JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.

1 (1-9)
Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Nanosatellite swarm missions in low Earth orbit using laser propulsion

L. Felicetti, F. Santoni ∗
University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many missions could benefit from the exploitation of very low height orbits, including Earth observation,
Received 15 March 2012 atmospheric measurement and space weather research missions. However satellite’s lifetime decreases
Received in revised form 7 July 2012 very quickly when the mission requires to orbit into the dense layers of the atmosphere. The mission
Accepted 8 August 2012
performance could be enhanced using innovative propulsion techniques, counteracting the effect of
Available online xxxx
atmospheric drag. Among these, laser propulsion potentially offers great weight and power savings,
Keywords: obtained by separating the propulsion system energy source from the propelled satellite. The energy
Laser propulsion source for the propulsion system is a pulsed laser beam generated remotely, while only collecting
Beam-powered propulsion mirrors and ablative material are necessary on the target spacecraft. A mission architecture for very
Very low Earth orbit low altitude nanosatellite swarms using a space-based pulsed laser propulsion is described. A simplified
Atmospheric measurements laser-sustained re-orbiting maneuver sequence is proposed, leading to a straightforward evaluation of
Earth observation the maneuver times, showing that the laser propulsion system is suitable for low altitude nanosatellite
missions.
© 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Interest in long term missions in very low Earth orbit has been
increasing in the last years, both for Earth observation and atmo-
spheric measurements. The Earth observation performance could
be greatly enhanced, obtaining higher resolutions with smaller
payloads with respect to conventional orbits [1]. On the other
hand, in situ atmospheric measurements at low orbital heights are
necessary to build accurate atmospheric models and in particu-
lar to contribute to the development of a global, real time, space
weather forecasting service, to follow the high variability of the
atmospheric environment and to allow accurate predictions of LEO
object trajectories and maneuvers planning. Missions for real-time
in situ atmospheric measurements have been recently proposed
[15], some based on nanosatellite swarms [10]. The main limi-
tation in these missions is the effect of atmospheric drag, which
dissipates the orbital energy making the nanosatellite re-enter and
burn quickly in the Earth atmosphere.
A solution guaranteeing a meaningful orbital lifetime, justifying
the launch and sophisticated instrumentation costs has been pro-
posed, including the use of elliptical orbits with low perigee [1],
such as the ones used in the San Marco missions [2]. Using a
propulsion system, the useful satellite lifetime could be extended
and at the same time the operative orbit height could be lowered,
to explore more interesting zones. However, conventional propul-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: leonard.felicetti@uniroma1.it (L. Felicetti),
fabio.santoni@uniroma1.it (F. Santoni).
sion systems, namely chemical and electric propulsion systems, are
not compatible with the on board resources constraints imposed
by nanosatellites, in terms of mass and power. To solve these prob-
lems innovative kind of propulsion systems have to be investigated,
such as air breathing propulsion systems [20].
In this paper the laser propulsion concept is proposed as a suit-
able innovative propulsion system which can generate the thrust
necessary for the re-orbiting of very low altitude satellites, provid-
ing the necessary energy source through a laser beam generated
by a laser ground station or by a dedicated satellite orbiting far
from dense atmosphere. The laser beam, impinging on the satel-
lite’s surfaces, vaporizes an ablating material, giving a net thrust to
the satellite. The uncoupling of the propulsion energy source from
the mission satellite’s body reduces the satellite’s mass and it al-
lows to use the same laser system for maneuvering a constellation
of satellites. Nanosatellites that eventually re-enter the Earth atmo-
sphere can be replaced by newly launched ones, while the higher
orbit satellites carrying the laser source equipment can be main-
tained, with potential reduction of the overall system costs.
The idea of using laser light as a beamed energy source for
propulsion was proposed by Arthur Kantrowitz [7] in 1972. Af-
ter an extensive research [6] the first demonstration experiments
were performed in the mid-nineties [9,11]. Recent developments
by many research centers [5,8,13,17,19] aim at going into more
depth in the knowledge of laser ablation phenomena, in design
and testing laser driven thrusters and in developing highly effi-
cient laser devices to reduce the energy requirements. State of the
art and expected future progress in laser propulsion performance

