/

'

C)'

NASA

Contractor

Report

191129

,R,,_

An Analytical Orbit Transfer

Optimization Vehicles

of Electric

Propulsion

Steven Sverdrup Lewis Brook

R. Oleson Technology, Inc. Group Research Center Park, Ohio

May

1993

Prepared for Lewis Research Under Contract

Center NAS3-25266

N/ A
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA-CR-191129) AN ANALYTICAL OPTIMIZATION OF ELECTRIC PROPULSION ORBIT TRANSFER VEHICLES Final Report (Sverdrup Technology) tO p

N93-27060

Unclas

G3/20

0164919

AN ANALYTICAL OPTIMIZATION METHOD FOR ELECTRIC PROPULSION ORBIT TRANSFER VEHICLES Steven R. Oleson

Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Lewis Research Center Group Brook Park, Ohio 44142 Abstract Due to electric propulsion's inherent propellant mass savings over chemical propulsion, electric propulsion orbit transfer vehicles (EPOTVs) are a highly efficient mode of orbit transfer. When selecting an electric propulsion device (ion, MPD, or arcje0 and propellant for a particular mission, it is preferable to use quick, analytical system optimization methods instead of time intensive numerical integration methods. It is also of interest to determine each thruster's optimal operating characteristics for a specific mission. Analytical expressions are derived which determine the optimal specific impulse (Isp) for each type of electric thruster to maximize payload fraction for a desired thrusting time. These expressions take into account the variation of thruster efficiency with specific impulse. Verification of the method is made with representative electric propulsion values on a LEO-to-GEO mission. Application of the method to specific missions is discussed. INTRODUCTION In the coming decades, electric propulsion promises to become a frequently used and highly efficient mode of space propulsion. This is due to the inherently higher specific impulse (Isp) of electric propulsion (800 to 10,000 s verses 100 to 450 s for chemical propulsion) which produces significant propellant mass savings. These savings can then be used to increase deliverable payload mass or allow the use of smaller, less expensive expendable launch vehicles. However, these savings usually come at the expense of longer mission times. Electric propulsion is already being used to provide station keeping propulsion for Earth satellites. In addition, current NASA studies have shown the potential for electric propulsion's use as primary propulsion on interplanetary probes, lunar and Mars cargo vehicles, and Mars piloted vehicles. As part of the evolutionary process towards the interplanetary application, the initial use of electric propulsion (EP) for primary propulsion is likely to be as a highly efficient Earth orbit transfer vehicle (OTV). The purpose of this paper is to provide this quick analytical method for predicting EP performance, optimal Isp's, and the corresponding EP vehicle parameters. This method can be used to quickly determine the performance of electric propulsion orbit transfer vehicles CEPOTV) for any circular orbit to circular orbit transfer mission. By using the predicted optimal Isp method, parametric variation of Isp is not necessary thus eliminating one variable from a parametric trade. The analysis of EP trajectories is different from chemical impulsive trajectories since the electric thrusters operate continuously at very small thrust levels. As a consequence of this, an EP vehicle performs a spiral trajectory from orbit to orbit near a planetary body. To accurately analyze this spiraling, numerical integration methods are usually used, especially when optimal vehicle steering is desired. These methods usually require specific vehicle assumptions which do not allow for quick parametric assessments of various thrusters, power systems, power levels, and specific impulses. Alternately, by using certain simplifying mission assumptions, analytical methods can be used to perform a quick parametric scoping of potential thruster/power combinations, without requiring more detailed inputs or specialized user training. In most cases, the efficiency of EP thrusters is highly dependent upon the Isp. This variation of efficiency with Isp must be considered before choosing thrusters and power levels since it greatly affects payload performance. Gilland (1991) did account for this variation for lunar and Mars missions. A similar derivation

will be made

hem for near-planetary

EP missions.

