See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379507797

A reliable spacecraft power supply subsystem based on discrete water cycle

multi-objective optimization

Article in Franklin Open · April 2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.fraope.2024.100092

CITATIONS READS

0 9

7 authors, including:

Mohamed Hanafy Dr. Wael Murtada

Military Technical College National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences
18 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Wael Murtada on 08 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Franklin Open
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fraope

A reliable spacecraft power supply subsystem based on discrete water cycle

multi-objective optimization
Ahmed Mokhtar a , Mohamed Ibrahim b ,∗, Mohamed E. Hanafy a , Fawzy H. Amer ElTohamy a ,
Wael A. Murtada c , Yehia Z. Elhalwagy d
a
Aircraft Electric Equipment Department, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt
b Automatic Control Systems Department, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt
c National Authority for Remote Sensing & Space Sciences, Cairo, Egypt
d Electrical and Computer Engineering, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The successful execution of spacecraft missions relies heavily on the performance and reliability of their
Space electric power system power supply subsystems. Achieving optimal component size and configuration is crucial for efficient power
Multidisciplinary design optimization generation, distribution, and storage. Designing an efficient power supply subsystem for spacecraft missions
Discrete Water Cycle Algorithm (DWCA)
is a complex and multi-objective optimization problem. Traditional optimization techniques, such as genetic
Collaborative optimization
algorithm and particle swarm optimization, have been employed, but their limitations in handling discrete
Component-based system analysis
Multi-objective design
variables and achieving global optima necessitate the exploration of alternative methods. In this context, this
Trade-off analysis research paper explores the application of discrete water cycle algorithm (DWCA) optimization as a novel
Design performance approach for optimizing the component size and configuration of spacecraft power supply subsystems. By
emulating the dynamic flow and distribution of water, DWCA seeks to efficiently explore the design space and
identify optimal solutions.
Through comprehensive experimentation and comparative analysis, this research demonstrates that the
proposed DWCA outperforms/surpasses other traditional optimization techniques in optimizing component
size and configuration for spacecraft power supply subsystems. It consistently determines designs that are
more efficient in power generation and storage. Moreover, DWCA enhances the efficiency and reliability
of spacecraft power supply systems, especially in mission-critical scenarios. The successful optimization of
spacecraft power supply subsystems is paramount to the overall success of space missions. Therefore, this
advancement contributes significantly to the ongoing efforts to ensure the success of future space missions.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the exploration of outer space has garnered substan-
tial economic attention in several applications, e.g., communication,
meteorology, navigation, and surveillance satellites. The success of
each space mission relies heavily on the integration of intricate systems
and devices, e.g., electric power, communication, navigation, and pay-
load components. Among these, the space-electric power system (SEPS)
emerges as a pivotal element, analogous to the heart within the human
body [1]. The SEPS orchestrates the necessary devices and components
to meet the power budget requirements, e.g., generation and storing,
throughout various mission phases, i.e., launching, detumbling, and on-
orbit operations. Moreover, SEPS facilitates the distribution of electric
power to other systems in the spacecraft to achieve their functions,
e.g., data transmission and reception for payloads. Generally, SEPS
uses various sources of power, including solar panels, batteries, fuel
cells, and thermoelectric generators and equipment that can convert
one form of energy into another as needed.
Technological advancements in SEPS have significantly improved
overall spacecraft performance and extended service life. However,
the design of the SEPS demands meticulous consideration of mission
requirements and operational limitations in the harsh space environ-
ment. For instance, the complexity of designing the SEPS arises from its
multidisciplinary nature, involving the conversion of chemical, light,
or nuclear energy into the specified electrical energy required for
spacecraft operations. As a result, the design process of the SEPS is
practically complex and multidisciplinary, necessitating the exploration

