73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.

Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337

Feasibility Study of Orbit Control Methods in CubeSats with Electric Propulsion for an Interplanetary Mission

Pallavi Prasad*, Yassir Debbah, Gabriel Valles Valverde, Vignesh Vishwanath, Stephan Mc Lean, Claudia
Guerra, Angeliki Parisi-Ploumpi, Andy Navarro Brenes, Lokesh Kumar G, Gujjati Sathvik, Khushi Shah,
Priyanka V, Ashwin Balaji, Daniel Wischert

Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC)

(*)Corresponding Author -email address: 23.prasad@gmail.com

Abstract
With ESA Science Programme Voyage 2050, there is a need for technology developments in terms of more
efficient power and propulsion systems for future space missions. With regards to this, many science missions have
been proposed for solar system exploration, sample return, search for extraterrestrial life, exoplanets search and
understanding of the early universe. However, all such missions need an efficient and reliable satellite or a
constellation of satellites. Efficient propulsion and control methods can contribute in designing a satellite which is
reliable and can serve in achieving ambitious science objectives. In order to design such a satellite, different orbit
control mechanisms and electric propulsion systems have to be evaluated and adapted to the mission requirements.
Thus, this paper discusses the feasibility of electric propulsion technologies along with orbit control methods in
CubeSats for an interplanetary mission. With growing interest in small scale satellites, the demand for propulsion
systems with moderate power levels (between 1 to 20kW) has also increased. In line with the demand of such a
propulsion system, a hybrid propulsion model with electric propulsion and solar sails is investigated in this study.
This paper presents a particular case of a CubeSat orbiting Jupiter’s polar orbit which can contribute in achieving
various science goals such as understanding Jupiter’s magnetosphere and studying the mass and energy flows in the
Io-Jupiter system. A high-level phase 0/A, mission analysis and feasibility study, of such an electric propulsion
centric mission is conducted. Furthermore, the study exhibits a trade-off analysis of spacecraft power requirement
vis-`a-vis mass and thruster, trajectory design and manoeuvring, orbit determination and flight path control
mechanisms which can lead to an efficient mission to the Jovian system.

Keywords: CubeSats; Jupiter; Interplanetary Trajectory Design; Orbit Control Methods; Satellite Design; Satellite
Subsystems

Nomenclature (JO); Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO); Magnetoshell

e = Orbital eccentricity Aero Capture (MAC); Technology Readiness Level
a = Semimajor axis (TRL); Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
i = Inclination angle Radio Frequency (RF); Marshall Space Flight Centre
Ω = Longitude of the ascending node (MSFC); Mission Control Centre (MCC); Near Earth
ω = Argument of periapsis Asteroid (NEA); Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR); Sphere
θ0 = True anomaly of Influence (SOI)
T = initial epoch
t0 = Time of flight from Earth to Mars 1. Introduction
t1 = Time of flight from Mars to Jupiter The study is conducted by a group of students and
Ω𝑎𝑣𝑔= average nodal precession rate young professionals who are associated with the ‘Small
𝐼𝑠𝑝 = Specific Impulse Satellites Project Group’ at Space Generation Advisory
Council. The study is set up to analyse the feasibility of
Δv = Delta V cubesats capacity to perform an interplanetary mission.
More specifically, an interplanetary mission to the
Acronyms/Abbreviations Jovian system is designed to understand Jupiter’s
European Space Agency (ESA); Low Earth Orbit atmosphere and magnetosphere and how it can
(LEO); Electric Propulsion (EP); National Aeronautics contribute to study the mass and energy flows in the
and Space Administration (NASA); Earth-Mars-Jupiter Io‐Jupiter system.
(EMJ); Deep Space Manoeuver (DSM); Jupiter Orbital
Insertion (JOI); Time of Flight (ToF); Jupiter Orbit

