Optimization strategies for a 16U CubeSat mission

Optimization strategies for a 16U CubeSat mission

Matteo Gemignani

download PDF

Abstract. The surge in small satellite and CubeSat deployments has led to a diversification of feasible missions, driving a shift from emphasizing simplicity and low-cost to prioritizing performance while maintaining cost-efficiency. Integration of small payloads and advancements in technology have enhanced CubeSat capabilities, enabling the development of high-performance platforms. EXCITE, a 16U CubeSat mission, will demonstrate five different technologies in the LEO environment, including propulsion systems, a reconfigurable antenna, and on-board processing capabilities. To maximize EXCITE’s capabilities and accommodate diverse payloads for various mission scenarios, multiple optimization strategies have been implemented. This includes thorough orbit analysis to determine the most suitable orbit for mission objectives, considering factors such as beta angles and eclipse time. The use of a chemical thruster provides flexibility in mission design by allowing adjustments to orbital altitude and ground-track patterns. Additionally, careful scheduling of orbital maneuvers is crucial for maximizing access time to specific ground stations and optimizing data downlink opportunities. Managing complex interactions between design variables necessitates advanced optimization techniques like gradient-based algorithms. OpenMDAO offers a robust framework for tackling multidisciplinary design optimization problems efficiently, facilitating exploration of trade-offs between competing design objectives.

CubeSat, IOD/IOV, Green Propulsion, Electric Propulsion, Optimization, Small Satellites

Published online 6/1/2024, 4 pages
Copyright © 2024 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA

Citation: Matteo Gemignani, Optimization strategies for a 16U CubeSat mission, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 42, pp 117-120, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903193-26

The article was published as article 26 of the book Aerospace Science and Engineering

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

[1] N. Saeed, A. Elzanaty, H. Almorad, H. Dahrouj, T. Y. Al-Naffouri, and M.-S. Alouini, “CubeSat Communications: Recent Advances and Future Challenges,” Aug. 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09501
[2] M. Mozzato et al., “Concept and Feasibility Analysis of the Alba Cubesat Mission,” Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42496-024-00205-9
[3] A. Frolova, L. Kuhlmann, and J. Silveira, “Sustainability Aspects of Rapid Prototyping and Frequent In-Orbit Demonstrations with CubeSats,” 2023. https://doi.org/10.13009/EUCASS2023-691
[4] R. J. Boain, “A-B-Cs of Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mission Design 14 AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Conference A-B-Cs of Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mission Design.”
[5] Arianespace, “All flight opportunities.” Accessed: Mar. 13, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://smallsats.arianespace.com/opportunities
[6] K. Lemmer, “Propulsion for CubeSats,” Acta Astronaut, vol. 134, pp. 231–243, May 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.01.048
[7] J. S. Gray, J. T. Hwang, J. R. R. A. Martins, K. T. Moore, and B. A. Naylor, “OpenMDAO: an open-source framework for multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1075–1104, Apr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z