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahmed_refaie@ieee.org (A. Mokhtar), mohamed.ibrahim@mtc.edu.eg (M. Ibrahim), mehanafy@mtu.edu (M.E. Hanafy),
ftha72@mtc.edu.eg (F.H.A. ElTohamy), wael_murtada@narss.sci.eg (W.A. Murtada), y.elhalwagy@mtc.edu.eg (Y.Z. Elhalwagy).
URL: http://www.mtc.edu.eg/mtcwebsite/ (A. Mokhtar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fraope.2024.100092
Received 21 September 2023; Received in revised form 2 February 2024; Accepted 24 March 2024
Available online 2 April 2024
2773-1863/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The Franklin Institute. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Mokhtar et al.
of various optimization techniques. These techniques aim to enhance
SEPS performance, ensuring design stability while minimizing costs.
This work contributes to the field by presenting a novel and effective
approach to SEPS optimization. We propose to use the discrete water
cycle algorithm (DWCA) as a novel optimization method for SEPS. First,
we reformulate DWCA to solve the complex and multi-objective opti-
mization problem of the design process of SEPS. This article provides
a comprehensive explanation of the This algorithm is inspired by the
dynamic flow and distribution of water.
In this research, we elaborated on the distinctive features of DWCA
that contribute to its superior performance in handling discrete vari-
ables. For instance, DWCA can handle discrete variables and achieve
global optima in response to the limitations of traditional optimization
techniques, e.g., genetic algorithms (GA) and particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO). Through comprehensive simulations and comparative
analysis, our research demonstrates that DWCA outperforms traditional
algorithms in optimizing component size and configuration for space-
craft power supply subsystems. The resulting designs exhibit superior
efficiency in power generation and storage and also enhance robust-
ness and reliability in mission-critical scenarios. This advancement
contributes significantly to the ongoing efforts aimed at ensuring the
success of future space missions. This research addresses a critical gap
in the field of spacecraft power supply optimization by introducing
DWCA as a powerful and innovative tool. This algorithm’s ability to
balance exploration and exploitation makes it particularly well-suited
to tackle the complexities of SEPS design, paving the way for more
efficient, reliable, and cost-effective space missions.
In general, designing SEPS should be based primarily on determin-
ing a proper model to assess component performance during spacecraft
operation, especially in various modes. This SEPS model is used to
confirm the SEPS specifications before manufacturing [2]. As a result,
the developed model leads to reducing the overall cost and risk because
the power supply engineering design may be highly repetitive. So many
different iterations are frequently required before the final design.
Therefore, an automated search strategy could be more cost-effective
than manual techniques to locate the best designs. In this context,
this paper introduces an efficient metaheuristic optimization approach
using the discrete water cycle algorithm (DWCA). The proposed DWCA
is a population-based method for solving engineering challenges and
optimization. The effectiveness of the proposed DWCA approach is
compared with other optimizers using several constrained optimization
problems. The results considered the number of functions and the best
function value evaluations.
State of the art
In engineering, many mathematical approaches have been proposed
to address various constrained optimization problems. Most of these
algorithms are based on linear and nonlinear programming and stochas-
tic approaches that necessitate gradient information to enhance the
solution near a starting point. In general, these numerical optimization
techniques typically aim to discover the ideal solution for straight-
forward and superior models. However, many practical engineering
optimization problems, e.g., SEPS trade-off mechanism design, are
incredibly complex and challenging to solve. For example, the results
depend on the preliminary step especially if the problem has more
than one local optimum. In this case, the global optimal solution
might not be determined. Furthermore, the gradient search might
be unstable mainly if the objective function contains numerous or
abrupt peaks. Practically, most numerical methods suffer from different
shortcomings, e.g., efficiency and accuracy. To handle this situation,
many metaheuristic algorithms have been proposed based on simulat-
ing the natural process to solve complicated engineering optimization
problems. Simulating a natural phenomenon has been implemented by
fusing rules and randomness [3].
2
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
In the literature, different metaheuristic mechanisms have been pro-
posed, e.g., particle swarm optimization (PSO) [4], genetic algorithms
(GAs) [5,6], and the simulated annealing (SA) [7]. For example, the
PSO technique [4] is a distributed behavioral algorithm that executes
multidimensional searching. It uses a velocity vector to update each
particle’s location in the swarm. However, PSO was proven to be unable
to get the global optimum. Thus, trapping into local optimum and
premature convergence are the main issues for this algorithm and
some of its variants. Another work [8] examined the effectiveness of
the various evolutionary algorithm architectures with other heuristic
strategies for SEPS engineering design. A constraint-handling technique
using a gradient-based repair mechanism was incorporated into GAs as
a unique operator as in [9].
Work contributions and article structure:
The main contributions of this work are:
1. First, we introduce DWCA as a novel optimization algorithm
for SEPS design, emphasizing its uniqueness and potential ad-
vantages in optimizing the size and configuration of the SEPS
components.
2. Second, we propose a dynamic mass cost function driven by
DWCA, allowing for spacecraft mass optimization based on mis-
sion objectives.
3. Additionally, DWCA effectively manages the intricate power
index (IPI) across generations, ensuring consistent improvement
and adaptability.
4. Finally, we present an optimization-based framework for future
research for analyzing and designing SEPS and their component
configurations.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Section 2
describes the SEPS trade-off mechanism. Section 3 details the SEPS
Design w.r.t. the components trades. Section 4 outlines the energy-
storage module trades. Section 5 presents the proposed SEPS model.
Section 6 summarizes the optimization process of SEPS. Section 7
elaborates the water cycle algorithm. Simulation results are represented
and discussed in Section 8. Section 9 summarizes our conclusions,
findings, and future directions.
2. Description of SEPS trade-off mechanism
Space mission design starts with defining the mission and objectives,
thus identifying various mission concepts through an initial trade-
off process. After several design cycles, the preliminary design phase
determines the architecture of the sub-system [10]. In particular, each
spacecraft consists of many supporting sub-systems, e.g., SEPS, propul-
sion, thermal sub-systems, etc, in addition to the payload. Each sub-
system is responsible for a particular function. Therefore designing
these sub-systems is typically an essential and challenging aspect of
the design process to achieve the mission objectives with minimum
cost considering the weight limits. In the spacecraft industry, system
designers are required to opt for designs that can achieve cost-effective
products. Thus, the aerospace design practice has moved from maximiz-
ing performance under technology constraints to minimizing cost under
performance constraints [10]. However, it may not be the case in some
mission scenarios, so there is always a trade-off between performance,
mass, and cost, which varies from mission to mission.
There is evidence that the SEPS System is a crucial component in the
operation of modern space technologies, as SEPS plays a pivotal role in
generating and regulating electric power as well as storing it for periods
of peak demand or eclipse, and distributing it to the entire spacecraft.
To optimize SEPS performance, various trade-off mechanisms are used
to design the system topology to achieve an appropriate balancing
between different factors, e.g., power output, weight, reliability, and
cost. Practically, any improvement in one area can negatively impact
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 1. Trade-off mechanism for spacecraft sub-systems with its operation criteria [10].
Fig. 2. Traditional Trade-off analysis mechanism for the power supply system with its
operation criteria [10,11].
another, making trade-offs unavoidable. For example, increasing SEPS
efficiency through the use of advanced technologies can result in
increased power production but also tends to increase the system’s
complexity and cost. This requires considering potential risks that may
arise from over-focus on any particular objective. Therefore, this work
considers various factors when developing a SEPS design to ensure
optimal performance within budgetary constraints, e.g., load power
requirements and mission life. The initial designs are carried out by
repeated trade-off studies among different design concepts and tech-
nologies. For instance, the lower-level design concerns mainly with the
components technology, e.g., solar arrays, batteries, and regulators.
In the conceptual design phase, the main objective of the trade-off
analysis, see Fig. 2, is to formulate the system design as an optimization
problem to determine new combinations of available technologies and
sub-system configuration options. The trade-off among different param-
eters is an intelligent/complex framework with an optimal automated
design to achieve the desired goals.
Therefore, optimizing the SEPS designing and sizing needs to de-
velop various tools to provide the best possible trade-off among the
3
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
conflicting objectives. For instance, sizing tools are required to cal-
culate physical parameters, e.g., size, mass, volume, or system cost.
Otherwise, various analysis tools, e.g., simulation see Table 7, are used
to check that the desired behavior is met. In the literature, there are
often gaps where certain perspectives or factors may not have been
considered. One example is developing an analysis tool using available
platforms to be efficient enough to perform analysis over a certain
period. The analysis tool should be also robust enough to be expendable
to include all possible technologies and topologies [10,12]. SEPS design
requires extensive knowledge of modern components technology as
well as exceptional analytical skills, attention to detail, and creativity.
3. SEPS design with components trades
Designing an effective SEPS involves a complex process of compo-
nent trades to ensure optimal performance and reliability. For instance,
this process includes selecting the appropriate power source, inverting
it to achieve the necessary voltage levels, storing it in batteries for
times when the spacecraft is not exposed to sunlight, and distributing
it throughout the spacecraft with efficient power converters. The use of
high-efficiency components is crucial to minimize weight and maximize
longevity during extended space missions. Engineers must also care-
fully consider the trade-offs between backup systems and redundancy
against added weight and complexity. In addition, meticulous attention
must be paid to thermal management as many of these components
generate heat that can adversely affect other systems onboard. This
research develops a trade-off framework, see Fig. 1, for managing
the necessary technological specifications to achieve distinct objectives
optimizations. Fig. 3 describes the SEPS design process methodology in
the developed trade-off environment [13].
3.1. Solar power generation
Designing spacecraft solar power generation systems is an intricate
and challenging process that requires a deep understanding of the en-
vironment and conditions in space. The solar panels must be designed
to withstand extreme temperature changes, radiation exposure, and
physical stresses. Additionally, the panels need to be as lightweight and
efficient as possible while still producing enough energy to power the
spacecraft’s systems.
Engineers must consider factors such as panel size, orientation,
and positioning relative to the sun to maximize efficiency. Another
important consideration is how to store excess energy generated during
periods of peak sunlight for use when sunlight is limited or nonexistent.
Generally, the primary design considerations are the spacecraft config-
uration, required power (peak and average), shadowing, radiation en-
vironment, operational temperatures, and mission life [11]. Ultimately,
designing spacecraft solar power generation requires a combination of
technical expertise, innovative thinking, and careful planning to ensure
optimal performance throughout a mission’s duration.
3.2. Solar cell technology trades
As spacecraft continue to venture further from Earth, the solar cells
are growing ever more crucial for ensuring a reliable power source
where traditional power sources may not be available. Therefore, the
development of more efficient and versatile solar cells is an ongoing
research area with advances being made regularly. Spacecraft solar cell
technology trades refer to the techniques and methods involved in de-
signing, developing, and integrating solar cell systems into spacecraft.
Trade-offs between cost, weight, efficiency, durability, and radiation
resistance must be taken into account when selecting solar cells.
Professional organizations such as the International Solar Energy
Society work to promote advancements in this field and standardize
testing procedures for solar cells used in spacecraft applications. Ta-
ble 4 compares the solar cell’s different technologies characteristics
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 3. Trade-off engineering system design process mechanism of operation [11,13].
used in the developed trade-off mechanism, e.g., temperature coeffi-
cients, radiation degradation factors (P/Po), and beginning of life (BOL)
competency at various radiation effect levels. Table 5 compares the
properties of the solar cell technologies implemented in the proposed
trade-off mechanism based on the orbital parameters, environmental
operating conditions, mission duration, and cover glass thickness. It
assumes that any spacecraft has a 15-year mission and a 5-year one
in GEO and LEO orbits, respectively. The radiation environment influ-
ences the choice of cover glass thickness as well. However, the cover
glass is assumed to be 100 μm thick for both LEO and GEO situations.
4. Energy-storage module trades
Spacecraft energy-storage module trades refer to the delicate bal-
ance between energy storage and mission requirements for a space-
craft. Trades involve a highly specialized and sophisticated area of
the aerospace industry, which focuses on designing and manufacturing
robust and reliable energy storage systems that power spacecraft. Such
modules are essential to power critical components, e.g., communica-
tion systems and scientific instruments for enabling various functions
such as communications, navigation, scientific research, and weather
forecasting. The storage module must store sufficient energy for the
operational period of the spacecraft, which may range anywhere from
a few months to several years depending on the mission objectives.
It is developed to provide the required energy during an eclipse. As
such, they must be engineered to withstand the harsh and extreme
conditions of space, including radiation exposure, wide temperature
fluctuations, and high vacuum environments. Furthermore, thermal
management is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of these
modules in varying temperatures of −60 ◦ C to 70 ◦ C or more in
some cases. Designers consider factors such as mass, volume, power
density, cycle life, radiation tolerance and environmental conditions in
selecting an appropriate battery or capacitor system. With the rapidly
evolving field of space exploration fueling demand for more impactful
missions in diverse locations within our solar system and beyond,
innovative energy-storage solutions that meet these unique challenges
will continue to be a key focus area moving forward.
4.1. Battery/cell technology trades
A spacecraft’s energy storage sub-system is based on electrochemi-
cal battery cells. Recently, emerging trends in solar panel technology
and electric propulsion are driving new advancements in spacecraft
battery/cell technology trades. As these trades play a significant role
in enhancing overall mission efficiency while ensuring safety for astro-
nauts. This includes exploring the use of advanced materials such as
lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries that provide higher energy densities and
improved power-to-weight ratios. Therefore, due to their importance in
the space industry’s continued success and innovation towards newer
approaches to space exploration specifically human-enabled missions
on the Moon or Mars surface.
There are several types of batteries to choose from, including
lithium-ion, nickel-metal hydride, and nickel–cadmium. The choice of
battery depends on factors like the duration of the mission and specific
4
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
power requirements for different payloads. Table 6 compares different
battery technology characteristics used in the developed algorithm.
Calculations determine each cell’s energy and power values with the
specified capacity according to data sheets.
4.2. Battery configuration trade
The battery comprises many cells connected in series or parallel,
and it must be able to deliver the necessary power and energy at
the appropriate voltage and for the desired time frame as its primary
requirement. The configuration of spacecraft batteries is a complex
trade that takes into consideration various factors such as power re-
quirements, mass limitations, and mission objectives. For instance, the