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 1 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
1.1 Background
Cubesats have become an integral component of
modern space exploration. What initially began as an
educational challenge, has now morphed into an
indispensable tool not only in LEO orbits, but also in
interplanetary missions. Their position in deep space
was claimed in 2018, during the MarCO mission.
WALL-E and EVE, the first cubesats to venture beyond
the Earth’s orbit, followed the InSight lander on its
mission to Mars [1]. The two satellites provided
feedback and data during the precarious landing of the
mission and successfully completed their duties.
However, as their orbit got further from the sun, NASA
lost contact. No cubesats have gone further than the Red
Planet. Despite their untimely end, the MarCO mission
served as a proof of concept about the potential of
Cubesats in deep space exploration. Future missions are
already in the works to explore Venus, Jupiter’s Europa,
and many more.
1.2 Objective & Scope
The long term objective of the study is to contribute
to ESA's Science Programme Voyage 2050. This study
investigates:
● State-of-the-art Cubesat sizes and Electric
Propulsion Technologies to reach Jupiter
● Trajectory analysis and feasibility study to
orbit Jupiter and its moon- ‘Io’
● The orbit control strategies to be applied in the
flight path, orbit manoeuvring and orbit
insertion for a trajectory to Jupiter
● The payload selection for atmospheric and
magnetosphere study
● Challenges and trade-off assessment of the
cubesat’s subsystems and the payload
1.3 Literature Review
In preparation for this feasibility study, a literature
review was carried out to gather information on the
Jovian environment and electric propulsion methods for
cubesats found in space missions, whether conceptual or
launched. Furthermore, trajectory design for similar
missions was also examined. The goal of this review
was to gather information on the lessons learnt from the
implementation of electric propulsion in this context to
understand how they can be translated to deep space
exploration.
1.3.1 The Jovian Environment
Jupiter has been and is the target of many missions,
but its environment presents significant challenges to
mission design and deployment. As a planet ten times
the size of Earth, and with a magnetic field
approximately 20 times larger [2], meticulous planning
and research are required. Furthermore, this particular
mission targets the Jupiter-Io system, which brings on
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
further complexities. Io, a highly active volcanic moon,
is caught between the gas giant’s massive gravitational
force and that of the other two moons, Ganymede and
Europa [3]. The allure of the gas giant, however,
motivates the scientific community to overcome these
challenges in order to contribute to the advancement of
planetary sciences.
1.3.2 Propulsion Methods for CubeSats
Electric propulsion (EP) methods are growing
increasingly more popular in cubesat applications due to
the high specific impulse achievable, allowing for the
reduction in propellant stored on board, and as a result,
the overall cost. However, the translation of the
complex EP subsystems to the cubesat scale is a
difficult task. In this section, a selection of EP methods
proven suitable for cubesats are explored in the context
of the mission design. It is worth noting that using EP in
this context is a relatively new idea, as propulsion in
cubesats in general has been primarily used for attitude
control.
In a 2014 conference paper [4], NASA presented the
conceptual design of a 6U cubesat designed to reach a
Near-Earth asteroid. Among the propulsion methods
examined were hall effect and ion thrusters with xenon
or iodine propellants, as well as electrospray thrusters.
In the final design, a miniaturised ion thruster with
iodine propellant was selected to achieve the high Δv
and satisfy the high specific impulse needed due to the
mass restrictions.
In 2019, Krejci et al. [5], presented their work on
the staging of electric propulsion systems in order to
facilitate the use of cubesats in interplanetary missions.
Using modular electric thrusters could allow them to be
successively powered and, as such, the cubesat could
shed the weight of the ones without propellant along its
trip. The result would be an increasing Δv without the
excess power consumption.
Solar sail is another means of propulsion in an
interplanetary mission. It uses sunlight to propel
vehicles through space, similar to sailboats in water. It
uses solar photons, which are reflected by giant,
mirror-like sails made of lightweight [6], reflective
material 40 to 100 times thinner than paper. The
continuous photonic pressure provides enough thrust to
perform manoeuvres, such as hover and plane change.
There have been a number of successful cubesat
missions which are outlined further. The initiative in
modern days to deploy large structures into space with a
wide functional surface dates back to the 1960s, with
NASA’s Echo II [7], an inflatable balloon satellite to
study the solar thrust effect in orbit, and the RF-reflector
IAE, in the 1990s [8]. The Russian Space Mirror
Znamya-2, a 20-m spinning circular mirror, was
deployed in 1993 [9]. However, the first solar sail that
was successfully deployed and demonstrated in
Page 2 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

interplanetary space was JAXA’s IKAROS, in 2010 trajectory requirements, Δv and atmospheric assumption
[10]. IKAROS was an important technological leap as it and requirements. The mission requirements and system
demonstrated spin-assisted sail deployment, with solar requirements are listed in table 1 and 2 respectively.
thrust being the primary propulsion system. Solar cells
were integrated on the sail, and a reflectivity-control
device was used for guidance and control. NASA is also Mission Requirements
currently working on the upcoming MSFC Solar Cruiser
Mission, which will be a technology demonstration
mission, while also studying the Sun [11]. And with Req. ID Statement
programs such as LightSail, CubeSail and NEA-Scout
[12,13], there is promise for implementing solar MISS-01 The volume shall be contained in a 27U
sail-based propulsion for cubesats in the near future. cubesat

1.3.3 Mission Analysis MISS-02 The spacecraft shall reach a polar orbit
While electric propulsion is a unique facilitator for with an inclination angle, i = 90°±10°
the use of cubesats in interplanetary missions, it
presents a significant challenge to the trajectory design MISS-03 The spacecraft shall reach an orbit with a
of a mission. The amount of thrust produced is perijove below 100,000 km. This is
insufficient to reach Jupiter directly and would also necessary in order to be close enough to
consume too much propellant, so other trajectory design Jupiter to collect data about its
methods have to be considered. magnetosphere and the atmosphere
Gravity-assisted fly-bys were studied for the purpose
of this project. The trajectory design of NASA’S JUNO MISS-04 A high-eccentricity orbit should be
mission to Jupiter was selected as a case study, as the achieved in order to have enough time
spacecraft successfully performed two DSMs and one outside the high radiation area for the
gravity-assisted fly-by [14]. power and communication systems to
operate correctly and send the collected
1.4 Document Structure data back to Earth
This paper is organised in 5 sections. After a brief
introduction, a section is allocated to the scope of the MISS-05 The spacecraft shall be thrusted by
mission’s feasibility study. Section 1 presents the micropropulsion during the transient
literature review for the project as a whole. Section 2 phase between Earth and Jupiter
describes meticulously the mission analysis that was
carried out. This analysis includes general information,
such as the mission requirements and assumptions, but MISS-06 The orbit control shall be done through
also detailed research on trajectory design and orbit micropropulsion
control methods. Section 3 builds on that foundation by
tackling the propulsion-relation component of the MISS-07 The orbit shall stay in a 5% margin for 10
project. From EP methods and solar sails to propellant orbit periods
choice, the section also discusses the limitation of
MISS-08 The spacecraft shall gather Jupiter's
current technologies with respect to the mission
magnetosphere data
requirements. Section 4 then presents the cubesat’s
feasibility in the given mission scenario consolidating
MISS-09 The spacecraft shall study Jupiter’s
the research performed previously. The challenges
atmosphere
encountered in this feasibility study are examined in
terms of the overall design with an aim to present a Table 1: Mission Requirements
realistic mission to Jupiter. Finally, section 5 provides
the recommendation and discussion of the paper.
System Requirements
2. Mission Analysis
2.1 Requirements and Design Drivers
The mission requirement details out the needs of the Req. ID Statement
mission in terms of the mission cost, launch period and
operational lifetime. The system requirement details out The spacecraft's power supply shall
SYS-01
the cubesat mass and volume, electric propulsion, power provide at least 45W
requirement, launcher selection, launch window,

