JBIS, Vol.

70,Constellations
Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable pp.x-x, 2017

CONCURRENT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF EARTH OBSERVATION

SATELLITES AND RECONFIGURABLE CONSTELLATIONS

SUNG WOOK PAEK1*, OLIVIER L. DE WECK1 AND MATTHEW W. SMITH2

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
2. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
Email: pswpsh@gmail.com

Remote sensing missions for disaster monitoring or reconnaissance are target-agnostic in that target locations are unknown a
priori. Therefore, reconfigurability in satellite orbits can increase responsiveness and quality of imagery data. This paper uses a
systems engineering approach to develop an optimization tool for reconfigurable constellations (ReCon). The tool concurrently
optimizes the individual satellite design and the constellation geometry. The proposed concept of operations of a ReCon has
two operational modes: global observation mode (GOM) and regional observation mode (ROM). Satellites in GOM have
drifting ground tracks that provide a global coverage, and ROM features repeating ground tracks (RGT) that increase the access
frequency to a particular target. A weighted-sum genetic algorithm (GA) is used to identify non-dominated optimal solutions
along a Pareto front in the multi-objective tradespace. In addition to demonstrating the technical feasibility of a ReCon, this
paper proposes staged deployment strategies to minimize contingent risks such as launch failures and market uncertainties.
Keywords: Remote Sensing, Reconfigurability, Satellite Constellations, Repeating Ground Tracks, Genetic Algorithms

1. INTRODUCTION
Reconfigurable satellite constellations (ReCons) incorporate
orbital reconfigurability into early design stages of individual
satellites and their constellation geometry. Concurrent
optimization of satellites and constellation enables responsive
remote sensing missions with current propulsion technologies.
Examples of responsive operations include disaster monitoring
and reconnaissance in which target locations cannot be
determined prior to launch. There are several ways to implement
orbital reconfigurability, but this paper considers a ReCon with
the following two operational modes: global observation mode
(GOM) and regional observation mode (ROM) [1]. ROM uses
repeat ground tracks (RGTs) in which the ground path repeats
itself whereas GOM uses non-repeating ground tracks, as shown
in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively [2]. Satellites in GOM survey the
entire latitude band, defined by their orbit inclinations, in search
of a target of interest. Satellites enter ROM when a targets is
located, observing the target more frequently.
Figure 3 compares the coverage performance between
ROM (560 km) and GOM (520 km and 600 km). In Fig. 3,
ROM achieves 2 to 5 times higher time coverage than GOM
except in high latitudes even though these orbits share similar
altitudes as well as identical inclinations (97.636), angle of
regard (15), and instantaneous field of view (5). In particular,
ROM time coverage has peaks at latitudes of 0, 50, 70, and
75 where RGTs cross each other, as shown in Fig. 1. Note that
one satellite yields the time coverage depicted in Fig. 3, so the
percentage should be multiplied by the number of satellites in a
multi-satellite constellation.

Fig. 1 Ground tracks in regional observation mode (ROM).

1
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith
NOMENCLATURE
A surface area of a satellite, m2
a semi-major axis of the orbit of a satellite, km
CD drag coefficient
ci weighting factor of a constraint violation function
D aperture diameter, m
d traverse distance of ground tracks, m
e eccentricity of a satellite orbit
Fi figure-of-merit function V volume of a satellite or its propellant tank, m3
f relative spacing between satellites in adjacent planes
in Walker constellation
g gravitational acceleration of the Earth, m/s2
h height of the orbit of a satellite, m
hi constraint violation function
Isp specific impulse, s
i inclination of the orbit of a satellite, deg
Ji objective function
k penalty gain of a constraint violation function
L lifetime of a satellite, year
M mean motion of the orbit of a satellite, deg/s
m mass of a subsystem, a satellite, or a constellation, kg
N number of reconfigurations during the satellite lifetime
ND number of rotations of the Earth (days) during a
minimum synchronization period
NS number of revolutions of a satellite during a minimum
synchronization period
n mean motion of the orbit of a satellite, rad/s
nplane number of orbit planes in a constellation
Fig. 2 Ground tracks in global observation mode (GOM).
Although ROM provides higher time coverage than GOM,
it suffers from dead zones shown in Fig. 1, especially near the
equator. To fill this gap, GOM provides a global coverage which
enables satellites to locate a target of interest anywhere within
the latitude band, as illustrated in Fig. 4. A single satellite in
GOM achieves 95% accumulated percentage area after one
day, with 5% missing in Polar Region, whereas ROM maxes
out at 67% due to dead zones interspersed between ground
tracks. In a multi-satellite constellation, the accumulated area
coverage increases faster.
The idea of reconfiguring satellite orbits is not new. ESA
satellites ERS 1 and ERS 2 could vary their revisit frequency
2
nsat number of satellites per orbit plane
p number of equally spaced planes in Walker constellation
RS slant range, m
si scaling factor of a figure-of-merit function
TD Earth nodal day, s
TS orbital period of the revolution of a satellite, s
t total number of satellites in Walker constellation
v orbital velocity of a satellite, m/s
wi weighting factor of a figures-of-merit function
x ground resolution element, m
x design vector
nozzle mass coefficient
angel of regard of a satellite from its nadir, deg
angular resolution, deg
wavelength, m
gravitational coefficient, m3/s2
orbital geometry coefficient
density of a satellite, its propellant, or atmosphere, kg/m3
repeating ground track (RGT) ratio
traverse angle of ground tracks, deg
coefficient of mass objective
rising ascension of ascending node (RAAN) of the
orbit of a satellite, deg
argument of perigee of a satellite orbit, deg
E rotation rate of the Earth, deg/s
from 3 to 35 days [3]. In a way, they constituted a two-satellite
ReCon with multiple ROMs. There is also ample literature on
coverage analysis of remote-sensing satellite constellations.
Ulivieri et al. noted that more than one orbit plane is needed
to achieve a revisit frequency lower than 24 hours [4]. The
high repetitiveness is essential in contingency-related missions
dealing with natural disasters floods, tsunamis, earthquakes,
or forest fires) or intelligence reconnaissance (military or
humanitarian). The location of these contingent events is
unknown until they actually occur, so the whole constellation
should be equipped with reconfigurability in order to manipulate
ground tracks and minimize revisit frequencies. In addition to
revisit frequency, an orbit designer should consider local solar
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations
Fig. 3 Total access duration in ROM and GOM.
Fig. 4 Accumulated area coverage in ROM and GOM.
time for remote sensing with visible wavelengths and other
coverage metrics (global/regional, temporal/spatial) under
numerous constraints of propellant usage or data acquisition to
name a few [5]. Based on these earlier results, this paper attempts
to propose an integrated systematic approach for prototyping
reconfigurable satellite constellations. This approach considers
the interaction and mutual influence of various different aspects
such as astrodynamics, optics, and propulsion in constellation
modeling. The modeling begins with developing a concept of
operations and defining baseline RGT orbits. The following
sections explain underlying assumptions used for founding
these pillars.
2. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
Figure 5 describes a concept of operations (ConOps) over a
life cycle of a ReCon. First, satellites are launched into a GOM
orbit which is a default mode when there is no specific target to
observe. When a target of interest is identified on the ground,
the satellites switch to ROM and observe the target with
increased access. The satellites return to GOM again after target
observation, and this reconfiguration occurs until their fuel runs
out. At the end of life, the satellites perform decommissioning
re-entry. The simplifying assumptions are as follows:
Observation mode changes always occur in all satellites.
Both GOM and ROM are circular orbits with same
inclinations.
Transitions between two modes are performed by a two-
impulse Hohmann transfer.
The ConOps considered in this paper assumed absolute
no knowledge about potential target locations for the most
generalizable case. Therefore, the ConOps has two differing
modes which complement each other; as mentioned in I.
Introduction, ROM has a higher revisit frequency than GOM,
and GOM has better coverage than ROM. However, if the user
has some knowledge about target locations, alternative ConOps
are possible; for example, the ConOps may consist of multiple
ROMs only as demonstrated by ESAs Earth Remote Satellites
(ERS). In the modularized framework presented here, the
user can easily alter the ConOps by changing minor details of
Astrodyamics module and Maneuvers module which will be
explained in II. Modeling section.
3. Repeat Ground Tracks
Ground tracks repeat themselves when an Earth nodal day and
one period of a satellite orbit make a ratio of two integers. This
synchronization ratio, or the RGT ratio, is defined by:
N S TD 2 (E )
M + n + n +
= = = = = (1)
N D TS 2 ( M + ) E E
where a satellite makes NS revolutions around the Earth while
the Earth rotates around its axis ND times, i.e., in ND days.
Similarly, TS is the orbital period of a satellite and TD is the
Earth nodal day. For orbital elements, n is the mean motion
of a satellite; dM/dt (=n+n) is the perturbed mean motion;
E is the rotation rate of the Earth; d/dt is the drift rate of
the argument of perigee; and d/dt is the nodal regression rate.
When perturbations up to J2 terms are considered, these rates
of change in orbital elements take simple forms in Eqs. (2,
3, 4), and (5) [6]. More accurate calculations require higher-
order terms such as tesseral harmonics to take non-spherical
3
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith

Fig. 5 ReCon Concept of operation.

effects into account, but considering up to J2 terms would be (0) and a retrograde orbit (180). Although any inclination
enough for rapid prototyping purposes. The user can use more from 0 to 180 is possible, remote-sensing missions often
complicated expressions instead of these equations for higher utilize Sun-synchronous orbits in visible wavelengths to visit
fidelity [7]. a target at the same local time with constant solar illumination.
Therefore, the orbit choice is limited by both repeating ground
3RE2 J 2 tracks and Sun-synchronism, as summarized in Table 1.
= (2)
( )
2
4a 2 1 e 2 4. MODELLING

Modelling a ReCon is a multidisciplinary problem that involves

= (
n n 1 e 2 2 3sin 2 i ) (3) constellation design and satellite engineering. In the proposed
ReCon framework, the two disciplines are interspersed among
the following five modules: Astrodynamics, Optics, Propulsion,

= (
n 4 5sin 2 i ) (4) Manoeuvres, and Constellation Properties. Figure 7 illustrates

TABLE 1: Sun-Synchronous RGT Orbits.

= 2 n cos i
(5)
NS ND Altitude Inclination
Figure 6 illustrates relationships between altitude and 13 1 1257 km 100.70
inclination for select values of RGT ratios (13, 27/2, 14, 29/2, 27 2 1067 km 99.79
15, 31/2). The RGT altitude increases when the inclination
14 1 888 km 98.98
increases while the RGT ratio is fixed, as seen from the left to
the right along any curve; the RGT altitude decreases when the 29 2 720 km 98.27
RGT ratio increases while inclination is fixed, as seen from the 15 1 561 km 97.64
bottom to the top across different curves. For an equatorial orbit,
two RGT orbits with different altitudes exist: a posigrade orbit 31 2 411 km 97.07

Fig. 6 Relationship between RGT ratio,

inclination, and altitude.