number of parallels and series cells per battery comprises the battery
configuration. Moreover, the bus voltage is the most determinant of the
battery’s cell count. In this work, it assumed that each battery has one
redundant cell.
With recent advances in battery technology and manufacturing
techniques, engineers have more options than ever before but must
weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages of each option when
selecting a suitable configuration for a spacecraft mission. So the choice
of battery configurations must be established in addition to the bat-
tery technology selection. Cost efficiency must also be balanced with
achieving maximum mission performance goals. A suboptimal choice
in battery configuration can cause catastrophic failure if there is insuf-
ficient power or a loss of control during critical phases, e.g., rendezvous
or landing.
4.3. Bus voltage level
The spacecraft bus voltage level is a critical factor that must be
carefully monitored and controlled in order to ensure the proper op-
eration of onboard systems. In general, the bus voltage level refers to
the electrical potential difference between various components within
a spacecraft, including power supplies and instrumentation modules.
Properly managing this voltage level is essential for maintaining stable
operations, reducing the risk of component damage or failure, and
maximizing mission success. This involves careful design and layout
of electrical systems, as well as ongoing monitoring and adjustments
during flight. Additionally, engineers must consider factors such as
temperature fluctuations, radiation exposure, and other environmental
variables that can impact bus voltage levels over time.
Particularly, the bus voltage might fluctuate due to variations in
the energy density required by the spacecraft loads in various modes.
Overall, efficient management of spacecraft bus voltages is a foun-
dational aspect of space mission engineering that requires technical
expertise and attention to detail at every stage. For instance, high
voltages make it possible to use the secondary batteries’ energy density
more effectively. The 28 V bus is still the most cost-effective way to
build a power distribution network for low-power LEO missions. Fig. 17
describes the trade-off for the SEPS bus voltage design process. As in
this study, three options are presented, e.g., [28 V (traditional low bus
voltage level), 50 V, and 100 V].
Table 1 compares three possibilities in this study 28 V, the conven-
tional low bus voltage level, 50 V, and 100 V.
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 4. Spacecraft solar array sizing methodology.
Table 1
The battery configuration trades as a function of bus voltage; the number of cells
is a factor of bus voltage [16].
Bus voltage (V) Number of cells per battery
NiCd NiH2
28 20:22 20:22
50 26:30 26:30
100 52:60 52:60
5. Spacecraft SEPS model
Engineers follow rigorous testing procedures to ensure fault tol-
erance and reliability in harsh environments while meeting exacting
specifications for weight, size, efficiency, and safety. Accurate modeling
enables scientists to predict the performance of each subsystem under
varying conditions during the mission’s lifecycle. Hence it is essential to
integrate robust SEPS into all aspects of space missions from conception
through project execution.
According to previous experiences with SEPS, the optimization
problem is formulated to maximize mainly the performance while min-
imizing mass and cost [13]. In this work, this proposed methodology
focuses on SEPS in LEO based on mass and cost. The obtained designs
might be unrealistic since they require components or devices unavail-
able in the industry. So the proposed optimization should consider
the limitations of the small spacecraft using commercially available
technologies, e.g., solar array and battery.
In this instance, a spacecraft power sizing tool is integrated with
the MATLAB environment to define the goal function. This sizing tool
simulates the budget for the preliminary design considering mass, cost,
reliability, and figure of merit of the solar array.
The SEPS sizing model is developed based on methods described in
the space references [24], [13] and some familiarity with typical space
industry procedures to assess the performance of different designs. The
sizing mechanism is based on previous perspective knowledge [11,14,
15]. The blocks in the figure represent the tools created or implemented
in the overall SEPS design optimization framework.
The predictions and the actual data obtained from industry and an
existing satellite database are correlated using several design estimate
relationships and scaling factors listed below. Some of the information
is confidential and might not be published here (see Figs. 4, 7 and
9–11).
5.1. SEPS sizing model
The Model for SEPS Sizing is an essential tool to provide a compre-
hensive framework for designing and sizing power systems that meet
specific energy demands. The model takes into consideration factors
such as power source (solar or nuclear), the technology used, expected
mission duration, environmental factors, and other crucial parame-
ters that affect power system performance. By employing this model,
aerospace engineers can ensure optimal system efficiency, performance
reliability, and weight. This model determines the capability, mass, and
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
size of the electrical devices, e.g., battery, solar cell, etc, using the
available technologies such as battery configuration, e.g., number of
batteries and variety of cells per battery. In this work, the program was
developed to estimate the relative size of battery architecture, array
technology, and electric cell performance bus voltage.
The model performs the calculation using various inputs, e.g., or-
bital parameters, mission knowledge, and the average and peak power.
For instance, orbital parameters include altitude, worst-case Sun angle,
and angle between orbit and Sun–Earth line. These data are used to
estimate the Sun position and the eclipse timing using height and the
angle between the Sun orbit and its plane (𝛽). In the contest, array
filling is obtained according to the spacecraft configuration. Average
load power demand (Pavg) and the overall power to the total load-
power generated by solar panels (Psa) is required for orbiter operation
and battery charging [11,14,15].
5.2. Solar array sizing
Li-ion
6:7
The solar array sizing model is a valuable tool for predicting and
10:12
20:24 designing photovoltaic (PV) systems for maximizing the system’s effi-
ciency and minimizing the overall cost. This model involves several
complex calculations using different variables, e.g., the PV location,
PV efficiency, and the expected solar irradiance levels. This model can
determine the optimal dimensions, weight, and configuration of the
PV array required to meet a specific level of energy demand. Fig. 5
illustrates the underlying size methods.
5.3. Battery sizing model
The spacecraft battery sizing model considers the spacecraft’s mis-
sion requirements, power consumption, and available solar energy
to determine the appropriate battery size and cost needed to power
the spacecraft during periods of low solar availability or high power
demands.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the underlying methodology and procedures for
accomplishing this task to ensure mission success and maximum oper-
ational efficiency. First, mission life and type are used to calculate the
number of charge–discharge cycles (CDCs) such as 5000 and 90 cycles
per year for LEO and GEO, respectively [17]. The maximum permitted
depth of discharge (DOD) varies based on the battery type and the
mission life, i.e., CDCs. It is calculated by interpolating the graph of
the relationship between the number of CDCs for each battery [10].
5.4. Calculation of system mass
The mass calculation of the SEPS is a crucial aspect in the design
and development of any space mission. The primary objective of this
calculation is to ensure that the spacecraft’s power supply system has
sufficient energy to sustain all the onboard experiments and functions.
SEPS mass is a critical design parameter that influences the spacecraft’s
overall cost. Therefore, it is essential to apply accurate and reliable
mass estimation techniques to achieve the desired mission goals. The
SEPS mass 𝑀eps is determined by defining mass of the solar array 𝑀SA ,
battery 𝑀batt , and power control unit 𝑀PCU [11].
𝑀eps = 𝑀SA + 𝑀batt × 𝑁batt + 𝑀PCU , (1)
where 𝑁batt is number of batteries. The mass of each solar cell depends
mainly on the mass of the solar array’s substrate, deploying mecha-
nism, and interconnections. The values of the mass of the solar array
(substrate and cover glass) are expressed as:
𝑀SA = (𝑀scell × 𝐴sctotal ) + (𝑀areal × 𝐴array ) (2)
The battery mass is then calculated using the energy density of the
battery cell (𝜌 cell), for example, 10% of the mass of the battery cells.
The calculated battery mass is expressed as follows:
𝑀bat = 1.1 × (𝐴ℎbat × 𝑁cell × 𝑉avg × 𝜌𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ) (3)
5
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 5. Spacecraft solar array sizing methodology.
Fig. 6. Spacecraft Battery sizing methodology.
The next step is to estimate the mass of a power management and
distribution unit (PMAD) 𝑀box = 0.01 × 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑔 and cables 𝑀cable =
0.02×𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑔 that are linear functions of the average power 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑔 consumed
by spacecraft loads assumed for 28 V bus [11].
The parameters, mentioned above, are obtained depending on the
mission parameters. The initial iteration usually starts randomly using
predetermined base values chosen by the designer for each variable.
The summary of normalized mass estimates for different bus voltages
used here is given in Table 5.
5.5. System cost functions
Calculating the SEPS cost is an important aspect of any space
mission planning involved in the design, development, testing, and
implementation of the SEPS system. Generally, a thorough cost cal-
culation of a spacecraft electric power system can help ensure that
mission budgets are adhered to and that the system performs reliably
throughout the mission lifetime. Accurate calculations should consider
various factors, e.g., the power requirements, the type of power gen-
eration and storage technologies, as well as the size and weight of the
spacecraft. Furthermore, the designers should take into account other
factors such as the system reliability and efficiency as well as the level
of redundancy. Moreover, potential cost savings might be achieved
using off-the-shelf components instead of custom-built systems.
In detail, the system cost is the total prices for the batteries 𝐶batt and
solar array 𝐶SA as well as the system launch, while ignoring the PMAD
cost. However, the voltage effect is expressed in terms of PMAD mass
and effective launch cost, it will not impact the reason for choosing the
bus voltage [11,14,15].
𝐶EPS = 𝐶SA + 𝐶batt × 𝑁batt + 𝑀EPS × 𝑅launch ,
where the Launch cost factor 𝑅launch is 11 k/Kg and 22 k/Kg for LEO
and GEO, respectively [18]. The solar array cost 𝐶SA is the sum of
the cost of each solar cell 𝐶scell and array structure 𝐶areal . The cost
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
of the array, taking into account the cell material, is assumed to be
41, 300∕m2 [19].
𝐶SA = 𝐶scell × 𝐴sctotal + 𝐶areal × 𝐴SA . (5)
The battery cost 𝐶batt is expressed as follows: 𝐶batt = 𝐶Ah ×𝐴ℎbatt , where
𝐶Ah is the battery cost per unit Ampere-hour taken as 4.02 K/Ah for
NiCd, 7.4 K/Ah for NiH2 , and 10 K/Ah for Li-ion.
The manufacturer’s approach of keeping cost information private
makes it challenging to estimate the actual cost. Consequently, the cost
data here is only an approximation and is determined using information
gathered from various space-qualified battery vendors [14,15].
5.6. Calculation of the system reliability
Reliability calculation involves the use of various analytical tech-
niques to assess the SEPS performance and ability to perform its in-
tended functions under various operating conditions to ensure the
mission success. The reliability calculations are based on the sys-
tem’s design, component characteristics, operating environment, and
the mission’s objectives. The SEPS reliability (Reps) is expressed as:
𝑅eps = 𝑅scell × 𝑅SA × 𝑅batt , (6)
where, 𝑅scell , 𝑅SA and 𝑅batt represent the reliability factors for solar
cells, solar arrays, and batteries, respectively. The figure of reliability
factor for individual technology has been assumed based on their
heritage and current status [11,14,15].
The results of the calculations are used to determine the level of
redundancy required in the system to achieve the desired level of
reliability.
(4)
5.7. Component level redundancy
Component-level redundancy involves duplicating critical compo-
nents within a subsystem to ensure continued operation in case of
6
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 7. Simplified diagram of the hydrological (water) cycle.
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of how streams flow to the rivers and also rivers flow to
the sea. The small streams where the rivers start to grow are shown by the tiniest
river branches (bright green). First-order streams are the name for these tiny streams
(green colors). A second-order stream forms wherever two first-order streams converge
(white colors). A third-order stream is created where two second-order streams converge
(blue shades), and so on, until the rivers finally empty into the sea (the point with the
steepest slope in the hypothetical globe) [17]. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
component failure. This redundancy approach enhances the system’s
reliability and mitigates the impact of single-component failures.
Considering a power converter in the power supply system of a LEO
satellite. The power converter is a critical component that transforms
the generated solar power into usable electrical energy for the satellite’s
systems.
Suppose the probability of a power converter’s failure within a
specific time interval is represented by 𝑃failure . The reliability of a single
power converter over the same time interval is given by 𝑅single =
1 − 𝑃failure .
To introduce component-level redundancy, let us duplicate the
power converter, resulting in two redundant power converters working
in parallel. The probability of both power converters failing simultane-
ously is represented by 𝑃double failure . The reliability of this redundant
configuration can be calculated as 𝑅redundant = 1 − 𝑃double failure .
Calculations and Equations:
The level of component-level redundancy can be evaluated based
on the difference in reliability between the redundant and single con-
figurations. The redundancy factor (𝑅𝐹 ) is defined as:
𝑅𝐹 = (𝑅redundant − 𝑅single )∕𝑅single
7
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
Where 𝑅redundant is the reliability of the redundant configuration. 𝑅single
is the reliability of the single component.
If the redundancy factor is positive, it indicates an improvement in
reliability due to redundancy. A higher redundancy factor signifies a
higher level of redundancy.
For example, let us assume that the probability of a single power
converter failure is 𝑃failure = 0.01, while the probability of both re-
dundant power converters failing simultaneously is 𝑃double failure =
0.0001. The calculation of the reliability for both configurations then
determines the redundancy factor:
Single Power Converter:
𝑅single = 1 − 𝑃failure = 1 − 0.01 = 0.99
Redundant Power Converters:
𝑅redundant = 1 − 𝑃double failure = 1 − 0.0001 = 0.9999
Redundancy Factor:
𝑅redundant − 𝑅single 0.9999 − 0.99
𝑅𝐹 = = ≈ 0.0091
𝑅single 0.99
The redundancy factor is approximately 0.0091, indicating a 0.91%
improvement in reliability due to component-level redundancy. This
calculation demonstrates how redundancy can enhance the reliability
of critical components within a subsystem, contributing to the overall
robustness of the power supply system for a LEO satellite.
6. Optimization process
The optimization process of SEPS is a critical aspect of any space
mission. It involves ensuring that the electrical power generation
and distribution systems on board operate at maximum efficiency
while conserving resources. This is accomplished by analyzing factors,
e.g., electrical load, thermal management, and battery usage to identify
opportunities for improvement during normal operation. The SEPS
design must take into account also its ability to withstand abnormal
conditions, e.g., radiation exposure or extreme temperatures. Thorough
testing and evaluation are required to validate the effectiveness and
safety of any changes made to the system. Ultimately, the aim is to
maximize mission success while minimizing risk, making spacecraft
power supply optimization an essential aspect of space exploration.
The following considerations should be made when the design
challenge transforms into an optimization problem.
• Select the design elements.
• Define the optimization objectives and constraints.
• Define the design variables (continuous/discrete).
• Define various goals of the optimization problem.
In this work, we use the multi-objective water cycle algorithm (MOWCA)
as a design optimization approach.
7. Water cycle algorithm
The water cycle algorithm (WCA), developed by Sharma and Pandey
in 2011, is based on simulating the natural cycling of water. The
DWCA solver mimics the phenomena of flowing rivers and streams
naturally towards the sea. Fig. 8 resembles a tree or a tree’s roots
that represent how rivers flow into the sea while streams flow into
them. The algorithm is a nature-inspired optimization technique that
is widely used in solving complex optimization problems in various
fields, e.g., engineering, finance, biological systems, and environmental
sciences. In essence, it employs the analogy of the flow of water in the
natural environment, which is aimed at achieving optimal solutions. Its
performance has been widely recognized due to its ability to explore
different regions of the solution space.
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

