46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference AIAA 2005-1839

18 - 21 April 2005, Austin, Texas

The Ultimate In Passive Gravity Compensation

For Vibration Testing And Some More

Gyula Greschik∗ W. Keith Belvin†

University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681

Proposed for the vibration testing of free flying systems is the Marionette paradigm, a passive gravity com-
pensation scheme of unique mechanical simplicity that does not corrupt performance. Tribological (damping)
and stiffness interference with specimen dynamics are virtually eliminated. Inertial pollution, well controlled
in all cases, is minimal for most practical problems. Moderate kinematics are easily accommodated and few
limitations are imposed on suspension system design. Tolerance against specimen and support imperfections is
naturally high. The concept can be generalized to also accommodate certain adaptive model geometries; scope
may thus be extended to the vibration testing of evolving configurations and to some deployment problems.
The simulation of certain inertial loading conditions in weightlessness — for example, steady state acceleration
— is also possible.
An introduction to the Marionette paradigm — theory, features, and practicalities — is offered. The need
for and the potential of system optimization are discussed and illustrated. The arguments are supported with
demonstration hardware and numerical results.

Nomenclature

λ Fly beam arm ratio = r1 /r2

φ Force ratio: ratio of fly beam arm loads = S1 /S2
dz Vertical displacement
e Total fulcrum offset
ex , e z Fulcrum offset components in directions x, z
h Fly beam arm tip vertical displacement
Kα Geometric nonlinear stiffness against beam tilt
L Fly beam span: the distance between arm endpoints
M Moment
m Mass
m+ Direct mass overhead = support structure mass / mass supported
r Fly beam arm length
S, Si Load tree top and anchor point forces
W, w Weight
Subscripts
1, 2 Association with one or the other fly beam arm

I. Introduction
AUGHT between budgetary constraints and a demand for ever higher performance, space structures engineers
C increasingly often turn to solutions that would have been considered too risky in the past. Low weight, flexibility,
and size — for antennas, reflectors, solar sails, etc. — are often cited as characteristic to this trend.
∗ Research Associate, Center for Aerospace Structures, Dep. of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, USB 429, Member AIAA.
† Chief Engineer for Space, Structures and Materials Competency, 4 West Taylor Str./MS 230, Associate Fellow AIAA.

1 of 19

American
Copyright © 2005 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute Institute
of Aeronautics andofAstronautics,
Aeronautics Inc.,
and Astronautics
with permission.
 The creative engineering so fostered makes the hardware verification of both concepts and performance a very high
priority — a priority that directly translates into a critical need for ground testing with a fidelity and quality to match
the sensitivity of the subject system. This sensitivity is, indeed, a critical issue as it implies vulnerability to gravity
effects, as well as to the imperfections both of its own construction and of the testing apparatus.
In fact, it was the challenge posed by the sensitivity of certain solar sail booms due to their architecture, size,
and compliance that motivated the writers of this paper to seek innovative means to simulate weightlessness. The
elimination of nondeterministic effects (random slip, friction, damping) was considered imperative. Deterministic
effects such as added inertia that can be precisely quantified were of secondary concern as long as imperfection
sensitivity was little affected, because one primary goal of testing was to benchmark numerical models (rather than to
actually mimic behavior in true weightlessness).
Additionally, a focus on vibration testing was also defined. This focus, however, does not imply a lack of interest
in the complementary support problem — gravity offloading during large kinematics (e.g., specimen deployment).
Rather, modal testing was prioritized simply as a natural consequence of the intended use of test results to benchmark
numerical models. Gravity compensation throughout the deployment sequence, still a desirable capability, was thus
forced to take a back seat.
This research led to the development of the Marionette paradigm wherein the weight of each part of the specimen
is balanced by the other parts, with only optimized fly beams and cords contributing to mass overhead. Damping,
friction, and slip are eliminated, and specimen response is not affected by deleterious stiffness either. The support
architecture is simple, with high tolerance against both specimen and support system imperfections. Kinematics can
naturally involve up to moderate displacements and deformations in both the vertical and horizontal directions, and
certain types of expansion (e.g., deployment) in the horizontal direction can also be accommodated with minor system
modifications. This unique combination of flawless performance, exceptional fault tolerance, and utmost mechanical
simplicity are an attractive alternative to “classic” gravity compensation schemes for many problems.

A. Gravity Compensation
Gravity is ubiquitous in everyday life on the global mechanical scale, rendering the human experience of weight-
lessness and the direct study of this condition impossible on Earth. Accordingly, ground tests to explore the zero-g
performance of mechanical systems inevitably employ various compromise solutions. In fact, the variety of how such
compromises can be negotiated is rich; it can be discussed from several different perspectives.
One way to classify schemes to eliminate gravity effects is in terms of the means employed. For example, one can
distinguish1, 2 physical, buoyancy, pneumatic (air cushion and bearing), and mechanical methods. (The first category,
“physical approach,” includes parabolic flight and drop tests — not really gravity compensation but, in fact, orbital
tests with Earth-colliding orbits.)
A broader categorization can be based on the dimensionality of the specimen motion accommodated. 3 Accordingly,
one can distinguish support systems to permit linear, planar, or spatial kinematics.
One can also rank gravity offloading options based on support structural complexity. The simplest route is to avoid
offloading at all and downscale the hardware4 until, according to constant thickness5 or classic proportional6 scaling
principles, gravity effects reduce to tolerable levels. This approach is practical if sensitivity and quantitative fidelity
are not critical. The next level of complexity, applicable to some sufficiently stiff systems, is specimen alignment
with the gravity field to eliminate direct gravitational bending at the cost of geometric nonlinear effects. The latter
must be accounted for during test evaluation. Further raising complexity, a horizontal specimen orientation free from
nonlinear effects may be used with simplistic distributed lateral support, realized with cord-and-pulley mechanisms,
counter-weights, soft (constant force) springs or “bungee” cords, pneumatic or buoyant bearing, etc. Such simple
support, however, generally affects and sometimes severely restricts specimen response. To overcome this final hurdle,
autonomous force control can be employed at each supported location. Depending on the sensitivity and kinematic
scope of control, the simulation of weightlessness can asymptotically approach perfection and/or can permit large
kinematics in many cases. Hybrid active–passive control systems that combine robustness with high fidelity may offer
the best performance.7, 8
One may observe that the cost of quality is the sophistication of support. It turns out, however, that nearly flawless
performance can also be achieved for many vibration problems with the simple scheme herein proposed: a single fly
beam hierarchy.