1270-9638/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.08.005
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA
2 L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••
Fig. 1. Mission geometry and laser thrust.
seem mature enough that analyzing space missions based on this
kind of propulsion makes sense.
The propulsion architecture proposed in this paper is suitable
for nanosatellite swarms for distributed missions in an atmo-
sphere, based on the idea that the source of the propulsion energy
necessary for the whole nanosatellite swarm can be concentrated
in one or more large satellites orbiting at higher altitudes. This
architecture has been analyzed showing that mission timing and
visibility among spacecraft is crucial for the mission feasibility and
they affect the power requirements of laser devices which will be
carried on board the high orbit satellites. The mission is outlined
taking into account long term orbital perturbations. An orbit con-
trol strategy is proposed and, adopting some simplifying assump-
tion leading to an analytic solution, it is shown that the mission is
feasible.
2. Mission description
The re-orbiting of low height satellite by laser propulsion can
be made using ground based or space based laser generation
sources. Firing the laser beam from a ground located laser de-
vice, has the advantage of having all the necessary energy source,
but with the problem of the satellite visibility from a ground fixed
station and intensity losses due to molecular absorption, light scat-
tering, thermal blooming or breakdown of the atmospheric gases,
beam wander and distortion due to atmospheric turbulence. Locat-
ing the laser device on board one or more large satellites orbiting
at higher altitudes with respect to the satellites collecting data in
the denser atmosphere layers, could lead to more favorable geo-
metrical configurations to generate a tangential thrust, to longer
visibility times and to more efficient exploitation of the laser en-
ergy, avoiding atmospheric effects on the laser beam propagation.
A simplified scheme of the space based laser propulsion mis-
sion is depicted in Fig. 1, in the assumption of coplanar circular
orbits for the satellite(s) carrying the laser, referred to as Laser
Satellites, and the satellites using the laser propulsion, referred to
as Target Satellites. Because of their different orbital periods, the
two satellites are not always visible from each other, a constraint
that must be taken into account in the mission planning.
When the target satellite is in the visibility of the laser satellite,
a high power laser beam can be generated by the laser device on
board the laser satellite. The light of the laser beam is collected by
a receiving mirror or lens located in the target satellite and focused
into a small spot in order to breakdown an ablating material for
generating a high density plasma giving a net thrust to the target
satellite.
The thrust direction depends on the laser collecting device ar-
chitecture. In many cases the thrust can be directed by appro-
priately orienting the collecting devices as discussed in [12], im-
proving the system maneuvering capability. Without loss of gen-
[m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.2 (1-9)
erality and to assess the mission feasibility, here we assume that
the thrust direction is along the vector connecting the two satel-
lites’ positions. An accurate mission planning is necessary in order
to guarantee a sufficient and correct thrust to counteract the de-
orbiting effects of the atmospheric drag on the target satellite.
3. Geometrical mission constraints related to laser operation
Laser propulsion needs that the target and the illuminator are
visible from each other. This requires a more sophisticated mission
planning with respect to conventional propulsion systems. In ad-
dition safe laser operation must be assured avoiding that the laser
beam reaches laser-sensible regions. Existing space assets could be
affected by the laser operation. In the case of manned space mis-
sions, laser operation must be avoided by an appropriate mission
planning, exploiting the a priori knowledge of manned spacecraft
orbits. For conventional satellites, not equipped with a laser light
collecting device, the laser beam effect is essentially the light radi-
ation pressure exerted on the invested surfaces, typically resulting
in negligible mechanical effects. Optical satellite payloads could be
affected by the laser light. However most of them are used for
Earth observation and do not point to outer space. The few cases
of astronomical payloads are known a priori and operations can
be planned accordingly. The most restrictive constraint on laser
operation is avoiding the impingement of the Earth surface with
an appropriate safety margin, avoiding also the higher atmosphere
layers. This last constraints strongly affects the overall mission con-
cept, whereas consideration on existing space assets affect mission
planning and are scarcely relevant to the mission feasibility.
First of all it is necessary to determine when the two satellites
are visible from each other and for how long they remain in the
condition of safe laser operation. The safe operation time, which
is a crucial parameter for the system performance, can be evalu-
ated in the simplifying assumption of circular orbits, in order to
get an analytical expression and to highlight the general aspects of
satellites’ visibility issues and orbits’ synchronization.
The visibility constraint between the two satellites can be eval-
uated considering that the laser beam, fired from the high orbit
satellite and received by the target satellite, cannot cross the more
dense layers of the atmosphere or hit the Earth’s surface. There-
fore, defining a safety height h S , the safe operation requires that
the distance of the satellites’ line of sight from the center of the
Earth is greater than a safety radius r S = R ⊕ + h S . The geometry
is depicted in Fig. 2, where r T and r L are the target and laser or-
bit’s radius and the points T and L represent the target and laser
satellites in a reference frame rotating with the target satellite. In
this reference frame T is fixed, while, assuming the target satel-
lite is rotating in a counterclockwise direction with respect to the
inertial reference frame, the laser satellite rotates in a clockwise
direction, since it is in a higher and slower orbit with respect to
the target. When the laser satellite passes in B, the laser beam
is tangent to the safety zone of radius r S and it is at the begin-
ning of the safe laser operation zone. Safe operation ends when
the laser satellite transits in E. In the zone comprised between B
and E, the laser thrust has a re-orbiting component. Another safe
operation zone is present between the points B  and E  . In this
zone the laser thrust is a de-orbiting one. The safe operation zone
central angle is θsafe , which can be evaluated from simple geomet-
rical relations. Considering the triangles OHT and OHB in Fig. 2,
one obtains α + 2γ = π /2 − δ and β + γ = π /2 − δ , and therefore
α + γ = β . From the triangle OTE, one gets θsafe + α + β + γ = π .
Combining these two, θsafe can be expressed as follows:
θsafe = π − 2β = π − 2 sin−1 (r S /r T ) (1)
Thus the safe operation angle is independent of the laser satellite
height.
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.3 (1-9)
L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–••• 3

