IWSCFF-2013 -03-02

RECONFIGURABLE SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS FOR

GEO-SPATIALLY ADAPTIVE EARTH OBSERVATION MISSIONS

Sung Wook Paek∗, Robert S. Legge†, Matthew W. Smith‡

Reconfigurability can benefit a wide spectrum of Earth-observation missions where

the location of targets is unknown or uncertain a priori, including atmospheric re-
search, disaster monitoring, and reconnaissance. The concept of a reconfigurable
constellation (ReCon) is introduced by incorporating reconfigurability into static
satellite constellations. The ReCon framework consists of two operational modes,
global observation mode (GOM) and regional observation mode (ROM). GOM
has a non-repeating ground track (NRGT) and ROM features a repeating ground
track (RGT). Transitions between the two modes are performed by a Hohmann
transfer. A preliminary modeling for the ReCon framework is explained and the
optimization results are presented.

INTRODUCTION
Currently deployed Earth-observation satellite constellations mostly have fixed orbits in which
satellites can only follow the path pre-defined by orbital mechanics. These “static” constellations
don’t allow the satellites to move away from their path to access targets more quickly because
reconfigurability was not considered at a system level in their design. However, reconfigurability
can benefit a wide spectrum of Earth-observation missions where the location of targets is unknown
or uncertain a priori, including atmospheric research, disaster monitoring, and reconnaissance.

Figure 1: Global Observation Mode (GOM) Figure 2: Regional Observation Mode (ROM)

Therefore, the concept of a reconfigurable constellation (ReCon) is introduced by incorporating

reconfigurability into static satellite constellations. The ReCon framework consists of two opera-
tional modes, global observation mode (GOM) and regional observation mode (ROM).? GOM has
a non-repeating ground track such that the satellites can sweep the entire region within the latitude
∗
Research Assistant, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA02139
†
Research Assistant, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA02139
‡
Research Assistant, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA02139

1
band equal to the orbit inclination, as shown in Figure 1. ROM features a repeating ground track
(RGT) where the Earth nodal day and the satellite period are synchronized to a ratio of integers
such that the ground paths repeats itself and the satellites can visit certain ground locations of inter-
est upon identification with greater frequency, as illustrated in Figure 2. Both GOM and ROM have
circular orbits but their altitudes are different, and transitions between the two modes are performed
by a Hohmann transfer.

Concept of Operations

A brief concept of operations for ReCons is shown in Figure 3. First, the satellites in a constella-
tion are launched into the parking orbit with an altitude of 185km, from which the satellites propel
themselves up to a GOM orbit. They perform global Earth observation until one or more targets
of interest are identified on the ground, when the satellites change their orbit to a ROM orbit for
more frequent access to the targets. The satellites return to the GOM orbit when the observation is
complete, and these transitions between the GOM and the ROM repeat until the propellants run out,
when the satellites re-enter the atmosphere by inserting themselves into a disposal orbit.

Figure 3: Concept of operations of reconfigurable constellations

Repeating Ground Tracks

In the Regional Observation Mode, all satellites in the constellation adjust their altitude to a
repeating ground track (RGT) orbit, which is determined by an RGT ratio (τ ) and inclination of the
orbit (i). If a satellite with a period of TS revolves around the Earth exactly NP times in ND days,
the RGT ratio is defined as:?

NP TG 2π/(ωE − Ω̇) Ṁ + ω̇ n + ∆n + ω̇
τ= = = = = (1)
ND TS 2π/(Ṁ + ω̇) ωE − Ω̇ ωE − Ω̇

2
where TG is the nodal period of Greenwich, n is the mean motion of a satellite, Ṁ (= n + ∆n) is
the perturbed mean motion, ωE is the rotation rate of the Earth, ω̇ is the drift rate of the argument
of perigee due to perturbations, and Ω̇ is the nodal regression rate due to perburbations. When
perturbations up to J2 are considred, ∆n, ω̇, and Ω̇ can be expressed as follows.
p
∆n = ξn 1 − e2 (2 − 3 sin2 (i))
ω̇ = ξn(4 − 5 sin2 (i))
Ω̇ = −2ξn cos(i) (2)
3RE 2J
2
where ξ =
4a (1 − e2 )2
2

By substituting Equation (2) into Equation (1), a family of orbits with differing semi-major axis
and eccentricity can be obtained when an RGT ratio τ and an orbit inclination are provided. Because
all orbits are assumed to be circular, where the eccentricity is zero, there exists only one value of
semi-major axis for a given RGT ratio and an inclination. Figure 4 shows the relationship between
the RGT altitude and the inclination for sample RGT ratios. The RGT altitude increases when the
inclination increase or the RGT ratio decreases.