2 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B. Fly Beams in Hardware Testing
Static determinacy and simplicity make the fly beam a
convenient component in specimen support and loading S0 S0
apparatus — more so than the wheel and axle, a mechan-
ically equivalent but heavier alternative that accommo- C
dates large motion, Fig. 1. The repetitive hierarchical wb C
application of this element produces a load or a whiffle S1 rb S2 wb
tree, the latter the special case with full symmetry and r1 r2
uniform geometry, Fig. 2, Load trees are typically used C: centroid
to mechanically control the application to a specimen of wb: fly beam weight S1 S2
a desired force set — if weight effects are minor, then r1 r2
tree geometry defines force distribution which is scaled S1 + S2 + wb = S0
by the force S at the top of the hierarchy. Loads were ex- r1 S1 + rb wb = r2 S2 r1 S1 = r2 S2
erted with such load trees, for example, in early aircraft
wing tests. An example for whiffle tree application is the Figure 1: Fly beam; wheel and axle.
rigorously uniform tensioning of film sheets.9

general hierarchy
of fly beams: S
rank 3
rank 2
rank 1

forces S1 S2 S3 ...
exerted:

symmetric
full hierarchy: S
rank 3
rank 2
rank 1

forces Sc Sc Sc Sc ...
exerted:

Figure 2: Load tree; whiffle tree. Figure 3: Solar array deployment test setup, Ref.1
Fly beams are typically used in specimen support to simplify the apparatus by reducing the number of external
support locations, as in case of the solar panel deployment test by Fischer, 1 Fig. 3, An example with multiple fly beam
hierarchies is the PowerSail deployment experiment,10 Figs. 4 (a) and (b).
Fly beams have also been used to directly aid gravity balancing with extra weights, cf. the recent testing at NASA
Langley R.C. of the L’Garde Encounter/ISP solar sail boom,11 Fig. 5. In this role, the beams serve as “frictionless
pulleys” to reduce nondeterministic effects and increase the test apparatus sensitivity.

(a) Deployment and support scheme. (b) Deployed hardware.

Figure 4: Deployment test for PowerSail unit — figures taken from Ref.10

3 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 A common aspect of these and other prior fly beam
and load tree applications in specimen support is their
secondary role: they are applied to parts of the struc-
ture and merely to simplify apparatus or procedure. The
Marionette concept reflects a paradigmatic shift from this
traditional approach by entrusting the support of the en-
tire specimen to one single fly beam hierarchy, the latter
defining the nature of support.
Figure 5: Solar sail boom suspension — from Ref.11
C. Single Point Suspension:
Novelty and Significance
The simplicity, economy, and utility to vibration testing of support with a single fly beam hierarchy makes one wonder
whether the attractive advantages of this concept have been exploited before. The writers continue to search for
possible previous applications by literature review and direct personal contact.
However, regardless of its possible long forgotten precedents, the Marionette paradigm may dramatically simplify
apparatus and procedure for the vibration testing of many free flying systems such as spacecraft and aircraft, enabling
low cost testing with nearly flawless performance.

II. The Marionette Paradigm

CCORDING to the Marionette paradigm, a specimen is suspended by a set of fly beams integrated into a single
A hierarchy (a load tree), suspended from one external location. By virtue of the single external support, the
specimen is subjected to a one dimensional constraint: its center of gravity is maintained stationary in space. This
condition is equivalent to weightlessness with a fidelity defined by the geometry of support hierarchy. No additional
constraints are imposed on the specimen within the limits of small to moderate kinematics. Further, the fly beam
system has no frictional components or elastically adaptive parts, leaving no room for damping and deleterious stiffness
to occur. Fly beam and cord mass inertias are negligible in many cases and can be efficiently minimized in others.

A. Suspension with a Fly Beam Hierarchy

A load tree can exert any force set Si with a nonzero re-
sultant S, Fig. 2, if its geometry is so designed and the Fly beam external suspension
system S
force at the top of the hierarchy is appropriately set. If
geometry
the forces Si correspond to the inverted weight distribu- ...
tion of a specimen, the latter can be supported by the load
tree — gravity can be compensated. defines the ...
force set S1 S2 S3
In fact, specimen suspension from a load tree natu-
exerted.
rally guarantees via equilibrium in the gravity direction
that the force S at the top of the hierarchy emerge as Section
needed for the suspension to work, weights
balanced
S = Ws + Σ Si (1) by the as-
sociated
load tree
with Ws the total suspension system weight. The forces W1 W2 W3 ...
forces.
Si collectively balance the total specimen weight: each z
Si force supports one part of the specimen, Fig. 6, locally x Si = -Wi
offsetting gravity. Rotational equilibrium about the sup-
port is achieved by design — in practice, the deleterious Figure 6: Weightlessness is simulated if the forces exerted
effects of design and fabrication flaws are corrected by on the specimen balance weights.
adjusting the top fly beam fulcrum position in the opera-
tional hardware.

4 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The parts would float
in place even in S
the context
of kinetic
art, ...

so the model
"feels" no
weight.

Figure 7: Each force exerted at the base of the load tree Figure 8: A. Calder: Mobile, 1963 (Healey Library, Univ.
suspends one part of the whole. of Massachusetts, Boston).
The specimen “feels” no gravity to the extent of how fine the Si force distribution is. This scenario is similar
to a kinetic mobile in the artistic sense of Gabo, Moholy-Nagy, and Calder, Figs. 7 and 8 — except the suspended
elements are here connected and thus don’t float apart, unlike the components in kinetic art. The floating motion in
kinetic displays, however, nicely highlights the similarity between the kinematic constraint enforced by a load tree and
weightlessness.

B. The Load Tree as a Constraint Mechanism

To study how a load tree, via the set of anchor points which connect it to the specimen, constrains the motion (dynam-
ics) of the latter, consider kinematics in the gravity direction z and note that each fly beam is a determinate structure.
As a result of this determinacy, the attachment of fly beams to a mechanical system cannot alter the degree of indeter-
minacy of the latter: constraints can be neither added, nor eliminated this way. Thus whatever constraint is exercised
by a load tree is due not to the multitude of fly beams but to the hierarchy’s external support: the suppression of one
single degree of freedom. The fly beams merely pass and transform this singular constraint from the top to the base of
the hierarchy — to the collective context of the anchor points on the specimen.
To understand this transformation, review the kinematics of an ideal fly beam, shown in Fig. 9 with its geometric
skeleton subtended by the endpoints Ai and the fulcrum F. Points A0i indicate position with an α tilt.
By virtue of the similarity A01 B1 F4 ∼ A02 B2 F4, the arm
ratio λ S0 z
A1 A2 x
λ = r1 / r2 (2)
S1 S2 A2'
also relates beam tip vertical displacements hi and, by the moment r1 r2
equilibrium about the fulcrum, the loads Si r2 h2
h1 / h 2 = λ (3) A1 B1 F g2 f2
S2 / S 1 = λ (4) f1 g1 α B2 A2
If the tip loads are the weights of substructures suspended there- h1 r1
from then, by Eq. 4, the same proportionality also holds for the
suspended masses A1 A2 : horizontal
A1'A2': pivoted
A1' beam position
m2 / m 1 = λ (5)