4
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations
Fig. 7 ReCon modelling and optimization framework.
major data flows which start with a design vector input and end
with a figure-or-merit (FOM) vector output. A design vector
has five design variables: RGT ratio in ROM (= NS/ND),
altitude offset in GOM relative to ROM (h), angle of regard
(), number of orbit planes (nplane), and number of satellites
per plan (nsat). The first three variables relate to the design of
individual satellites, and the last two variables describe the
collective geometry of a satellite constellation. The propellant
type is fixed as monopropellant and not considered as a design
variable in this model. With this design vector as an input, the
simulation model generates an FOM vector with four figures
of merit: GOM time coverage, ROM revisit time, constellation
mass, and reconfiguration time. All modules are written in
Fig. 8 ReCon design structure matrix.
MATLAB, and Astrodynamics module interfaces with Satellite
Tool Kit (STK) for orbit propagation and coverage calculation
[7, 8]. An optimization algorithm forms a feedback loop and
decides which input to use next, based on the previous output.
Details of the simulation model and the optimization algorithm
are black boxes to each other because the two interacts through
only the design vector and the FOM vector. Therefore, the user
can freely modify the details of each. The iterative tradespace
exploration continues until one or more stopping criteria are
satisfied.
Figure 8 uses a design structure matrix (DSM, N2 diagram)
to represent data flows more systemically. A DSM places N
5
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith
modules along the diagonal of an N by N matrix and uses non-
diagonal elements to represent data flows. Figure 8 uses the
upper triangle for data flows from upper-left modules to lower-
right modules. This DSM representation reveals two nested
loops inside the simulation model: (1) the first loop between
Constellation Properties module and Propulsion module and
(2) the second loop between Maneuvers module and the first
loop. This coupling does not pose a serious problem in terms
of computation time due to fast convergence. As discussed
later, the most time-consuming part is Astrodynamics module
communicating with STK.
5. ASTRODYNAMICS
Astrodynamic module takes an input design vector to calculate
coverage performance such as time coverage and revisit time.
Time coverage is a measure of access duration when satellites
in GOM first discover and characterize a target, and revisit time
is a measure of access frequency when the satellites in ROM
repeatedly observe the discovered target in search of any changes.
Astrodynamics module communicates with other MATLAB
modules in Fig. 8, and it also communicates with Satellite Tool
Kit (STK) as shown in Fig. 9 [8, 9]. Once the module receives
an input design vector, it sends corresponding commands to
STK. According to these commands, STK creates a scenario and
initializes relevant parameters to define orbit shapes and align
satellites over multiple orbit planes. Each plane has the same
number of satellites, resulting in a uniform Walker pattern; for
example, a 12-satellite constellation is possible (3 planes 4
satellites/plane), but a 13-satellite constellation is not allowed.
After initializing a target represented with a ground station in
STK, MATLAB sends STK necessary commands for moving
the target location along the latitude and longitude band in both
GOM and ROM. In each iteration round, STK propagates the
orbits using a J4 propagator and calculates the coverage figures
of merits (FOMs) of the constellation. The STK simulation
time spanned over two days because it is the minimum time for
repeating ground tracks to repeat when the RGT ratio 29/2 or
31/2. Finally, MATLAB receives FOM values and assess their
statistics including minimum, maximum, and mean. The case
study evaluated minimum revisit time in ROM and mean percent
time coverage in GOM, but the user can freely choose any other
combinations such as maximum area coverage for example.
Although MATLAB-STK interface has an advantage
of automating high-fidelity propagations with little human
interventions, it also has high recurring time overheads to
initialize and terminate a scenario for each run. The computation
time per run ranged from a few seconds for the smallest size
(2 planes 1 satellites/plane) up to a minute for the largest
size (7 planes 7 satellites/plane). This speed may not be
Fig. 9 MATLAB-STK Interface.
6
acceptable for heuristic optimization methods, such as the
genetic algorithm (GA) or the particle swarm algorithm (PSO),
that require a large population over a number of generations.
For example, GA with 30 individuals and 50 generations took
5 to 15 hours to generate one optimal configuration in V. Case
Study Results depending on the constellation size. Therefore,
future work should consider multi-fidelity approaches which
use analytic or semi-analytic formulas for fast, medium-fidelity
calculation and STK simulations for high-fidelity validation.
6. OPTICS
Optics module receives RGT altitude (hRGT), altitude offset
(h), and field of regard () to output the diameter of primary
aperture (D) and the payload mass. Figures 10 and 11 describe
the cases when the satellite is pointing at the nadir and off-
nadir, respectively [10]. Figure 10 defines the ground resolution
element as a theoretical limit in linear resolution on the ground,
which is related by angular resolution () or instantaneous field
of view (IFOV) to the diameter of the first Airy ring (d) on
the satellites focal plane. When a satellites points off-nadir as
shown in Fig.11, the projection of ground resolution element
grows larger or the resolution deteriorates. The projected
resolution or ground separation distance (GSD), together with
the angle of regard () or field of view (FOV), governs the
sizing of primary aperture through a relationship in Eq. (6). In
order to obtain the same GSD at the edge or a larger FOV, the
aperture diameter has to increase because slant range (Rs) is
inversely proportional to the square of cosine of FOV.
RS h
=D 2.44
= 2.44 (6)
x GSD cos 2
The payload mass is the total mass of primary mirror,
optical telescope assembly (OTA), imagers, and supporting
mechanical and electronic components. The power law in Eq.
(7) provides an empirical relationship between the payload
mass and the aperture diameter obtained from a database of
Earth observation or astronomy missions illustrated in Fig.
12 and Table 2 [11]. The payload mass ranges from 30 kg to
500 kg, and the wet mass ranges from minisatellites (100
1000 kg) to larger satellites (>1000 kg). The coefficient of
determination is defined as R2 = 1 (total sum of squares)/
(residual sum of squares) = 1 (yi E[Y])2/(fi E[Y])2
where the regression (fi) perfectly fits data (yi) if R2 = 1. The
power law with an exponent greater than 1 indicates a super-
linear relationship where the payload mass increase faster than
the aperture diameter.
mdry ,optics = 418D1.37 (7)
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations

Fig. 10 Satellite optics and ground resolution element.

Fig. 11 Angle of regard and ground sample distance.

Fig. 12 Relationship between aperture

diameter and payload mass.

TABLE 2: Payload Aperture Diameter and Mass.

Spacecraft Wavelength (nm) Aperture (m) Payload Mass (kg)
RapidEye 440 850 0.145 43
TopSat 420 730 0.2 32
OrbView-3 450 900 0.45 66
Quickbird 405 1053 0.6 380
WorldView-1 400 900 0.6 380
IKONOS 445 929 0.7 171
GeoEye-1 440 850 1.1 452

7
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith
7. PROPULSION
Propulsion module calculates the bus mass (except propulsion
subsystem), propulsion subsystem mass, and propellant mass.
Table 3 illustrates the mass breakdown of a satellite mass; first,
a satellite mass is divided into dry mass and propellant mass;
the dry mass is further broken down into propulsion subsystem
mass and the rest; finally, the propulsion subsystem is divided
tank and nozzle, and the rest is divided into payload and bus
[12].
TABLE 3: Satellite Mass Breakdown.
Dry,
Payload
Dry, non- optics
propulsive Dry, non-
Sat Dry Mass Bus
Total optics
Mass Tank
Dry, propulsive
Nozzle
Propellant Mass
The bus mass follows an empirical relationship in Eq.
(8) which shows that bus mass increases almost linearly
with aperture diameter. Figure 13 graphically describes the
relationship between the optics diameter and the bus mass
where the slope of the dotted trend line is close to 1 with nearly
perfect fitting of R2 = 0.98.
mdry.optics = 6.5D1.03 (8)
The tank mass is independent of optics aperture unlike
payload mass and bus mass. Instead, tank mass depends
on its volume capacity whose relationship comes from a
separate database. Equation (9) and Fig. 13 show a sub-linear
relationship between tank mass and propellant capacity,
obtained from a tank database for the diaphragm type and the
propellant management device (PMD) type [13, 14]. The tank
type is not a design variable in the simulation, so the trend line
for both types (solid line) lies between the individual trend
lines for the PMD type (upward-slopping, dotted line) and the
diaphragm type (linear, dotted line) in Fig. 14 [15]. It is also
notable that the exponent value of 0.59 (R2 = 0.94) is close to
0.67 = 2/3 indicating that the mass of propellant tank, basically
a thin shell, grows two-dimensionally while its volume grows
three-dimensionally.
Fig. 13 Relationship between aperture
diameter and bus mass.
8
0.592
mp
mtank
= 38.7
= V p0.592 38.7 (9)
p
The values of payload mass from Eq. (7), bus mass from
Eq. (8), and tank mass from Eq. (9) are substituted into both
sides of Eq. (10) which is basically a rocket equation. A specific
impulse of 220 seconds and a density of 1021 kg/m3 are used for
hydrazine monopropellant at 400 psi and 300 K. A proportional
coefficient of 0.05 is used in mnozzle = mp, meaning that nozzle
and fluid controls mass is equivalent to 5% of propellant mass.
Because Propulsion module forms an inner iteration loop
with Constellation Properties module and an outer loop with
Manoeuvres Module and dry satellite mass from gives back the
total mass of a satellite, subsystem mass and propellant mass
must be iteratively calculated via Newtons method until their
values converge.
mdry ,optics
+ mdry , non-optics + mtank + mnozzle + m p
= ( mdry,optics + mdry,non-optics + mtank + mnozzle ) e V ( gI sp )
(10)
8. MANOEUVRES
Manoeuvres module takes RGT altitude (hRGT) and altitude
offset (h) as inputs, yielding delta-v and reconfiguration
time as outputs. The total delta-v tallies all propellant
requirements throughout a ReCon mission summarized in
Table 4. The impulsive burns happen during commissioning,
reconfiguring, stationkeeping, and decommissioning phases.
Commissioning burn and decommissioning burn happen only
once at the beginning and the end of life, whereas constellation-
reconfiguring burns depends on user requirements.
Vtotal =Vcommission + LVstation
(11)
+ 2 N Vreconfig + Vde-commission
First, commissioning delta-v is calculated as a Hohmann
transfer from a baseline altitude hP = 185 km to a GOM
altitude hRGT + h as shown in Eq. (12). Although satellites do
not physically stay at hP due to high atmospheric crags, this
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations

Fig. 14 Relationship between propellant

volume and tank mass.