1000
RGT Ratio = 14
RGT Ratio = 14.5
900 RGT Ratio = 15
RGT Ratio = 15.5

800
Altitude (km)

700

600

500

400

300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Inclination (deg)

Figure 4: Repeating ground track altitude as a function of inclinations

MODELING
The modeling of ReCons involves multiple disciplines, which can be grouped into constellation
design and satellite engineering. Figure 5 illustrates a design structure matrix (DSM) that reprsents
data flows amongst the constituent modules in a ReCon model. Given a fixed orbit inclination and
the location of a target of interest, six design variables are considered as inputs: RGT ratio in ROM
(nk), which is an integer ratio of the number of orbits over the number of days until repeat of
the repeating ground tracks; altitude offset (delta alt) between ROM and GOM; number of orbit
planes (n planes); number of satellites (n sats); satellite field of regard (f ov); and propellant type

3
(prop). The first four variables relate to the constellation-level design, whereas field of regard and
propellant type are more related to the individual satellite design. The propellant type is fixed as
monopropellant in this study. The final outputs are four figures of merit: GOM coverage duration,
ROM revisit time, constellation mass, and reconfiguration time.

Figure 5: ReCon design structure matrix

Astrodynamics Module
As shown in Figure 5, the Astrodynamics module calculates the RGT altitude (rgt alt) and
ROM/ GOM revisit time (rom revisit, gom revisit) from the six design variables and other pa-
rameter values (eccentricity, walking phase parameter, and inclination). Of this module’s outputs,
ROM/GOM revisit time represent the constellation’s coverage performance. The propagation is
performed by Satellite Tool Kit (STK), accounting for perturbations up to J4 effects. The baseline
constellation assumes a uniform Walker pattern with an orbit inclination of 60◦ . The global band of
interest for measuring the GOM coverage is from 0◦ to 60◦ in latitude, and the target of interest is
set to be at a sample location of 55◦ N to analyze the ROM revisit time.

Optics Module
The Optics module calculates the aperture diameter (aperture) and the optical instrument mass
(optics mass) from the field of regard (f ov), altitude offset (delta alt), and RGT altitude (rgt alt).
This optical instrument mass, or payload mass, is used in other modules to calculate the overall
satellite mass and fuel requirements.
Telescope Aperture Parameter. The aperture diameter of a telescope depends on the wavelength
of the light, the altitude of a satellite from the ground, and the field of regard. Figures 6 and 7
describes the cases when the satellite is pointing at the nadir from right above and at an angle, re-
spectively.?

4
 Figure 7: Angle of regard and ground sample
Figure 6: Satellite optics and ground resolution distance

The standard Rayleigh diffraction criterion in Equation (3) determines the angular resolution θ
from the wavelength λ and the aperture diameter D.? The ground resolution element x can be
obtained by multiplying the altitude h and the angular resolution θ as in Equation (4) when the
satellite is pointing at the nadir. However, if the satellite is offset from the nadir direction by an angle
η, both the slant range and the ground separation distance (GSD) increase as given by Equation (5)
and Equation (6).

λ
θ = 2.44 (3)
D
x = hθ (4)
h
Rs = (5)
cosη
x = GSD cos η (6)

Rearranging Equations (3) through (6), we obtain the relationship in Equation (7). The squared
cosine term in the denominator implies that the aperture diameter should increase to meet the same
GSD requirement as the field of regard increases. For this mission, a wavelength of λ = 500nm
and a resolution of GSD = 1m are assumed.