These relations are independent of the beam rotation α. Figure 9: Fly beam geometry and rotation α.
Next observe that, if the beam tip vertical displacements h1 , h2
(Fig. 9) directly reflect those of the masses (their centers of gravity) hung therefrom, then the dz cg displacement in the
z direction of the combined (resultant) c.g. of both suspended subsystems is
h2 m 2 − h 1 m 1
dzcg = dzF + (6)
m1 + m 2

5 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

where the signs are in accordance with Fig. 9 and dzF is the fulcrum vertical displacement. Finally, combine Eqs. 3
and 5 and subsequently rewrite Eq. 6

h2 m 2 = h 1 m1 (7)
dzcg = dzF (8)

This result reveals that fly beam pivoting does not affect the [z height of the combined center of gravity of the suspended
masses. This implies that fly beam support at the fulcrum, dzF = 0, constrains the height of the suspended subsystems’
resultant center of gravity. Via the repetitive application of this principle through the hierarchy, the constraint exercised
by the load tree is seen to keep the specimen center of gravity stationary.
Thus the constraint exercised by the load tree simply maintains (zero) momentum in the z direction. This condition
is equivalent to weightlessness, since it is the principle of the presentation of momentum that inevitably constrains a
closed mechanical system in free flight.
Note also that the above analysis relies only on general fly beam properties. The constraint exercised by the
suspension, therefore, does not depend on the load tree geometry and topology. Specimen response, therefore, should
be little affected by the choice of any particular load tree design, as long as the latter involves a single hierarchy with
external support only at the top fulcrum of the top beam.

C. Suspension System Weight

The fly beam analysis from which the nature of the load tree constraint has been derived above is approximate in one
respect: it ignores fly beam weight. (The arm tip and fulcrum cord weights are not really missing from the derivation
because these components can be naturally included in the suspended masses and in the fly beam, respectively.)
To fully establish rigor, one should define the model in Fig. 9 not directly with the fly beam geometry but as the
mechanism equivalent to the beam combined with the suspended masses. In other words: combine the beam arm
weights with those suspended from the tips and calculate equivalent arm lengths r i for the combined masses. After
this, somewhat involved, initial formality the derivation proceeds exactly as above and the general version of the same
conclusion is reached: the load tree constrains the center of gravity of the combined specimen-suspension system. The
constraint permits the combined system to move exactly as in weightlessness.

D. Support Influence on Specimen Behavior

The load tree effectively frees the specimen from gravitational effects and imposes no deleterious kinematic constraints
in return. However, it still influences specimen behavior through a different mechanism: by integrating with the
specimen in a “parasitic” manner. This is inevitable since, as highlighted in the previous section, it is the combined
support-specimen system for which the kinematic condition of weightlessness is truly realized.
As a result of this parasitic integration, load tree inertia, stiffness, friction, and damping combine with those of the
specimen. It turns out, however, that of these potential effects, inertial pollution is the only one that is neither easily
eliminated nor necessarily negligible to begin with.
The fly beam system has no frictional or damping components, leaving no room for damping effects to occur. (Even
friction local to the cord-beam connection can be virtually eliminated as described below.) Further, as the beams and
cords always bear the same loads regardless of specimen and load tree deformations, no parts or the suspension system
adapt elastically during system response. As a result, specimen and load tree stiffnesses do not interact even if the
suspension hierarchy has rather compliant members. (It is load tree internal transient response only that may cause
cord or beam loads to vary. This effect, however, is typically minor.)

E. Concept Demonstration: Hardware Model

Breadboard hardware models of two different load trees suspending similar beam specimens have also been built: one
with symmetric, the other with asymmetric topology and geometry — Fig. 10 (a) and (b). The suspended specimens
are slender 1.5×1.5 mm wooden rods of 81.3 cm lengths, with pairs of steel nut attached (driven on locally enlarged
cross sections) at every inch to increase mass, Fig. 11. The fly beams, integrated into the hierarch with lines of sawing
thread, have also been cut from the same stock as the specimens except near the top of the hierarchy where larger cross
sections have been used.

6 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (a) Symmetric load tree (whiffle tree). (b) Asymmetric load tree.
Figure 10: Breadboard demonstration models — silhouettes of deformed shapes.

Dominant vibrations, suspension system and speci-

men imperfection effects, the impact and significance of
fulcrum offsets, and responses to various external loads
have been quantitatively studied. Theoretical predictions
have been verified and fabrication methods (and other
practicalities) developed and refined.
As expected, responses to like loads little varied be-
tween the models, as exemplified in Figs. 10 (a) and (b)
via the static responses to the same external loads ap-
plied at midspan. (This loading condition obviously de-
stroys equivalence with the state of weightlessness —
however, it is easy to photograph and still nicely high-
lights response indifference to load tree topology and an-
chor point distribution.) For clear visual effect, the pho-
tos have been processed to show high contrast silhouettes
Figure 11: Model detail: beam anchor point.
despite the delicate components used — a representative
specimen detail is shown in Fig. 11.

F. Concept Demonstration: Finite Element (FE) Analysis

For numerical concept verification, a 2 mm thick 2×2 m steel plate (E=200 GPa, ν=.3, ρ=7800 kg/m 2 — total mass
mspec =62.4 kg) specimen has been modeled with a 20×20 mesh of NASTRAN CQUADR elements. Support has been
defined at a regular 10×10 pattern of anchor points, each to bear the weight of and placed at the center of a unique
20×20 cm patch of the plate. (While this support is the simplest, it does not represent a mechanical optimum in the
sense of rigorously minimizing any measure of plate response, strain, stress, or deflection, to gravity.) The first three
modes of vibration of the plate, floating in weightlessness, are shown in Fig. 12.
Next, a fly beam hierarchy of rank 6 (cf. Fig. 2) has been defined, without any attempt of optimization. Fly beam
box cross sections, all with wall thickness t=0.8 mm, have been made uniform for each rank — with cross section
outer widths w=2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm and depths h=4, 5.5, 8. 15, 20, and 25 mm for ranks 1 and up, respectively.
High performance graphite composite material has been assumed, E=200 GPa, ν=.3, ρ=1550 kg/m 2 . The details of
the fly beam hierarchy, cf. Fig. 13, have been calculated to ensure that the fulcrum of each beam balance the masses
suspended from the beam tips combined with the fly beam. The total fly beam system mass has thus become m f b =211
g. The rank depths (the height differences between sets of beams of subsequent ranks) have been uniformly set to
lc =20 cm, with unidirectional graphite fiber construction and d=4 mil diameter for all cords — E=400 GPa, ρ=1650
kg/m2 . (While this cord diameter is unrealistically small in the higher ranks of the hierarchy, it has still been used to
ensure that the model exhibit low frequency compliance modes, discussed below.) The total mass of all suspending
cords thus turned out to be negligible (≈0.1 mg) and the total mass overhead of the support system, with joints and
other technological details ignored, is

m+ = mf b / mspec = .211 / 62.4 ≈ 3.4% (9)

7 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(a) Mode 1: f=1.637 Hz. (b) Mode 2: f=2.369 Hz. (c) Mode 3: f=2.939 Hz.
Figure 12: Free flying 2 mm thick 2×2 m steel plate, the first three vibration modes.