TABLE 4: ReCon Delta-v Budget.

Phase Definition Number of burns
Commissioning Parking to GOM Once
Reconfiguration GOM to ROM or ROM to ROM User-defined
Stationkeeping Orbit correction User-defined
Decommissioning GOM to disposal Once

assumption is used as a way of penalizing the mass performance model. An exponential atmospheric pressure model is used to
if the optimizer chooses a high altitude for initial deployment. calculate the atmospheric density assuming a medium-level
solar activity [15].

Vcommision = E Vstation = Vatm + Vsolar
RE + hRGT + h
CD A 365 24 60 60 m s (14)

2 E

2 E = atm av +
RE + hRGT + h ( RE + hRGT + h ) + ( RE + hP ) m T yr

E
+ Finally, decommissioning delta-v is a Hohmann transfer
RE + hRGT from a GOM orbit to a disposal orbit whose perigee is 50
2 E 2 E km high. De-commissioning does not need re-circularization
because atmospheric drags will quickly lower the apogee
RE + hRGT ( RE + hRGT + h ) + ( RE + hRGT )
before a re-entry.
(12)
E
Reconfiguration delta-v is a Hohmann transfer between Vde-commission =
RE + hRGT + h
GOM and ROM orbits. Equation (13) calculates the delta-v for
a one-way trip from GOM to ROM or vice versa. Therefore, the 2 E 2 E
number of reconfiguration is multiplied by 2 in Eq. (11).
RE + hRGT + h ( RE + hRGT + h ) + ( RE + hD )
(15)
Vreconfig = E
RE + hRGT + h
The second output from Manoeuvres module is reconfiguration
2 E 2 E
time required to transfer from GOM to ROM. At time of target
RE + hRGT + h ( RE + hRGT + h ) + ( RE + hRGT )
identification, ground tracks of satellites in GOM are usually not
E 2 E 2 E aligned with repeating ground tracks in ROM. Figure 15 illustrates
+ an example in which the RGT ratio is 15 and the RGTs are separated
RE + hRGT RE + hRGT ( RE + hRGT + h ) + ( RE + hRGT )
by 360/15=24 in latitude at the equator. There are 6 orbit planes
(13) in this example, and the neighbouring planes are separated by
360/6=60. The 1st, 3rd, and 5th orbit planes from the left have
Stationkeeping delta-v has two correction terms, atmospheric a transverse angle of 24; the 2nd, 4th, and 6th orbit planes have a
drag and solar radiation pressure, as can be seen in Eq. (14) [1, transverse angle of 12. The reconfiguration time is calculated by
16]. Third-body perturbations from the Sun or Moon are much dividing the ground traverse distance with the sweeping speed of a
smaller than these terms in LEO and are not considered in this non-repeating ground track, as shown in Eq. (16).

9
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith

Fig. 15 Traverse angles for reconfiguration from GOM to ROM.

NG (E
) Once the satellite mass is obtained, Eq. (18) calculates
= NG d NG RE
TR = = the cross-sectional area of a satellite. The remote sensing
N S d N S (E
) R T
( a + a )3
E a3
2 N S
E E
(16)
Values of are averaged over all possible locations
(longitudes) of the satellite and the target using procedures
described in Table 5. The user can choose a priority option;
minimizing the reconfiguration time of a satellite which
can reach the target first; or minimizing the reconfiguration
time of a satellite which reaches the target at last when the
whole constellation finishes reconfiguration. Tables 6 and 7
summarize the traverse angles under different conditions with
the two options. A case study in the next section used the latter
definition. Figure 16 illustrates the relationship between the
orbit plane separation angle (DRAAN) and the geo-spatially
averaged traverse angle () of a ReCon with 6 orbit planes
and an RGT ratio of 15/1. For DRAAN (RAAN interval) of
60, the first satellite may switch to ROM after traversing only
6, while the last satellite may have to traverse as much as
18, both of which are congruent with Tables 6 and 7. In Fig.
16, it can also be observed that the traverse angle of the best-
positioned (first) satellite is minimized when DRAAN = 68.
On the other hand, the traverse angle of the worst-positioned
(last) satellite has a local minimum at DRAAN = 60, which
is identical to the normal Walker pattern. This paper only
considers the normal Walker patterns, with DRAAN = (360)/
(Number of orbit planes), but ReCons with non-uniform
DRAAN are subject to future investigations.
9. CONSTELLATION PROPERTIES
Constellation Properties module finalizes the individual
satellite mass after subsystem masses converge, and calculates
the total constellation mass from an optimal ReCon geometry.
First, the launch mass or wet mass of an individual satellite is
the sum of payload, bus, tank, nozzle, and propellant, as shown
in Eq. (17).
msat
= mdry.optics + mdry,non-optics + mtank + mnozzle + m prop
(17)
satellites in Table 2 have density of 200 - 400 kg/m3, but a
more conservative value 500 kg/m3 was used in the case study
because satellites in a ReCon have higher portion of heavier
propellant (1000 kg/m3) than ordinary satellites. A simplified
assumption of spherical geometry is also conservative in that
a sphere maximizes the cross-sectional area for a given mass
subject to atmospheric drag. The cross-sectional area is used
in Eq. (14) to calculate the stationkeeping delta-v to counteract
atmospheric frictions. When the total delta-v is updated in
the maneuvers module, the propellant mass (hence the single
satellite mass) is updated in Eq. (17), forming the outer iteration
loop.
1
3m
A = 3 sat (18)
4 sat
The single satellite mass is finalized when all of its
parameters converge in the two-stage iteration loops. The
constellation mass is then obtained by multiplying a single
satellite mass and the number of satellites in a constellation.
The constellation mass is used as a proxy of the ReCon cost in
optimization processes.
mconst =msat n planes nsats (19)
10. OPTIMIZATION
An optimal ReCon configuration should maximize its coverage
performance while minimizing the overall constellation mass.
Among the figure of merits (FOMs) outputs in Fig. 7 and
Table 8, F1 and F2 relate to coverage performance, and F3 is
the constellation mass. The coverage performance of a ReCon
improves when the GOM time coverage increases with a higher
F1 value or the ROM revisit time decreases with a lower F2
value. When formulated as a minimization problem, the sign
of a figure-of-merit F1 should be reversed as shown in Eq. (20)
in order to minimize the overall performance objective J1.
Another objective is J2 proportional to the constellation mass,
which should also be minimized. Therefore, finding an optimal
ReCon configuration is a bi-objective optimization problem.

TABLE 5: Procedures for Ground Track Traverse Angle Calculation.

(Step 1) Loop 1: For every possible target location (longitude).
(Step 2) Loop 2: For every orbit plane.
(Step 3) Calculate from GOM to ROM.
(Step 4) If is zero, reset to the value for the next alignment.
(Step 5) Calculate the average after Loop 1 and Loop 2 are done.