Fig. 2. Geometry of the safe laser operation zone.

Fig. 3. Safe operation time.

The two satellites orbital mean motions are n T and n L : It increases when the difference in height between the two
  satellites decreases, as shown in Fig. 3.
μ⊕ μ⊕ The satellite relative position geometry is periodic at the satel-
nT = , nL = (2)
r 3T r 3L lite orbits synodic period T syn , which is:

where μ⊕ is the Earth’s gravitational constant.

The satellite visibility time depends on the relative angular 2π 2π
T syn = =√   (4)
velocity between the laser and target satellites, which is nrel = nrel μ⊕ 1 3 − 1
n T − n L . For the laser intensity sizing, only the re-orbit safe laser rT r 3L
operation zone should be considered. The corresponding safe laser
operation time is:
It is represented in Fig. 4 as a function of the laser and target
θsafe π − 2 sin−1 (r S /r T ) satellite heights.
t safe = = √  1  (3) The laser propulsion system must be dimensioned based on the
nrel μ⊕  3 − 1 3
rT rL safe operation duty cycle, which is a key parameter for the laser
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.4 (1-9)
4 L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••

Fig. 4. Synodic period.

target satellite, assuming that the laser pulses are flat top shaped,
it is necessary that the peak intensity of the laser pulse imping-
pk
ing on the satellite’s surfaces I S is sufficiently high to breakdown
the satellite’s ablating material. This happens when the following
condition is satisfied:
pk
I S  I Abl (6)
where I Abl is the minimum intensity needed to ablate the material.
The condition of Eq. (6) is strictly dependent on the laser light
characteristics and on geometrical aspects relative to propagation
of the laser beam. Assuming that the laser beam is produced in a
spot of area A L = π D 2L /4, supposing that the initial laser spot is a
circle of diameter D L , the conservation of system’s power leads to:
pk pk pk
P L = I L A L = I d Ad (7)
pk pk
where P L and I L are respectively the laser peak power and in-
pk
tensity at the laser satellite and I d , A d are the intensity and the
local laser spot area at the distance d. The local laser spot area de-
Fig. 5. Safe laser operation duty cycle. pends on the laser beam divergence angle α L , represented in Fig. 6,
as follows:
system dimensioning. It represents the mission time percentage in A d = π d2 tan2 α L (8)
which the laser can be operated.
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7) the following geometrical atten-
t safe ϑsafe 1 sin−1 (r S /r T ) uation factor of the laser intensity γd can be defined:
= = = − (5)
T syn 2π 2 π pk
Id D 2L
It is remarkable that the duty cycle does not depend on the
γd (α , d, D L ) = = (9)
pk
IL 4d tan2 (
2 αL )
laser satellite height. Fig. 5 shows that, in practical situations, the
duty cycle is typically below 12%. It describes how the laser intensity on target surfaces depends on
the relative distance between the two satellites and the character-
4. Minimum laser intensity istic of the laser system. The laser beam divergence angle α L is a
key parameter for the performance of the propulsion system and
A variety of laser propulsion schemes results are available in it should be minimized in order to increase the laser intensity at
the literature. Among them, the pulsed ablative laser propulsion the target. The minimum theoretical value of this angle is given
attracted most attention due to its very high momentum cou- by [18]:
pling coefficient. Here we refer to this kind of laser propulsion, 2M 2 λ L
which utilizes repetitively pulsed mode laser devices [12]. These αL = (10)
π DL
devices permit to generate high intensity laser pulses in a short
time t p . The laser pulses propagate and hit the target satellite’s where λ L is the laser light wavelength and M 2 is the beam prop-
light concentration equipment. For producing a net thrust to the agation factor which can be set equal to 2 for CO2 laser and
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.5 (1-9)
L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–••• 5