(a) Mode 7: f=1.655 Hz. (b) Mode 8: f=2.412 Hz. (c) Mode 9: f=2.983 Hz.
Figure 13: Plate suspended with load tree in gravity field, dominant free vibration modes. (Modes 8 and 9 are identical
to modes 2 and 3 of the free flying model, Fig. 12 (b) and (c), here shown with the displacement fields negated.)

Each fly beam arm has been meshed with three BAR (i.e., uniform beam) elements (resulting in a total of 6 elements
per beam), as has been each cord section between subsequent hierarchy ranks. (Accordingly, cords spanning several
ranks had three time as many elements as the number of ranks involved.) The full mesh thus consisted of 400 plate
and 327 bar elements.
As seen from the vibration frequencies in Figs. 12 and 13, the suspension, indeed, well simulates weightlessness:
the suspended system frequencies are 1–2 % off the free modes. Surprisingly, this error has been calculated positive:
the suspended frequencies are somewhat greater than the true free ones. One would expect the opposite, since the sup-
port system increases system mass — this should lower, not raise, frequencies. It is possible that numerical problems
play a role in this discrepancy; the modal analyses of the suspended system have been plagued by excessive iteration
errors.
In addition to the faithful simulation of weightlessness, load tree suspension also adds pendulum and internal
compliance modes to the system that should not be allowed to interfere with the tested modes of interest. For the plate
model, mode separation has been sufficient for the five pendulum modes, three of which are shown in Fig. 14. (Modes
3 and 5, not shown, are swing and tilt modes like 2 and 4 — Fig. 14 (b) and (c) — in the complementary direction.)
However, the dominant support compliance mode — vertical system vibration, Fig. 15 (a), with f=1.441 Hz — is close

(a) Mode 1: yaw, f=0.0078 Hz. (b) Mode 2: tilt, f=0.184 Hz. (c) Mode 4: swing, f=0.394 Hz.
Figure 14: Plate suspended with load tree in gravity field, pendulum modes of vibration.

8 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 ideal fulcr. z x
location

ez
ex

(a) Mode 6: f=1.441 Hz. (b) Response to gravity, side view.

Figure 15: Suspension effects. Figure 16: Fulcrum offsets.

to the first free mode, Fig. 13 (a), f=1.655 Hz. Interference between the two could be avoided by altering suspension
system stiffness. Cord stiffness can be increased with negligible penalty; however, fly beam stiffness costs more
weight, unless an optimized beam design is used.
The model responded to gravity alone (after the application of this load as a prestress condition of the modal
analysis) with a tilt, Fig. 15 (b), highlighting the importance of and model sensitivity to the top beam support — the
fulcrum position thereat. (It is this detail in the entire support system that has the capacity to singularly control the
combined effects of system flaws, as discussed below.) In the FE model, vertical fulcrum offset in the top beam had
been set to ez =1 mm, while defined zero for all other beams, Fig. 16. Horizontally, the fulcrum had been placed to
its ideal position, above the c.g. of the combined support and suspended system masses. However, the calculation
of this position with only numerical accuracy naturally involves a small but finite horizontal offset error e x 6= 0. To
establish equilibrium despite this flaw, the beam must tilt to move the ideal fulcrum position exactly below the actual
one, Fig. 15 (b).

G. Alternative Interpretations
The mechanical essence of the Marionette paradigm, formally investigated in the previous section, can be intuitively
grasped in several ways. For example, one can see the concept as:
• A load tree as a support mechanism.
• A mechanical calculator, geometrically programmed to produce the resultant of the combined specimen-support
weight for output at the external support.
• A means to balance specimen weight with itself; defeating gravity effects with the help of gravity.
• Kinetic art with the pieces interconnected.

H. Summary of Critical Features

1. Superior Performance and Mechanical Simplicity
The Marionette paradigm offers a high quality simulation of weightlessness for kinemat-
ics in the gravity field direction, with only inertial interference with specimen response.
Mechanical simplicity renders it a highly cost effective means for the vibration testing of
free flying systems — a true “poor man’s antigravity machine.”

2. Robustness: Configuration Flexibility

As the one qualifying feature of the Marionette paradigm is the singularity of its con-
stituent load tree with one external support at the top, there are no rules to limit the interior
topology of this tree, nor the distribution of anchor points on the specimen. The design is
Figure 17: Kinematically
robustly flexible. For example, either configurations shown in Fig. 17 are kinematically
equivalent alternatives.
acceptable — even the one with overlapping sub-hierarchies. One would decide to use
one of these or perhaps another design based on overall practicality, hardware features,
and optimization considerations.

9 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3. Robustness: Fault Tolerance
Support system imperfections (component and hierarchy design and fabrication flaws) introduce small geometric
nonlinear stiffnesses and support force distribution errors. The former, stiffness, effects remain insignificant with
respect to the restoring stiffness of the vertical offset of the top fly beam fulcrum which is created by design, not in
error. The anchor point force distribution errors, on the other hand, horizontally offset the system center of gravity
with respect to the external support. This offset, the only significant global effect of system flaws, results in a tilted
specimen position if not corrected. Correction, however, turns out to be simple and straightforward: the external
support can precisely aligned with the flawed system center of gravity by the fine adjustment of the top fly beam
fulcrum.
The fly beam suspension system, therefore, is robustly fault tolerant. The only significant effect of system flaws
can be easily remedied by the adjustment one single element: the top beam fulcrum.

4. Moderate to Large Deformations

For an articulated specimen such as a robotic system, the topology of the beam
hierarchy may reflect specimen articulation to accommodate moderate to large S
kinematics with limited pendulum effects. For example, if a person were sus-
pended with a hierarchy reflecting the structure of the human skeleton, Fig. 18,
he/she would experience the same global kinematic response to a sudden verti-
cal limb motion as in space.

III. Practicalities
HE systematic introduction of the Marionette concept in Section II has been
T structured with a taste for didactic rigor. In contrast, the illuminating details
and practical concerns presented next are hoped to deepen the reader’s under-
standing of the paradigm with a panoramic view of critical details. Much of the
material discussed is based on observations of demonstration hardware models.