10
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations

TABLE 6: Spatially-Averaged Traverse Angle (deg) for Earliest Satellite.

Number of Orbit Planes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13/1 13.8 6.9 4.6 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4
27/2 13.1 8.3 6.7 3.7 3.2 3.3 4.8 2.4 6.7 2.1
14/1 12.9 12.9 4.3 6.4 2.6 4.3 12.9 3.2 1.4 2.6
29/2 12.2 7.6 6.2 3.5 5.0 2.2 4.3 1.8 1.7 1.3
15/1 12.0 6.0 12.0 3.0 12.0 6.0 1.7 1.5 4.0 6.0
31/2 11.4 7.2 5.7 5.1 4.5 2.1 1.9 4.0 1.4 1.2

TABLE 7: Spatially-Averaged Traverse Angle (deg) for Latest Satellite.

Number of Orbit Planes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13/1 13.8 20.8 23.1 24.2 24.9 25.4 25.7 26.0 26.2 26.3
27/2 13.1 18.1 20.0 22.9 23.4 23.3 21.8 24.3 20.0 24.5
14/1 12.9 12.9 21.4 19.3 23.1 21.4 12.9 22.5 24.3 23.1
29/2 12.2 17.0 18.5 21.3 19.7 22.6 20.4 23.0 23.1 23.5
15/1 12.0 18.0 12.0 21.0 12.0 18.0 22.3 22.5 20.0 18.0
31/2 11.4 15.8 17.4 18.0 18.6 21.1 21.3 19.1 21.8 22.0

Fig. 16 Geo-spatially Averaged Traverse

Angle according to RAAN Interval between
Orbit Planes (=15/1, 6 orbit planes).

Equations (20) and (21) have constraint violation terms at Table 10 summarizes the type of five design variables and
the end which add penalties to objectives if the orbit altitude, their boundaries. This study considered four discrete values for
aperture diameter, propellant fraction, or reconfiguration time RGT (31/2, 15/1, 29/2, 14/1) and a ranges from -100 km to
exceeds the prescribed allowable limits. The limiting thresholds 100 km for altitude offset. This study considered four discrete
and their scaling factors are delineated in Table 9, whose values for RGT ratios (31/2, 15/1, 29/2, 14/1) and an altitude
linear combination constitutes a penalty sum. To facilitate offset range from -100 km to 100 km. Because these four RGT
optimization processes, a gain k is multiplied to the penalty orbits are approximately 200 km from each other as shown
sum. A larger k usually improves the optimality of solutions as in Fig. 6, [-100 km, 100 km] can cover any altitude for GOM
the optimizer tries harder to avoid violating constraints. operations between RGT orbits. The study also limited the
maximum constellation size to 49 (= 77) to save computation
5 time.
w1s1 F1 ( x ) + w2 s2 F2 ( x ) + k ci hi ( x ) (20)
J1 ( x ) =
i =1 A weighted sum is one of the ways to quickly identify non-
dominated solutions in a multi-objective design space. This
5 technique normalizes objectives with respect to anchor points
J 2 ( x ) s3 F3 ( x ) + k ci hi ( x )
= (21) and merges multiple objectives via linear combination. In
i =1 Eq. (22), weighted sum technique transforms the bi-objective

11
 Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith

TABLE 8: Figures of Merit (FOM) and Scaling Factors (SF).

FOM Definition SF SF Value Typical (FOMSF) Value
F1 GOM time coverage [%] s1 0.5 0.2
F2 ROM revisit time [s] s2 0.001 5
F3 Constellation mass [kg] s3 0.0001 1

TABLE 9: Constraints and Scaling Factors (SF).

Constraint Definition Threshold SF SF Value
h1 Minimum altitude [km] 350 c1 0.01
h2 Maximum aperture [m] 1200 c2 0.001
h3 Max. propellant fraction [-] 1.8 c3 1
h4 Max. propellant fraction [-] 0.3 c4 100
h5 Max. reconfiguration time [day] 4 c5 10

TABLE 10: Description and bounds of Design Variables.

Design Variable Type Bounds Unit
RGT Ratio Continuous {31/2, 15/1, 29/2, 14/1} -
Altitude Offset Discrete [-100, 100] km
# Orbit Planes Discrete {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} -
# Satellites Per Plane Discrete {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} -
Angle of Regard Continuous [5, 59] deg

optimization into a single-objective optimization with two
anchor points, utopia (U) and nadir (N), and a weighting
factor . The utopian anchor is a fictitious point in a design
space with a maximal performance and a minimal cost; in
this case, it is located at [J1(xU), J2(xU)] = [J1(x77), J2(x21)] with
the coverage of a 77 constellation and the mass of a 21
constellation. The nadir anchor is exactly an opposite with a
minimal performance and a maximal cost, located at [J1(xN),
J2(xN)] = [J1(x21), J2(x77)] in this case. By varying the value of
in single-objective optimization, a family of non-dominated
solutions can be obtained, ranging from low-cost, low-
performance configurations to high-cost, high-performance
configurations.
( x ) J1 ( x ) + (1 ) J 2 ( x )
J=
J ( x ) J1 ( xU ) J ( x ) J 2 ( xU ) of orbit planes whose maximum values are both 7; however, 4
= 1 + (1 ) 2
J1 ( x N ) J1 ( xU ) J 2 ( x N ) J 2 ( xU )
(22)
Due to high nonlinearity of the problem and the existence of
discrete variables, the optimization method should be heuristic,
not gradient-based. The optimizer has been implemented with
Genetic algorithm (GA) and Simulated Annealing (SA), but
the former was finally chosen in the case study due to superior
optimality of the results. With a desktop with Intel CoreTM i7-
2600 CPU (3.40 GHz) and 16.0 GB RAM, SA took 2-4 hours
per run and GA took 6-12 hours per run.
11. CASE STUDY RESULTS
The case study assumed uniform Walker constellations with
inclination values of 98.98, 98.27, 97.64 and 97.07 from
Table 1. For GOM time coverage, total access duration was
measured in percentage over a latitude band from 0 to 60;
ROM revisit time was measured for a virtual target located at
75W and 55N. For imagery resolution, a GSD of 1 m must
be achieved at the maximum half-cone slew angle, or angle of
regard. The mission shall last for 5 years, during which each
satellite performs 10 reconfigurations consisting of 5 GOM-
to-ROM manoeuvres and 5 ROM-to-GOM manoeuvres. To
obtain optimal solutions along a Pareto front, a weighted sum
genetic algorithm was used with 30 to 40 generations and a
population of 50. Table 11 summarizes general procedures of
a genetic algorithm (GA). The design variables are referred
as chromosomes in GA whose apparent values (phenotype)
must be encoded into bits (genotype) equivalent to DNAs.
The number of bits chosen for continuous variables should
be large enough to keep quantization errors small in encoding
or decoding processes; therefore, altitude offset and angle of
regard used 12 bits for each. For discrete variables, 3 bits would
be enough to represent the number of satellites and the number
bits was used for scalability in future work. As the GA selects
the bits one by one via a roulette wheel scheme, each bit was
subject to a crossover rate of 0.95 and a mutation rate of 0.001.
Experimentation showed that higher mutation rates often made
solutions coverage too slowly, whereas lower mutation rates
made solutions coverage too quickly into local minima. The
penalty gain k in Eq. (18) and Eq. (19) was set to 0.1 after
evaluating the quality of optimized results.
This case study used two tuning parameters in GA
optimization: for performance-mass tradeoffs and wis for
GOM-ROM tradeoffs. Three values (0.2, 0.4, 0.6) were used
to scale the constellation size and five pairs of wis were used to
balance GOM performance and ROM performance, resulting in
a total of 15 scenarios. The definition of wi pairs are as follows:
Extremely-GOM-oriented scenario: The weight of
GOM performance (time coverage) is much higher than
that of ROM performance (revisit time). w1=0.9, w2=0.1.
GOM-oriented scenario: The weight of GOM