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 3 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
SYS-02 The electric thruster shall be ignited at 20 W
The spacecraft shall send housekeeping data
SYS-03
to mission control centre every 72 mins
SYS-04 The spacecraft shall keep data integrity
The spacecraft shall determine its orbital
SYS-05
parameters
The spacecraft shall perform the orbital
SYS-06
manoeuvres
Table 2: System Requirements
2.1.1 Trajectory and Orbit: Design Drivers
The main drivers to design a trajectory for a cubesat
mission to Jupiter are a) Time of flight b) Rocket power
c) Spacecraft safety d) Manoeuvre complexity e)
Autonomous navigation f) Launch window suitability g)
Duration of the mission.
2.2 Trajectory Design Overview
In order to design the trajectory the two major
concerns tackled are: a) Gravity Assist (GA)
manoeuvres given the current EP limitations (see
section 3) and b) Jupiter Orbit Insertion (JOI) related
issues like high arrival velocity.
A Low-Earth parking orbit altitude of 200 km
(periapsis) has been chosen based on a trade-off study
on previous Electron Rocket missions (see section 2.3.1
for launcher selection) and Mars missions [15,16].
With respect to the Jupiter Orbit, it was first
hypothesised that a Sun-Synchronous orbit (i = 96°)
would be the best option to satisfy all the requirements.
However, this would not provide an optimal position of
the spacecraft relative to the Sun. Therefore, a polar
orbit (non-SSO) with the same inclination was selected
via a trade-off study on orbital perturbations (see
Appendix A) as it would allow the spacecraft to reach
the closest possible position of the Sun, where the
power and communication subsystems will be able to
perform their tasks.
2.3 Mission Concept of Operation
For the interplanetary transfer, a single Mars Gravity
Assist will be used (see section 2.4). Once the
spacecraft is launched and the parking orbit is achieved,
an escape kick manoeuvre will take the spacecraft on a
course to Mars for the flyby, eventually reaching Jupiter.
The sequence of events is as follows:
1. Launch and Earth-escape
2. Interplanetary coast to Mars
3. Flyby at Mars
4. Interplanetary coast to Jupiter
5. Jupiter orbit insertion
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
2.3.1 Launch & Earth Escape
In most cases, the Earth-escape is provided by the
spacecraft’s onboard propulsion systems. However, in
order to reduce the over-dependence of the electric
thrusters, the launch vehicle itself will be used for
providing the escape kick. Rocket Lab’s Electron, a
three-stage reusable launch vehicle, is chosen for the
mission. Being a ‘small-lift-launch vehicle’, it has a
“kickstage” which will be used to place the spacecraft
on its interplanetary trajectory. The designated launch
site is Wallops Island, Virginia, USA. Since the velocity
is maximum at the periapsis of any given orbit, the Mars
transfer burn shall be performed at its periapsis [17].
The parking orbit is assumed to be either circular, or
elliptical with small eccentricity to apply the theory of
Hohmann transfer and the patched-conic approximation
[17]. The delta v for the kickstage is determined using
the Tsiolkovsky Rocket equation [18] to be 2.08 km/s
approx. It should be greater than or equal to the delta-v
required to reach Mars using a standard Hohmann
transfer, for a direct trajectory from Earth to Mars.
2.3.2 Interplanetary Cruise to Jupiter
The Δv for reaching Mars from LEO is found to be
3.61 km/s (see orbital parameters in tables 3 and 4).
Since the delta-v provided by Electron’s kickstage is
less than required, the spacecraft cannot use a direct
Hohmann transfer. Instead, a series of Earth-orbit
raising manoeuvres shall be performed at the perigee, to
increase its apogee and eventually achieve the transfer
orbit. This way, the required delta-v can be achieved in
small increments, thus harnessing the Oberth effect
[19]. After escaping the Earth’s influence, the spacecraft
is directed to Mars, whose gravitational field slingshots
the spacecraft to the desired trajectory to Jupiter.
2.3.3 Jupiter Orbit Capture
To enter Jupiter’s orbit, the following process takes
place (see figure 1):
1. Hyperbolic entry into Jupiter’s influence
2. Aerocapture
3. Insertion orbit
4. Orbit periapsis raising
5. Final Jupiter orbit
The aerocapture happens at around 155-185 km
altitude. At the apoapsis, after the aerocapture
manoeuvre, the periapsis is raised to an altitude of 5,089
km. During this stage, there is high uncertainty of
achieving the exact apoapsis. With the help of the
Hohmann transfer method, the apoapsis and periapsis
can be adjusted as desired, ideally in two manoeuvres.
Page 4 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

Figure 1: Schematic of Jupiter Orbit Insertion

Figure 3: Interplanetary trajectory in the ecliptic plane
2.4 Interplanetary Trajectory Design Methods
The spacecraft will use a Earth-Mars-Jupiter (EMJ) The optimal trajectory is chosen based on minimal
gravity assist with no DSM to gain energy and change launch velocity, resulting in the following trajectory
its trajectory as required to reach the Jovian system. properties in tables 3, 4, 5 below. Additionally, a limit
This decision is made using the database from [20] for the launch year has been set to 2035.
based on the desired launch window and other
parameters. As a result, an EMJ trajectory has been
chosen. Moreover, it has been optimised independently
using a genetic algorithm for parameter validation,
getting similar results to [20]. Genetic Algorithm for
Gravity Assist is used along with delta-v matching for
trajectory optimization. The algorithm is presented in
Appendix A. The optimal trajectories are shown in the
following launch window plot.