A. Horizontal Dynamics
A fly beam can rotate virtually unconstrained both vertically about its fulcrum
and horizontally, twisting its support cord. Consequently, a load tree can ac- Figure 18: Space experience.
commodate lateral specimen kinematics as well, as long as the latter is perpen-
dicular, rather than parallel, to the current directions of the involved fly beams.
An ideal example is the straight beam shown deformed in Fig. 10; where all fly beams are aligned with the specimen
and, accordingly, all (small to moderate) lateral specimen motion is perpendicular to the fly beams. Global pendulum
effects do not arise because the specimen center of gravity is remains exactly under the top support no matter how the
specimen may deform; otherwise. horizontal momentum would not be preserved. Local pendulum effects within the
hierarchy do not arise either because the fly beams can rotate and move horizontally to maintain equilibrium with all
cords vertically aligned (again, for small to moderate lateral motion).
However, specimen and suspension dynamics may interact laterally in unfavorable ways. Further, minor second
order stiffness and geometric nonlinear effects (cord rotational stiffness and vertical slope effects) that would otherwise
be negligible may still interact in a manner to effect some pendulum stiffness. Therefore, attention is required if
horizontal specimen motion is (also) anticipated: the compatibility of lateral specimen kinematics with fly beam
alignment, suspension system dynamics in the horizontal direction, and the interaction of cord torsional and pendulum
effects should be carefully evaluated.

B. Anchor Point Friction

It has been argued above that, apart from inertial effects, Marionette suspension does not interfere with specimen
response. Stiffness is unaffected because no support component needs to elastically adapt to accommodate specimen
kinematics, and friction and damping are negligible because no sliding contact is present and stress hysteresis in the
suspension system is minimal.

10 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 flexural
hinge
am flexural
fly be hinge
detail Constrained
are: c.g. of part 1 AND c.g. of part 2
cord Almost all "free" motion is restricted,
flexural including ...
hinge rigid bar flexure
for leverage concen- ... many vibration modes
trates
elastic neck here ... rigid body tilt
... articulation,
fly beam and response to
transient articulation.

Figure 19: Frictionless flexure in thin elastic tongue. Figure 20: Deleterious constraint by multiple load trees.
For friction, however, one may argue that the motion between cords and fly beams at their joints this still involves
friction, albeit of the benign rolling nature. This rolling friction can be eliminated (reduced with orders of magnitude)
if flexure joints are used by which, in essence, inelastic (i.e., viscous) flexure elements, the cord ends, are replaced
with elastics ones, thin flexible tongues, Fig. 19.

C. Multiple vs. Single Fly Beam Hierarchies

The concept herein proposed differs from previous applications of fly beams and whiffle trees in gravity offloading
by virtue of its use of a single suspension point. Multiple beam hierarchies (load tree suspension with more than one
external support point) constrain not the center of gravity of the entire system, but of each part associated with one
beam hierarchy. All motion to involve the displacement of any of these “local” centers of gravity is affected, Fig. 20.

D. Fulcrum Location Offsets

For an individual beam, an offset e 6= 0 from the ideal fulcrum location defines an orientation for stable equilibrium
— the one in which the ideal and actual fulcrum locations are vertically aligned with the ideal one below. A restoring
moment M against a tilt α from this state emerges via geometric nonlinear stiffness K α

M = Kα α (10)
Kα = eS (11)

with S denoting the fulcrum load (the combined weight of fly beam and suspended subsystems, Eq. 1).
For a bean in the suspending hierarchy, however, the effect of a fulcrum offset is slightly different, because the
beam orientations are locked by (coupled with) the suspended subsystems (ultimately, the specimen). If the latter is in
a preferred orientation (e.g., it is horizontal) than the fly beams are horizontal, too. In the context of this constraint, the
effects of the offset components ex and ez (cf. Fig. 16) separate: the horizontal offset ex alters the force distribution by
changing the beam arms (r1 , r2 ), while the vertical one ez introduces the geometric nonlinear stiffness Kα via Eq. 11.
The perturbation of the force distribution does not affect system stiffness; it only alters the specimen stress-strain
response to gravity (in the context of the support) and, as seen in Fig. 15 (b), it may cause the entire system to tilt. This
tilt can be easily corrected by the fine horizontal adjustment of the top beam fulcrum alone, with no similar adjustment
required in any other beam.
On the other hand, the Kα stiffnesses through the hierarchy emerge from the vertical ez offsets only. This stiffness
for a particular beam is positive (of restoring, stabilizing nature) if the fulcrum is above the ideal location, e z > 0 (cf.
Fig. 16). However, Kα is negative (of destabilizing nature) otherwise, making the beam “want” to flip over. If the
offset error distribution is not systematic, these stiffness effects tend to cancel out across the system. However, should
the reduction of this error be deemed necessary, it can be achieved by the vertical adjustment alone of the fulcrum
locations. In many cases, this adjustment can be guided simply visually and be performed in the full test setup.
The vertical fulcrum offset in the top beam, on the other hand, is of critical importance. This offset must not
become negative, lest the entire suspension system destabilizes (tilts until further motion is arrested externally or by
the collision of system components). Robustness, therefore, calls for a positive e z > 0 for this beam. This finite ez

11 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 constant force spring

(a) Support with load tree. (b) Load tree as force distribution device.
Figure 21: Alternative test setups for a cantilever system.

also generates a soft restoring stiffness against global specimen rigid body motion, which guarantees global system
stability but little affects specimen response.

E. Light Flexible Cantilevers — Spacecraft Booms

When a light boom is attached to a heavy base, the load tree geometry has to simply reflect the uneven specimen mass
distribution for the suspension to work, Fig. 21 (a). (Care should be taken that the base be suspended at the level of its
c.g., perhaps with multiple anchor points and fly beams to that effect, rather than at the conveniently exposed upper
surface.)
If the base is replaced with a fixed support, then all kinematics involving base motion is affected, no matter how
small the base’s participation may be. If this solution is preferred still, the load tree should not longer be used as
support because it would deleterious constrain specimen kinematics even more. Instead, it should be used simply as a
classic load distribution device, Fig. 21 (b).

F. Hardware Safety — Support Redundancy

Support by the Marionette system is, by definition, nonredundant. One may wonder about the risks involved in the
lack of support redundancy when expensive hardware is tested.
In response to this concern, recall first that this risk is hardly more acute than the one associated with another,
similarly nonredundant, device supporting sometimes even more expensive hardware in much less controlled con-
ditions — the crane. The risks of these devices are comparable because cords and cables are, in general, not only
nonredundant and, therefore, inherently risky, but (a) they can also be reliably tested with ease, (b) their technology
(fabrication, joints, suspension) is mature, and (c) the most efficient members possible, their factors of safety can be
precisely controlled with little mass overhead.
Test safety, however, can still be enhanced with a number of simple measures. For example, top fly beam suspension
could be replaced with support from underneath: with a beam across. The top fly beam could “sit” on this cross beam
with a precision rolling interface or a pin to permit free tilt and pivoting as required for the suspension to properly
work. Also, a “safety net” of elastic-ductile cables or like elements could be placed under critical fly beams (e.g.,
hung from above) without touching the latter but ready to softly catch the component if something breaks. Further, the
specimen could rest on a stand (perhaps where it had been assembled) at all times except for the brief periods of fly
beam adjustment and actual testing. For these activities, the specimen would, indeed, be temporarily lifted by the top
support in a crane-like manner.