Fig. 6. Laser beam divergence cone and laser concentration equipment.

Fig. 7. Geometrical attenuation factor for Nd:YAG and CO2 laser systems.

amounts to about 20 for the Nd:YAG lasers [4]. By using Eq. (9), By making use of the above definitions, Eq. (6) can be rewritten
Eq. (10) can be written as follows: as:

π D 4L pk I Abl
IL  (13)
γd (λL , d, D L ) = (11) ηc γd
16M 2 d2 λ2L
which shows how the peak laser intensity is influenced by the
showing that the best performance of the energy transfer is ob-
parameters γd , representing the effect of laser source diameter, be-
tained for short wavelengths and large transmitter laser spot di-
sides wavelength and distance, and ηc , representing the efficiency
ameters. The laser diameter is strictly related to the laser collima-
of the laser collector system at the target.
tion and can be increased by using a suitable mirror system. The The laser power sizing depends on the minimum and the max-
geometrical attenuation factor for various laser wavelength and di- imum distance between two satellites in the safe operation condi-
ameter is shown in Fig. 7. tion. These correspond to the segments BT and ET in Fig. 2:
In order to reduce the laser source intensity, the target satel-
lite can be equipped with a light concentration system, increasing  
the local light intensity in its focal point. For these systems the dmin = r 2L − r 2S − r 2T − r 2S
concentration factor ηc is defined as:  
dmax = r 2L − r 2S + r 2T − r 2S (14)
A rx
T
ηc = fp
(12)
AT The maximum and the minimum distances between the two
satellites in the safe operation zone are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
where the definition takes into account the ratio between the The maximum laser thrust is obtained of course when the distance
satellite’s area dedicated to receive the laser radiation A rx
T and the is minimum. However for overall orbit control strategy the thrust
area in which the concentration system focuses the laser power direction is relevant as well, and an appropriate trade-off between
fp
received A T , as illustrated in Fig. 6. distance loss and thrust direction must be performed in general.
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.6 (1-9)
6 L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••

Fig. 8. Maximum distance between the two satellites.

Fig. 9. Minimum distance between the two satellites.

5. Laser power requirements where B T = (C D A cs

T )/(2m T ) is the target satellite ballistic coeffi-
cient.
The main perturbation acting on a satellite in low height orbit Reducing the target satellite height, the atmospheric density
is the aerodynamic drag, which can be expressed as follows: and the orbital velocity increase, so the aerodynamic drag is max-
imum when the target satellite’s height is lowest, which is right
1
 =−
D ρ V T2 C D A cs
T V̂ T (15) before the start of the re-orbit maneuver. This can be considered
2 as a worst case situation for the laser sizing, assuming that be-
tween two successive maneuvers the atmospheric drag is constant
where ρ is the atmospheric density, C D is the drag coefficient, V T
at its maximum value. The total  V lost by the target satellite be-
is the satellite’s velocity with respect to the atmosphere, A cs
T is the tween two successive maneuvers, which must be provided by the
mean satellite’s cross section area and V̂ T is the satellite’s velocity
laser propulsion system maneuver is:
unit vector.
The drag force provides the acceleration:  V Tlost = B T ρworst V worst
2
T syn (17)

D where ρworst and V worst are the worst case atmospheric density
a D = = − B T ρ V T2 V̂ T (16) and satellite’s velocity met by the target satellite. The  V lost
m
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA [m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.7 (1-9)
L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–••• 7

f r is the laser pulse repetition rate. The average power received by

the target satellite depends on the average laser emitted power as
follows:
P av
P av
T = γd
L
 D 2L  A T
rx
(21)
π 4
The average laser power required for the propulsion system can
be obtained combining Eqs. (20) and (21), obtaining:
2
2M 4 C D ρworst V worst λ2L A cs
T T syn
P av
L  rx d2max (22)
π Cm D 2L A T t vis
The power does not depend on the target satellite mass, since
both the drag and the thrust accelerations are inversely propor-
tional to it. The average power is shown in Fig. 11 for a CO2 laser
system with C m of the order of 1 kN/MW such as the one obtained
in experimental setup proposed in [14,16].