λh
D = 2.44 (7)
GSD cos2 η

Telescope Mass The second output from the Optics module is the mass of payload which in-
cludes the primary mirror, optical telescope assembly, imagers, and supporting mechanical and
electronic components. The mass calculation is done by considering an empirical relationship be-
tween the payload mass and the aperture size in Earth observation and astronomy missions, as
summarized in Table 1.? From the database, the power law in Equation (8) could be obtained to
approximate the payload (optics) mass from the given aperture size, where the mass is in kilograms
and the aperture diameter is in meters.

moptics = 418.08D1.37 (8)

5
 Table 1: Payload aperture size and mass data for Earth observation missions
Spacecraft Payload Type Aperture [m] Payload Mass [kg]
RapidEye REIS 0.145 43
TopSat RALCam 0.2 32
OrbView-3 OHRIS 0.45 66
Quickbird BHRC60 0.6 380
WorldView-1 BHRC60 0.6 380
Iknos OSA 0.7 171
GeoEye-1 GIS 1.1 452

Table 2: ReCon delta-v budget

Phase Definition Number of Burns
Commissioning From parking orbit to GOM orbit Once
From GOM to ROM, Number of reconfigurations
Reconfiguration
or vice versa (N times)
Correction for atmospheric drag Lifetime
Stationkeeping
and solar radiation (L years)
Decommissioning From GOM to disposal orbit Once

Maneuvers Module

The Maneuvers module calculates the delta-v requirement (delta v) and the reconfiguration time
(reconf ig time) of a given ReCon configuration from the RGT altitude (rgt alt), the altitude
offset (delta alt), the number of reconfigurations per year, and the constellation lifetime in years.
The total delta-v is used to calculate the fuel requirement and the reconfiguration time represents
the responsiveness of a constellation, one of the figures of merit.
Delta-V Budget The delta-v budget of a ReCon can be categorized into commissioning, opera-
tions (reconfiguration and stationkeeping), and decommissioning phases, as summarized in Table 2.
As shown in Figure 3, during the commisioning phase, the satellites delivered to a 185km-altitude
parking orbit by launch vehicles have to propel themselves up to the GOM orbit ranging from
350km to 1200km in altitude. The satellites also consume their propellant for stationkeeping and
operational reconfigurations during their designed lifetime; a total number of 10 reconfigurations is
assumed over a 5-year lifetime (N = 10, L = 5). Finally, the satellites are inserted to a disposal or-
bit with a perigee height of 50km for a controlled atmospheric re-entry, preventing future problems
associated with space debris.
The expressions for the total delta-v and its components are provided below. In calculating
∆Vrecon , both the GOM orbit and the ROM orbit are assumed to be circular. The atmospheric
density in Equation (11) is based on an exponential model with a scale height, and the contribution
from the solar radiation pressure refers to literature .?

6
 r s 
 µE 2 1 
∆Vcommissioning = − µE ( − )
 
 RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + (hRGT + ∆h + hP )/2 
r s 
 µE 2 1 
+ − µE ( − )
 
 RE + hP RE + hRGT RE + (hRGT + ∆h + hP )/2 
(9)

r s 
 µE 2 1 
∆Vreconf iguration = − µE ( − )
 
 RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + hRGT + ∆h/2 
r s 
 µE 2 1 
+ − µE ( − )
 
 RE + hRGT RE + hRGT RE + hRGT + ∆h/2 
(10)

πCD A 365 × 24 × 60 × 60
∆Vstationkeeping = ∆Vatm + ∆Vsolar = ρaV + 30 (m/s/yr) (11)
m T

r s 
 µE 2 1 
∆Vdecommissioning = − µE ( −
 
 RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + hRGT + ∆h RE + (hRGT + ∆h+hD 
2 )
(12)

∆Vtotal = ∆Vcommissioning + L∆Vstationkeeping + N ∆Vreconf iguration + ∆Vdecommissioning (13)

Reconfiguration Time The reconfiguration time is defined as the period from the target identifi-
cation to the alignment of ground tracks in GOM and those in ROM. In Figure 8, the satellites in
non-repeating ground tracks (NRGTs) in blue lines have to wait until their ground tracks drift and
match the repeating ground tracks (RGTs) in red lines in order to lock on a target of interest on the
ground. Once the matching is accomplished, a Hohmann transfer is made using two impulse burns.

Figure 8: Traverse angles from GOM to ROM for a constellation with 6 orbit planes and τ = 15/1

If the NRGT altitude is a + ∆a and the RGT altitude is a, the difference of periods of the two
orbits is given by:?

