variants: Tail A / Tail B; record exact measurements.

Test protocol

1. Run baseline (no tail): 5 drops from 1.0 m; record tumble count / landing face success.
2. Run Tail A: same height + same drop method; 5 drops.
3. Optional: run Tail B (one change only: longer, wider, or different material).
4. Use the same dropper and starting orientation each time.
5. Video at least one trial per condition from the same camera position.

Success criteria

• Tail system reduces tumbling or increases “correct landing face” success by a clear margin (your metric).
• Attachment survives repeated trials (no tearing out).
• You can explain why Tail A worked better/worse than baseline.

Evidence checklist

• Photos of Baseline vs Tail A (and Tail B if used).
• Measurements: tail length, width, material.
• Results log: 5 trials each condition with simple stability scoring.
• Short video evidence (baseline + tail).
• One-paragraph conclusion + next iteration idea.

Safety

• Keep tails clear of faces/eyes when carrying payloads.
• No fishing line or thin wire that could cut skin.
• Keep drop zone clear; no throwing.

Common failure modes

• Tail too short: not enough drag to stabilise.
• Mount failure: tail rips off mid-test.
• Drag in wrong place: tail mounted near center of mass → little effect.
• Too much drag: payload swings wildly, causing side impacts.

Stretch goals

• Design a modular tail mount so tails can be swapped in seconds.
• Create a simple “stability score” rubric and train another team to use it reliably.
• Try dual tails or a tail + small fin combo and compare results.