6. Synchronization of the orbits’ nodes regression rates

Fig. 10. Lost velocity by the target satellite in a synodic period.
in a synodic period for a satellite with ballistic coefficient B T of
0.007 m2 /kg is shown in Fig. 10. If a low synodic period is selected,
the maneuvers are less intense, but they happen more often.
The laser propulsion system average tangential thrust T Tav must
be dimensioned to provide the necessary  V in the safe operation
time interval, leading to the following condition:
T Tav t safe  m T  V Tlost
As described in [5], the laser propulsion thrust depends on the
laser radiation power P av
T received on the target satellite. The laser
propulsion system behavior can be described by the coupling co-
efficient C m , as follows:
T Tav = C m P av
T (19)
The values of the coupling coefficient depends on the laser sys-
tems and ablating material properties, and it can differ by orders
of magnitude among different implementations, as discussed e.g.
in [12]. Using the definition of C m in (19), we can rewrite the con-
dition in Eq. (18) as:
C m P av
T t vis  m T  V lost
pk
where P av
T = P T t p f r is the average laser power at the target
pk
satellite, P T is the peak power received by the target satellite and
The Earth oblateness effects on the orbit plane motion cannot
be neglected, even in a preliminary mission design. Since the laser
and the target satellites are at different orbit heights, the ascend-
ing node regression due to J 2 is different if the two satellites are
coplanar. A difference in the orbit inclination must be introduced
to avoid that the orbit planes move apart from each other.
The orbits’ node regression difference is [3]:
 
3 n T cos(i T ) n L cos(i L )
Ω̇ = Ω̇T − Ω̇ L = − J 2 R 2⊕ − (23)
(18) 2 r 2T r 2L
where i T , i L are the orbit inclinations.
The relation between orbit heights and inclinations that nulls
the differential node regression is therefore:
  72
rL
cos i L = cos i T (24)
rT
The difference between the two satellites’ inclinations given by
(24), for a target satellite height of 300 km, is shown in Fig. 12.
If the target orbit is a polar one, it is not be necessary to pro-
vide a differential inclination to the laser satellite, whereas if the
target satellite plane is nearly equatorial, a difference between the
(20) orbits’ inclinations is necessary to maintain the synchronization of
the ascending node regression. The condition in Eq. (24) limits in
practice the range of inclinations in which it is possible to main-
tain the node synchronization without locating the laser satellite

Fig. 11. Necessary average laser power for target satellite re-orbiting.
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA
8 L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••
Fig. 12. Inclination difference necessary to avoid the differential J 2 effects (h T =
300 km).
too far in height by the target satellite. This restricts the range of
possible target orbits to near-polar ones.
7. Orbit control strategy
The target satellite orbit control goal is to maintain the orbit
as close as possible to a circular trajectory at the target prefixed
height. To analyze the feasibility of the proposed mission, some
simplifying assumptions will be made, leading to a straightforward
maneuver strategy that allows to compute the laser on/off opera-
tion times analytically. Of course this strategy is not optimal, but
it is sufficient to establish the mission feasibility.
The thrust and the orbital perturbations effect will be evaluated
assuming that the laser satellite is a controlled circular orbit, while
the target satellite is in a perturbed circular orbit.
The laser system can be operated when the orbital geometry
guarantees a safe laser operation; therefore the orbital control ac-
tion can be performed in a prefixed sequence of time intervals,
which can be evaluated from the orbital geometry. The goal of the
orbit control in each of these laser thrusting intervals can be ex-
pressed as the minimization of the cost function:
 2
a(t f )
J= −1 + e(t f ) · e(t f )
ad
where ad is the desired target satellite circular orbit radius, a is
the target satellite semimajor axis, e is the eccentricity and t f is
the final time of each orbital control maneuver.
The target satellite equations of motion can be written in terms
of the in plane orbital parameters, namely the eccentricity vector
and the semimajor axis [3]. For circular perturbed orbits, to the
first order in the orbital parameter variation, these equations are:
a obtaining:
ȧ = 2 ϑ̂T · ( T + D
)
V T −D
de 1 a f = a0 exp 2
= (2r̂ T ϑ̂T − ϑ̂T r̂ T ) · ( T + D
)
dt V
 