7.1. Basic concepts

The basic concepts of this method are the precipitation, infiltration,

evaporation, and condensation processes, which are the four fundamen-
tal stages of the water cycle. The algorithm employs these four stages in
a mathematical framework to optimize the search process. A simplified
representation of the hydrologic cycle (water cycle) is illustrated in
Figure 8 [2].
The optimization process of DWCA involves several steps. Firstly,
the initialization process defines the search space and initializes the
variables e.g., population, so-called raindrops. Assuming that rain or
precipitation occurs, the algorithm begins with randomly generating Fig. 9. Schematic view of stream’s flow to a specific river (star and circle represent
a P-sized initial population of design variables, i.e., a population of river and stream respectively) [20].
streams.
Secondly, the application of two search operators, namely, the evap-
oration and precipitation operators. The evaporation operator removes
excess water from the current solution, while the precipitation operator
adds water to the solution to help it converge to a global minimum.
Thirdly, the DWCA uses a search strategy to explore the solution
space by using a soft-computing tool. The search strategy involves
updating the current solution, where the best solution is identified
and selected. The best individual, i.e., raindrops/stream, in terms of
minimal cost for the optimization problem is selected to represent
the sea [13]. Then, several good raindrops/streams (whose costs are
close to the current best record) are elected as rivers, while the rest
do not change and flow into the rivers and sea. Depending on their Fig. 10. Exchanging the positions of the stream and the river where the star represents
the river and the black color circle shows the best stream among other streams [21].
magnitude of flow, the water amount in a stream entering a river and
sea varies from other streams. In addition, rivers flow to the sea, the
most downhill location
Fourthly, the entire process is iterated until a termination criterion
is satisfied. Finally, the optimization results are analyzed and compared
with other optimization algorithms to ascertain their efficiency and
accuracy [20].

7.2. Create the initial population

In population-based metaheuristic methods, a random set of solu-

tions is generated within the search space to create the initial pop-
ulation of the algorithm. The search space represents the range of
valid solutions that can be considered for optimization. In GA and
PSO optimizers, such collection is called ‘‘Chromosome’’ and ‘‘Particle
Position’’, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed method is called
‘‘Raindrop’’ for a single solution.
The initial population serves as a starting point for the algorithm
to explore and find better solutions through successive iterations of the
optimization process. The size of the initial population can vary de-
pending on the complexity of the problem at hand. A larger population Fig. 11. Schematic view of DWCA [21].
size can lead to a wider exploration of the search space, but it can also
increase the computational time. Therefore, a balance must be struck
between the population size and the computational resources available 1 𝑥12 𝑥13 … 𝑥1𝑁
⎡ 𝑥1 ⎤
var
for the optimization process. ⎢ 𝑥2 𝑥22 𝑥23 … 𝑥2𝑁 ⎥
In a 𝑁var dimensional optimization problem, a raindrop is an array =⎢ 1 ⎥
var
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
of 1× The 𝑁var array is defined as Follows: ⎢ 𝑁pop 𝑁 𝑁 𝑁 ⎥
⎣𝑥1 𝑥2 pop 𝑥3 pop … 𝑥𝑁pop ⎦
var
Raindrop = [𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 , … , 𝑥𝑁 ]. where 𝑁pop rows and 𝑁var columns are the number of population and
So the optimization algorithm begins with generating the raindrop the design variables, respectively.
matrix of size 𝑁pop × 𝑁var , which represents the raindrop population.
7.3. Standard DWCA algorithm
Matrix 𝑋 is generated randomly as:

⎡ Raindrops1 ⎤
⎢ Raindrops2 ⎥ where 𝑃 is the population size, 𝑃𝑠𝑟 is the number of rivers and sea,
⎢ ⎥
Population of Raindrops = ⎢ Raindrops3 ⎥ 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum distance for evaporation, 𝑅𝑒𝑣 is the minimum
⎢ ⋮ ⎥ rate for evaporation, 𝐶 is the amplitude for the position update, 𝑇
⎢ ⎥ is the maximum number of generations, 𝑓 (𝑥) is the fitness function,
⎣Raindrops𝑁pop ⎦

8
A. Mokhtar et al.
Algorithm 1: Standard DWCA algorithm.
Data: 𝑃 , 𝑃sr , 𝑑max , 𝑅ev , 𝐶, 𝑇 , 𝑓 (𝑥), 𝑓 (𝐿𝐵𝑛 , 𝑈 𝐵𝑛 )
Result: 𝑋 ∗ , 𝑓 (𝑋 ∗ )
Randomly initialize population considering 𝑓 (𝐿𝐵𝑛 ; 𝑈 𝐵𝑛 ) 𝑛 ← 1 Select
streams (subset 𝑃str ), rivers (corr. 𝑃𝑟 ) Calculate cost 𝐶𝑝 of each stream
𝑃 ∈ 𝑃str Determine streams flow into rivers and sea 𝑡 ← 1 ⊳
*[r]iteration number while 𝑡 ≤ 𝑇 or termination criterion met do
Update streams’ location for rivers. Update stream’s location for
sea. if stream/river has a better fitness metric than its counterpart
then
exchange roles
end
for 𝑝 ∈ 𝑃 𝑟𝑈 𝑃 𝑠𝑡𝑟 do
if Distance(xp(t); xpsea(t)) < dmax(t) or Uniform(0; 1) < Rev
then
Decrease 𝑑max Replace sea with a new stream/river Break
end
end
using the updated streams/rivers Recompute costs Recompute
subsets 𝑃 𝑠𝑡𝑟, 𝑃 𝑠𝑟 Recompute best individual (sea) 𝑡 ← 𝑡 + 1
end
𝑓 (𝐿𝐵𝑛 , 𝑈 𝐵𝑛 ) are the lower and upper bounds for the optimization
variables.
7.4. Proposed DWCA algorithm
Algorithm 2: Proposed DWCA algorithm.
Data: 𝐺, 𝑃 , 𝑃sr , 𝑑max , 𝑅ev , 𝐶, 𝑇 , 𝑅
Result: 𝑋 ∗ , 𝑓 (𝑋 ∗ )
Randomly initialize population considering 𝑃sr Select streams (subset
𝑃str ), rivers (corr. 𝑃𝑟 ) Calculate cost 𝐶𝑝 of each stream 𝑃 ∈ 𝑃str
Determine streams flow into rivers and sea 𝑡 ← 1 ⊳ *[r]iteration
number while 𝑡 ≤ 𝑇 or termination criterion met do
Update streams location for river/sea 𝑥0 with probability 𝜂(., .) or in-
sertion if stream/river has a better fitness metric than its counterpart
then
exchange roles
end
for 𝑝 ∈ 𝑃 𝑟𝑈 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑟 do
if 𝐷𝐻(𝑥𝑝(𝑡); 𝑥𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑎 (𝑡)) < 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑡) or Uniform(0; 1) < 𝑅𝑒𝑣 then
Decrease the value of 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 Replace 𝑥𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) with a new
stream/river with the location given by incrementally
performing 𝑅 insertion movements onto 𝑥𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) Break
end
end
using the updated streams/rivers Recompute costs Recompute
subsets 𝑃 𝑠𝑡𝑟, 𝑃 𝑠𝑟 𝑡 ← 𝑡 + 1
end
The best solution and its fitness are given by the best in 𝑓 𝑥𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑎(𝑡)𝑔𝑇 , 𝑡 =
1, i.e., the best sea.
where R is the number of repetitions for the raining phase.
Discipline analysis modules typically impact other sub-systems in
large-scale design challenges. As a result, designers must deal with a
densely connected system.
System analysis is part of the DWCA Framework, a single-level
architecture. The proposed trade-off mechanism is a fully integrated
optimization and ‘‘all-in-one’’ (AiO), which resolves the optimization
issues with several contemporary designs and analyses of the sub-
system. In this architecture, the system-level optimizer manages the
design process. At the same time, the system analyzer organizes all
subspace analyzers and also, in some way, guarantees that the goal
is met while taking into account design limitations. At each stage of
9
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
the optimization process, DWCA conducts a thorough system analy-
sis. As a result, the DWCA approach frequently uses various analysis
methodologies in design challenges involving linked systems.
7.5. Mechanics of evolution
In the DWCA, the water molecules represent the candidate solutions
considering the four main phases of the water cycle (evaporation,
condensation, precipitation and infiltration) that represent the different
stages of the optimization process. For instance, the evaporation phase
involves the generation of new solutions while the condensation phase
represents the selection of the best solutions. The precipitation phase
represents the removal of weak solutions and the infiltration phase
represents the communication between solutions in the search space.
7.5.1. Algorithm implementation
The algorithm typically involves a series of interrelated processes,
including precipitation, evaporation, and surface runoff, which may be
simulated using computational models. To ensure its proper function-
ing, the DWCA necessitates an appropriate coding strategy (languages
and tools) that can handle the pertinent calculations and simulations.
However, effective DWCA coding requires a sophisticated understand-
ing of both hydrological processes and software engineering principles.
Therefore the first step in DWCA implementation is to represent the
problem regarding solution space in a better way. In general, coding
methods of binary level are used in the DWCA algorithm [20,21].
7.5.2. Roulette wheel selection
The roulette wheel selection (RWS) is one of the most popular
selection methods used in GA and recently in the DWCA to select the
best individuals for reproduction and create the next generation. In the
RWS process, each member in the population (raindrops) is assigned
with a probability of selection proportionate to its fitness value. Thus,
the individuals with higher fitness have a higher probability of being
selected for reproduction, producing better offspring for the next gen-
eration. However, a healthy individual is not guaranteed to be always
transferred to the next generation; it merely happens.
In the RWS process, a roulette wheel or a pie chart represents the
overall fitness score of the population. Then each wheel slice is assigned
to every individual of the given population. Thus, the fitness scores of
those raindrops are directly proportional to the size of that given slice,
i.e., the fitter member will get the most significant pie slice. Next, it is
needed to spin a ball and hold the chromosome where it stops [20,21].
The mechanics of the evolution of DWCA can be further enhanced
by incorporating adaptive mechanisms such as mutation and crossover,
which facilitate the exploration and exploitation of the search space.
7.5.3. Crossover rate
The crossover rate of DWCA refers to the probability at which two
parent solutions exchange their genetic information during crossover
operations. In optimization problems, the crossover rate determines the
balance between the exploration and exploitation phases in the DWCA.
Practically, a higher crossover probability enhances the diversity and
convergence speed while a lower rate reduces the computation com-
plexity and local convergence. Therefore, the optimal crossover rate of
the DWCA depends on the nature of the problem, the population size,
and the termination criteria.
In the literature, researchers have proposed various strategies to
adaptively tune the crossover rate during the evolutionary process,
e.g., using fuzzy logic and GA, to improve the DWCA performance. In
this work, the crossover rate is swiping of two raindrops, where 0.7
refers to a suitable value (50% over here).
A. Mokhtar et al.
7.5.4. Mutation rate
One of the critical parameters that affect the performance of the
DWCA is the mutation rate. The mutation rate determines how much
of the population will undergo mutation at each iteration, leading to
the exploration of new search spaces. Therefore, an optimal mutation
rate is required to maintain the balance between exploration and
exploitation based on the characteristics of the optimization problem
to achieve optimal performance. Several studies have reported that the
mutation rate of 0.1 to 0.3 is the optimal mutation rate for the DWCA.
However, the identification of the ideal mutation rate varies depending
on the optimization problem being solved.
At this point, the flipping of raindrops may happen (0 may become
1, and 1 may become 0). So after the selection of raindrops, it is first
checked for if the raindrop is applicable or not for the generations
encoded in binary [20,21]. In this work, the DWCA is used so that
the encoding of a potential solution can be a string of real numbers
or, more typically binary bit string. Here raindrops in this task will be
100|1|01|01|001, where:
• 100 — solar cell type
• 1 — Array type
• 01 — Battery type
• 01 — Bus voltage type,
• 001 — Number of batteries.
At the start of a run of a rule, the population of random raindrops
is formed (initial population). Each one, once decoded, can represent
a different resolution to the matter at hand. There were area unit
𝑁 raindrops within the initial population. Then, the subsequent steps
continue until the solution is found:
1. Test each raindrop to determine its ability to solve the problem
and assign a fitness score accordingly.
2. Select the best individual and delete the worst one.
3. Create a new population.
4. With some selection methods, some of the old population is
migrated to the new population.
5. Choose two members from the present population. Again, the
possibility of selection is proportional to the raindrop’s fitness.
6. Depending on the crossover rate, the bits from every chosen
chromosome are randomly subjected to the crossover method.
7. Going through the chosen raindrop bits and flipping is done
systematically, depending on the mutation rate.
8. Repeat steps 5, 6, and 7 until a new population of 𝑁 members
is created.
7.6. DWCA optimizer for LEO SPSS
This work proposes a DWCA optimizer for SPSS optimization of an
LEO satellite because of its balance between exploration and exploita-
tion. Moreover, DWCA can provide solutions meeting cost, mass, and
performance objectives, while satisfying system constraints, supporting
its suitability for the problem.
Mathematical Model:
The optimization problem aims to minimize the cost (𝐶) and mass
(𝑀) of the power supply system, while maximizing its performance (𝑃 )
during the session mode. The objective function can be represented as:
Minimize: 𝐽 (𝐶, 𝑀, 𝑃 ) = 𝑤1 ⋅ 𝐶 + 𝑤2 ⋅ 𝑀 − 𝑤3 ⋅ 𝑃
Where 𝑤1 , 𝑤2 , and 𝑤3 are weight coefficients representing the impor-
tance of cost, mass, and performance.
Constrained Optimization:
The optimization problem is subject to constraints, such as power
requirements during session and eclipse modes:
For session mode: 𝑃session ≥ 2000 W
For eclipse mode: 𝑃eclipse ≥ 500 W
These constraints ensure that the power supply system meets power
requirements during different satellite operational modes.
10
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
7.7. Exploration and exploitation study for power supply system optimiza-
tion
To establish a comprehensive understanding of the proposed DWCA,
it is imperative to compare it with existing solutions, specifically GA
and PSO. This comparative analysis aims to highlight the distinct
advantages and potential limitations of the proposed method in the
context of optimizing spacecraft power supply subsystems. This work
explains how each algorithm balances the exploration and exploitation
of the solution space for the SEPS optimization problem. We will use
a mathematical model to illustrate the concepts of exploration and
exploitation for each algorithm.
Genetic Algorithm (GA):
GA achieves a balance between exploration and exploitation through
its genetic operators: crossover and mutation. The crossover operator
combines the genetic information of two parent solutions to create new
offspring. This promotes exploitation by exploiting promising regions
of the solution space represented by the parents. Mutation introduces
small random changes to the solutions, promoting exploration by
exploring new regions of the solution space. GA achieves exploration by
introducing randomness through mutation and maintains exploitation
by using crossover to combine promising solutions.
Mathematical Model:
Exploitation (Crossover):
Offspring = Crossover(parent1, parent2)
= 𝛼 × parent1 + (1 − 𝛼) ∗ parent2
Exploration (Mutation):
Offspring = Mutate(parent) = parent
+ mutation rate × (upper-bound - lower bound) * rand(),
where 𝛼 is a crossover parameter between [0, 1] while mutation rate
controls the level of exploration.
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO): PSO maintains particle pop-
ulations representing a potential solution. Particles move in the search
space to find optimal solutions. The balance between exploration and
exploitation is achieved by considering personal best (exploitation)
and global best (exploration) positions. Particles adjust their velocity
based on these positions, guiding them towards promising regions while
exploring new areas. PSO achieves exploitation by adjusting particles
towards their personal best and exploration by incorporating global
best information.
Mathematical Model:
- Exploitation (Personal Best):
Velocity = Cognitive Factor * rand() * (Personal Best - Current
Position)
- Exploration (Global Best):
Velocity = Social Factor * rand() * (Global Best - Current Position)
Discrete Water Cycle Algorithm (DWCA):
DWCA simulates the natural water cycle, including precipitation
and evaporation. It balances exploration and exploitation by mimicking
the flow of water. Precipitation corresponds to the exploitation phase,
where solutions gather around promising regions. Evaporation corre-
sponds to the exploration phase, allowing solutions to move away from
overcrowded areas. DWCA achieves exploration through controlled
random walks and exploitation by emphasizing solutions that have best
fitness.
Mathematical Model:
- Exploration (Evaporation):
Solutions explore new areas by moving away from crowded regions.
New Solution = Current Solution + 𝛾 * rand(),
where 𝛾 is a parameter controlling the step size based on random
movement.
- Exploitation (Precipitation):
Solutions are gathered around better solutions.
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

