System Analysis and Design of the Geostationary Earth Orbit All-Electric Communication Satellites

Abbasrezaee, Parsa; Saraaeb, Ali

doi:10.1590/jatm.v13.1205

Parsa Abbasrezaee ^**Corresponding author: parsa.abbasrezaee@gmail.com

Sapienza University of Rome – Aerospace Engineering School – Rome – Italy.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4885-9792

Ali Saraaeb

Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology – Aerospace department – Tehran – Iran.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7556-6506

*Corresponding author: parsa.abbasrezaee@gmail.com

Section Editor: T John Tharakan

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Abbasrezaee P and Saraaeb A; Methodology: Abbasrezaee P and Saraaeb A; Investigation: Abbasrezaee P and Saraaeb A; Writing – Original Draft: Abbasrezaee P and Saraaeb A; Writing – Review and Editing: Abbasrezaee P; Funding Acquisition: No funding; Resources: Abbasrezaee P; Supervision: Abbasrezaee P.

Figures (2)
Tables (31)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Analytic hierarchy process method hierarchy structure for all-electric satellite.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Proton-M-Brize-M launcher GTO to GEO mission. Source: Zak (2021).

Thumbnail

Table 1
All-electric satellite formula for calculating the conceptual level design parameters.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Results of formula calculation and assumption for GEO all-electric satellite test case.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Analytic hierarchy process decision matrix table showing importance factor between all-electric satellite parameters.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Analytic hierarchy process comparison prioritypercentages and ranks results for decision matrix parameters.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Ideal best/worst value assumptions for decision matrix parameters.

Thumbnail

Table 6
The TOPSIS method performance and rank results for selected all-electric satellite.

Thumbnail

Table 7
Sampled GTO launcher specifications from references for simulations.

Thumbnail

Table 8
Sampled electric propulsion specification for simulations.

Thumbnail

Table 9
Orbit transfer GTO to GEO results of SPT-140D propulsion calculated with STK.

Thumbnail

Table 10
Orbit transfer GTO to GEO results of XIPS-25 propulsion calculated with STK.

Thumbnail

Table 11
Orbit transfer GTO to GEO results PPS 1350 propulsion calculated with STK.

Thumbnail

Table 12
Orbit transfer GTO to GEO results BHT20K propulsion Calculated with STK.

Thumbnail

Table 13
Twenty years North/South orbit correction for all-electric satellites calculated results.

Thumbnail

Table 14
Twenty years East/West orbit correction for all-electric satellites calculated results.

Thumbnail

Table 15
Sum of 20 years orbit maintenance and correction results from Tables 13 and 14.

Thumbnail

Table 16
Deorbiting 2000 kg GEO telecommunicationall-electric satellite with different propulsions STK simulated results.

Thumbnail

Table 17
Deorbiting 3000 kg GEO telecommunicationall-electric satellite with different propulsions STK simulated results.

Thumbnail

Table 18
Telemetry, tracking and control mass and power calculated results.

Thumbnail

Table 19
Telecommunication payload mass and power budget results.

Thumbnail

Table 20
Primary calculated results for electric power subsystem.

Thumbnail

Table 21
Calculations for considering solar panels size.

Thumbnail

Table 22
Results of calculations after considering solar panels size.

Thumbnail

Table 23
The contrast between different numbers of panels per wings.

Thumbnail

Table 24
Results of total solar arrays mass budget for two wings.

Thumbnail

Table 25
All electric satellites propulsion subsystem design parameters.

Thumbnail

Table 26
Geostationary Earth orbit disturbance calculations for reaction wheels momentum determination.

Thumbnail

Table 27
The mass and electrical power consumption of the ADCS subsystem selected parts.

Thumbnail

Table 28
Space mission engineering: the new SMAD power and mass budget for GEO satellites.

Thumbnail

Table 29
Electrical power subsystem comparison and verifications with design parameters and SMAD budget.

Thumbnail

Table 30
Attitude determination and control system with propulsion subsystem and without propellant comparison and verification.