Specifically, this analytical performance technique determines the optimal Isp and maximum payload for EP vehicles considering specific thrusters and desired thrusting time. Assumptions are presented describing the general characteristics of power source and the thruster systems needed to perform a parametric trade. The low thrust mission analysis is simplified to a required low thrust velocity increment, AV, to allow a simple analytical relation of the mission requirements to the EP vehicle system parameters. EP vehicle parameters are defined and the dependency of optimal Isp, optimal power level and trip time on these parameters is then shown. Optimal Isp equations are derived for each type of thruster using curve-fit efficiency/Isp relationships and mathematical simplifications. The accuracy of these analytically predicted optimal Isp's is compared to the numerically calculated optimal Isp's using sample value for the mission and vehicle parameters. A comparison of the resulting payload fractions is also made. /_$SUMPTIONS The analysis in this paper assumes a single parameter, the specific mass, to characterize the power and thruster system scaling. The independent variable is assumed to be the vehicle thrusting time. The analysis considers the ax;ailable power to be constant, which is representative of nuclear powered EPOTVs. For solar powered craft, two other affects make the actual trip time longer than the thrusting time; (1) the Van Alien belt radiation degrades the power, and (2) shading limits power production time to sunlit parts of the orbit. Other methods must be used to assess these affects and are not addressed here. The efficiency of some electric thrusters is highly dependent upon the effective exhaust velocity, c or specific impulse Isp. Depending upon the type of thruster (ion, MPD, or arcjet), the efficiency Isp relation differs. All of the following relations are based upon projected near-term technology. The coefficients of these relations are derived from curve fits of empirical data. As long as the mathematical form of the efficiency/Isp relationship is valid, however, the method derived in this paper is applicable with the appropriate efficiency coefficients. For ion thrusters utilizing inert gases (argon, krypton, xenon) the relationship is second-order as shown by Equation (1). For MPD thrusters using hydrogen fuel, the relation is the same as (1) for Isp's greater than 7800 s (Gilland, 1991). For Isp's less than 7800 s the efficiency more closely follows relation (2). rl ion = ( b c2 ) / (c2 + d2 ) [1] rl MPD=(bc)/(c+d) [2]

The near-term coefficients b and d for each propellant as well as their feasible Isp ranges are presented in Table 1, the corresponding efficiencies predicted by Equation (1) are shown in Figure 1. Recent H2 arcjet data (NASA, 1991) indicate that arcjet efficiency does not have a strong correlation near-term with Isp. Isp range Consequently, and efficiency it is assumed for H2 arcjets that H2 arcjets are also shown have a constant 1. efficiency. The in Table

The nominal range over which an electric thruster's Isp can be varied is limited. Table 1 shows the accepted ranges for each type of thruster. For some orbit transfer missions the optimal Isp may be below this Isp range depending upon efficiency, specific mass and desired thrust time. Recent research has shown that "derated" xenon and krypton ion thrusters can be run at lower Isp's with a different efficiency relationship than for high Isp operation (Equation 1) (Patterson, 1992). The implications of using derated thrusters are not considered in this paper.

MISSION

ANALYSI_

An analytically calculable parameter is used to relate the mission performance requirements to vehicle parameters. This mission parameter is the velocity increment required or AV. This AV is related to the vehicle performance through the rocket equation: final mass / initial mass = e-a,'/c , where c is the effective exhaust velocity of the EP thruster. Since an EP vehicle thrusts throughout most of its mission, an impulsive AV, (an assumption that all thrusting burns change the vehicle's velocity instantaneously), can not be accurately used. However, past work done by Edelbaum (1961) gives an analytical expression which approximates the AV required by a low thrust vehicle performing an orbital transfer and a plane change near the Earth. This expression is,

AV

[Vo2

+V2-2VVo

cos

(rE2*

)]1/2

(3)

where Vo and V are the circular velocities of the original and desired orbits, respectively, and 0 is the desired plane change. Some of the assumptions accompanying this equation are: (1) the orbit must always remain quasi-circular during the transfer, (2) the thrust angle is assumed constant during each revolution, and (3) the thrust magnitude is assumed constant throughout the transfer. In addition, the thrust-to-weight ratio of the EP system must be 10-2 or less. EP VEHICLE ANALYSIS is modeled by four main elements each of which contributes to the total mass (Mo)