New Solution = Best Solution + 𝜂 * rand(), Table 2

where 𝜂 is a parameter controlling the step size towards the best Normalized mass of power control unit components for
different bus voltages [11].
solution.
Bus voltage (V) Normalized
These mathematical models illustrate how each algorithm balances
exploration and exploitation for the searching phase of the power Box Cabling

supply system optimization problem. The parameters (𝛼, mutationRate, 28 1 1

50 0.65 0.55
Cognitive Factor, Social Factor, 𝜂, 𝛾) influence the trade-off between
100 0.55 0.25
exploring new areas and exploiting the best solutions. These math-
ematical iterative equations illustrate how each algorithm balances
exploration and exploitation for the power supply system optimization Table 3
problem. We will use simplified equations to demonstrate the concepts. Optimal solution for the spacecraft SPSS.

In this work, each algorithm explores the solution space to find a Solar cell type Ultra-Triple Junction UTJ

diverse set of solutions (exploration) while exploiting known promising Solar array type Deployed wings
regions to improve solutions (exploitation). The mathematical models Battery type Li-ion
Bus voltage 100 V
illustrate how each algorithm achieves this balance and adapts its No of Batteries per string 4
behavior during the searching phase of the optimization process. The
mathematical explanation of how each algorithm balances exploration
and exploitation for the power supply system optimization problem.
Balance between Exploration and Exploitation: We compare and analyze the results obtained from different test
The DWCA optimizer is known for its ability to balance exploration functions to assess the DWCA performance against other state-of-the-
and exploitation. The algorithm employs a population of solutions art optimization algorithms, e.g., GA, and PSO. This section also in-
(raindrops) to explore the solution space while adaptively adjusting cludes the convergence behavior of the algorithm, which illustrates the
mutation and crossover rates for exploitation. This balance is essential algorithm’s stability in finding the global optimum solution.
for finding high-quality solutions efficiently.
Justification through Calculations: based on the importance of Benchmarking power supply system optimization for LEO satellite
each weighting coefficient towards the optimization problem, 𝑤1 = 0.8, The satellite operates in a sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of
𝑤2 = 0.6, 𝑤3 = 0.5, initial population size 50, mutation rate: 0.2, and 720 km. It requires 2000 W of power during the sunlit session mode and
the DWCA optimizer are used for 50 iterations with 10 independent 500 W during the eclipse mode. The power supply system consists of
runs. The mean and standard deviation of objective function values, solar panels, batteries, voltage regulators, and power distribution units.
as well as the feasibility of solutions based on constraints, can be A comprehensive and enhanced benchmarking for the power supply
calculated. system is represented in Table 7 We provide detailed calculations for
Comparing the mean and standard deviation of objective function algorithm performance, considering realistic values for the parameters
values assesses DWCA’s performance in minimizing cost and mass and objectives. Algorithm Settings:
while maximizing performance. Additionally, feasibility maintenance
• Population Size: 50
is analyzed based on the computation power and system constraints.
• Crossover Rate (GA): 0.8
• Mutation Rate (GA and DWCA): 0.1
8. Simulation results
• Swarm Size (PSO): 50
• Inertia Weight (PSO): 0.7
Experimental data are presented for the spacecraft design optimiza-
tion process employing a whole framework. The weights for all of the • Cognitive Factor (PSO): 1.5
objectives in this scenario have been applied. The array type, battery • Social Factor (PSO): 1.5
architecture, and maximum discharge rate are only a few of the design • Initial Population (DWCA): Random
aspects crucial for classifying or enhancing the optimal design decision.
Reliability calculation
8.1. Simulation setup In the reliability analysis and calculations, the exponential distri-
bution is proposed to model the time until failure or the time between
Mission specifications failures of the system components. The exponential distribution density
For our case study, input parameters: function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function (CDF) are given
by:
• Orbit altitude = 798 km
• Inclination angle = 51.6◦ 𝑓 (𝑥; 𝜆) = 𝜆 ⋅ 𝑒−𝜆𝑥 (7)
• Mission life = 5 years 𝐹 (𝑥; 𝜆) = 1 − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑥
(8)
• Daylight power requirements = 2 [kW]
• Eclipse power requirements = 2 [kW] Where 𝑥 is the time until failure, and 𝜆 is the failure rate, i.e., the
• Spacecraft Mission type = LEO reciprocal of the mean time between failures.
For each component’s time until failure (𝑥):
Only one solution is deemed optimal after dynamic and multi-objective
optimization for the cost, mass, and IPI, fulfilling all necessary ob- Solar Panel: 𝑥sol ∼ 𝑒𝜆sol
jectives. The solution for our case study with the specified orbital Battery: 𝑥bat ∼ 𝑒𝜆bat
parameters is shown in Table 3: The obtained solution is (8; 2; 3; 3; Voltage Regulator: 𝑥reg ∼ 𝑒𝜆reg
4) with 𝐹min = 1.3709 and computation time is 2.301 [s] (see Table 2).
Power Distribution: 𝑥dist ∼ 𝑒𝜆dist
This section presents comprehensive evaluations of the efficacy of
the proposed DWCA in solving multi-dimensional optimization prob- For each algorithm, calculate the reliability of each component is
lems, e.g., interdisciplinary design. DWCA is used to optimize the expressed at a specific time 𝑡 using the CDF:
SEPS architectural design problem as stated in the problem description.
The proposed optimization method considers the design configuration 𝑅ALG (𝑡) =𝐹 (𝑥sol , 𝜆sol , 𝑡) ⋅ 𝐹 (𝑥bat , 𝜆bat , 𝑡)
currently used in the industry, e.g., reliability concerns. ⋅ 𝐹 (𝑥reg , 𝜆reg , 𝑡) ⋅ 𝐹 (𝑥dist , 𝜆dist , 𝑡)

11
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

Table 4
Solar Cell Technology Trades Comparison of solar cell characteristics [16].
Solar cell BOL efficiency BOL power Cost Mass Power Radiation
technology (28𝑜 ) (W/m2 ) (K$∕kg) (Kg/m2 ) temperature degradation 𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑜
coefficient influence e/cm2
Mev electrons
1 × 1014 5 × 1014 1 × 1015
Si 13.7 185 20 0.55 −0.045 0.92 0.82 0.77
High- Si 16 216 50 0.28 −0.0415 0.92 0.83 0.79
GaAs/GeSJ 19 253 140 0.83 −0.022 0.90 0.83 0.79
Galnp2 25 337 150 0.85 −0.06 0.96 0.92 0.83
GaAs/Ge TJ
Ultra Triple 28 378 170 0.86 −0.06 0.93 0.89 0.86
Junction UTJ

Table 5
Comparison of the properties of the solar cell technologies implemented in the proposed trade-off mechanism.
Solar cell Solar array Radiation Operation Solar panel 1 MeV∕cm2
technology mass (kg/m2 ) influence temperature dry mass
MeV/cm2 (kg/m2 )
GEO LEO GEO LEO GEO LEO
Si 2.52 9 × 1014 2 × 1014 50 60 1.72 1 × 1015 4 × 1014
High - Si 2.34 9.5 × 1014 2 × 1014 60 70 1.54 1.25 × 1015 5 × 1014
GaAs/GeSJ 3.2 7 × 1014 6.6 × 1014 65 75 2.24 7.7 × 1014 7.5 × 1013
Galnp 3.26 6 × 1014 3 × 1014 65 75 2.28 6.6 × 1014 4 × 1013
GaAs/Ge TJ
Ultra Triple 3.26 6 × 1014 3 × 1014 65 75 2.28 6.6 × 1014 4 × 1013
Junction
UTJ

where 𝑅ALG is the reliability for each algorithm, i.e., GA, PSO, and
DWCA.

8.2. Results analysis

After implementing the three optimization algorithms (DWCA, GA,

and PSO) on the SEPS design problem using MATLAB, we analyzed the
results to determine which algorithm performed best.

Fitness values
Firstly, we compared the fitness values obtained by each algorithm
after running 50 iterations. The DWCA algorithm achieved a fitness
value of 13.78, while the GA and PSO algorithms achieved fitness
values of 15.43 and 14.05, respectively. This indicates that DWCA was
able to find a better solution than the other two algorithms in terms of
fitness value. Fig. 12 compares average fitness values generated by each
optimization algorithm. The DWCA Algorithm generates various good
designs across the span of the Pareto front in as low as 50 generations
with a maximum of 4400 function evaluations. On the other hand
essential cost, generation has a maximum of 3000 function evaluations.
We can see from the created graphs that as generations increase, gener-
ated costs decrease while essential costs stay the same. The generated
cost in this scenario is estimated to have 2440 function evaluations,
taking roughly 20 generations to converge when assuming a single
objective. Comparing the developed expenses shows that DWCA out-
performs in terms of fitness value, indicating superior solution quality.
Therefore, DWCA excels in generating efficient designs, particularly
suited for multi-objective spacecraft optimization.
Computation time
Secondly, we compared the computation time taken by each algo-
rithm to complete 50 iterations. The DWCA algorithm took the shortest
time at 5.35 s, while the PSO algorithm took 8.42 s, and the GA
algorithm took 10.74 s. This indicates that DWCA was the fastest
algorithm, followed by PSO, and then GA. Therefore, this results ensure
the DWCA efficiency in finding optimal solutions.
Fig. 12. Fitness sum of the whole generation over-optimization.
Cost
Fig. 13 captures the progress of minimum achieved for each ob-
jective vs. the number of generations of the cost problem. Fig. 14
compares the mass cost function produced by the DWCA algorithm
and the theoretical techniques used to get the mass. Whereas the
spacecraft’s elemental mass has the highest value, the generated mass
is determined by the DWCA algorithm and depends on the number of
generations. It can be as low as 125 or as high as 170 according to
the design objectives. Therefore, DWCA allows for adaptable spacecraft
mass, optimizing for specific mission requirements.
Intricate power index
In comparing parameters of low IPI to generational weight, the
IPI could fall but not by a significant amount, when the generation
weights are increasing. Fig. 15 presents the progress of IPI sum of
the whole generation. As far as we know, a single optimization pro-
cedure simulated and executed the ideal solution. Therefore, we need
multi-objective optimization simulations with various sets of weight
combinations to identify multiple implementations. Here, choose three
different cases: low IPI, low mass, and low cost with a generation of

12
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

Fig. 13. Progress of minimum achieved for each objective vs. no. of generations for cost problem.

Fig. 14. Progress of minimum mass cost function achieved for each objective vs. no. of generations for the mass problem.

Fig. 15. Progress of IPI sum of the whole generation.

weights. Three regions of whole generations are seen in Fig. 15. The Region I, whereas those for an apparent trade-off between IPI, cost, and
solutions for very low IPI, very high cost, and low mass are shown in mass are shown in Region II. Finally, the options with the lowest prices,

13
A. Mokhtar et al.
Fig. 16. Approximate design for tri-objective optimization for the cost, mass, and IPI with the scatter function.
lowest IPI, and lowest mass are displayed in Region III. So DWCA algo-
rithm effectively manages IPI across generations, showcasing consistent
improvement. However, IPI fluctuations correlate with generational
weights, indicating adaptability in achieving diverse design objectives.
Therefore, DWCA supports the fine-tuning of power indices across
generations, enhancing design adaptability.
Convergence behavior
The convergence behavior of optimization algorithms is a crucial
aspect in assessing their efficiency and reliability. In our study, we
provide a comprehensive demonstration of the convergence behavior
of the optimization methods employed—DWCA, GA, and PSO. Thus,
we analyzed the convergence behavior of each algorithm by plotting
the fitness values obtained in each iteration. Fig. 16 depicts the ap-
proximate design for tri-objective optimization for the cost, mass, and
IPI with the scatter function. The convergence plots show that all
three algorithms were able to converge to a reasonable solution. DWCA
exhibits the fastest rate of convergence to a reasonable solution. The
convergence plot for DWCA demonstrates a steep decline in fitness
values, indicating its effectiveness in quickly refining the solution. On
another hand, GA shows the slowest rate of convergence. Thus, the
convergence plot for GA displays a gradual decrease in fitness values,
suggesting a slower convergence rate. However, the convergence plot
for PSO demonstrates a moderate decline in fitness values, falling
between the rapid convergence of DWCA and the slower convergence
of GA.
Therefore, DWCA offers solutions for trade-offs between IPI, cost,
and mass, providing a comprehensive view of design possibilities.
Overall, based on the results obtained in this analysis, we conclude that
the DWCA algorithm is the most suitable for solving the SEPS design
problem. Although it takes longer to compute, DWCA found a better
solution than GA and PSO in terms of fitness value. Additionally, its
convergence rate was faster than GA, making it more efficient in finding
a solution. Also, if speed is a critical factor, DWCA may be a better
option, as it was able to find a good solution in a shorter amount of
time.
This convergence demonstration provides a visual representation
of the algorithm’s capability to efficiently navigate the design space
and converge to optimal solutions. In conclusion, the swift conver-
gence of DWCA strengthens the credibility of the proposed DWCA as a
powerful algorithm for SEPS optimization by highlighting its superior
convergence characteristics compared to GA and PSO.
14
Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092
Tri-objective optimization
All three algorithms demonstrate convergence to reasonable so-
lutions as shown in Figs. 12–16. The most interesting point, DWCA
ensures high-quality solutions as well as a quicker convergence rate in
optimizing the design process.
Comparison with existing solutions: (Advantages)
To establish a comprehensive understanding of the proposed DWCA,
it is imperative to compare it with existing solutions, specifically GA
and PSO. This comparative analysis aims to highlight the distinct
advantages and potential limitations of the proposed method in the
context of optimizing SEPS. For instance;
• DWCA consistently outperforms GA and PSO in terms of fitness
values, indicating superior solution quality.
• The algorithm’s ability to quickly converge to optimal solutions
ensures high-quality designs for the SEPS.
• DWCA demonstrates the shortest computation time among the
three algorithms for 50 iterations. Thus, it is critical for practical
applications in space mission planning.
• DWCA showcases adaptability in handling multi-objective op-
timization scenarios, i.e., addressing various design objectives
simultaneously. So DWCA provides a range of efficient designs
across the Pareto front.
• The proposed algorithm introduces a dynamic mass cost function,
allowing for adaptable spacecraft mass optimization based on
mission requirements. This feature enhances the flexibility of
spacecraft design, catering to diverse mission specifications.
• DWCA effectively manages the IPI across generations, showcasing
consistent adaptability to the algorithm’s ability to meet specific
SEPS constraints.
Comparison with existing solutions: Limitations
However, DWCA faces some limitations which should be taken in
the consideration, for instance:
• The efficiency of the DWCA may require more computational
resources compared to GA.
• The discrete nature of DWCA may introduce increased complexity
in implementation compared to the more straightforward GA and
PSO. This complexity might require careful parameter tuning and
thorough understanding for optimal utilization.
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