12
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations

TABLE 11: Genetic Algorithm.

(Step 1) Initialize population.
(Step 2) Select chromosomes for mating.
(Step 3) Encode selected chromosomes into binary bits.
(Step 4) Crossover chromes by cutting and linking DNAs to produce children.
(Step 5) Mutate children by flipping bits with a certain probability.
(Step 6) Decode binary bits back to chromosomes.
(Step 7) Insert children back to population to retain original size.
(Step 8) Go to Step 2 for the next generation unless stopping criteria are satisfied.

performance is higher than that of ROM performance.
w1=0.7, w2=0.3.
Balanced scenario: GOM and ROM have equal weights.
w1=w2=0.5.
ROM-oriented scenario: ROM is given a higher weight
than ROM. w1=0.3, w2=0.7.
Extremely-ROM-oriented scenario: ROM is given a
much higher weight than ROM. w1=0.1, w2=0.9.
Table 12 summarizes the optimal configurations obtained from
15 GA runs. Configurations #1 #3 are extremely-GOM-oriented
scenarios, configurations #4 #6 are GOM-oriented scenarios,
configurations #7 #9 are balanced scenarios, configurations
#10 #12 are ROM-oriented scenarios, and configurations
#13 #15 are extremely-ROM-oriented scenarios. In each
scenario, a configuration with a higher designation number (and
a higher ) has a higher constellation mass. Despite different
tuning parameters, resulting configurations exhibited significant
commonalities in several design variables. First of all, optimal
designs had a RGT ratio of 15 which corresponds to a height
of 561 km with 97.64 inclination, except for Configuration #3
whore RGT ratio is 14. Low RGT ratios (high altitudes) were not
favored because the aperture size has to be larger to meet a given
GSD requirement; also, high altitudes need more propellant
for commissioning and decommissioning. On the other hand,
high RGT ratios (low altitudes) need more propellant for
stationkeeping to compensate for increased atmospheric drags.
The RGT ratio of 15 turned out to be a good balance between
these two conflicting effects among the considered values of 14,
14.5, 15, and 15.5.
The altitude offset (h) from the RGT baseline orbit ranged
from 40 km to 60 km in magnitude, with positive signs in 5
cases and negatives signs in 10 cases. Most positive h values
(4 out of 5) could be seen in scenarios that are GOM-oriented
or externally-GOM-oriented. One possible interpretation is that
GOM orbit becomes higher than ROM orbit as the user put more
emphasis on GOM than ROM. In other words, satellites spend
most of the time in GOM, so its orbit should be higher than ROM
(h>0) to save stationkeeping propellant for counteracting
atmospheric drags. For ROM-oriented missions, this is a small
issue and GOM altitude was lower than ROM altitude (h<0)
to save propellant for commissioning and de-commissioning
to and from GOM orbits. In terms of magnitude, optimal |h|
values were near the middle of the considered range from 0
km to 100 km. If |h| is greater than this, more propellant is
required for each reconfiguration; on the other hand, if |h| is
smaller than that, reconfiguration time increases because the
RAAN drift rate approaches to zero. With the ROM altitude of
561 km and the altitude offsets of -60 km or 40 km, the optimal
GOM altitude turned out to be 500 km or 600 km which yielded
the angle of regard around 15.

TABLE 12: Optimal ReCon Configuration.

w1 w2 h nplane nsat
#1 0.9 0.1 0.2 41 km 3 1 15
#2 0.4 42 km 3 2 15
#3* 0.6 57 km 5 7 57
#4 0.7 0.5 0.2 43 km 3 3 15
#5 0.4 -46 km 3 3 14
#6 0.6 -41 km 5 3 15
#7 0.5 0.5 0.2 -63 km 2 5 13
#8 0.4 -63 km 6 2 15
#9 0.6 43 km 3 6 14
#10 0.3 0.7 0.2 -50 km 3 3 14
#11 0.4 -41 km 5 3 14
#12 0.6 -63 km 6 4 15
#13 0.1 0.9 0.2 -54 km 3 3 22
#14 0.4 -55 km 3 5 14
#15 0.6 -41 km 5 5 14
*Upper bound saturation by optimizer