Table 3: EMJ gravity assists trajectory

Table 4: Earth to Mars transfer orbit

Figure 2: Optimised trajectories selected by the genetic

algorithm
Table 5: Mars to Jupiter transfer orbit
2.5 Interplanetary Trajectory Overview
The selected launch window is in 2031 and takes The orbital parameters required for Mars flyby are
around two-and-a-half years to reach Jupiter and is given in Table 6.
shown in figure 3.

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 5 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

Table 6: Mars flyby parameters

Figure 5: Aerocapture: reduction in orbital energy.
2.5 Jupiter Orbit Overview
Due to the high intensity of Jupiter’s magnetosphere
and the spacecraft’s limited protection from radiation,
the final orbit design converges towards a similar
solution as the one implemented in NASA’s Juno
mission [21]. This includes a highly elliptical orbit (e =
0.92-0.96) with a perijove radius of 75,000 km, or about
1.07 Jupiter radii, and an apojove ranging between
13.41 Jupiter radii (e = 0.92) and 26.82 Jupiter radii (e =
0.96). The three main parameters considered are
apojove, orbital period, and approximate time near the
high-radiation area.
Figure 6: Delta-v for periapsis raising after aerocapture.
2.6 Orbit Control Methods
While designing the JOI, the aerocapture mechanism
plays an important role in achieving the desired orbit.
Alternative methods of JOI are also assessed such as
electrodynamic tethers and magnetoshell aerocapture
(see Appendix B). However, aerocapture is found to be
most suitable for the given mission scenario.
Aerocapture results where orbit periapsis raising will
be performed with EP are shown below. This study is
purely theoretical, and corrections will be required in
order to keep the spacecraft in compliance with the
mission requirements and the orbit presented in section
2.5. Figure 7: Eccentricity achieved after periapsis raising.

2.7 Io Flyby Feasibility

Figure 4: Aerocapture: insertion apoapsis.
An orbit insertion manoeuvre at Jupiter, along with a
flyby around Io using EP is considered to be impossible
at the time of this study. Required delta-v in orbital
energy is around 6 orders of magnitude greater than the
delta-v that would be achieved in an optimal gravity
assist braking manoeuvre.
A second alternative for achieving an Io Flyby for
its study might be feasible during the end of life. A
small kick at the apoapsis will reduce the periapsis into
the Jupiter atmosphere. Thus, an aerobraking
manoeuvre can be performed in order to reduce the
apoapsis enough to intersect with Io orbit. Since this
would be a coplanar orbit transfer, it might additionally
require a change in the orbital plane. This whole