7
 s s
(a + ∆a)3 a3
∆T = 2π( − ) (14)
µE µE

If ∆a > 0, a satellite in the NRGT orbit will take a longer time to complete a revolution than a
satellite in the RGT orbit. This lagging causes a westward drift of the NRGT orbit relative to the
ground-fixed RGT. The distance by which the NRGT deviates from the RGT at the equator after
one orbit is:
∆d = (ωE − Ω̇)RE ∆T (15)

For an orbit in which a satellite orbits around the Earth NP times in ND days (τ = NP /ND ),
the deviating distance along the surface occurring in ND days is NP ∆d. If the NRGT orbit plane
has to move by an angular distance of ∆ϕ (difference in longitude) measured along the equator
for the alignment, the required time for reconfiguration in days is given by Equation (16). The
duration of a Hohmann transfer (less than an hour) is much shorter than the alignment time (days)
and is negligible in calcluating the reconfiguration time. Also, the traverse angle ∆ϕ is different
for satellites in each plane, as shown in Figure 8, so the maximum value is taken for conservative
estimates.

2πRE ∆ϕ 2πRE ∆ϕ ∆ϕ
TR = = q q = q q
NP ∆d NP (ωE − Ω̇)2πRE ( (a+∆a)
3
− a3
) N (ω − Ω̇)( (a+∆a)3
− a3
µE µE P E µE µE )
(16)

Propulsion Module
The Propulsion module is tasked with computing both the propellant mass (propellant mass)
and the dry mass of the propulsion subsystem (prop dry mass) from the propellant type (prop),
delta-v (delta v) and the satellite dry mass (sat dry mass). Figure 9 illustrates a satellite mass
breakdown, which is broken down into the dry mass (mdry ) and the propellant mass (mp ). First,
the dry mass is divided into the bus mass related to the propulsion system and that unrelated to
it; the propulsion dry mass (mdry,prop ) contains the tank mass (mtank ) and the thruster/feed mass
(mp ); the non-propulsion dry mass (mdry,no prop ) is comprised of the optics mass (mdry,optics )and
non-optics mass(mdry,no optics ).

Figure 10: Bus dry mass as a function of aperture

Figure 9: Satellite mass breakdown diameters

8
 From the rocket equation, the aforementioned variables are related by
∆V
mdry,optics +mdry,nooptics +mtank +mp +mp = (mdry,optics +mdry,no optics +mtank +mp )e gIsp
(17)
where mdry,optics and mdry,no optics are obtained from the Optics module and the Constellation
Properties module, respectively. A Newton solver calculates the propellant mass (mp ) for a given
non-propulsion dry mass (mdry ) using this relationship iteratively. Additional information for the
tankage mass (mtank ) and the non-optics payload mass (mdry,no optics ) is obtained from Equation
(18) and Equation (19).

0.59 mp 0.592
mtank = 38.7 Vtank = 38.706 ( ) (18)
ρprop

mdry,no optics = 6.581 D1.03 (19)

An empirical fit in Equation (18) has been derived using the database from ATK and EADS
Astrium? .? Their liquid monopropellant tank data contains both tanks with propellant management
devices (PMD) and those with internal diaphragms. Also note that the non-optics payload mass has
a nearly linear relationship with the optics aperture, as can be seen in Equation (19) and Figure 10.
Other assumptions include a tankage mass coefficient of  = 0.15 and a hydrazine monopropellant
with a specific impulse of 220 s and a density of 1021kg/m3 at 400 psi and 300K.

Constellation Properties Module

The Constellation Properties module is tasked with computing the satellite dry mass (m dry),
the total constellation mass (const mass), and the estimated cross-sectional area of the satellites
(area) from the number of planes (n planes), the number of satellites (n sat), the optics mass
(optics mass), the propulsion subsystem dry mass (prop dry mass), and the propellant mass
(propellant mass). This module calculates the total mass of a single satellite, as in Equation (20),
using the results from the Optics module and the Propulsion module. Equation (21) then calculates
the mass of an entire constellation, and Equation (22) yields the characteristic area of each satellite,
which is fed back to Maneuvers module as depicted in Figure 4. The satellite dry mass is also fed
back to Propulsion module consituting a loop that is repeated by a Newton solver until convergence
is achieved. A spherical shape is assumed for each satellite to calculate the cross-sectional area from
its mass, and a structural mass of ρsat = 500kg/m3 is used in that process.