IV. Concept Generalization

HE Marionette paradigm, as outlined above, offers a quality and robust means for the testing of specimen kine-
T matics in the gravity direction with a near perfect simulation of weightlessness — with no support interference,
save some inertial pollution. This scope, however, can be extended to include the testing of horizontally adaptive
geometries such as deploying systems and some special inertial conditions, e.g., steady state acceleration.

A. Adaptive and Expanding Geometries

The replacement of (some) fly beams with mechanisms of adaptive length readily enables the Marionette paradigm
to follow without pendulum effects the horizontal evolution of a specimen geometry. A straightforward option is the

12 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 perspective strut S0 perspective
view cord view hinges S0
beam
S2
S1 S2 side S1 S2
view
r2' side
S1 view plan
r1' depth view
variation
hinges to position
r1' the centroid:
= constant
r2' plan
view the fulcrum
(a) Vertically scissoring mechanism. (b) Horizontally scissoring mechanism.
Figure 22: Variable-length pantographic fly beam.

use of the pantograph mechanism, Fig. 22, because its internal kinematics maintains fly beam arm proportions and,
therefore, does not interfere with the overall load tree design.
To eliminate scissor friction, control to drive each pantograph could be introduced. While horizontal transient
effects may still be beyond the scope of the system, the vibration testing at several phases of quasi-static deployment,
as well as the quasi-static deployment process itself, would be possible.

B. Force Fields Other than “Pure” Weightlessness

Marionette support does not exclude the use of additional
load trees, if the latter work strictly as load distribution de- suspension support
vices, not as supports. Such a scenario is shown in Fig. 23, system:
where the suspending hierarchy is designed to support sys- test
tem weight and an extra force field combined. With such speci- C
a test setup, a specimen can be placed in a state equiva- men:
lent to any desired steady state acceleration or other load exerting a
bearing condition — for example, to simulate the dynamic complementary
force set: T extra load
environment during certain flight maneuvers. Note, how-
ever, that the extra force field(s) should not be exerted by
hanging weight(s) on the additional load trees, lest system Figure 23: Loads applied with secondary load tree.
inertia is significantly affected. Rather, direct means to ex-
ert a constant force should be used.

V. Seeking Perfection
UE to its mechanical simplicity and robust fault tolerance, apparatus design and fabrication for Marionette sus-
D pension can be carried out with simple and approximate means. However, the optimization of these steps for best
performance (for minimal inertial interference with specimen response) is very difficult.

A. System Optimization
In order to develop a practicable method to minimize via the judicious engineering of the suspension system the inertial
pollution of specimen response, a generic measure of inertial interference — a merit function — would be required.
Next, this measure would need to be embedded in a preferably rapid and transparent yet sufficiently rigorous procedure
to assess the relative performance of preliminary design alternatives without much effort. This objective function and
procedure should of course recognize that inertial interference is influenced collectively by (a) the distributions of
specimen mass and of the anchor points, (b) the topology and geometry of the beam hierarchy, (c) the fly beam design,

13 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

and (d) the specimen kinematics (e.g., vibration mode) of interest. The effects of these characteristics are complex by
themselves; a formal treatment of their mutual interaction in the full system context would be rather difficult.
For a qualitative illustration, consider the vibration of the model in Fig. 10. Fly beams at the base of the hierarchy
move with the specimen for all major modes. Their participation starts to drop only when, for higher frequencies, the
suspension anchor points are sufficiently approached by some of the mode shape nodal locations. However, the beams
of the first rank are the lightest of all, involving the least inertial penalty with their participation in specimen motion.
Beams of higher ranks less directly follow the specimen, and do so with a mode dependency already significant for
the first modes. For example, the most massive, top, beam in Fig. 10 (a) does not move at all during vibration with
the first, symmetric mode — but it certainly participates in antisymmetric modes such as the second. However, the top
beam in the alternative design, Fig. 10 (b), is still involved in the first mode. The global picture is complicated even
further by the fact that the second design has fewer beams and anchor points and, therefore, it is lighter than the first
but simulates weightlessness with less detail.
Apparently, the higher the rank, the more massive the beam but, simultaneously, the more kinematically attenuated
its participation. This attenuation, in turn, depends on anchor point distribution and system topology (which also
define the level of detail for the gravity compensation), as well as on the specimen kinematics itself.

B. Fly Beam Optimization

In light of how complex system optimization is, only one of its modular elements is herein investigated in detail: fly
beam design. This task is indeed a “true module” of the overall problem because each beam is a structurally separate
unit in the same repetitive mold and, once its arm loads, span (the distance between the arm loads), and design priorities
are given, its engineering can proceed independent of the global context.

1. General Considerations
For the testing of stiff heavy specimens such as a small aircraft, probably not much effort needs to be invested in fly
beam design. It may be sufficient to simply cut pieces of lumber into appropriate lengths, and to set arm ratios λ (Eg. 2)
to reflect with “construction precision” the desired equilibrium conditions — provided that the beams do not fail or
deform excessively. Most space structures and lighter aircraft, however, will require more sophisticated engineering.
The task is twofold: minimize inertial effects and eliminate second order stiffness associated with fulcrum offsets.

I NERTIAL E FFECTS . Mass moment of inertia and mass must be distinguished. Minimum mass design will not
achieve minimal moment of inertia because it does not penalize mass with the distance from the axis of rotation; the
beam of least mass moment of inertia will be slenderer than that of lowest mass. The relative importance of mass and
rotational inertias should be specified for beam design, likely in light of the beam location in the hierarchy and the
specimen motion of interest.

G EOMETRIC N ONLINEAR S TIFFNESS . As discussed above, secondary stiffness against fly beam tilt is effected
by nonzero fulcrum offset from the ideal location, and it can be eliminated with vertical fulcrum adjustment after
fabrication. The associated challenge is that of engineering precision: the precision of design and fabrication, and that
of calibration. When responding to these challenges, one should be aware of the following issues.

Fly Beam Mass. Fly beam mass and center of gravity depends on the beam design itself. Except for the simplest
situations, therefore, the design is iterative.

The Line Between the Beam Tips. The ideal fulcrum location on a uniform beam will be on the line between the
beam tips (which happens also to be beam centerline). For a more complex design of variable cross section or one
assembled of various members, this may no longer be true. In the general context, the fulcrum should be at the c.g. of
the system defined by the beam and the masses suspended from its tips, placed at the tips.

Beam Deformations. Mass optimization eliminates unnecessary material and, as a result, reduces stiffness. A
mass optimized fly beam may deform considerably under the load it supports. The fulcrum location should be appro-
priately placed in this, deformed, state.

Tip and Fulcrum Definition. Careful analysis is required to determine the equivalent geometric locations of beam
tips and fulcrum if non-traditional joints (cf. Fig. 19) are used.