An EP vehicle

of the EP vehicle: the propellant, the propellant The following derivation is similar to that done the mass of propellant the mass of the fuel propulsion system

tankage, the propulsion system, and the payload. by Stuhlinger (1964). The propellant mass (Mp) is

required for the mission. The propellant tankage mass is directly related to by a tankage factor: Kt = mass of tankage / mass of propellant. The as the power subsystem mass (main power generation and

mass (Mw) is defined

power management and distribution-PMAD) and thruster subsystem mass (including thrusters, gimbals, power processing units -PPUs, and propellant feeds but excluding fuel and tankage). Finally, the payload mass (ML) includes useable payload mass, fixed support system masses not scalable to the thruster power (for example and any contingency mass. These combine Mo=ML structures, guidance and control, and communications), to make the total initial EP vehicle mass: + Mp + KtMp. (4) to be compared to the total fraction) can be calculated as easily velocity using the the exhaust of the

+ Mw

Such parameterization of an EP vehicle allows for each component initial mass of the EP vehicle. A system mass fraction (or just system system massn / total initial with (c): mass -- _ n. The propellant Edelbaum fraction, rocket equation electric thrusters the mission's AV (Equation 3) and

i.tp, is determined

l_p = 1 - e-av/c.
The tankage mass fraction _l.Ktis: [.l.Kt= Kt lap.

(5)

(6)

The propulsionsystem
/dt) time, c2, where x, : dm/dt

fraction

gw

is derived

by considering

the thrust required

power

(P0: Pt = 1/2 ( dm thrusting to the

the mass flow rate is obtained = Mp / x. The thrust power

from the propellant can be related

and the given power

to the electric

(Pc) input

thrusters by an efficiency factor, 1"1: Pt = 1"1 Pc, where the efficiency accounts only for the actual efficiency of the thruster. Line losses, PMAD and PPU efficiencies, and housekeeping power requirements are included in the specific mass of the propulsion system. As discussed previously, the efficiency of the thruster is known to vary with exhaust velocity or Isp. The specific efficiency/Isp relationships for each thruster are described previously. Finally, subsystem this electric power (Pc) provided 0_, where the to the thrusters term o_ represents is related the specific to the mass mass of the power

by : Mw = Pe

of the propulsion [kWe]. These

system as: a - propulsion system equations are combined to determine

mass [kg] / electric power sent the propulsion system fraction: (1 - e-av/c).

to thrusters

I.tw = (or c2 ) / (2 rl x) Finally, payload noting that the values of the system fractions fraction, liE, is defined by the other fractions

(7)

must add to one: I.tL + I.tw + lip + liKt = 1, the as: rl (1

_L

= e'Av/c

Kt

+ (_

C2 ) / (2

x)

- e-Av/e).

(8)

It is evident specified performance

that the EP system time x, as well of an EP vehicle

payload

fraction

is dependent parameters

upon c, t_, rl,

the mission and Kt

parameters Consequently,

AV and the

thrust

as the system

can be easily tt_,

predicted

for various

mission

and system

assumptions.

ANALYTICALLY

OPTIMAL

Now that an analytical expression for the payload fraction is available, the various efficiency (Equations (1) and (2)) are used to find a thruster specific payload fraction:
_tL = e "zxv/c - [ Kt

relations

for

+ (0_ c 2 ) [ (2 rl 'r) ] (1 - e-Av/c) Hydrogen Arcjets

[ r 1 = constant]

(9)

tie = e -a'lc - [ Kt + _ (c2 + d2 ) / (2 b x) ] (1 - e-av/c) Ion and MPD }.tL=e-aWc[ Kt +a(c2+cd)/(2b'0] MPD Isp>7800s

[rl =( b c2 ) / (c2 + d 2 )]