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 6 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
trajectory design needs to know accurately the position
of the spacecraft at the end of mission and would
require further and precise analysis.
Figure 8: Io coplanar orbit transfer
3. Propulsion
3.1 Requirement and Design Drivers
Req. ID Statements
PROP-01 Provide necessary thrust for the mission
manoeuvers
PROP-02 Provide necessary torques to adjust the
misalignments
PROP-03 Support the automatic AOCS
manoeuvres
Table 7: Propulsion system requirements
3.2 Assumptions & Trade-offs
Following assumptions are considered while
analysing an electric propulsion system for the cubesat:
● The Δv considered to raise the cubesat to its final
orbit will be below 100 m/s providing a valid
aerocapture range of approximately 30 km (see
Figure 7).
● Input power from solar panels is sufficient to
operate the thruster.
3.3 Propulsion Methods
3.3.1 Electric Propulsion
For the mission, hall effect thrusters and ion
thrusters are examined as they have a high specific
impulse. The power available is very low as the
cubesat's only power source are the solar panels. Hence
low-power thrusters are considered. Thrusters namely
HT-100 and BHT-200 [22] can provide sufficient thrust
for orbit raising and have very high Δv values, but the
power available is not sufficient, which can cause
propellant utilisation problems i.e. a decrease in the
mass flow rate of propellant results in a low specific
impulse [23]. Miniaturised ion thrusters such as MiXI
can operate in low power conditions, but it is currently
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
under experimentation [24]. BIT-1 from Busek works at
10W and produces very low thrust. The electric
thrusters will hence be used to provide the necessary
thrust for Jupiter orbit raising, post aerocapture. BIT-3
has been chosen for its low-power operating conditions,
high specific impulse, and gimballing capability, which
enable attitude and orbit control. The thrust produced by
BIT-3 is approximately 1.1mN [22].
Propellant Iodine, solid storage
Envelope 180 x 88 x 102 mm
Mass 1.28 kg w/o gimbal
System Power 56 - 75 W
Propellant Mass 52 µg / sec
Flow
Delta-V Up to 2.39 km/s (14 kg
CubeSat)
Integrated Gimbal: 2-axis, ±10° (capable of
(Optional) desaturating reaction
wheels)
Table 8 :Thruster specifications
Figure 9: BIT-3 with gimbal [22]
For the selection of an appropriate thruster, it is
worth investigating additionally available thrusters. The
BHT series of thrusters provide considerably high
thrust, all in the order of a few mN. While the largest
thruster of the series is BHT-20K, although delivering
excellent performance, it is a setback since it demands a
whopping 20kW of power [22]. This ultra-high power
thruster provides a thrust of upto 1005mN and a specific
impulse of 2515s [22]. The propellants used are Iodine,
Xenon or Krypton. The lowest thruster in this series by
performance itself demands 100W of power, which
dictates shifting to a different family of thrusters.
Other options such as electrospray and monopropellant
thrusters give similar performance and flexibility, but
what turns out to be more peculiar for the mission is the
gimballing capability, which is available in
Page 7 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
radio-frequency ion thrusters [22]. Hence, a thruster of
this class namely the BIT-3 emerges as the most suitable
one, without any compromise on the mission-specific
requirements. Following the thruster selection, the
propellant choice plays a significant role.
3.3.1.1 Propellant
The choice of propellant plays an important role in
the acceleration of Isp-based thruster configurations
since most of the propellant characteristics influence the
nature of thrust imparted by the thrusters. Xenon is
generally the most commonly used propellant, but it has
proven to have some disadvantages as outlined further,
making it unsuitable for the mission.
Firstly, Xenon is very costly, making it economically
non-viable. Being a noble gas, the thruster exhaust must
be evacuated from the test site to maintain a vacuum
environment, typically using cryogenic pumps which
are again costly to procure. Its usage poses an increase
in cost and complexity of the infrastructure, recurrence
and improvement. Hence, self-pumping electric
propellants are preferable as they are cheaper and more
efficient.
First introduced and patented by the US Air Force,
Iodine has been a pioneering endeavour in the field of
deep space propulsion systems [24]. In 2010, Busek
pioneered utilisation of Iodine in the development of
BHT-200 Hall Effect Thruster [25]. Since then, it has
been receiving a lot of support from individuals and
agencies alike, to be the future of electric propulsion
[26, 27]. Iodine has several advantages over Xenon
owing to its storage and handling requirements, and
ergonomic fuel capacity. A comparison of the properties
of Iodine and Xenon is presented in [26].
Due to its extremely low storage vapour pressure,
Iodine has a lightweight tank [28]. It can deal with
substances like MACOR or Alumina in the plasma
generation chambers, making the thruster
Iodine-capable [23]. Thruster grids made of Nickel
Chromium alloys such as Inconel and Hastelloy have
high corrosive potence towards Iodine [24]. All these
make Iodine the best choice of propellant for the
mission.
3.3.2 Solar Sail Propulsion
Solar Sails: A qualitative picture of the thrust
produced by a solar sail and the major parameters
associated with it are outlined as follows. The thrust
produced is [29]:
● Directly proportional to the fraction of incident
light
● Directly proportional to the area of the solar sail
● Directly proportional to the solar flux
● Directly proportional to the square of the sine of
tilt angle
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
● Inversely proportional to the square of the distance
from the Sun
● Inversely proportional to the speed of light.
In order to maximise the thrust produced, the above
parameters have to be considered. Though a solar sail
has a continuous influx of solar photons, the
conventional ones are low-thrust devices, which implies
that the thrust builds up slowly over time. This can be
offset by incorporating powered sails. This works as a
combination of solar sail and electric propulsion, thus
providing an initial momentum.
Considering solar sail as a means of propulsion is
based on the following advantages:
● The solar sail can be used for propulsion, as an
antenna, or both by manoeuvrability
● Decreasing the sail thickness would
accommodate a larger sail for a given cubesat
volume. Advanced materials can be used to
accommodate longer booms for a given boom
mass and volume.
Solar-powered sails are an upgraded version of
conventional sails. They have electric power generation
capabilities and high-efficiency ion engines. However
they are not fuel-free propulsion systems and require
Xenon as their propellant [30]. Thin film-like solar cells
on the membranes generate electric power, making the
system efficient for outer space missions and orbit
control strategies. Hence this system is preferred for the
mission. The electric propulsion system is situated