14 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2. Fly Beam Architecture for Design Study
In search for the most feasible design and to explore alternatives, several light
truss-like architectural concepts streamlined to minimize mass, to minimize cross bar
mass moment of inertia, and to ensure that the beam center of gravity remains on tendon
the line between the beam tips, have been conceived. For some of these designs,
breadboard quality models have also been fabricated to enable the qualitative
study of performance, ease of fabrication, and overall physical robustness.
Finally, the mass-optimized architecture shown in Fig. 24, the single keel– keel
bipod suspension design, has been chosen for further study. The backbone of
cord
this structure is a keel of several straight segments to connect, as a compressed
arc, the two beam tips — the number of segments is the keel number. The seg- (a) Architecture for least mass.
ments feature across their joints continuous flexural stiffness in the lateral di-
rection to provide support stiffness against lateral buckling. Laterally, therefore,
the keel is a curved segmented beam, rather then a sequence of struts. Segment
joint flexural stiffness in the vertical plane is not necessary. In fact, it may even
be deleterious because the keel deforms in its plane when the fly beam is loaded
and, if flexurally continuous, it may suffer flexure coupled with compression,
rather than compression only, unless design and fabrication are able to properly
account for this deformation.
The keel is also supported laterally on its two sides with sets of cords, their (b) Support for linear FEA.
other ends radially anchored to a cross bar. The latter defines the fly beam
fulcrum and is suspended with a pair of cords for robust lateral stability — hence
Figure 24: Single keel beam with
the term “bipod” in the name given to this concept. The extreme cords which
bipod suspension.
connect the cross bar to the keel ends (the beam tips) bear significantly more
tension than the other, lightly loaded, cords. Accordingly, their cross sections
are heavier and they are referred to as tendons, not cords.

3. Design Specifications
The specifications for material and technological details have been defined somewhat optimistically, reflecting, first,
the writers’ intent to explore the limits of optimization and, second, the fact that the beams are likely to be fabricated
in well controlled conditions with precision tooling. Further, environmental and imperfection effects (which influence
the conservativeness of specifications in many indirect ways) will also be limited since the beams will be used in
laboratory conditions.

M ATERIAL AND T ECHNOLOGICAL P ROPERTIES .

Keel Segment and Cross Bar. Tubular construction from generic composite material is assumed, E=10 Msi,
ν=0.3, ρ=1600 kg/m3. The minimum wall thickness and tube diameter are tmin =2 mil, dmin =8 mil — the actual
values are continuously variable from these limits up, as needed. Member slenderness ratios are limited to l/d=120.
Imperfections (bow, cross section ovalness, wall thickness variations, etc.) are assumed negligible.

Cords and Tendons. Unidirectional fibers with little resin are assumed, E=15 Msi, ρ=1500 kg/m 3 . Tensile
strength is Ru =350 ksi. The minimum cord and tendon diameters are dmin,cord =0.5 mil and dmin,tendon =2 mil,
respectively — the actual values can continuously variable from these limits up, as needed.

Subsystem and Beam Suspension Cords. Same as the tendons.

Joints. Joints integrate flexural stiffness continuity as well as cord grip as needed, with technological details
unspecified. The mid-keel joint mass is expressed as a function of the fly beam span m keel =L×0.5 g/m. The joint at
the keel end, which grips the heavier tendons and the subsystem suspension cords, is 3×, while the joints at the cross
bar ends are 3× heavier than the mid-keel joint. Other details are ignored.

15 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

FAILURE CRITERIA .

Keel Segments and Cross Bar. The standard strut failure modes of local (wall buckling) and global (Euler) stabil-
ity have been considered with the equations presented in Ref. 12 Cross bar length has not been allowed to drop below
5% of

The Entire Keel. Lateral loss of global stability considered, approximately assessed with an pequivalent simply
supported beam on elastic foundation. The assumption of end pin support reflects the high tendon stiffness. The
equivalent foundation stiffness has been calculated as the average n lateral stiffness provided by the cords. Beam
compression is the average of segment compressive forces.

Cords and Tendons. Checked against tensile failure and tendons required to have diameters at least 8× those of
the cords, in order to guarantee the applicability of keel global stability analysis. As tensile failure turned out not to
be an issue, tendons generally ended up with diameters of d tendon =4 mil, in order to achieve 8× the minimum cord
diameter dcord =dmin,cord =0.5 mil.

Joints. Safe operation has been assumed, no failure modes checked.

Factors of safety. All failure criteria were required to be satisfied with factors of safety of at least two, FS≥2.

4. The Design Procedure

The specifications outlined above are completed by the fly beam span L and the two suspended loads S 1 and S2 to
fully define the design problem. (In fact, for the study performed, the arm loads have not been given explicitely as S 1
and S2 but, rather, indirectly by their sum the total suspended load S = (S 1 +S2 ) and their ratio φ = S1 /S2 .)
With these final input, designs have been carried out and mass optimized for several keel numbers, until the one
to allow the lowest mass design has been identified. For each keel number, first a coarse initial keel shape has been
calculated with back-of-the-envelope accuracy, then this initial design was used as the starting point of iteration. The
iteration varied the beam geometry and, for each variation, a design was performed (including the optimization of
individual members in the beam). The views and some key parameters of optimized designs for a lightly loaded short
beam are shown in Fig. 25 for two values of the force ratio. The elegant shallowness of the keel shapes in the figure is
representative of other designs as well.
The actual iterative search has been conducted with the free COBYLA optimizer software package, embedded
in a C program dedicated to the current problem and responsible both of driving the optimizer and of performing the
optimized design for all members. For each fly beam variant, the member loads have been calculated with a linear truss
FE program also specifically written for the present study from modules developed earlier. Because of the linearity
of this FE analysis, the solution of the beam hanging by its fulcrum has been possible only with the introduction of
additional, artificial constraints, shown in Fig. 24 (b), that rendered the problem statically determinate. It was the
optimizer that was given the task to reduce the support forces at these artificial constraints to zero. By doing so, these
constraints has been essentially removed from the problem and the true equilibrium solution found.

L span = 46 cm
S total load = 0.205 N
φ force ratio = 1.0 φ force ratio = 4.0
m mass = 1.080 g m mass = 1.078 g
keel segments:
t = 2 mils
d = 12.2-13 mils

Figure 25: Optimal design examples for a light beam.

16 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 force ratio φ = 1.0 span, L [m] force ratio φ = 2.0 span, L [m]
10 10

m+ =
1 1
= mf b /msusp

10
1
.1
.01 0.1 0.1
.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
.0001 total load, S [N] total load, S [N]
.00001
force ratio φ = 4.0 span, L [m] force ratio φ = 8.0 span, L [m]
10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
total load, S [N] total load, S [N]
Figure 26: Direct mass overhead m+ = mf b /msusp of optimized fly beams, single keel bipod construction.