(10)

(1-e-Av/c) Isp< 7800s

[rl=(bc)/(c+d)]

(11)

The payload fraction for specific choices of AV, thrust time, specific impulse, tankage, propulsion system specific mass, and thruster efficiency factors b and d are calculated using these equations. With the choice of a specific mission and a specific system only the thrust time and the constant exhaust velocity (or specific impulse) of the thrusters can be varied to alter payload performance. Payload optimizations are presented by various authors including Stuhlinger (1964). The optimal Isp for maximum payload fraction is shown to be the same as the Isp for the shortest trip time and a fixed payload fraction. Stuhlinger developed an approximation of optimal exhaust velocity for

maximumpayloadfraction as:

( 'g / 1_ )1/2. However, this parameter does not address the dependency of EP thruster efficiency on specific impulse. Gilland (1991) takes these variable efficiency equations into account for Mars and Lunar mission scoping. A similar derivation is presented here for near-planetary applications. The figures of merit that this method addresses are payload fraction and the flight time since both are directly linked to the economics of any mission.
Cop t --

Equations (9)-(11) are easily optimized in terms of exhaust velocity by taking the partial derivative of the payload fraction with respect to the exhaust velocity and setting it equal to zero: 31.tL / 3 c = 0. Equation (10) is addressed first since the solution for optimal exhaust velocity or Isp should be the same as the optimal for Equation (9) if the efficiency is constant and the efficiency factor d is set to zero. The relation giving the optimal exhaust velocity for maximum payload fraction is, earle = [Av/c2 ((bx/ot)(l+Kt)+ d2/2)+c+Av/2]; (12)

which can only be solved numerically in its present form. Consequently, the substitution, x = Av / c, and the truncated Taylor series: ex = 1 + x + x2 / 2! + x3 / 3!, are used to simplify Equation (12) so that the optimal exhaust velocity, Copt, is the real root of a quadratic:
+ [ 2 b "1: ( 1 + Kt

Copt = -Av / 2

) / o_ + d2

-Av2 / 12 ]1/2.

(13)

Equation (13) gives the optimal exhaust velocity for thrusters having the efficiency relationship shown in Equation (1) (current ion thrusters and MPD thrusters with Isp > 7800 s). As a consequence of the truncated Taylor series, Equation (13) is not exact. (However, for EP thruster Isp ranges of 800 s to 10,000 s and mission AVs below 10 km/s the method's error is negligible.) The approximation loses accuracy at low exhaust velocities and large mission AV's and thus should be checked before using this method. By letting thruster efficiency factors constant efficiency is expressed as: Copt = -Av [ 2 + which may be used exhaust velocity is: for arcjets. d = 0 and b = rl in (13), the optimal exhaust velocity for a

[ 2 rl x ( 1 + Kt Finally,

) / _-

Av2 / 12 ]1/2, relationship Equation (2), the

(14) optimal

for the efficiency

Copt=-Av/2

+ [2bx

(l+Kt)/a-dAv/2+Av2/4]l/2,

(15)

which may be used for MPD thrusters second order expansion of ex was used, VERIFICATION OF THE

with Isp < 7800 s. Due to algebraic complexity, only a thus making this approximation slightly less accurate. OPTIMAL ISP

PREDICTED

The accuracy of the predicted optimal exhaust velocity relation for ion propulsion Equation (13) as compared to the numerically calculated and the Stuhlinger predicted optimal specific impulses is now presented. The accuracy of the other two optimal equations (Equations 14 and 15) is similar. The sample mission is a transfer from a low Earth parking orbit to geostationary orbit. It is assumed that the initial parking orbit is a circular Earth orbit at an altitude of 500 km with an inclination of 28.70. The desired geostationary orbit altitude is 35683 km with a 00 inclination. For this orbit transfer, the Edelbaum equation produces a required low thrust AV of 5.86 km/s. The thruster used to verify the method's optimal Isp is xenon ion. Xenon ion efficiencies and Isp