below the solar sail and provides stumbling, initial
impulsive thrust and momentum management by
desaturating the reaction wheels. Solar arrays are
deployed in the plane of the solar sail, which serve as
the mounting location for a planar patch antenna array.
The spacecraft will use deep‐space attitude control
architecture that would respond to the unique attitude
control considerations imposed by the solar sail, while
leveraging commercially available hardware.
Detumbling and saving manoeuvres rely on inertial
measurement units, sun sensors, and system actuators.
Momentum management is accomplished by spinning
the solar sail slowly about the norm of the sail to
average out the momentum build-up due to small offsets
in its centre of pressure and centre of mass.
For the mission, a three-axis stabilised, square sail
will be used. The booms will be made of Carbon Fibre
Reinforced Polymer and the sail will be made of
Polyamide with Aluminium coating on both sides (7-12
micrometre thickness).
3.4 Challenges & Technology Needs
Reducing the operational power of the thruster can
cause propellant utilisation problems as mentioned [23].
Iodine as a chemical also has certain physio-complex
Page 8 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
properties such as with relatively low dissociation
energy at 1.54 eV. Some disadvantages are the corrosive
nature of Iodine as evident from basic chemistry [23].
Thruster grids built from Nickel Chromium alloys like
Inconel and Hastelloy have high corrosive potence
towards Iodine [24]. On the other hand employing solar
sails in the design also have some challenges:
● Large membranes are required to get sufficient
thrust, as the force exerted by photons is low
● Fabrication of large sails still produces less
amount of thrust which increases the duration of
the mission considerably
4. CubeSat’s Feasibility
4.1 Requirements and Design Drivers
The main system requirement specifies that the final
mass of the probe shall fit within the 11–75 kg range.
Furthermore, gathering data on Jupiter's magnetosphere
near a high radiation zone using a microsatellite
imposes additional operational constraints. The power,
radiation shielding, electrical propulsion, and thermal
subsystems shall be designed to sustain efficient
payload operations throughout the duration of the
mission ~ 3.5 years.
Table 9: Overview of subsystems affected by the
tradeoffs section
4.2 Challenges & Trade-offs
The sizes 6U/12U/27U are the biggest limitation for
the satellite’s design. It will reduce the efficiency and/or
output quality of various subsystems, especially the
power supply, the communication, and the AOCS
subsystems in case of electrical propulsion. Therefore the
size of 27U is considered for the baseline design and
analysis of the CubeSat.
4.2.1 Electric Power Supply
There will be a reduction in efficiency for the power
supply subsystem (solar panels), which represents the
core system for the satellite and the electrical propulsion
system. This is due to multiple changes in the
environment of the satellite. These changes can be
expressed by the inverse square law, which states the
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance.
Moreover, the total degradation coefficient of
efficiency plays a very critical role, for long-duration
missions, in determining the end-of-life power PEOL
generated by the solar arrays. The degradation
coefficient can be estimated by determining the
degradation due to radiation, and temperature changes.
The trade-off of the efficiency reduction shows an
increase in the total area of the solar array, which will be
challenging to tackle in the limited size of cubesats.
Having a huge solar array area decreases the overall
volume of the satellite, which reduces the possibilities
of having more experimental payloads. Furthermore, the
chances of failure will increase because of the increase
in the linking mechanisms holding the solar panels with
each other. Having multiple folds will render the sensors
useless until the aerocapture, making the attitude
determination and control lose inputs from sun sensors
and star trackers.
The solar panels with an overall area of 3.8m2 will
power the satellite during its journey to the Jovian
system. The panels are made of triple junction Gallium
arsenide (GaAs) solar cells that provide an efficiency of
40%. Because of the low temperature and solar flux at
the beginning of the mission, as well as the high level of
radiation, the solar panels will degrade faster than in an
Earth-orbiting mission, which will lead to approximately
34.77~35.5% efficiency in the Jovian system. The solar
arrays shall sustain the average load level when facing
the Sun. The volume taken by the solar arrays is
approximately 26.6% of the volume of 27U cubesat ~7U.
The batteries used are Lithium-ion batteries; sufficient
power needs to be reserved for all systems working in the
eclipse area, and peak loads. The satellite will use a
24V-10 Amp battery (14.8x8.1x7.1cm) which will store
240Wh of energy. About 720Wh of energy can be stored
in a volume of 2.6U.
Table 10: Electrical power system modes; x mark the
current subsystems in use.(1. Pre-Jovian System
Insertion; 2. Jovian System Insertion; 3. Orbit
(Sunlight); 4. Orbit (Eclipse); 5. Safe Mode)
Table 11: Jovian System probe power consumption (W)
Page 9 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
4.2.2 Aerocapture
From section 2.6, the use of aerocapture is
mandatory for the designed trajectory. It is a must to
protect the solar arrays and the antenna. However,
having a satellite much smaller than the antenna might
not be enough to provide the minimum needed
protection. Solar panels will not be able to get retracted
before re-entry and re-deploy after the aerocapture. The
chances of getting retracted and re-deployed will
decrease by increasing the complexity of the
mechanisms and total area.
Moreover, these problems can be solved with some
creative ideas (See recommendations section) that will
be either hard to implement or impose on the mission
control and the satellite to go through a set of complex
manoeuvres in a communication delay that is 33 min
and can reach up to 53 min depending on the position of
Earth-Jupiter [31].
4.2.3 Radiation shielding
From section 2.5 the orbit taken was designed to
avoid passing by the high radiation zone in Jupiter's
equatorial region. However, the most critical
subsystems to protect are avionics and AOCS. In the
Jovian system, the dominant particles are high-energy
electrons, with the energy of E >1MeV that can reach
up to E >100MeV [32]. Using the designed manoeuvre,
the satellite will pass by regions with high-energy
electrons that reach 40MeV.
Using a cubesat outside the active radiation
shielding area of planets (Earth, Mars) might cause
damage to the avionics and other components of AOCS.
These issues can be minimised by adding an additional
radiation protection vault that will increase the weight
of the CubeSat tremendously by 36kg to 47kg and
decrease the needed volume. The decrease is due to the
high energy GCR that needs walls of 3-8 cm thick
(copper-Aluminium) to reduce the radiation on the
avionics, which will take between 6U to 12U volume.