Thumbnail

Table 31
Telemetry, tracking and control and payload for 2000 kg, 8000 W all-electric satellite subsystem verification.

Formula	Formula accuracy	Input and output
Y1 = 65.651 × e^{0.0409 x}	0.9325	Input (X): number of transponders Output (Y1): payload mass (kg)
Y2 = 1411 × e^{0.0008 Y1}	0.9806	Input (Y1): payload mass (kg) Output (Y2): satellite total mass (kg)
Y3 = 3.6147 × e^{0.0007 Y1}	0.927	Input (Y1): payload mass (kg) Output (Y3): electrical power consumption of payload (kw)
Y4 = 0.0034 Y2 + 0.9759	0.9887	Input (Y2): satellite total mass (kg) Output (Y4): electrical power consumption of satellite (kw)
Y5 = 5.069 e^{0.0006 Y2}	0.7466	Input (Y2): satellite total mass (kg) Output (Y5): satellite volume (m³)
Y6 = 0.012 Y2 + 56.833	0.9882	Input (Y2): satellite total mass (kg) Output (Y6): satellite cost (M$)
Y7 = 11.921e^{0.0005 Y2}	0.9371	Input (Y2): satellite total mass (kg) Output (Y7): launcher cost (M$)

Calculations	Statistical information	Explanation
Payload mass = 337.09 kg	40 transponders for 1500–2000 kgall electric satellites	Calculated from formula extraction
Satellite total mass = 1847.75 kg	-	Calculated from formula extraction
Payload electrical power = 4.6 kw	4.5 kw payload power	-
Satellite electrical power = 7.26 kw	8 kw satellite power	-
Satellite total volume = 15.36 m³	12–18 m³	3.8 × 2 × 2 m
Satellite total cost = US$ 79 mi	US$ 70–90 mi	-
Launchers cost = US$ 30.029 mi	US$ 30–35 mi half volume ofFalcon 9 launcher	US$ 61.2 mi for 8000 kg payloadof Falcon 9 launcher to GTO
0.165 m N thrust and 300 kg fuel	XIPS-25 propulsion	-
300 kg fuel + 337 kg payload mass +1250 kg bus mass = 1887 kg	BSS-702 SP bus	950–1250 kg bus mass ofBSS-702 SP

Decision Matrix		1 Number of transponders	2 Payload mass	3 Satellite mass	4 Electric fuel mass	5 Satellite cost	6 Payload power	7 Satellite power	8 Launcher cost	9 Engine type
1	Number of transponders		5	6	7	6	7	7	5	8
2	Payload mass	0/2		3	5	5	7	7	5	8
3	Satellite mass	0/17	0/33		5	4	7	7	4	8
4	Electric fuel mass	0/14	0/2	0/2		1	2	2	1	3
5	Satellite cost	0/17	0/2	0/25	1		1	1	2	3
6	Payload power	0/14	0/14	0/14	0/5	1		1	1	2
7	Satellite power	0/14	0/14	0/14	0/5	1	1		1	2
8	Launcher cost	0/2	0/2	0/25	1	0/5	1	1		3
9	Engine type	0/12	0/12	0/12	0/33	0/33	0/5	0/5	0/33

Category		Priority	Rank
1	Number of transponders	40.1%	1
2	Payload mass	21.6%	2
3	Satellite mass	15.8%	3
4	Electric fuel mass	4.8%	4
5	Satellite cost	4.7%	5
6	Payload power	3.4%	7
7	Satellite power	3.4%	7
8	Launcher cost	4.2%	6
9	Engine type	2.0%	9
CR%	6.2%

	Number of transponders	Payload mass	Satellite mass	Electric fuel mass	Satellite cost	Payload power	Satellite power	Launcher cost	Engine type
V+ (ideal best value)	Max	Min	Min	Min	Min	Min	Min	Min	Min
V- (ideal worst value)	Min	Max	Max	Max	Max	Max	Max	Max	Max

Name of satellite	Performance (%)	Rank
ABS 3A	91.64183676	5
EUTELSAT 115 WEST B	88.50431894	8
Ekspress AM8	89.01029446	7
ABS 2A	90.9337616	6
EUTELSAT 117 B	91.74572388	4
SES 15	83.84680972	9
EUTELSAT 172B	54.32213346	10
ANGOSAT-1	93.60404619	2
SES 14	23.85183676	11
SES 12	9.898662583	12
Test case	93.47590506	3
V+ (ideal best value)	99.99999949	1
V- (ideal worst value)	5.4293E-07	13

Specification	Soyuz-fregat	Proton-M-Brize-M	Falcon 9 v,11	Ariane 5 ECA
Inclination (i)	6	30.5	28.5	6
Altitude of perigee (ap)	250	2300	185	250
Altitude of apogee (aa)	35950	35786	35786	35943

Propulsion Specification	Thrust (N)	ISP (s)	Efficiency (%)	Type of thruster	Name of company	Country
XIPS-25 (*Goebel et al. 2009*Goebel DM, Polk JE, Sandler I, Mikellides IG, Brophy JR (2009) Evaluation of 25-cm XIPS© Thruster Life for Deep Space Mission Applications. Paper presented 31st International Electric Propulsion Conference. IEPC, Michigan, USA.)	0.165	3550	71	ION	L-3 Communication	USA
SPT-140D (Kim 2012Kim V (2012) Stationary Plasma Thrusters in Russia: Problems and Perspectives. Tr Mosk Aviats Inst 60.)	0.29	1770	68	Hall-effect	OKB Fakel	Russia
PPS 1350 (Safran 2021)	0.089	1700	50	Hall-effect	Snecma (Safran Aircraft Engine)	French
BHT20K (*Leporini et al. 2016*Leporini A, Giannetti V, Andreussi T, Pedrini D, Rossodivita A, Piragino A, Andrenucci M, Estublier D (2016) Development of a 20 Kw-class hall effect thruster. Paper presented Space Pripulsion 2016. Rome, Italy. http://www.sitael.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3125196_DEVELOPMENT_20_kW-CLASS_HET_leporini.pdf http://www.sitael.com/wp-content/uploads... )	1.08	2750	72	Hall-effect	Busek	USA

Weight of all electric satellites(kg)	Total xenon fuel (kg)	Fuel consumption for orbit transfer (kg)	Time (day-month)
1500	250	143.98	99.74–3.32
2000	300	189.105	131–4.366
2500	350	234.36	162.36–5.41
3000	400	279.59	193.69–6.456

Weight of all electric satellites(kg)	Total xenon fuel (kg)	Fuel consumption for orbit transfer (kg)	Time (day-month)
1500	200	71.238	173.96–5.8
2000	250	71.238	232.67–7.75
2500	300	108.41	283.25–9.44
3000	300	129.72	338.88–11.28

Weight of all electric satellites(kg)	Total xenon fuel (kg)	Fuel consumption for orbit transfer (kg)	Time (day-month)
1500	250	149.67	324.49–10.82
2000	300	196.706	426.46–14.21
2500	350	243.72	528.37–17.61
3000	400	290	630.42–21

Weight of all electric satellites(kg)	Total xenon fuel (kg)	Fuel consumption for orbit transfer (kg)	Time (day-month)
1500	2o0	91.41	28.53–0.95
2000	250	1120	37.76–1.2
2500	300	150.56	46.99–1.56
3000	350	180	56.21–1.87

Parameters	2000 kg satellite	3000 kg satellite
Days between each maneuver	4.32
Total number of maneuvers in 20 years	1691
Total Δv in 20 years (m/s)	907.245
Total fuel consumption in 20 years (kg)	71	105.82

Parameters	2000 kg satellite	3000 kg satellite
Days between each maneuver	10
Total number of maneuvers in 20 years	730
Total Δv in 20 years (m/s)	33.58
Total fuel consumption in 20 years (kg)	2.6	3.9

Parameters	2000 kg satellite	3000 kg satellite
Total Δv in 20 years (m/s)	940.825
Total fuel consumption in 20 years (kg)	73.6	109.71