rangesare listed

in Table 1. A tankage and reserves fraction of 10% is assumed for xenon (WeUe, 1990). The sample power system specific mass is assumed to be 40 kg/kWe based upon the goal of the 100 kWe SP-100 reactor program (Truscello, et al, 1992) plus an additional 4 kg/kWe for the PMAD (Gilland, George 1992) A sample thruster specific mass of 6 kg/kWe (including thruster, PPU, gimbals, and propellant feeds) is added to the power system specific masses (Gilland, George 1992). Thus the sample propulsion system specific mass is 50 kg/kWe. For the sample mission and system, the optimal !sp's predicted by Equation (13) are shown in Figure 2 as a function of thrusting time. The optimum Isps predicted by Stuhlinger and the numerically calculated optimum Isps are also shown. The equations derived in this paper show almost exact agreement with the actual optimum specific impulse. Stuhlinger's Isp varies significantly from the actual optimum lsp. The corresponding maximum payload fractions found using the predicted, Stuhlinger, and actual optimum Isp's are shown in Figure 3. It is clear, at least for the sample case chosen, that the maximum payload fraction predicted by the analytical method is very close to the actual optimum payload fraction. While the maximum payload fraction predicted by Stuhlinger shows only a small difference, the resulting system parameters, such as required power and amount of propellant, are misleading. APPLICATION OF THE METHOD

The payload fractions for the sample mission using the three thruster types are shown together in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows corresponding optimal Isp's. By using these figures, a preliminary scoping of the mission performance of each thruster type is available. For EP systems a trade exists between mission duration and payload delivered. While no 'optimal' payload and trip time is evident, designing a vehicle with attributes from the 'knee' of the curve, (where the return of more payload for longer trip time diminishes) is suggested. In further analyzing the mission a cost analysis should be done balancing the operations cost against reduced launch costs. It is evident that for short thrusting times, some of the optimal Isp's are below the thruster Isp range provided with Table (1). This indicates that either the lowest Isp boundary value must be used or research must be done to permit operation in this Isp range, if the performance advantage warrants iL CONCLUSIONS A quick analytical method for predicting mission performance for EPOTV vehicles is shown. By using the optimal exhaust velocity (Isp) equations derived in this paper, one parameter of defining the mission (Isp) need not be parametrically varied. The optimal Isp equations are shown to predict the actual optimal Isp for maximum payload fraction for a desired thrust time quite accurately. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes and Mike Patterson was done at NASA 25266) by Sverdrup to thank Jim Gilland, Jeff George, John Riehl, Tim Wickenheiser, Jim Sovey, for their insight during the development of this paper. Research for this paper Lewis Research Center's Advanced Space Analysis Office (Contract NAS 3Technology, Inc.

Refere

.noes

Edelbaum, 1079-1089.

T.N. (1964) August

"Propulsion 1961.

Requirements

for Controllable

Satellites",

ARS

Journal,

31:

Gilland, J.I-L (1991) Lunar andMars

Mission and System Optimization Missions, CR- 189058, NASA

of Nuclear Electric Propulsion Vehicles for Lewis Research Center, December 1991. for SEI Missions," AIAA Propulsion Conference,

Gilland, J.H., J.A. George (1992) '"'Early Track" NEP System Options 92-3200, presented at AIAA[$AE/A$ME[ASEE 28th Joint Nashville, TN, 6-8 July 1992. Patterson, M.J. (1992) AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 1991 RTOP Center. Stuhlinger, Review,

"Low-Isp Derated Ion Thruster Operation," AIAA 92-3203, presented 28th Joint Propulsion Conference, Nashville, TN, 6-8 July 1992. Presented to NASA HQ by Code RP, Sept 1991 at NASA Lewis Research

at

E. (1964)

Ion Propulsion

for Space

Flight.

McGraw-Hill:

New

York on of

Truscello, V.C. and L.L Rutger Space Nuclear Power Systems, Physics, New York.

