This paper analyzes pyrotechnic separation devices, a technology widely used in space missions. The analysis focuses on the regulatory requirements that govern their design and use, with an in-depth look at the ECSS (European Cooperation for Space Standardization) standards to define key points for safety and reliability. In addition to the regulatory aspect, the underlying technology and its main applications are described, and a comparison with more modern non-explosive alternatives (NEAs) is proposed. The analysis shows that rigorous standardization is critical for mission success and that, while pyrotechnics remain the most common devices, low-shock alternatives represent the future for more sensitive systems.
Questa relazione analizza i dispositivi di separazione pirotecnici, tecnologia ampiamente diffusa nelle missioni spaziali. L'analisi si concentra sui requisiti normativi che ne regolano la progettazione e l'utilizzo, con un approfondimento degli standard ECSS (European Cooperation for Space Standardization) per definire i punti chiave di sicurezza e affidabilità. Oltre all'aspetto normativo, viene descritta la tecnologia di base, le sue principali applicazioni e viene proposto un confronto con le più moderne alternative non esplosive (NEA). Dall'analisi emerge che una standardizzazione rigorosa è critica per il successo delle missioni e che, nonostante i pirotecnici rimangono i dispositivi più diffusi, quelli a basso shock rappresentano il futuro per i sistemi più sensibili.
I dispositivi pirotecnici in ambito spaziale: tecnologia, applicazioni e requisiti normativi
RIGODANZO, GIULIO
2024/2025
Abstract
This paper analyzes pyrotechnic separation devices, a technology widely used in space missions. The analysis focuses on the regulatory requirements that govern their design and use, with an in-depth look at the ECSS (European Cooperation for Space Standardization) standards to define key points for safety and reliability. In addition to the regulatory aspect, the underlying technology and its main applications are described, and a comparison with more modern non-explosive alternatives (NEAs) is proposed. The analysis shows that rigorous standardization is critical for mission success and that, while pyrotechnics remain the most common devices, low-shock alternatives represent the future for more sensitive systems.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rigodanzo_Giulio.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
1.62 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.62 MB | Adobe PDF |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/98124