We compared the DWCA performance with two other optimization

Fig. 17. Three options are presented: [28 V (traditional low bus voltage level), 50 V,
and 100 V] [11].
The proposed DWCA offers notable advantages, including superior
solution quality, computational efficiency, and adaptability to multi-
objective scenarios. Its dynamic mass adaptation and effective IPI
management contribute to its versatility in spacecraft design. How-
ever, potential limitations include a trade-off in computation time and
increased algorithmic complexity.
Comparison with existing solutions: Wilcoxon test
Table 8 presents a benchmark of SEPS design optimization for LEO
satellite using multi-Objective optimization algorithms under Wilcoxon
test. The lower bound is [0, 0, 0], and the upper bound is [1, 1, 1]. The
number of runs is 10, and the number of iterations is 50. The output
of each algorithm is Pareto Front solutions.
9. Conclusions
For successful spacecraft missions, the SEPS design requires meeting
various design criteria while working within specific limitations. In this
paper, we proposed an enhanced discrete version of the DWCA, used to
solve various constrained optimization and engineering design issues.
The DWCA algorithm is used to effectively automate the design process
of the SEPS, e.g., the selection of components technologies. Thus it
has led to improving the design performance with minimum costs and
ensuring design stability in the conceptual design process for space
systems. The proposed research has evaluated performance with mass,
cost, operating constraints of the battery, and system reliability. Thus,
we represented the trade-off analysis of the LEO SPES by the DWCA
Algorithm.
algorithms, e.g., GA and PSO according to the fitness values, the
computation time, and the convergence behavior. The use of DWCA
optimizer is justified for the power supply system optimization of a
LEO satellite. Its ability to balance exploration and exploitation, handle
constraints, and provide solutions meeting cost, mass, and performance
objectives, while satisfying system constraints, supports its suitability
for the problem.
After many iterations, our analysis revealed that DWCA outperforms
the other algorithms in terms of both solution quality and convergence
speed. Moreover, we demonstrated how DWCA approaches can be
integrated with the system sizing or assessment tools to generate mul-
tiobjective optimal design solutions that consider practical boundaries.
Furthermore, utilizing this model results in increased affordability as
it reduces the cost required to generate and maintain power during
long-duration flights in remote locations.
We also highlight the effectiveness of the evolutionary algorithms,
e.g., DWCA to analyze and design SEPS and their component configu-
rations, providing a framework for future research in this field. The
results aid engineers in system design for production-educated deci-
sions entirely based on quantitative and qualitative analysis. Overall,
our research significantly advances the field of spacecraft power supply
optimization by introducing and validating the effectiveness of DWCA.
This work offers a powerful solution to complex and multidisciplinary
design challenges.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmed Mokhtar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Val-
idation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Mohamed
Ibrahim: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writ-
ing – review & editing, Visualization. Mohamed E. Hanafy: Analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration. Fawzy H. Amer ElTohamy: Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Visualization. Wael A. Murtada: For-
mal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing, Visualization. Yehia Z. Elhalwagy: Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Table 6
Space batteries technology trades Comparison characteristics [11].
Battery Cell Cell Cell Cell Operating
technology nominal average specific specific temperature
voltage discharge energy power C𝑜
voltage (V) (W-hr/kg) (W/kg)
Nicd 1.45 1.25 40:50 150:200 −20:50
NiH2 1.55 1.25 45:65 150:200 −10:50
Li-ion 4.1 3.5 90:150 200:220 10:45

Table 7
SEPS Simulation Tools survey [10,12,19].
No Name/Tool Mission/USE Year Organization
1 Capel LEO spacecraft – –
2 EASY5 COB spacecraft 1989 NASA
3 MATLAB based satellite power simulation Colombo 2009 ESA
4 Virtual Test Bed (VTB) SEPS modeling and simulation – South Carolina
5 Multi-Mission Power Analysis Tool Mars Explorer Rovers and Deep Impact missions 2004 NASA
6 Power Cap, developed by SAE long-term simulation – Canada

15
A. Mokhtar et al. Franklin Open 7 (2024) 100092

Table 8
Benchmarking Power Supply System Optimization for LEO satellite using Multi-Objective optimization algorithms under Wilcoxon test. The lower bound is [0, 0, 0], and the upper
bound is [1, 1, 1]. The number of runs is 10, and the number of iterations is 50. The output of each algorithm is Pareto Front Solutions.
Algorithm Inputs for Explore/Exploit Cost $ Mass [kg] Performance
optimizer study Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Population Size: 50, Explores
GA Crossover Rate: 0.8, & Exploits 6.2 × 106 1.8 × 105 780 20 0.85 0.025
Mutation Rate: 0.1 Trade-offs
Swarm Size: 50, Balances
Inertia Weight: 0.7, Exploration
PSO 6.5 × 106 1.6 × 105 775 18 0.88 0.020
Cognitive Factor: 1.5, & Exploitation
Social Factor: 1.5
Initial Population: Adapts to
6.3 × 106 1.7 × 105 778 19 0.86 0.022
DWCA Random, Exploration
Mutation Rate: 0.2 & Exploitation

Appendix
A.1. Supplemental tables
See Tables 6–8.
References
[1] Qi Chen, Zhigang Liu, Xiaofeng Zhang, Liying Zhu, Spacecraft Power System
Technologies, Springer, 2020.
[2] Laith Abualigah, Dalia Yousri, Mohamed Abd Elaziz, Ahmed A. Ewees,
Mohammed A.A. Al-Qaness, Amir H. Gandomi, Aquila optimizer: a novel
meta-heuristic optimization algorithm, Comput. Ind. Eng. 157 (2021) 107250.
[3] Kang Seok Lee, Zong Woo Geem, A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous
engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Engrg. 194 (36–38) (2005) 3902–3933.
[4] James Kennedy, Russell Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in: Proceedings
of ICNN’95-International Conference on Neural Networks, Vol. 4, IEEE, 1995,
pp. 1942–1948.
[5] Ann Arbor, J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975.
[6] David E. Golberg, Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine
learning, Addion Wesley 1989 (102) (1989) 36.
[7] Scott Kirkpatrick, Optimization by simulated annealing: Quantitative studies, J.
Stat. Phys. 34 (1984) 975–986.
[8] Laurence Giraud-Moreau, Pascal Lafon, A comparison of evolutionary algorithms
for mechanical design components, Eng. Optim. 34 (3) (2002) 307–322.
[9] Piya Chootinan, Anthony Chen, Constraint handling in genetic algorithms using
a gradient-based repair method, Comput. Oper. Res. 33 (8) (2006) 2263–2281.
[10] M.P. Brenna, C. Colombo, F. Scala, M. Trisolini, et al., CubeSat mission concept
for environmental analysis in low earth orbit, in: International Astronautical
Congress: IAC Proceedings, 2021, pp. 1–15.
[11] Mukund R. Patel, Spacecraft Power Systems, CRC Press, 2004.
[12] S. Ananda, N. Lakshminarasamma, V. Radhakrishna, M.S. Srinivasan, P. Satya-
narayana, M. Sankaran, Genetic algorithm driven generic estimation model of
lithium-ion battery for energy balance calculation in spacecraft, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl. 57 (3) (2021) 2726–2736.
[13] Lele Wang, Pengyu Liu, Yuanmo Liu, Xiangyi Meng, Xiaodong Jia, Research
on function analysis and architecture design method of satellite electrical
power system based on sysml, in: 2nd International Conference on Mechanical,
Electronics, and Electrical and Automation Control, Vol. 12244, METMS 2022,
SPIE, 2022, pp. 1002–1009.
[14] James R. Wertz, Wiley J. Larson, Space Mission Analysis and Design, Microcosm,
Inc., 1999, p. 497.
[15] Todd Mosher, Conceptual spacecraft design using a genetic algorithm trade
selection process, J. Aircr. 36 (1) (1999) 200–208.
[16] M. Raja Reddy, Space solar cells—tradeoff analysis, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
77 (2) (2003) 175–208.
[17] Liying Wang, Qingjiao Cao, Zhenxing Zhang, Seyedali Mirjalili, Weiguo Zhao,
Artificial rabbits optimization: A new bio-inspired meta-heuristic algorithm for
solving engineering optimization problems, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 114 (2022)
105082.
[18] Ioan Cristian Trelea, The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence
analysis and parameter selection, Inform. Process. Lett. 85 (6) (2003) 317–325.
[19] Luigi Schirone, Matteo Ferrara, Pierpaolo Granello, Claudio Paris, Filippo Pellit-
teri, Power bus management techniques for space missions in low earth orbit,
Energies 14 (23) (2021) 7932.
[20] Haiyun Qiu, Bowen Xue, Ben Niu, Tianwei Zhou, Junrui Lu, An improved
hydrologic cycle optimization algorithm for solving engineering optimization
problems, in: Advances in Swarm Intelligence: 13th International Conference,
ICSI 2022, Xi’an, China, July 15–19, 2022, Proceedings, Part I, Springer, 2022,
pp. 117–127.
[21] Kola Sampangi Sambaiah, Renewable energy source allocation in electrical
distribution system using water cycle algorithm, Mater. Today Proc. 58 (2022)
20–26.

16

View publication stats