Parameters	XIPS-25	SPT-140D	BHT20K	PPS1350
Total fuel consumption (kg)	3.02	6.47	4.18	6.76
Time (days)	6.5	4.48	1.21	14.65
ΔV (m/s)	55.68	55.68	55.84	55.84

Parameters	XIPS-25	SPT-140D	BHT20K	PPS1350
Total fuel consumption (kg)	4.84	9.70	6.25	10.1
Time (days)	11.82	6.72	1.80	21.9
ΔV (m/s)	55.84	55.84	55.84	55.84

Parameters	Numbers	Dimension	Power cons (w)	Mass(kg)	Total power cons (w)	Total mass (kg)
KU telemetry (beacon) transponder	4 (2 redundant)	215 × 162 × 50 mm³	11.5–15.3	1.4	5.6	30.6
LNA	4	41 × 20 × 9 mm³	0.5	0.032	0.128	2
Input multiplexer	1	50 channels	-	0.14 per channel	7	-
Output multiplexer	1	50 channels	-	0.14 per channel	7	-
TWTA	4	282.5 × 75 × 62.5 mm³	30	0.76-3.2	12.8	60
KU antenna	4	-	-	0.5	2	-
Antenna reflector	1	222 mm	0	0.5	0.5	0
Total power consumption (w)	92.6
Total weight (kg)	33

Parameters	Numbers	Dimension	Power cons (w)	Mass (kg)	Total power cons (w)	Total mass (kg)
KU transponder	40	72 × 245 × 165 mm³	20	1.5	800	60
KU antenna	40	-	-	0.5	-	20
C transponder	15	150 × 282 × 195 mm³	44	4	660	60
C antenna	15	-	-	0.7	-	10.5
KA transponder	5	215 × 140 × 175 mm³	40	3	200	15
KA antenna	5	-	-	0.8	-	4
S transponder	5	253 × 175 × 130 mm³	13-30	3	150	15
S antenna	5	-	-	0.8	-	4
LNA	80	41 × 20 × 9 mm³	0.5	0.032	40	2.6
Input multiplexer	5	50 channels	-	0.14 per channel	-	35
Output multiplexer	5	5	-	0.14 per channel	-	35
TWTA	80	80	30	0.76–3.2	2400	160
Antenna reflector	3–6	3–6	0	5	-	15–30
Total power consumption (w)	4190
Total weight (kg)	451.1

Parameters	Results for 8 kW EOL	Results for 12 kW EOL
P = orbit period (min)	1436	1436
TE = eclipse period (min)	72	72
Psa = power generated solar array (W)	10,061.4376	15,092.156
PC = power output from one cell (W)	0.728	0.728
NC = number of arrays for Psa	13,821	20,731
AArray = solar area (m²)	46.35	69.52
Vmp = solar cell voltage after radiation (at EOL) at maximum temperature (voltage)	1.7852	1.7852
NS = number of solar in series	59	59
Imp = maximum current at 80 °C temperature taking into account for the maximum distance loss (A)	0.484	0.484
VCell = solar cell string voltage (voltage)	1.913	1.913
VString = voltage of string (v)	112.8	112.8
Pstring = power of string (w)	48.08	48.08
NP = number of cells in parallel	228	342
ANet = area of solar cells (m²)	40.5	60.89
Total A = total area with space between cells	45	67.65
MArray = mass of arrays (kg)	21	31.3
CV = capacity of batteries (w/h)	13,333.34	20,000
MBattery = mass of batteries (kg)	81	122
MPGS = mass of arrays, batteries, regulations and cabling (kg)	112	168

Parameters	8 kw EOL	12 kw EOL
Solar area (m²)	45	67.65
Number of cells in series	59	59
Number of strings (parallel)	228	342
Dimension of single solar cell (mm²)	40 × 80
Max panel dimension (m²)	2.8 × 3.4

Parameters	8 kw EOL				12 kw EOL
Wing area (m²)	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	33.825	33.825	33.825	33.825
Number of panels	2	3	4	5	3	4	5	6
Panel area(m²)	11.25	7.5	5.62	4.5	11.275	8.456	6.765	5.6
Dimension of square panel (m²)	5.625	3.75	2.81	2.25	5.63	4.228	3.38	2.8