13
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith

In terms of constellation geometry, about a half of optimal TABLE 13: Optimal ReCon Performance.
solutions had 3 orbit planes. Other solutions also had 2, 5, or 6
orbit planes, but the largest line-up of 3-orbit solutions allows a GOM ROM msat mconst
ReCon to grow gradually during staged deployment which will #1 0.04% 3.7 hr 1.3 ton 4 ton
be discussed later. Tables 12 and 13 show that Configuration #2 0.08% 1.9 hr 1.3 ton 8 ton
#12 (64) had a smaller number of satellites and a lower
constellation mass than Constellation #15 (55), but it had #3*
62% 0.1 hr 1 ton 351 ton
comparable ROM performance and better GOM performance; #4 0.12% 1.3 hr 1.3 ton 12 ton
similarly, Configuration #6 (53) and Configuration #14 (35)
#5 0.07% 1.3 hr 1.1 ton 10 ton
had the same number of satellites, but the GOM performance
of the former was better than the latter. Thus, associativity #6 0.15% 0.8 hr 1.1 ton 17 ton
(ab=ba) or heterogeneous factorization (ab=cd) is no #7 0.07% 1.2 hr 1.1 ton 11 ton
longer valid in terms of coverage performance, illustrating
emergent behavior of a ReCon. Emergent behavior is a #8 0.11% 1.0 hr 1.1 ton 14 ton
systems engineering term which describes behavior of a #9 0.22% 0.7 hr 1.3 ton 24 ton
complex system exhibits based on the relationship between its #10 0.07% 1.3 hr 1.1 ton 10 ton
parts, not the parts themselves. Because coverage performance
depends not only individual satellites, but also their constellation #11 0.12% 0.8 hr 1.1 ton 17 ton
geometry, constituting parts and the overall system should be #12 0.23% 0.5 hr 1.1 ton 27 ton
optimized concurrently. #13 0.20% 1.3 hr 1.2 ton 11 ton
For the same optimal configurations, Table 13 summarizes #14 0.12% 0.8 hr 1.1 ton 17 ton
their performance and mass, which is a proxy of cost. Although #15 0.21% 0.5 hr 1.1 ton 28 ton
the constellation size scaled up with increasing , the mass *Upper bound saturation by optimizer
per satellite remained constant around 1.1 ton, except in
Configuration #3. The optimizer saturated several design
variables to upper bounds in Configuration #3: the highest Figure 17 uses Walker notation to describe the constellation
RGT altitude (888 km), near-maximum constellation size geometry of each configuration. The form i:t/p/f lists
(true maximum 77) and near-maximum angle of regard (true inclination, total number of satellites, number of planes, and
maximum 59). As a result, this configuration featured rather the phasing parameter. The phasing parameter is used to set
infeasible form factors of 4-meter aperture and 10-ton mass per the change of true anomaly in satellites in neighboring planes
satellite even though it had coverage performance much better equal to f360/t. Path A retained the maximum commonality
than the others. Besides its infeasibility, Configure #3 did not in all design variables (aperture diameter, subsystem mass,
share design commonalities with the other configurations which delta-v, etc.) while continuously adding satellites to existing
are of interest for staged deployment. With this exception, 3 planes. Path B shared the first two configurations with Path
individual satellites in all optimal configurations had 13 15 A before the number of planes increases from 3 to 6. Thus,
angle of regard, 0.65 0.8 m aperture, 230 300 kg optics mass, Configuration #2 served as a decision point between Path A and
750 950 kg dry mass, 320 400 kg propellant mass, and 750 Path B. Because moving orbit planes is very expensive in terms
850 m/s delta-v. As for influence of tuning parameters, comparing of propellant, the staged deployment paths allowed the number
ROM revisit time with same w2 values across different scenarios of planes to increase only when inter-planar angles of existing
revealed that increasing the ROM weight improved the ROM planes did not change. For example, an increase from 3 planes
performance. The revisit time monotonously decreased from 1.9 to 5 planes was not allowed because the inter-planar angle has
hour to 0.8 hour as w2 increased from 0.1 to 0.9 in configurations to change from 120 to 72 for uniform orbit distribution. An
#2, #5, #8, #11, and #14; similarly, the revisit time monotonously increase from 3 planes to 6 planes was permitted because the
decreased from 1.3 hour to 0.5 hour as w2 increased from 0.3 to original planes remain stationary while inserting new planes in
0.9 in configurations #6, #9, #12, and #15. However, varying between.
the GOM weight (w1) did not change the GOM performance in
a consistent way. To understand the characteristics of these paths better,
optimal configurations in Fig. 17 were plotted against
Commonalities of optimal constellation geometries in Table different objectives. First, Fig. 18 compared Path A and Path
12 and individual satellite mass in Table 13 gives rise to a B against coverage performance and constellation mass; as the
concept of staged deployment [17]. The service provider who constellation size grew, Path A stayed close to utopia while
has ownership of a ReCon may want the constellation to grow Path B departed away, indicating that Path A provided better
gradually rather than to be deployed at once for several reasons. coverage than Path B for a given mass. The scattering patterns
Limited launcher capacities and risks of launch failures make of configurations in Fig. 18 did not clearly show a Pareto front,
immediate, full-blown deployment both unrealistic and unsafe. however, because each scenario used different weights for GOM
Matching the constellation size with volatile market demands and ROM. Therefore, Figs. 19 and 20 separated ROM revisit
is also crucial from a business point of view. Although one can time and GOM coverage, plotting them against constellation
conceive various different paths for staged deployment from mass. After separating ROM and GOM performance, Figs. 19
Table 12 and Table 13, this paper considered the following two and 20 clearly showed Pareto fronts. Both Path A and Path B
paths as an example, as illustrated in Fig. 17 [18]: had similar distances from utopia in Fig. 20, but A has a closer
distance from utopia than Path B. Therefore, Path A had a ROM
Path A: Configuration #1 Configuration #2 performance per mass comparable with Path B, but its GOM
Configuration #4 Configuration #9 performance per mass was better than Path B. The overall
Path B: Configuration #1 Configuration #2 performance was better in Path A than Path B; although Path B
Configuration #8 Configuration #12 achieved better performance in a GOM-ROM plot in Fig. 21, it

14
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations
Fig. 17 ReCon staged deployment paths (not to scale).
Fig. 18 Pareto front between coverage
performance and constellation mass.
required more number of satellites and had a low performance-
cost efficiency. But Path B could still be used in special cases
if the user also wants to minimize reconfiguration time of the
earliest satellite, as shown in Table 6 where traverse angle is 6
for 6 planes and and 12 for 3 planes when =15.
As future work, an extended optimizer could minimize
discrepancies in design variables along the entire deployment
paths. Path B had lower design commonalities in design
variables with the first two configurations than those in Path
A, but the modified optimizer would minimize the design
changes necessary from Configuration #2 and Configuration
#8. Also, 5-plane constellations such as Configuration #11 and
Fig. 19 Pareto front between ROM
performance and constellation mass.
Configuration #15 exhibited very strong ROM performance per
mass in Fig. 9, closer to utopia than Path A or Path B. Therefore,
other possible deployment paths should be investigated by
running more optimization runs with increased scalability
(i.e. total number of satellites allowed in simulations). A
faster method for coverage calculation and a more efficient
optimization algorithm would be necessary to enhance both
quantity and quality of optimal solutions in design space.
One solution could be calculating coverage with analytical
approaches and optimizing rapidly with a non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm II [19, 20]
Compared to other existing constellations, a ReCon resides
15
Sung Wook Paek, Olivier L. de Weck and Matthew W. Smith

Fig. 20 Pareto front between GOM

performance and constellation mass.

Fig. 21 Pareto front between GOM

performance and ROM performance.

somewhere between a monolithic satellite and a swarm of tiny
satellites. Table 14 lists a variety of satellite constellations
for Earth remote sensing which are already on orbit or in
deployment. Single monolithic satellites such as LandSats are
versatile, but they are very expensive to develop and launch,
whose limited numbers also limit coverage performance.
Small satellites are economical and provide a good coverage in
constellations, but their performance is limited terms of ground
resolution or bandwidths. ReCons are in the middle of two
architectures and have potentials of bridging the gap between
the two. For example, a ReCon can provide target measurement
more quickly and frequently than a monolith satellite which can
be used as calibrating baselines by small satellite constellations
[21]. In another example, ReCons can complement the
coverage of a small satellite constellation when the latter is still
in its fledging stages. A ReCon can replace both ends when they
are not fully available, and more cast studies are necessary to
evaluate inter-constellation collaborative missions.
12. CONCLUSION
This paper discussed the development processes and the
case study results of a multidisciplinary optimization tool to
concurrently prototype individual satellite designs and their
constellation geometries in a reconfigurable constellation
(ReCon). Development of the tool followed a systems
engineering approach to formulate a multidisciplinary system
design problem and solve it with multi-objective optimization.
In the case study, optimized design solutions were analyzed
with several visualization techniques.
Although the basic concept of a ReCon is not new itself,
this paper intended to expand the scope of current responsive
operations in space by adding several features to the tool. First,
the tool takes reconfigurability into account from early design
stages. In the proposed ReCon framework, each satellite has
regional observation mode (ROM) and global observation
mode (GOM) complementing each other. The tool generates
a working design which enables each satellite to conduct
multiple transfers between the two modes as well as to meet
the performance requirement in each mode. Second, the tool
brings a ReCon to a system level with emergent behaviors.
Emergent behavior is behavior exhibited by a complex system
based on the relationship between its consisting parts rather than