msat = mdry,no optics + mdry,optics + mdry,prop + mp (20)

mconst = msat × nplanes × nsats (21)

3msat 2
A = π( )3 (22)
4πρsat

9
OPTIMIZATION
Modeling a ReCon poses a multidisciplinary optimization problem where the constellation design
and satellite design should be optimized concurrently. Figure 11 illustrates the ReCon optimization
framework, where an optimizer wraps around the simulation model. The simulation model here is
represented by a block diagram instead of a design structure matrix, but it is equivalent to Figure
4. First, an initial design vector is input to the simulation model, which generates an objective
vector. Optimizing algorithms evaluate this objective vector and perform tradespace exploration to
select the next design vector. An optimal ReCon design should (1) minimize ROM revisit time, (2)
maximize GOM coverage, (3) minimize total system mass (a surrogate for cost), and (4) minimize
the reconfiguration time within system constraints.

Figure 11: ReCon optimizer framework

Problem Formulation
In Figure 4, a design vector has six variables (xi ’s) : number of satellite revolutions per day,
altitude difference, number of orbit planes, number of satellites per plane, field of regard, and pro-
pellant type. With these inputs, the model yields an objective vector consisting of four figures of
merit (Ji ’s) : GOM coverage duration, ROM revisit time, constellation mass, and reconfiguration
time. Note that the propellant type is fixed as a monopropellant (hydrazine) in this simulation.

Multi-Objective Optimization
In order to formulate a multi-objective problem, the first two figures of merit (GOM coverage and
ROM revisit time) representing the constellation performance were grouped into one objective (F1 )

10
after scaling and weighting as shown in Equation (23).

5
X
F1 (x) = w1 s1 J1 (x) + w2 s2 J2 (x) + g ci hi (x)
i=1
(23)
X5
F2 (x) = w3 s3 J3 (x) + g ci hi (x)
i=1

The third figure of merit (the constellation mass) representative of the cost is transformed into an-
other objective (F2 ), and the last figure of merit, reconfiguration time, was converted to a constraint
for calculating penalties. Table 3 is a list of figures of merit and constraints, and Table 4 summarizes
scaling factors and weighting values. Note that the performance is defined such that a smaller value
means a better performance, so both F1 and F2 should be minimized; the optimizer avoids violating
the constraints because doing so will increase the value of the objectives. In the expressions for F1
and F2 , g is a gain for tuning the convergence speed and the solution’s optimality; a value of 0.1 is
used here.

Table 3: Figures of merit and constraints for calculating objectives

Figure of Merit Explanation Constraint Meaning
J1 (-1)×(GOM coverage) h1 Minimum altitude
J2 ROM revisit time h1 Maximum altitude
J3 Constellation mass h3 Maximum aperture
h4 Maximum propellant fraction
h5 Maximum configuration time

Table 4: Scaling and weighting coefficients of figures of merit

Figure of Merit Typical Value Scaling Factor (si ) Weighting (wi )
GOM area coverage (%) 5 0.5 0.5
ROM revisit time (s) 1000 0.001 0.5
Constellation mass (kg) 10000 0.0001 1

Two algorithms were used to solve this optimization problem: adjusted weighted sum (AWS) and
nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). The AWS approach adjusts weights between
objectives to scalarize the design vector, and each pair of weights produces one design point that is
on the Pareto front. NSGA-II pushes a “genetic” pool of design vectors towards the Pareto front by
imposing elitism;? not all of the final designs are optimal, but this approach can produce a number
of near-optimal configurations quickly.