Parameters	8 kw EOL	12 kw EOL
Number of panels per wing	3	6
N (cells in series)	59	59
N (cells in parallel)	38	29
A length per wing mm	3114	2376
B width per wing mm	2476	2476
Panel area (m²)	7.71	5.89
Total solar array area (m²)	46.26	70.68

Parameters	Panels weight (kg)	Number of panels per wing	Mass of hinges (kg) (2 pcs/panel)	Mass of HDRM (kg) (4 pcs/panel)	Total array mass (kg)
8 kw EOL	39.39	3	1.5	1.2	283.14
12 kw EOL	28.85	6	1.5	1.2	439.8

	Name of parameters	Parameters		Number	Total unit weight (kg)
Thruster	XIPS	25		4	54.8
	Input max power to thrusters (w)	4250
	Thruster efficiency (%)	71
	ISP (s)	3550
	Thrust (mN)	165
	Xenon mass flow (mg/s)	4.71
	Weight (kg)	13.7
PPUs	Power supply name	25 cm		3 (one redundant)	63.9
	Input max power to power supply (w)	4500
	Efficiency (%)	94
	Bus voltage (v)	97–103
	Dimension (mm³)	21 × 54 × 35
	Weight (kg)	21.3
Xenon Assembly	Propellant supply assembly (kg)	23		4	92
Xenon Assembly	Xenon propellant (kg)	200–450		1	200–450(differ from 2000–3000 kg satellites)
Total electric propulsion weight (kg)			411–661
Total electric propulsion mass without propellant (kg)			210.7
Total power consumption (w)			2500 (station-keeping) – 4500 (orbit raising)

Radiation solar pressure	Enharmonic earth gravity pressure	Reaction wheels momentum needed
1.9012 × 10^-5	4.1853 × 10^-7	4343 N.m.s × 10 = 4.343 N.m.s
The biggest disturbance for GEO orbit

Parameters	Numbers	Company name	Weight (kg)	Electric power consumption (w)	Total weight (kg)	Total power consumption (w)
Reaction wheel (RSI-18-220-45)	4 (1 Redundant)	Rockwell Collins	6.3	20-150	25.2	80-600
GYRO	4 (2 Redundant)	Honey wheel	4.7	32	20	128
Star tracker	2 (1 Redundant)	Hydra-TC	5.3	8	10.6	16
Coarse sun sensor	6 (2 Redundant)	Moog Inc	0.215	-	1.29	-
GPS	2 (1 Redundant)	Garmin	0.332	7.8	0.664	15.6
Total weight (kg)	57.754 (without electric boards and electric propulsion)
Total power consumption (w)	240–760 (without electric board and electric propulsion)

Parameters	Mass (%)	Power (%)
ADCS	5–10 of total mass	10–30 of total power
EPS	10–30 of total mass	7–30 of total power
TT&C and PAY	18–30 of total mass	15–50 of total power
Propulsion (chemical) without fuel	3–8 of total mass	0–1 of total power

Parameters	2000 kg satellite	3000 kg satellite
Mass of parametric design (kg)	395.14	607.8
SMAD mass references (kg)	400	600
Error percentage	1.3%	1.3%

Parameters	Electrical power (W)		Mass (kg)
Parameters	8000 w EOL sat	12000 w EOL sat	2000 kg sat	3000 kg sat
Parametric design budgets	2640	3160	269	269
References budgets	800–2400	1200–3600	100–250	150–300
Error percentage	10%	12.3%	7.6%	10.3%

Parameters	Total weight (kg)	Total power consumption (W)
Parametric design budgets 2000 kg all-electric satellite	451.1	4190
References budgets for 2000 kg sat	360–600 (480 average considered)	1200–4000
Error percentage	6%	4.8%

[1] *Corresponding author: parsa.abbasrezaee@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

System Analysis and Design of the Geostationary Earth Orbit All-Electric Communication Satellites

ABSTRACT