T −D n0 ton
where r̂ T is the target satellite’s upwards local vertical unit vec-
e 0 − 4 sin
(28)
tor, ϑ̂ T is the target satellite’s in plane local horizontal unit vector,
T is the laser thrust and D  is the sum of the orbital perturbations,
which will be considered here as the atmospheric drag only.
The orbit control is based on the on/off laser switching times,
which can be evaluated such that the orbital parameters cumula-
tive error J is minimized at the end of the maneuver.
[m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.8 (1-9)
Fig. 13. Equivalent  v for a symmetric boost-up maneuver at apogee.
An efficient orbit control procedure should take into account
the overall laser system efficiency, including the laser thrust de-
pendence on the distance. The feasibility of the mission can
be however assessed by adopting some simplifying assumptions,
which allow obtaining an analytical solution for the minimization
of J .
The first assumption is that the thrust direction is along the
target satellite orbit tangent. This is justified considering that the
angle between the thrust direction and the orbit tangent during
the safe laser operation time intervals, which is γ = cos−1 (r S /r T ),
is less than 17◦ for a safety height of 100 km and maximum target
satellite orbit height of 300 km.
The second assumption is that only boost-up maneuvers are
performed, increasing the orbit energy, since the objective is to
boost the orbit up counteracting the atmospheric drag effect and
there are no evident reasons for performing boost-down maneu-
vers.
The third assumption is that the visibility time useful for boost-
up maneuvers spans more than one complete target satellite orbit,
which is always true for typical target and laser satellite orbits’
radii for very low altitude missions.
The last assumption is that the thrust and the drag force are
constant.
In these assumptions, control of the eccentricity vector magni-
tude can be obtained applying the laser thrust symmetrically with
respect to the lines of apsides. Doing so, the orbital maneuver af-
fects only the eccentricity vector magnitude and the cost function
J depends only on two scalar quantities, namely the target satel-
lite semiaxis and eccentricity. Moreover, since the eccentricity is
to be minimized and only boost-up maneuvers are performed, the
laser thrust must applied in an orbit arch centered in the apogee,
as shown in Fig. 13.
(25) In the above assumptions, the orbital parameters equations are:
2( T − D )
ȧ = a
V
de 4( T − D )
ė = ê · = ê · r̂ T (27)
dt V
where T and D are the thrust and drag magnitudes. The values
of the semimajor axis and eccentricity at the end of the maneuver
can be evaluated integrating Eq. (27) over the maneuver time t on ,
 