4.2.4 Communication
It is one of the most crucial subsystems in the
satellite (if the antenna diameter is over 55cm), and it’s
the one that can either make the mission a success or a
failure. However, working with long distances and high
velocities might affect the frequency of the antenna. The
frequency received is slightly different from the
transmitted, which might create small losses. Moreover,
the size and data rate of the antenna are always limited
to the volume of the satellite and how much gain power
the power supply can provide. Furthermore, if the
antenna is over 55 cm in diameter, the shadow it creates
might cover the solar array, which will decrease the
overall efficiency of the power supply.
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
4.2.5 Payload
Several remote sensing instruments have been
assessed to develop adaptations on state-of-the-art
technologies to devise a suitable payload for the
mission. However, there is no payload available to be
fitted in a 27U CubeSat to observe the Magnetosphere
and the atmospheric composition of Jupiter. This brings
a need to develop a nano-size remote sensing instrument
for a mission of such scale.
5. Recommendation & Conclusion
Getting out of the Earth's influence was the first
challenge at hand. The Earth escape manoeuvre, unlike
conventional missions, was designed to be performed
by the launch vehicle itself. The Electron rocket was
chosen based on a brief review of Small Satellite
Launch Vehicles. However, due to the insufficient
delta-v provided by the kickstage, the spacecraft shall
utilise the Oberth effect to gain energy through a series
of apogee-raising slingshots in Earth orbit, to achieve
Mars transfer. Following a course to Mars, the flyby is
performed, giving additional velocity to reach Jupiter.
A study discussing the feasibility of a cubesat
mission to Jupiter has been presented. While some of
the tasks intended required further detailed study, the
others have not proven to be possible with the current
state-of-the-art technology. Firstly, sending a cubesat
into the outer solar system using EP is challenging. The
volume proposed is very restrictive, limiting the power
supply that could be generated to use EP.
However, the interplanetary trajectory does not
require any deep space manoeuvre, which enables the
use of EP just for small corrections as part of the AOCS
output. Although a deeper analysis was out of the scope
of this project, solar sailing can be used in the inner
Solar System to reduce the time of flight of the
missions.
For the EP, BIT-3 was chosen as the thruster as it was
found to be the most suitable for the mission, without
any compromise on the mission-specific requirements.
Its low-power operating conditions, high specific
impulse, and gimballing capability facilitated attitude
and orbit control. Iodine was chosen as the propellant,
due to its exceptional storage and handling qualities,
and ergonomic fuel capacity. In addition to the
conventional solar sail, the option of a hybrid
propulsion system, namely the solar-powered sail was
investigated. Its usage was proposed for the
Earth-Mars-Jupiter trajectory to maximise efficiency.
On reaching Jupiter’s SOI, some major concerns
appear. Orbit insertion requires a high reduction in the
energy which could not be performed by the propulsion
system, owing to the long burn times required. A flyby
of Io was also difficult. So, alternative ways of orbit
insertion were studied: electro- magnetic tethers, MAC
and aerocapture. The latter method appears to be the
Page 10 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.
only feasible option, but it posed a threat to the satellite
in terms of radiation and thermal shielding, increasing
weight and decreasing volume inside the cubesat,
thereby posing threat to the antenna.
6. Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to Laura Manoliu, Co-lead of the
Small Satellites Project Group at Space Generation
Advisory Council, for providing constant support
throughout the course of the paper. And special thanks to
Baptiste Rubino, Space Generation Advisory Council and
Adesh Phalphale, Space Generation Advisory Council for
their contribution in brainstorming and discussion
activities during the project.
Appendix A (Genetic algorithm for interplanetary
trajectory selection)
The input for the genetic algorithm model is a
three-dimensional vector containing the date of launch
referred from an initial epoch (T) and times between the
different cruises - particularly the time of flight from
Earth to Mars (t0) and time of flight from Mars to
Jupiter (t1) [33]. Then, the vector is binary-encoded
according to certain maximum values in three different
genes. Additionally, double point crossover and
inversion gene mutation have been performed. The
optimal trajectory is according to the fitness function.
Figure A.1: Fitness function proposed for trajectory
classification
Appendix B (Jupiter Insertion Mechanisms )
a) MAC Technology: This employs a magnetic
dipole plasma, known as a magnetoshell, to
momentarily ionise and constrain neutral particles
located within a planet’s atmosphere that is along the
trajectory of the manoeuvre. The resulting momentum
of these particles is then transferred to the spacecraft,
favourably increasing the drag force on it without a
rapid rise in temperature or dynamic pressure. However,
the mass and geometric envelope of CubeSats are some
of the inflexible design parameters which alters MAC’s
effectiveness in practice. Under lab-testing conditions, a
IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337
reduction in the diameter of the magnetoshell for a 3U
CubeSat was noted due to the reduced electrical energy
needed for satisfactory operation [39]. The use of
SmallSats structures may ease the aforementioned
constraints, but exceeds the scope of this study. A
suggested improvement on this technology for the
requirements of this mission may need further studies
on the design and integration of a battery stack with a
higher charge density, coupled with a subsystem
designed to generate the required electrical energy
during the manoeuvre to decrease its reliance on internal
energy, thus improving its TRL.
b) Aerocapture: A thermal analysis is carried out to
investigate the aerodynamic effects on the spacecraft,
using fundamental Gas Dynamics [34-36]. Owing to the
overpredicted results, this poses only a theoretical
solution. A practical solution considering winds and
rotational effects, and the practically gradual re-entry
corridor, is beyond scope here.
Figure B.1: Flow properties across shock (hypersonic)
c) Electrodynamic tether: Faraday’s equations of
electrodynamics are used to model an analysis [37,38].
The assumptions used are: (i) constant mass of cubesat,
for tether length of 1-1000m (ii) effects of gravity
gradients on tether neglected. Owing to the huge tether
length and mass requirements, and complexity in its
deployment, the use of the electrodynamic tether is
discarded.
Figure B.2: Lorentz force as a function of insertion
velocity at periapsis, for the family of orbits designed
(L=1000m) at 175km insertion periapsis.
Page 11 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