(1992) "SP-100 M.S. EI-Genk

Power System," in Proc. Ninth Symposium and M.D. Hoover, eds., American Institute

Welle, R.P. (1990) "Availability Considerations in the Selection Engines," AIAA 902589, presented at AIAA/DGLR/JSASS Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, 18-20 July 1990. ................................................ English c: Exhaust Velocity go: Reference Gravitational Isp: b: d: V:
Kt:

of Inert Propellants 21st International

for Ion Electric

Nomenclature Greek Acceleration 11:

.................................................

Propulsion

system

efficiency,

Pt ] Pe

Specific

Impulse,

c / go

M:
Pt:

Thruster variable efficiency factor Thruster variable efficiency factor Circular Orbit Velocity Tankage Fraction Mass Thrust Power, 1/2 mass flow rate * c2 Propellant Electric Mass Power Flow Rate Produced by Power

x: System 0: x : It: AV:

Propulsion (Thruster Specific Mass, Inclination change ()

Power) and Mw / Pe

Thrusting Time Mass Fractions, Velocity increment

subsystem

Mass

/ Mo

drn/dt:
Pe:

Subscript o: w3tial L: w: p: opt: Payload, Support, and Contingency Propulsion Subsystem Propellant Optimal

Subsystem

TABLE Thruster T_pe Xenon Ion Krypton Ion Argon Ion I]2 MPD: Isp < 7800 H2 MPD: Isp 7800 H_drogen Arcjet
1 .....

1. Various Efficiency Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.86 0.92 b

Thruster Emciencies Efficiency Factor d (m/s) 13500 17000 24500 25900 50300 efficienc 7 .33 3500

and Isp Ranges. Nominal Isp Operation 3500 5000 7000 2000 7800 1000 Range 5000 s 8000 s 10000 s 7800 s 10000 s s

"Dcratcd" Isp Operation Range 800 - 3300 s 1500 - 5100 s 5000 - 7000 s

s s

Constant

- 1500 ! ....
:

....

! ....
;

! ....
i

[ ....
i

! ....
i

!..
:

,-,
'

-O'Predicted _" 0.8 ............ :............. ?....................... - - :............

]i

" "_::

,o0o l+-'''_'_'I-....... ..... _q

2500
L

......... -

-_ 0.6 E _ 0.4

.....
........
6/.sJ

1/_ ........... i...... .... 4........ _ .........

: :

............ + ............

.................... _ i.... i _

_.................... _.._. i !........ + + _,--" i

2000 , : _. _ i

_- o.2

..... ............ t-----_ '/---t ": ......................

....

15oo: .......... ...................................... t7 f .....................

1000 12000 .... , .... ; .... , .... , .... i .... i .... 50100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Thrusting Time (days)

"i

o=so _,_We

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Isp (s) FIGURE 1. Various Thruster Efi_ciencies Predicted by Curve-Fit Relationships.

FIGURE 2. Comparison of Predicted, Stuhlinger and Actual Optimal Isps for a Xenon Ion Thruster

0.7 0.6 J 0.5

....

' ....

i ....

, ....

, ....

, ....

! ....

0.7 0.6 _0.5 "_0.4

....

....

I.., "

....

I '

.... i

I .....

i:::::iiiii:i::iiiiiiiii:::i:+ii: ii::+i:i:iii:iiii:

_. 0.4
q_

__ 0.3 _ 0.2

o
0 .._ 5010_0 150 200 250 300 350 400 3500 3000 _2500 2000 E _1500 1000 I 5O0 + _-"_ + +

i......... +._n,n _"0.3

.__ ._ o.2
o.i o
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

+i :

_....._____

-__1 -]H[_ --_ ArcJet

_i""_:?:iiii!::: :ii[:ii:iiiiiiiiiiiii_-L'. "'-2-_''

Thrusting Time (days)

Thrusting Time (days) FIGURE 3. Comparison ofFi'edicted, Stuhlinger, and Actual Optimal Isps on Payload Fraction for a Xenon Ion Thruster

FIGURE 4. Maximum Payload Fraction verses Thrusting Time For a LEO-to-GEO Mission

.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... !. +>,._ .... t : : ! i ! : _.x a = 50 kg/kWe i ! _..x .:" ........ i......... _ ......... -:........ _............ -_--_-'_------: . ........