ton
(26) V
e f =
Vn 2
0
where n0 is the target orbit mean motion.
Substituting (28) in (25), the cost function J depends on the
single variable t on and the minimization is straightforward.
As an example of the system performance, a mission with tar-
get and laser satellite heights of 300 km and 500 km respectively is
JID:AESCTE AID:2827 /FLA
L. Felicetti, F. Santoni / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••–•••
Fig. 14. Target satellite semimajor axis.
Fig. 15. Target satellite eccentricity vector.
considered. The synodic period amounts to about 23 target satellite
orbital periods. The target satellite semimajor axis and eccentricity
vector are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The desired semiaxis value
(dashed line in Fig. 14) is maintained within a few kilometers.
The orbit boost-up during the laser maneuver appears as a “saw-
tooth” in Fig. 14, whereas a slow decay of the semimajor axis is
observed in each synodic period. The eccentricity vector is main-
tained within a box of side 5 × 10−4 . The arcs in Fig. 15 represent
the fast eccentricity change due to the laser maneuver, whereas
the eccentricity is almost constant when only the drag perturba-
tion is present.
8. Conclusions
A mission based on laser propulsion to re-orbit small satellites
in low Earth orbit has been described. The proposed mission ar-
[m5Gv1.5; v 1.77; Prn:4/09/2012; 16:03] P.9 (1-9)
9
chitecture is very well suited for nanosatellite swarms orbiting at
very low altitudes. The mission feasibility has been analyzed, based
on state of the art laser propulsion technology performance and in-
cluding geometrical constraints introduced by the orbital dynamics
and by laser operation safety considerations. The relative motion
between the two satellite orbit planes under the J 2 effect has
been analyzed, showing that the laser propulsion system opera-
tion is restricted to near polar orbits. An orbit control strategy has
been outlined and, by adopting some simplifying assumptions, an
analytic solution has been obtained, useful to assess the mission
feasibility.
References
[1] J.P. Aguttes, N. Fernandez, J. Foliard, Low altitude flying for high resolution
imaging satellite: comparison of low circular and elliptical orbits, in: Pro-
ceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium,
IGARSS’05, vol. 5, 25–29 July 2005, pp. 3421–3423.
[2] C. Arduini, L. Broglio, U. Ponzi, Drag balance measurements in the San Marco
D/L mission, Advances in Space Research 13 (1) (1993) 185–200.
[3] R.H. Battin, An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods in Astrodynam-
ics, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, 1999.
[4] R. Cortes, R. Villagomez, V. Coello, R. Lopez, Laser beam quality factor (M2)
measured by distorted Fresnel zone plates, Revista Mexicana de Fisica 54 (4)
(2008) 279–283.
[5] H.A. Eckel, W. Schall, Laser propulsion systems, in: C. Bruno, A. Accettura
(Eds.), Advanced Propulsion Systems and Technologies, Today to 2020, AIAA,
2008.
[6] R.J. Glumb, H. Krier, Concepts and status of laser supported rocket propulsion,
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 21 (1) (1984) 70–79.
[7] A. Kantrowitz, Propulsion to orbit by ground based lasers, Astronautics and
Aeronautics 10 (5) (1972) 74–76.
[8] C.W. Larson, F.B. Mead, Energy conversion in laser propulsion, in: 39th
Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 8–10, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-
0646.
[9] F.B. Mead Jr., L.N. Myrabo, D.G. Messitt, Flight experiments and evolutionary
development of a laser propelled, trans-atmospheric vehicle, in: SPIE Con-
ference on High-Power Laser Ablation, Santa Fe, New Mexico, April 1998, in:
Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 3343, 1998, pp. 560–563.
[10] J. Muylaert, R. Reinhard, C. Asma, QB50: An international network of 50 dou-
ble CubeSats for multi-point, in-situ, long-duration measurements in the
lower thermosphere and for re-entry research, in: 7th CubeSat Developers’
Workshop, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, 21–23 Apr. 2010.
[11] L.N. Myrabo, D.G. Messitt, F.B. Mead, Ground and flight tests of a laser pro-
pelled vehicle, in: 36th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV,
12–15 Jan. 1998, AIAA Paper 98-1001.
[12] C. Phipps, et al., Review: Laser-ablation propulsion, Journal of Propulsion and
Power 26 (4) (2010) 609–637.
[13] C.R. Phipps, J. Luke, Micro laser plasma thrusters for small satellites, in: High
Power Laser Ablation III, in: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4065, SPIE, Bellingham,
WA, 2000, pp. 801–809.
[14] D.P. Resendes, S. Mota, G. Sorasio, J.T. Mendonca, B. Sanders, J. Encarnacao,
Laser propulsion for ESA missions, ESA Contract No. 170410/03/NL/PA Final
Report, November 2004, pp. 53–54.
[15] F. Santoni, F. Piergentili, F. Graziani, Broglio drag balance for neutral
thermosphere density measurement on UNICubeSAT, Advances in Space
Research 45 (5) (2010) 651–660.
[16] A. Sasoh, Laser-driven in-tube accelerator, Review of Scientific Instru-
ments 72 (3) (2001) 1893–1898.
[17] W.O. Schall, H.A. Eckel, W. Mayerhofer, W. Riede, E. Zeyfang, Compara-
tive lightcraft impulse measurements, in: High Power Laser Ablation IV,
in: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4760, SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2002, pp. 908–
917.
[18] W.T. Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[19] S. Uchida, K. Hashimoto, K. Fujita, M. Niino, T. Ashizuka, N. Kawasahima,
Characteristics of volume expansion of laser plasma for efficient propulsion,
in: High Power Laser Ablation IV, in: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4760, SPIE,
Bellingham, WA, 2002, pp. 810–820.
[20] M. Young, E.P. Muntz, J. Wang, Maintaining continuous low orbit flight by using
in-situ atmospheric gases for propellant, in: Proceedings of 22nd International
Symposium of Rarefied Gas Dynamics, 2001.