Appendix C (Orbital Perturbations)

Figure C.4: Argument of perigee angle against the

number of orbits
Figure C.1: Rate of Nodal Precession against Inclination
Angle. Note: 1 Jovian day = 9.9259 hours.

Figure C.2: Argument of Perigee against Inclination

angle.

Figure C.3: Nodal precession angle against the number

of orbits

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 12 of 13
 73rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Paris, France, 18-22 September 2022.
Copyright ©2022 by the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved.

List of References [27] Szabo, J et al “Performance Evaluation of an Iodine-Vapor Hall

[1] NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Mars Cube One (MarCO)”, Thruster”
2018, www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/mars-cube-one-marco [28] Tsay M, Frongillo J, “LunarCube: A 6U Cubesat with Mission
[2] Garrett, H. B. The Jovian Space Environment for Outer Planet Enabling Ion Propulsion Technology”
Missions. NASA ADS, 1 Sept. 2008 [29] J. Wertz, D. Everett and J. Puschell, "Space mission engineering:
[3] NASA. “Io.” Solar System Exploration: NASA Science, 28 Jan. the new SMAD", Microcosm Press, 2011
2019, solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/io/overview/. [30] Y. Takao, O. Mori, M. Matsushita and A. Sugihara, "Solar
[4] G. Landis et al., “A CUBESAT ASTEROID MISSION: DESIGN electric propulsion by a solar power sail for small spacecraft missions
STUDY AND TRADE-OFFS.” Accessed: Aug. 29, 2022. [Online]. to the outer solar system", Acta Astronautica, vol. 181, pp. 362-376,
Available: 2021. Available: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.020.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150002091/downloads/20150002 [31] Australian Space Academy, “Communication Delay, Spacelink”,
091.pdf https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/commdly.htm
[5] D. Krejci, M. G. Jenkins, and P. Lozano, “Staging of electric [32] M. Cherng, I. Jun and T. Jordan, "Optimum shielding in Jovian
propulsion systems: Enabling an interplanetary Cubesat,” Acta radiation environment", Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Astronautica, vol. 160, pp. 175–182, Jul. 2019, doi: Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and
10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.031. Associated Equipment, vol. 580, no. 1, pp. 633-636, 2007. Available:
[6] “Solar Sail Propulsion“. [Online]. Available: 10.1016/j.nima.2007.05.028.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/134645main_solar_sail_fs.pdf [33] S. Wagner, B. Kaplinger and B. Wie, “GPU Accelerated Genetic
[7] A. Chandra, J. C. Lopez Tonazzi, D. Stetson, T. Pat and C. K. Algorithm for Multiple Gravity-Assist and Impulsive V Manoeuvres”,
Walker, "Inflatable membrane antennas for small satellites," 2020 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012 :1121-1143.
IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2020, pp. 1-8, doi: < https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00165.1>. Web. 30 Aug. 2022
10.1109/AERO47225.2020.9172737. [34] J. Anderson, Fundamentals of aerodynamics, 5th ed. New York,
[8] R. E. Freeland, G. D. Bilyeu, G. R. Veal, M. D. Steiner, D. E. NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011
Carson, “Large Inflatable Deployable Antenna Flight Experiment [35] A. Seiff et al., "Thermal structure of Jupiter's atmosphere near the
Results,” 48th IAF (International Astronautical Congress), Turin, edge of a 5-μm hot spot in the north equatorial belt", Journal of
Italy, October 6-10, 1997, IAF-97-13.01, also in Acta Astronautica, Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 103, no. 10, pp. 22857-22889,
Vol. 41, No 4, Aug. 1997, pp. 267-277 1998. Available: 10.1029/98je01766
[9] N. Lior, "Mirrors in the sky: Status, sustainability, and some [36] A. Seiff et al., "Structure of the Atmosphere of Jupiter: Galileo
supporting materials experiments", Renewable and Sustainable Probe Measurements", Science, vol. 272, no. 5263, pp. 844-845, 1996.
Energy Reviews, vol. 18, pp. 401-415, 2013. Available: Available: 10.1126/science.272.5263.844
10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.008. [37] C. Kennel and F. Coroniti, "Jupiter's Magnetosphere", Annual
[10] JAXA. “Small Solar Power Sail Demonstrator”, Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 389-436,
https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sas/ikaros/ 1977.
[11] L. Johnson, D. McKenzie and J. Newmark, "The Solar Cruiser [38] M. Cosmo and E. Lorenzini, Tethers in space handbook.
Mission Concept — Enabling New Vistas for Heliophysics", [Washington, DC]: [National Aeronautics and Space Administration],
American Astronomical Society meeting, Bulletin of the American 1997.
Astronomical Society, vol. 52, no. 3, 2020. [39] Kelly, Charles. ‘Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward
[12] The Planetary Society. “LightSail, a Planetary Society solar sail Concept Feasibility’. University of Washington, 2018.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/177
spacecraft”, https://www.planetary.org/sci-tech/lightsail
3/42172/Kelly_washington_0250O_18961.pdf.
[13] University of Surrey. “CubeSail mission”,
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/surrey-space-centre/missions/cubesail
[14] NASA, “Juno - Jupiter Missions - NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory,” NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/juno
[15] NASA. “NASA Missions”, https://www.nasa.gov/missions
[16] Wikipedia. “Rocket Lab Electron”,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron
[17] R. Bate, D. Mueller and J. White, Fundamentals of
Astrodynamics. New York: Dover Publications, Incorporated, 1971.
[18] M. Turner, Rocket and spacecraft propulsion, 3rd ed. Chichester,
UK: Springer published in association with Praxis Pub., 2010.
[19] R. Adams and G. Richardson, "Using the Two-Burn Escape
Manoeuvre for Fast Transfers in the Solar System and Beyond",
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[20] A. E. Petropoulos, J. M. Longuski and E. P. Bonfiglio,
“Trajectories to Jupiter Via Gravity Assists from Venus, Earth and
Mars”, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998.
[21] S. J. Bolton et al., “The Juno Mission”, Proceedings of the
International Astronomical Union, 1, pp 92-100, 2010.
[22] BUSEK. “BIT-3”, https://www.busek.com/bit3
[23] J. Ashkenazy, S. Shitrit, “Hall thruster modification for reduced
power operation”. IEPC 2005-080
[24] O’Reilly, D.; Herdrich, G.; Kavanagh, D.F. Electric Propulsion
Methods for Small Satellites: A Review. Aerospace 2021, 8, 2
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8010022
[25] Kim V, Popov G., et al., Investigation of SPT Performance and
Particularities of its Operation with Kr and Kr/Xe Mixtures
[26] Dankanich J., et al., “Mission and System Advantages of Iodine
Hall Thrusters”

IAC-22-C4,IPB,11,x71337 Page 13 of 13