Nick Pohlman

Patrick Schubel
Jeremy Opperer
Introduction to MEMS
ME 381

Robert McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science
December 2002
Nanosatellite Communication
And MEMS Technology
Overview
Changing satellite architecture
Smaller, distributed systems
Require RF communication
MEMS communication devices
Switches
Antennas
Signal Filters
Phase Shifters
Completed picosatellite experiment
Suggestions for future
Faster, Better, Cheaper
NASA Administrator
Daniel Goldin sought
new methods for space
exploration
Reduced mass results in significant gain in shrinking
launching cost
Less expensive to launch small components individually
rather than monolithic device
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) ~ $10k per kilogram
Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) ~ $50k per kilogram
Situation perfectly suited for MEMS devices
Low mass, resistant to inertial and vibration damage
Endurance in high radiation environments
Distributed Satellite Architecture
Spread component capabilities to separate
vehicles
Individualized vehicles faster to produce
because of less system integration
Easily replaceable for component failure
Eliminate physical hardware connections and
reduce overall mass
Capabilities of DSA
Increase aperture size
for interferometer and
distributed radar
systems
Hubble, Chandra
limited size due to
launch constraints
Failures aboard Hubble
are repairable by
humans; Chandra out
of reach
Chandra X-Ray Observatory
CXC
PKS 0637
3C273
Hubble Space Telescope
Planned DSA Missions

Terrestrial Planet
Finder (JPL)
TechSat 21 Distributed
Radar (AFRL)
Space Technology 5 & 6 (NASA - NMP)
First to use primarily MEMS components
Consideration for DSA
Actively control relative positions and velocities
Robust, reliable feedback from sensors possibly
onboard separate vehicle
Remote RF communication necessary
RF comm. requires sender/receiver pair with signal
processing hardware
MEMS RF devices explored:
Switches
Antennas
Signal Filters
Phase Shifters

DC-Contact Coplanar Waveguide Shunt Switch
Switches used for beam
shaping and steering
RF MEMS switches have
better efficiency and lower
insertion losses than
conventional switches
Ideal for space:
Rapid response
Good power handling
Wide bandwidth
Good EM isolation
High open isolation
May experience stiction and
slow response time


DC-Contact Coplanar Waveguide Shunt Switch
2
E
x) d
AV
F

c
=
( 2
2
0
A
k d
V
p
0
3
27
8
c
=
Force balance can be used to calculate
the electrostatic force
The restoring force is found from spring
equation
For deflections greater than 1/3 d, pull in
occurs
Pull-in voltage not affected by dielectric
layer
A, c
0
, V, d, x, and k are the projected
area of the electrodes, permittivity of the
free space, applied voltage, gap between
the line and bridge, deflection of the
bridge, and spring constant respectively
DC-Contact Coplanar Waveguide Shunt Switch
Model of R
s
L
circuit in isolation
R
c
, R
l
are contact
resistance and
contact line
resistance
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
s
s s
R L Z L
R L Z R S
>> e e =
<< e =
, 2
, 2
2
0
2
0
2
21
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2 2
2
0
2
2 2 2
2
21
/ 4 2
/ 1 4
b b
b b
C Z R
C R
S
e + +
e +
=
Model of R-C
circuit, insertion
Capacitors model
coupling between
switch and pull-in
electrodes

DC-Contact Coplanar Waveguide Shunt Switch
Process similar to other MEMS devices
manufactured by batch lithographic processing
1.7 m PECVD SiO
2
grown as sacrificial layer; dimples created by partially
etching 5500 ; 0.8 m sputtered Au creates bridge; buffered HF solution
used to remove SiO
2

RSC microrelay: micromachine @ 250 C; SiO
2
removed by dry release
etching in oxygen plasma
Hilbert Curve Fractal Antennas

Hilbert Curve Fractal Antennas
Table 2. Phase shift in each arm and resulting peak direction of the beam [16]
Case Elem.
1 phase
Elem. 2
phase
Elem. 3
phase
Elem. 4
phase
Beam
dir
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 20 40 60 6
3 0 40 80 120 13
4 0 60 120 180 19
5 0 90 180 270 29
6 0 120 240 360 38

Case Peak
dir 1
Gain Peak
dir 2
Gain 3 dB width
0 0 1.56 177 1.81 83
1 18 1.28 193 0.95 107
2 19 1.55 195 1.33 100
3 63 1.74 254 2.35 92

Phase shift in each arm and resulting
peak direction of the beam
HCFA radiation characteristics
Signal Filters
All RF communication circuits require at
least one filter to pull out a desired signal
or insert one to be transmitted
Currently done with solid state electronics
Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) filters or
back-end digital signal processing
MEMS offers passive front-end signal
processing capability
Compact one-chip design
High fidelity signal handling
Tunable configuration
Filter sensitivity and quality factor
(Q) would be greatly increased
Different MEMS filter designs are
possible
Coplanar waveguide (CPW) layout
on thin GaAs membrane
Flexural beam resonator


CPW filter
structure

CPW Filter
Beam Resonator

1600 m
1600 m
Antennas
Improved performance of components achieved
by integrating antenna design with other
components on same chip
Smart antennas
Double-folded shot antenna
2.5 m gold deposited on silicon oxide
dielectric membrane
Cross members placed half wavelength apart for
optimal performance
Reconfigurable V-Antenna
Arms of antenna can be moved independently
with comb-drive actuators
Structure fabricated using silicon multi-layer
surface micromachining
When both arms moved at fixed angle, antenna
can steer beam to focus reception or
transmission
Adjusting relative angle of arms can modify
shape of beam
77 GHz Double-Folded Slot Antenna
17.5 GHz V-Antenna
Phase Shifters
Phased-array antenna
Able to transmit or receive signals
from different directions without
being physically re-oriented
Currently this is done with FET or
diode technology
Low power consumption but high
signal loss
MEMS design would cut down on
signal loss, especially at frequency
range 8-120 GHz
Not as many amplifiers are needed to
boost signal, resulting in power
savings

Straightforward design: MEMS switches used in place of solid-state components
Large body of research already exists in phase shifter design and application
Proper placement of switches is known
Significant cost benefits
MEMS-based array could cut cost of complex phase-shifter by an order of magnitude

Phase shifter composed of array of RF-MEMS switches
Picosatellite Mission
Satellite mission has been completed proving feasibility of MEMS devices in
space
RF-MEMS switches in picosatellite (< 1 kg)
Stanford-designed Orbiting Picosatellite Automated Launcher (OPAL)
launched in 2000 released testing platform
Two tethered picosatellites in LEO containing four RF-MEMS switches in series
Switches developed by Rockwell Science Center (RSC)
Each satellite measures 3 x 4 x 1 in
3
and weighs less than half a pound
Actual communication system made with standard radio components
MEMS switches used only for experiment

Figure 15. Picosatellite system architecture [21]
Switch Experiment
RF switches cycled through on and off states at 500 Hz
During contact time with ground station, test data and statistics downloaded
Relatively inexpensive test was successful
Unfortunately, due to difficulties establishing initial contact with the
picosatellites, mission was prematurely ended when power ran out
If communication system had been composed of MEMS devices, mission could
have been lengthened!
Future missions are planned: AFRL MightySat 2.1 and beyond
Recommendations/Conclusions
Network of MEMS satellites for continual base
station communication
Tap into network much like Internet
Eliminates remote control stations
MEMS are ideal for reducing cost of space
exploration
Reduced overall mass (cheaper launch)
Increased efficiency
Adaptability
Robust to space environment
Faster, Better, Cheaper and Smaller