5. Parametric Design Study

For the parametric study, span has been varied L=10 cm ... 10 m, total supported load S=0.001 N ... 1000 N, and
force ratio φ=1 ... 8, with six, sixteen, and four logarithmic steps each. (Recall that, for each combination of these
parameters, the keel number has also been varied until the best design was identified.)
The results of the optimization are shown in Fig. 26 in contour plots associated with each of the four force ratios
considered. For each value of force rato, total force, and beam span, plotted is the direct mass overhead m + =
mf b /msusp which can be considered a measure of structural efficiency, The lower this overhead, the more efficient
the design.
One surprising feature of the plots is the virtual independence of the results from the force ratio λ: the four plots
associated with the difference force ratios all look alike. In fact, they differ only in minute detail. The reason for this
independence have not been identified.
Apparently, it is the total supported load only, not the manner it is divided between the beam tips, that matter.
The plots nicely highlight that the mass overhead increases for large spans and light loads — while the best per-
formance (the lowest overhead) is expected of diagonally opposite problems. Therefore, the possible testing of long
solar sail booms with the Marionette concept is possible only with considerable mass overhead — while the overhead
quickly drops for shorter and heavier specimens. While the actual values in the plots are specific to the given beam
architecture, technological assumptions, and acceleration of gravity on Earth, this trend itself does not depend on this
specific parameters.
Finally, the lesson of the results most relevant to our current interest is that, for a considerable range of practical
problems, the fly beam mass overhead is very low. For example, the suspension over a 4 m span of a 20 N total
weight, which roughly corresponds to 2.0 kg suspended mass, still only involves about a 1% fly beam mass overhead.
Heavier loads lower this value even further. These numbers, although derived in the context of single fly beams only,
are still strongly indicative of the practical applicability and value of Marionette suspension for the direct simulation
of weightlessness.
For tests to verify numerical models only, however, much higher overheads are acceptable still, expanding the scope
of the concept even further.

17 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 VI. Summary
HE Marionette paradigm for gravity offloading combines mechanical simplicity with high performance, offering
T a cost efficient, versatile, and high quality means of gravity compensation for the vibration testing of many free
flying space and aeronautical systems. Among its critical features are the lack of frictional and stiffness interference
with specimen response, robust fault tolerance, the flexibility of configuration design, the accommodation of moderate
to large specimen deformations in some cases, and the possibility of generalization to horizontally expanding specimen
geometries (e.g., for the vibration testing of a specimen at several phases of deployment).
Functionality and practicability have been verified with hardware demonstration models and a numerical study. The
fly beam design problem has been explored in detail, and a parametric design optimization study has been performed
to explore the lower bounds of mass overhead associated with fly beam suspension. One surprising observation made
is that, for the given fly beam architecture chosen for the study, the beam optimal mass does not depend on how a
given total suspended mass is divided between the beam ends.
The results of the design study strongly indicate that the proposed suspension scheme has a wide practical scope,
with a trend of performance improvement toward heavier and smaller specimens. In fact, performance may be excel-
lent in many cases even without system or component optimization. However, in other cases (for larger and lighter
specimens), optimization may be desirable or even necessary. The conditions when this is the case, as well as a simple
yet sufficiently rigorous means of initial system optimization, are yet to be explores.

VII. Acknowledgments
HIS work has been supported by NASA Langley Research Center, award number NAG-1-03003. The modal
T analysis of the plate model for numerical concept verification has been performed with NE/NASTRAN, with a
license owned and generously made available for this analysis by L’Garde, Inc. The optimization engine used in the
design optimization study is the freely available COBYLA software package. All other tools and software, including
the FE package integrated with COBYLA and the software package for the nonlinear design of compressed struts
involved in the parametric design study, have been developed by the first author of this paper.

References
1 Fischer, A. and Pellegrino, S., “Interaction Between Gravity Compensation Suspension System and Deployable Structure,” Journal of Space-

craft and Rockets, Vol. 37, No. 1, January–February 2000, pp. 93–99.
2 Fischer, A., Gravity Compensation of Deployable Space Structures, Ph.D. thesis, Pembroke College, the University of Cambridge, Cam-

bridge, UK, November 2000.

3 Menon, C., Busolo, S., Cocuzza, S., Aboudan, A., Bulgarelli, A., Bettanini, C., and Angrilli, F., “Issues and New Solutions for Testing Free-

Flying Robots,” 55th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics,
and the International Institute of Space Law, International Astronautical Federation, 3-5, Rue Mario-Nikis, 75015 Paris, France, IAF, Vancouver,
Canada, October 4–8 2004, IAC-04-J.5.08.
4 Salama, M., White, C., and Leland, R., “Ground Demonstration Of A Spinning Solar Sail Deployment Concept,” The 42nd AIAA/ASME/-

ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Seattle, WA, April 16–19
2001, AIAA 01-1266.
5 Greschik, G., Mikulas, M. M., and Freeland, R. E., “The nodal concept of deployment and the scale model testing of its application to a

membrane antenna,” Ref., 13 pp. 2546–2554, pp. 2546–2554.

6 Barenblatt, G. I., Scaling, Self-similarity, and Intermediate Asymptotics, No. 14 in Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics, Cambridge

University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4221, December 1996.
7 Straube, T. and Peterson, L. D., “A large motion suspension system for simulation of orbital deployment,” The 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/-

AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Vol. 4, Hilton Head, SC, April
18–20 1994, pp. 1959–1969, AIAA Paper 94-1568-CP.
8 Kienholz, D. A., “Simulation Of The Zero-Gravity Environment For Dynamic Testing Of Structures,” The 19th Space Simulation Conference,

Baltimore, MD, October 28–31 1996.

9 Murphey, T. W. and Mikulas, M. M., “Nonlinear effects of material wrinkles on the stiffness of thin polymer films,” Ref., 13 AIAA-1999-1341.
10 Adler, A., Hague, N., Spanjers, G., Engberg, B., Goodding, J., David, D. M., and Mikulas, M. M., “PowerSail: The Challenges of Large, Pla-

nar, Surface Structures For Space Applications,” The 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Norfolk, VA, April 7–10 2003, AIAA 2003-1828.
11 Lichodziejewski, D., Derbes, W., Reinert, R., Belvin, K., Slade, K., and Mann, T., “Development and Ground Testing of a Compactly Stowed

Scalable Inflatably Deployed Solar Sail,” The 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and
AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum, Technical Papers, Palm Springs, CA, April 19–22 2004, AIAA-2004-1507.
12 Anon., “Buckling of Thin-Walled Circular Cylinders,” NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Structures) NASA SP-8007, NASA Langley

18 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Research Center, Langley Station, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, August 1968, Revision of September, 1965, version.
13 The 40th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures

Forum, St. Louis, MO, April 12–15 1999, AIAA.

19 of 19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics