MAE 444/544 Intro to Electric Propulsion

Homework 1: Space propulsion and orbital mechanics

General information: What you turn in is to be your own work. You are encouraged to discuss
the material and questions with other students, but copying or turning in others work as your own
is not tolerated and will receive 0 points. You may turn the assignment in either in class, to my
office, or via Canvas. You may submit electrically until the deadline, at which point no more
submissions will be accepted. I will not accept e-mail submissions. Each problem is worth 20
points.

Turn-in: Please turn in a document, handwritten or typed, that shows your work and numbers. If
you used Excel, add the results as a table to the document and upload the excel file. Include any
discussion or explanation of unexpected results you find.

1) Calculate the initial launch mass (on the launch pad) of a 3 stage robotic lunar lander.
This is a one way trip to the moon, no need to return. The first stage handles Earth to
orbit launch, stage 2 performs the translunar injection and lunar insertion, and stage 3
lands on the surface with the payload. Use the following data to do the sizing.

Payload mass 430 kg

Stage 1 Δv (Earth to orbit) 8,000 m/s
Stage 2 Δv (TransLunar 4,050 m/s
injection and insertion)
Stage 3 Δv (Lunar landing) 1,900 m/s
IMF for all stages 0.1
Stage 1 and 2 Isp 380 s
Stage 3 Isp 280 s

a. How much does the initial mass change if the engine for stages 1 and 2 only had
an Isp of 375 sec?
b. If it costs ~$6,000/kg for a space mission, what’s the change in cost for just 5
seconds of Isp?

SOLUTION
The equations needed to size the spacecraft are:

V

MR  e
g0 I sp

m payload  MR 1 1  finert 

m prop 
1  finert MR
finert
minert  m prop
1  finert
minitial  m payload  m propellant  minert

1
For staging, we always start with the last stage, which is the 3rd stage in this problem. Using the
given stage 3 Δv and Isp, we can calculated the mass ratio (MR).

V
1900
MR  e  e 9.81*280  1.997
g0 I sp

Next using MR and the given IMF and payload mass calculate the propellant and inert mass. The
payload mass is the 430 kg of the lunar lander.

m payload  MR 1 1  finert  430*(1.997  1)(1  0.1)

m prop ,3    482.1 kg
1  finert MR 1  (0.1*1.997)
f 0.1
minert ,3  inert m prop ,3  482.1  53.6 kg
1  finert 1  0.1

Then add all three masses (payload, propellant, inert) to get the initial mass of stage 3.

minitial ,3  m payload  m propellant ,3  minert ,3

 430  482.1  53.6  965.7 kg

Stage 2
Do the same process for stage 2 using the stage 2 Δv and Isp, but the payload mass for stage 2 is
the entire initial mass of stage 3, not the 430 kg of the lander.

V
4050
MR2  e  e 9.81*380  2.964
g0 I sp

965.7  2.964 1 1  0.1

m prop ,2   2426 kg
1  (0.1* 2.964)
0.1
minert ,2  2426  269.6 kg
1  0.1
minitial ,2  965.7  2426  269.6  3661 kg

Stage 1
Finally the same for stage 1 using the initial mass of stage 2 as the payload.

V
8000
MR1  e e  8.55
g0 I sp 9.81*380

36618.55 1 1  0.1

m prop ,1   171, 691 kg
1  (0.1*8.55)

2
 0.1
minert ,1  171562  19, 077 kg
1  0.1
minitial ,1  3661  171562  19062  194, 429 kg

The initial stack mass on the launch pad is 194,429 kg. Yours may slightly different depending
on rounding.

a. Do the same process, but change stage 1 and 2’s Isp to 375 sec. This will increase the MR
of those stages which will cause cascading increases in the masses.

4050
MR2  e 9.81*375  3.007 vs. 2.964
8000
MR1  e 9.81*375  8.799 vs. 8.55

stage 3 stage 2 stage 1

380 s Isp 965 kg 3,661 kg 194,429 kg
375 s Isp 965 kg 3,737 kg 245,463 kg

b. The loss of 5 sec of Isp results in a total mass increase of 51,034 kg. At $6,000/kg, this is
a cost increase of $306 million.

You can see why Isp is so important and sought after for space propulsion. Now this is only from
a performance point of view. There are other considerations like complexity, risk, politics, etc
that may complicate the choice of a propulsion system and may make a lower Isp system
preferable.

3
 2) Calculate the total Δv required to go from 200 km, 28.5° LEO to GEO orbit using a 2
burn Hohmann transfer, with the plane change as part of a combined plane and orbit
circularization at GEO. Compare this to the total Δv for two 3 burn maneuvers (1: plane
change at LEO, LEO to Hohmann, Hohmann to GEO, 2: LEO to Hohmann, Hohmann to
GEO, plane change at GEO).

SOLUTION
This problem asks for three different maneuvers and the Δv required. First we start by determine
the orbit parameters of the initial, final, and transfer orbits using the 2-body orbit equations.

v2  
    , vc  , a  rp  ra
2a 2 r rc

Initial and final orbits

radius LEO 6578 km
velocity LEO 7.784 km/s

radius GEO 42164 km

velocity GEO 3.075 km/s
Hohmann transfer orbit
rp 6578 km
ra 42164 km
a 24371 km
energy -8.177 km2/s2
vp 10.24 km/s
va 1.60 km/s

Next calculate the burns. All three maneuvers have a Δv to transfer from LEO to the Hohmann
orbit. The difference is where the orbit change occurs. We can calculate each individual burn and
then add then up to get the total Δv for each maneuver. Since we’re always firing the engines at a
circular orbit or at the apses of an orbit, the flight path angle is always 0, thus the Δv’s are
straight subtractions of the velocities.

Possible burns
Pure plane change at:
LEO 3.83 km/s
GEO 1.51 km/s
Pure orbit change:
LEO to Hohmann 2.45 km/s
Hohmann to GEO 1.48 km/s

4
For the 2 burn case:
Δv1 (LEO to Hohmaan) 2.45 km/s
Δv2 (Hohmann to GEO + 1.84 km/s
plane change)
Δvtotal 4.29 km/s

For the 3 burns:

Plane change at LEO

Δv1 (plane change) 3.83 km/s
Δv2 (LEO to Hohmann) 2.45 km/s
Δv3 (Hohmann to GEO) 1.48 km/s
Δvtotal 7.76 km/s

Plane change at GEO

Δv1 (LEO to Hohmann) 2.45 km/s
Δv2 (Hohmann to GEO) 1.48 km/s
Δv3 (plane change) 1.51 km/s
Δvtotal 5.45 km/s

The 2 burn option with the combine circularization and plane change at GEO is the
cheapest option Δv wise.

5
 3) A s/c needs to go from a 200 km LEO orbit at 28.5° to a 5000 x 25000 km altitude
elliptical orbit at i = 0°. The s/c has a 300 kg payload and an IMF of 0.2. The s/c has both
a chemical and ion engine.
a. If only the chemical engine is used, find the minimum Δv using the impulsive
chemical engine (Isp = 380s). Also calculate the time of flight, and the initial
mass of the s/c (since the ion engine is not used, take it as inert mass).
b. Now the ion engine will do the spiral out, but the chemical must do to final orbit
insertion. What is the minimum total Δv using the combination of ion engine (Isp
= 3500 s, acceleration = 5e-3 m/s2) and chemical? Also calculate the time of flight
and initial mass of the s/c. Use the simple low thrust method that includes plane
changes.
Note: The plane change does not have to be done at once. It can be split up.

SOLUTION
a. This is similar to problem 3, however the final orbit is elliptical instead of circular. This
means it matters where you target the transfer. Since we’re looking for minimum Δv, that
means a Hohmann transfer from 200 km LEO to either 5000 km or 25,000 km. Which is
better? We can build some tables to calculate the Δv’s and then construct the different
maneuver options.

Final elliptical orbit details Plane change cost at

rp 11378 km 5000 3.53
ra 31378 km 25000 1.28
a 21378 km LEO 3.83
energy -9.32 km2/s2
vel 5000 7.17 km/s
vel 25000 2.60 km/s

Hohmann xfer to 5000

rpt 6578 km
rat 11378 km
a 8978
energy -22.20 km2/s2 Plane change delta v
vpt 8.76 km/s rpt 4.31
vat 5.07 km/s rat 2.49
Orbit period 8466.05 s
delta v1 0.98 km/s LEO to rpt
delta v1 4.18 km/s Combined LOE to rpt and plane change
delta v2 2.10 km/s rat to 5000
delta v2 3.64 km/s Combined rat to 5000 and plane change

Hohmann xfer to 25000

rpt 6578 km
rat 31378 km
a 18978
energy -10.50 km2/s2 Plane change delta v
vp 10.01 km/s rpt 4.93
va 2.10 km/s rat 1.03
Orbit period 26018.78 s