11
 Table 5: Pareto-optimal ReCon configurations obtained from AWS approach
Alt # Sats System GOM ROM
RGT # FOR
Design Offset Per Mass Coverage Revisit F¯1 F¯2
Ratio Planes (◦ )
(km) Plane (kg) (%) (s)
High 15.5 100 7 7 59 65665 25.4 243 0 1
4 15.0 -50.0 3 6 28.6 21757 1.79 2273 0.31 0.24
3 15.0 -57.9 3 3 28.5 10909 0.435 4520 0.38 0.11
2 15.0 -47.8 3 2 29.6 7403 0.332 6607 0.43 0.04
1 15.5 50.0 2 3 9.16 4966 0.022 12334 0.58 0.65
Low 15.0 64.2 2 1 7.25 2435 0.008 28792 0.71 0.004

Table 5 shows the optimal configurations and their normalized objective values obtained from the
AWS approach. To obtain these results, a high anchor point was defined first to limit the maximum
performance and mass, and then the weightings for the objectives were varied gradually to generate
the design points below. It can be observed that the number of satellites per plane increases ahead
of the number of orbit planes as we allow more performance and mass for the constellation. Figure
12 shows that designs 2, 3, and 4 are located near the knee of the Pareto front, where we can boost
the performance with a relatively small mass increment. These design configurations have an RGT
ratio of 15/1 (satellite orbits around the Earth 15 times a day), an altitude offset of approximately
-50 km, 3 orbit planes, 2 to 6 satellites per plane, and a field of regard (FOR) of 30 degrees. Figure
13 provides a graphical representation of these ReCon configurations generated with STK.

25
AWS
NSGA−II

20
System Mass (F2)

15

10
High

5
4
3
UTOPIA 2 1 Low
0
−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
Performance (F1)

Figure 12: Pareto front of optimal ReCon designs

12
 Figure 13: ReCon graphical representations

The results from the NSGA-II approach are also provided in Figure 12 on top of the AWS results.
The NSGA-II method can approximate the true Pareto front (connecting the AWS design points)
from the low-performance and low-mass region (bottom right) to the knee point (bottom middle),
but deviates in the high-performance and high-mass region (top left).

CONCLUSION

In this paper, multidisciplinary modeling and optimization were performed for a reconfigurable
satellite constellation that can provide both the global coverage and responsiveness to a single tar-
get. Within this framework, the shape of a constellation and satellite design parameters can be
optimized concurrently. As the number of satellites increases, it is shown to be preferable to in-
crease the number of satellites in a plane first, and the number of orbit planes later. There are also
other commonalities amongst the optimal configurations in terms of altitude, altitude offset, and the
angle of regard.

The ReCon framework discussed here assumes that design parameters are time-invariant. Fu-
ture work would include investigation of a staged deployment? or adjustable satellite constellations
where the design parameters can change over time. NSGA-II proved to be useful in generating a
multitude of near-optimal design points, so this can be helpful in identifying candidate configura-
tions along the evolutionary path of a reconfigurable constellation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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 author and
are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government.

13
REFERENCES
[1] J. Bogosian, “Image Collection Optimization in the Design and Operation of Lightweight, Low Areal-
Density Space Telescopes,” Master’s thesis, MIT, 2008.
[2] D. Mortari, M. Wilkins, and C. Bruccoleri, “The Flower Constellations,” The Journal of the Astronau-
tical Sciences, Vol. 52, January-June 2004.
[3] J. R. Wertz, D. F. Everett, and J. J. Puschell, Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD. Microcosm
Press, 2010.
[4] M. Griot, “Diffraction: Fraunhofer Diffraction at a Circular Aperture,” https:
//www.cvimellesgriot.com/products/Documents/TechnicalGuide/
fundamental-Optics.pdf, 2002. [Online; accessed 6-Feb-2013].
[5] eoPortal, “Satellite Missions Database,” https://directory.eoportal.org/web/
eoportal/satellite-missions, 2013. [Online; accessed 5-Feb-2013].
[6] S. Thomas, J. Mueller, and M. Paluszek, “Formations for Close-Orbiting Escort Vehicles,” AIAA 1st
Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, Sep 2004.
[7] ATK, “PSI Tank Data Sheets,” http://www.psi-pci.com/Data_Sheets1_main.htm,
2013. [Online; accessed 8-Feb-2013].
[8] Astrium, “Propellant Tanks for Spacecraft,” http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/
brochures/propellant-tanks/Tanks.pdf, 2013. [Online; accessed 8-Feb-2013].
[9] K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratab, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm
for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6,
Apr 2002, pp. 182–197.
[10] O. d. Weck, R. Neufville, and M. Chaize, “Staged Deployment of Communications Satellite Constella-
tions in Low Earth Orbit,” Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, Vol. 1,
March 2004, pp. 119–136.

14