.......... :. ""+ +,i........ +!i+ I......... ___i .++ i:<+ :i ii+ .......... :ii ...... !....... . ......... ......... '_......... !i

........ +++ ....... ........

[ ..-- -.H_arcJet i ,,,_: +i'_+ + ......... + ......... ++ l-...._..--.... M:P'D,.. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Thrusting Time (days) 450 FIGURE 5. Optima] Isp's vsThrusting Time For a LEO-to-GEO Mission

50

REPORT
Public gathering collection Davis reporting burden for this collection of and maintaining of information, Suite

DOCUMENTATION
information is estimated to average 1 hour and reviewing the collection this burden, to Washington to the Office of Management

PAGE
per response, including Send Sefvioas, Paperwork the time for reviewing of information, Headquarters and Budget. comments Directorate Reduction regarding this for Infofmabon Project

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

insmJctions, searching existing data sources, burden est_mata or any other aspect of this Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Washington, DC 20503.

the data needed, and completing including suggestions for reducing Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and

Highway.

1204.

(0704-0188),

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE May 1993

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Final Contractor Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE An Analytical Optimization of Electric Propulsion Orbit Transfer Vehicles

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

WU-506--49-11
6. AUTHoR(s)

C-NAS3-25266

Steven

R. Oleson

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Sverdrup Lewis 2001 Brook Technology, Research Aerospace Park, Ohio Center Parkway 44142 AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) and Space Administration inc. Group

8-

PERFORMING REPORT NUMBER

ORGANIZATION

E-7841

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Lewis Aeronautics Research Ohio Center

10.

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA

CR-191129

Cleveland,

44135-3191

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Project

Manager,

John E Riehl,

Advanced

Space

Analysis

Office,

(216)

433---7061.

12L

DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

Unclassified Subject

- Unlimited 13, 15, 16, and 20

Categories

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Due

to electric vehicles MPD,

propulsion's (EPOTVs)

inherent

propellant efficient

mass

savings

over

chemical

propulsion, selecting

electric

propulsion propulsion system each

orbit device optimization

transfer (ion,

are a highly

mode

of orbit

transfer.

When

an electric analytical

or arcjet)

and propellant intensive

for a particular numerical for a specific

mission,

it is preferable

to use quick,

methods optimal specific expressions made with missions

instead operating impulse take

of time

integration mission. thruster

methods. Analytical to maximize efficiency

It is also of interest expressions payload with specific mission.

to determine which

thruster's the optimal time. These is

characteristics (Isp) into for each account

are derived fraction impulse.

determine thrusting

type

of electric

for a desired Verification

the variation propulsion

of thruster values

of the method

representative is discussed.

electric

on a LEO-to-GEO

Application

of the method

to specific

14.

SUBJECT

TERMS

15.

NUMBER

OF

PAGES

10
Electric design;
17. SECURITY OF REPORT

propulsion; Optimal Isp;

Orbit

transfer; power
18.

Ion engines;

Arcjets;

MPD

thrusters;

Analytic

mission

16.

PRICE

CODE

Optimal

A02
CLASSIFICATION PAGE 19. SECURITY OF ABSTRACT CLASSIFICATION 20. UMITATION OF ABSTRACT THIS

CLASSIFICATION

SECURITY OF

Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Unclassified

Unclassified
Standard Prescribel 298-102 Form by ANSI 298 St(:l. (Rev. Z39-18 2-89)

National Space Lewls

Aeronautics Administration l_mearch Ohio

and

FOURTH CLAI_

MAIL

Center 44135

ADDRESS

CORRECTION

REQUESTED

Cleveland,

omael llueJmms llefw_ h_ llrwme uw IBoo