6
 delta v1 2.23 km/s LEO to rpt
delta v1 4.88 km/s Combined LOE to rpt and plane change
delta v2 0.50 km/s rat to 25000
delta v2 1.25 km/s Combined rat to 25000 and plane change

Now with the various burn options, we can add ones together to build a maneuver

Orbit maneuver options

Transfer target altitude plane change at: delta V # engine firing
total
LEO 6.92 3
rpt 7.40 3
rat 5.58 3
5000 km 5000 6.61 3
25000 4.36 3
5000 combine 6.29 2
25000 combine 4.62 2
LEO 6.56 3
rpt 7.65 3
rat 3.76 3
25000 km 5000 6.26 3
25000 4.01 3
5000 combine 5.38 2
25000 combine 3.48 2

Thus the lowest Δv is 3.48 km/s for a 2 burn maneuver on a 200 x 25000 km transfer orbit,
and a combined plane change at the final orbit injection. Since this is a single stage, multiple
burn case, that means we added the individual burns and use the total Δv to calculate MR and
initial mass.

Spacecraft Sizing
delta v total 3.48 km/s
TOF 13009.39 s
3.61 hr
MR 2.54
mprop 753.84 kg
m inert 188.46 kg
m initial 1242.30 kg

7
Transfer to Semi-Latus Rectum
A maneuver going to the semi-latus rectum (p) of the final orbit was suggested as potentially
lower Δv. Lets examine this.

Final orbit
eccentricity 0.468
p 16700 km
v at semi-latus rectum (v2) 5.394 km/s
Angular momentum, h 81589 km2/s
Flight path angle at p 0.438 rad
25.069 deg

Now consider a Hohmann transfer orbit from LEO that hits the semi-latus rectum of the final
orbit such that the apoapsis of the transfer orbit is at p and the periapsis of the transfer is at LEO.

Transfer orbit
rpt 6578 Km
rat 16700 Km
a 11639 Km
2 2
energy -17.12 Km /s
vpt 9.32 Km/s
vat 3.67 Km/s

We can do either a 3 burn (separate plane change) or 2 burn (combined plane change). For the 2
burn case the cheapest would be to do the plane change as part of the second burn to go from the
transfer orbit to the final orbit. This requires a bit of trigonometry to determine the appropriate
angle between the velocity vectors as there are two angles involved, a flight path angle and the
inclination angle. So we need the 3rd angle. The flight path angle and the inclination angle are in
orthogonal planes as inclination is always normal to the orbit plane.

8
Here vat is the velocity of the transfer orbit at apoapsis where the burn occurs, v2 is the velocity at
the same radius of orbit 2 (at its semi-latus rectum), and v2i is the same velocity but for a 28.5
deg inclined orbit. V2 and v2i have the same magnitude since it’s the same radius for the same
orbit, they’re just at different inclinations. To get the 3rd angle we use the dot product of vt2 and
v2i. I placed v2 on the z-axis to make it easy to determine the components of the vectors.

Vat y Vt2*sin(φ) 1.556 km/s

Vat z Vt2*cos(φ) 3.327 km/s
V2 x V2*sin(i) 2.574 km/s
V2 z V2*cos(i) 4.740 km/s

The 3rd angle to go directly from the transfer orbit to an inclined final orbit is 37.25 deg. Building
a Δv table.

3 Burn option
Δv1 1.54 km/s
Δv2 2.587 km/s
Δv3 1.28 km/s
Δv total 5.41 km/s

2 Burn option
Δv1 1.54 km/s
Δv2 3.23 km/s
Δv total 4.86 km/s

The 2 burn option is the cheapest at 4.86 km/s, but it’s still much higher than the 3.48 km/s from
going to 25,000 km.

9
 b. The ion engine will now do the initial spiral out from LEO. The low thrust equation
assumes a gentle spiral such that the orbit is always a circle, or near enough. Thus the ion
engine will place the spacecraft in a circular orbit from which the chemical engine must
do the final burn to turn it into an elliptical orbit.

So the ion engine burn can target either a 5,000 km or 25,000 km circular orbit. The plane
change can be done by the ion engine as part of the low thrust burn, or it can be done by
the chemical engine. We can calculate all the different Δv’s for the individual burn
options and then pick a maneuver.

delta V TOF Final circ vel

Ion engine with plane change
To 5000 km 5.496 km/s 12.72 days 5.919 km/s
To 25000 km 5.823 km/s 13.48 days 3.564 km/s

Ion engine, no plane change

To 5000 km 1.866 km/s 4.32 days 5.919 km/s
To 25000 km 4.220 km/s 9.77 days 3.564 km/s

Chemical orbit insertion

At 5000 km 1.25 km/s
At 25000 km 0.96 km/s

Chemical plane change

At LEO 3.83 km/s
At 5000 final elliptical 3.53 km/s
At 25000 final elliptical 1.28 km/s
At 5000 circular post ion 2.91 km/s
At 25000 circular post ion 1.75 km/s
At 5000 combined 3.44 km/s
At 25000 combined 1.78 km/s

Orbit maneuver options

Ion engine to Plane change at Δv (km/s) # engine firing TOF
chem 5k 6.65 3 4.32
chem 25k 4.40 3 4.32
5000 chem 5k post ion 6.03 3 4.32
By ion 6.75 2 12.72
Chem combined 5.31 2 4.32
chem 5k 8.71 3 4.32
chem 25k 6.46 3 4.32
25000 chem 25k post ion 6.94 3 4.32
By ion 6.79 2 13.48
Chem combined 6.00 2 4.32

Thus the lowest Δv and fastest is a 3 burn maneuver with ion engine to 5000 km, then
chemical insertion to the elliptical final orbit, then a separate plane change at 25000 km

10
 Sizing
Size chemical first (last stage)
delta v 2.53
MR 1.97
mprop 385.31 kg
m inert 96.33 kg
m initial 781.64 kg

Size ion next (first stage)

delta v 1.866
MR 1.056
mprop 44.27 kg
m inert 11.07 kg
m initial 836.99 Kg

Using the ion engine requires a higher total Δv compared to pure chemical, but the much higher
Isp of the ion engine results in a lower initial spacecraft mass.

Iterative Analysis
Previously, the plane change was assumed to be done completely by one engine. However, if we
split up the plane change between ion and chemical, we can find a lower Δv option. We can
iterate on the inclination change of the ion engine in Excel for different target orbits and. As the
graph below shows, the minimum Δv occurs if the ion engine does a 3 degree inclination change,
and the chemical engine does the rest in a combined plane and inclination burn.

7.000
6.500
Total delta V (km/s)

6.000
5.500
5.000
4.500
4.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
EP inclination change (deg)
25000 km 2 burn chemical 25000 km 1 burn chemical
5000 km 2 burn chemical 5000 km 1 burn chemical

This results in a new minimum Δv of 4.344 km/s (a small improvement), which gives an
initial mass of 791.6 kg.

Something interesting to note is the graph shows that the single burn for combined plane and
inclination change is not always the cheapest Δv wise as shown in the circled region (red square
goes above blue diamond). For the in-class example of transfer between circular orbits, the single
combined burn is always cheaper. But the elliptical final orbit causes some peculiarities to occur.

11
 4) (Graduate Students) Minimizing Δv is common target point for chemical propulsion
systems. However, the benefit of EP is not necessarily minimum Δv, but is its very high
Isp, which reduces propellant mass even for a higher Δv. For the same spacecraft and
orbit parameters in problem 3, determine the combination of burns with the ion engine
and chemical engine to minimize the propellant and thus total spacecraft mass. You will
need to rearrange the equations and do parametric investigations and iterations.

SOLUTION
The real benefit of EP is not minimum Δv, but it’s very high Isp which results in lower mass
even for larger Δv. The most effective use of the EP engine is one that minimized total
propellant, and therefore the initial spacecraft mass. So this requires a different optimization
point, namely the initial mass of the spacecraft. To do this we can modify the iteration from
problem 3 and plot initial mass as a function of the inclination split. The lines are named for the
chemical burns used. The ion engine brings the spacecraft to either 5000 or 25,000 km circular
orbit with 0-28.5 deg of plane change. The chemical does the rest with either a combined
plane+orbit change or 2 separate plane and orbit change burns.

The results show that having the ion engine spiral out to 25000 km and the chemical engine
doing a single combined burn results in the lowest spacecraft initial mass. If we zoom in to the
tail end, we see the minimum mass is when the ion engine does 25.2 deg of inclination change.
The total Δv for this maneuver is 6.5 km/s. Though it’s higher than the 4.34 km/s, the mass is
lower at 518.17 kg, which ultimately means a cheaper mission.

1400
1300
1200
Initial spacecraft mass (kg)

1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
EP inclination change (deg)
25000 km 2 burn chemical 25000 km 1 burn chemical
5000 km 2 burn chemical 5000 km 1 burn chemical

12
 530

528
Initial spacecraft mass (kg)

526

524

522

520

518

516
23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29
EP inclination change (deg)

25000 km 2 burn chemical 25000 km 1 burn chemical

13