TABLE 14: ReCon and Other Satellite Constellations for Remote Sensing.
Satellite Wet Mass Constellation Size Explanation
LandSat <3 ton 1 multi-spectral
ReCon ~1 ton 3-20 tunable orbits
DMC 01.-0.4 ton 4 heterogeneous satellites
SkySat ~ 0.1 ton 24 1 m resolution
Dove 4 kg 100 3-5 m resolution

16
 Concurrent Design Optimization of Earth Observation Satellites and Reconfigurable Constellations
individual parts themselves. For example, the same number of
identical satellites may provide different coverage performance
depending on how they are arranged in a constellation.
Therefore, the constellation geometry should be optimized
in relation to the individual satellite design. Finally, the tool
provides a design family of optimal solutions which can be
connected by staged deployment paths. As shown in the case
study, several optimal solutions shared commonalities in the
individual satellite designs and their constellation geometries.
A ReCon can grow gradually from a small pilot version to
a full-blown constellation by following intermediate steps in
order to minimize initial deployment risks. The same strategy
can be used for graceful retirement of a constellation, and just
like a satellite has its own life cycle, a satellite constellation
will have a collective life cycle consisting of introduction -
growth - maturity - decline to maximize its net present value.
The tool is based on a highly generalizable framework. Users
can modify each module to match their desired fidelity levels or
different mission requirements. Astrodynamics module can be
modified to accommodate different kinds of orbits such as multi-
Sun-synchronous orbits for remote sensing of Earth and other
REFERENCES
1. J. Bogosian, Image Collection Optimization in the Design and Operation
of Lightweight, Low Areal-Density Space Telescopes, M.S. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008.
2. Systems Tool Kit, Software Package, Ver. 10.0, Analytical Graphics, Inc.,
2012.
3. N. Ducet, P.-Y. Le Traon, and G. Reverdin, Global high-resolution
mapping of ocean circulation from TOPEX/Poseidon and ERS-1 and-2,
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 105, pp.19477-19498, 2000.
4. C. Ulivieri and G. Laneve, Orbit Design Analysis for remote Sensing
Satellite Constellations, in Mission Design & Implementation of Satellite
Constellations, Springer Netherlands, pp. 237-242, 1998.
5. C. Ulivieri and L. Anselmo, Multi-sun-synchronous (MSS) orbits for
Earth observation,Astrodynamics 1991, 1, pp.123-133, 1992.
6. D. Mortari, M. Wilkins, and C. Bruccoleri, The Flower Constellations,
The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 52, pp.107-127, 2004.
7. S. Vtipil and B. Newman, Determining an Earth Observation Repeat
Ground Track Orbit for an Optimization Methodology, Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, 49, pp.157-164, 2012.
8. MATLAB, Software Package, Ver. 2010a, The MathWorks, Inc., 2010.
9. Satellite Tool Kit, Software Package, Ver. 9.2, Analytical Graphics, Inc.,
Exton, PA, 2010.
10. K. Krueger, S. Daniel, M. Smith, and J. Keese, Spacecraft and
Constellation Design for a Continuous Responsive Imaging System in
Space, In AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference & Exposition, 2009.
11. eoPortal, Satellite Missions eoPortal Directory, https://directory.
eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions. (Last Accessed 27th
January 2015).
12. S.W. Paek, Reconfigurable Satellite Constellations for Geo-spatially
Adaptive Earth Observation Missions, M.S. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2012.
13. Alliant Techsystems Inc., PSI Tank Data Sheets, http://www.psi-pci.
com/Data_Sheets1_main.htm. (Last Accessed 27th January 2015).
14. Airbus Space Systems, Space Product Propulsion Brochures, http://
cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/brochures/index.html. (Last Accessed 27th
January 2015).
(Received 4 March 2015; Accepted 13 June 2017)
* *
planets [22]. Optics module can assume different wavelengths
[23] or be replaced with payloads for communications or
other purposes. The payload database could also focus on
small satellite platforms [21, 23]. Propellant module could be
adjusted to compatible with electric propulsion, or a concept of
operations with on-orbit depots may to extend the life as well
as mission scope of a ReCon [24]. Finally, hybrid architectures
between a ReCon and other satellites constellations or ground
assets (UAVs) are worth investigating for collaborative
operations [25].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
S.W. Paek appreciates financial supports from Samsung
Scholarship for his graduate program. The authors appreciate
the assistance of Robert Legge and helpful suggestions
from Professor David Miller. The earlier part of this work is
sponsored by the Department of the Air Force under Air Force
Contract #FA8721-05-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations,
conclusions and recommendations are those of the authors
and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States
Government.
15. J.R. Wertz, D.F. Everett and J.J. Puschell (eds), Space Mission
Engineering: The New SMAD, Microcosm Press, 2011.
16. S.J. Thomas, J.B. Mueller, and M.A. Paluszek, Formations for close-
orbiting escort vehicles, In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical
Conference, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2004.
17. O.L. de Weck, R. Neufveille, and M. Chaize, Staged Deployment of
Communications Satellite Constellations in Low Earth Orbit, Journal
of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 1, pp. 119
136. 2004,
18. SC Modeler, Software Package, Ver. 3.0, AVM Dynamics, Miami, FL,
2014.
19. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal and T.A.M.T. Meyarivan, A fast and
elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 6, pp.182-197, 2002.
20. S.W. Paek, R.S. Legge and M.W. Smith, Reconfigurable Satellite
Constellations for Geo-spatially Adaptive Earth Observation Missions,
in 7th International Workshop on Satellite Constellation and Formation
Flying, 2013.
21. S. Nag, Satellite Constellation Mission Design using Model-Based
Systems Engineering and Observing System Simulation Experiments,
in 28th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, 2014.
22. E. Ortore, C. Circi, and F. Bunkheliam, and C. Ulivieri, Earth and Mars
observation using periodic orbits, Advances in Space Research, 49,
pp.185-195, 2012.
23. W. Blackwell et al., MicroMAS: A First Step Towards a Nanosatellite
Constellation for Global Storm Observation, in 27th Annual AIAA/USU
Conference on Small Satellites, 2013.
24. S. Hong, H. Na and J. Ahn, Assessment of architectural options for a dual-
mode disaster monitoring constellation supported by on-orbit propellant
depots, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 228, pp.2108-2122, 2013.
25. J. Agte, N. Borer and O. de Weck, Design of Long-Endurance Systems
With Inherent Robustness to Partial Failures During Operations, Journal
of Mechanical Design, 134, 100903, 2012.
*
17