Delta-V Variations in GTO to GEO Transfers Due to Launch Site Latitude

Abstract

The transfer of communication satellites from Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) to Geostationary Orbit (GEO) is a critical phase in satellite deployment, requiring precise orbital maneuvers to achieve the desired parameters. This study examines the effect of launch site latitude on the delta-Velocity (Δ𝑉) requirements for such transfers. The analysis indicates that launching from equatorial sites minimizes the inclination correction Δ𝑉, a key component of the transfer maneuver. For example, a launch from a site at 20° latitude necessitates an additional Δ𝑉 of approximately 189 m/s compared to an equatorial launch, leading to an estimated reduction of four years in satellite operational life due to increased propellant consumption. For Turkey, a launch from 42°N results in an estimated operational life reduction of 12.8 years for a satellite. The Δ𝑉 penalty associated with higher-latitude launch sites can be mitigated by employing more powerful launch vehicles capable of compensating for increased fuel demands. However, this approach introduces additional costs and technical challenges, emphasizing the strategic advantages of equatorial launch facilities. The study highlights the substantial Δ𝑉 implications of conducting GEO transfers from higher-latitude launch sites and underscores the importance of optimizing launch strategies to enhance satellite longevity and mission efficiency.

Keywords

• Equatorial launch
• Launch site latitudes
• Powerful launcher
• Lunar gravity assist LGA
• Satellite lifetime.

Delta-V Variations in GTO to GEO Transfers Due to Launch Site Latitude

Abstract

The transfer of communication satellites from Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) to Geostationary Orbit (GEO) represents a critical phase in mission deployment, requiring precise orbital maneuvers to achieve optimal station-keeping parameters. This investigation quantifies the influence of launch site latitude on the delta-V (ΔV) requirements for GTO-to-GEO transfers, with particular emphasis on inclination correction costs. Key findings demonstrate that equatorial launch sites minimize ΔV expenditure by eliminating inclination change demands. In contrast, higher-latitude launches incur significant ΔV penalties—for instance, a 20° latitude launch requires an additional 189 m/s ΔV compared to equatorial launches, resulting in a four-year reduction in operational lifespan due to propellant consumption. The effect is more pronounced at mid-latitudes: launches from 42°N (e.g., Turkey) impose a ΔV penalty sufficient to reduce satellite lifespan by 12.8 years.While high-performance launch vehicles can partially offset these penalties through increased payload capacity, this solution introduces substantial cost and complexity trade-offs. The study concludes that equatorial launch sites offer distinct advantages for GEO missions, providing inherent ΔV savings that enhance both mission longevity and economic efficiency. These results underscore the critical importance of latitude-dependent ΔV considerations in launch site selection and mission architecture planning.

Keywords

• Launch site latitudes
• Inclination of satellite
• Lunar gravity assist LGA
• Satellite lifetime
• Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO)
• Geostationary Orbit (GEO).

References

1. Aksen, U., Aslan, A. R., & Göker, Ü. D. (2024). Development of a sensitivity analysis tool for the trajectory of multistage launch vehicles. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 8(2), 254-264. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1379251 .
2. Bulut, M., & Sözbir, N. (2017). A practical launcher thermal analysis tool for three-axis stabilized GEO communication satellites. In 2017 8th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies (RAST) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org /10.1109/RAST.2017.8002978.
3. Choi, S. J., Carrico, J., Loucks, M., Lee, H., & Kwon, S. (2021). Geostationary orbit transfer with lunar gravity assist from non-equatorial launch site. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 68(4), 1014-1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-021-00279-8.
4. Choi, S. J., & Lee, H. (2024). Seasonal variations in lunar-assisted GEO transfer capability for southward launch. Aerospace 11(4) Article 321. https://doi.org /10.3390/aerospace11040321.
5. United States Space Force. (2024). Two-Line Element Sets GTO to GEO and all orbital data of space objects. [Data set]. Space-Track.org. https://www.space-track.org. Eker, E. (2024). Assessment of GTO: Performance evaluation via constrained benchmark function, and optimized of three bar truss design problem. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi 14(1), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.16984/ saufenbilder.346597.
6. Gülgönül, Ş., & Sözbir, N. (2018). Selection of geostationary satellite launch vehicle using expected value analysis. Sakarya University Journal of Science 22(5), 1418-1422. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.346597.
7. Karaaslan, V. (2012). Proposal for the establishment of SUM (Sinop Satellite Center) in Turkey within the context of data related to the launch of a communication satellite into geosynchronous orbit. 29th National Informatics Congress, Ankara, Türkiye.
8. Kiran, B., Kuldeep, N., & Satyendra, K. (2014). Operationally optimal maneuver strategy for spacecraft injected into sub-geosynchronous transfer orbit. In 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Moscow, Russia.

9. Koppel, C. (2017). Patented orbits transfers and manoeuvres review. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 31st International Symposium on Space Technology and Science, the 26th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, and the 8th Nano-satellite Symposium, Matsuyama, Japan.
10. Koppel, C. R. (1999). Advantages of a continuous thrust strategy from a geosynchronous transfer orbit, using high specific impulse thrusters [Conference paper]. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD XIV), Foz de Iguaçu, Brazil.
11. Ma, G., & Xianglong, K. (2023). Planning allocation for GTO-GEO transfer spacecraft with triple orthogonal gimbaled thruster boom. Mathematics, 11(13), Article 2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11132844.
12. Oz, İ. (2022). Decision making in evaluation and selection of launch site with the best and worst method. Gazi University Journal of Science, 35(4), 1521-1533. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823.
13. Oz, İ. (2024). Proximity monitoring of collocated satellites based on real time measurement. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 39(2), 825-834. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1181262.
14. Özel, C., Macit, C. K., & Özel, M. (2023). Investigation of flight performance of notched delta wing rockets on different types of nose cones. Turkish Journal of Science and Technology, 18(2), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.55525/tjst.1245275.
15. Shi, T., Zhuang, X., & Xie, L. (2021). Performance evaluation of multi-GNSSs navigation in super synchronous transfer orbit and geostationary earth orbit. Satellite Navigation, 2 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43020-021-00036-0.
16. Tetik, T., Daş, G. S. & Birgören, B. (2024). A two-phase approach for reliability-redundancy optimization of a communication satellite. Gazi University Journal of Science, 37(1), 310-324. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1186561.
17. Wertz, J. R., Everett, D. F. & Puschell, J. J. (Eds.). (2011). Space mission engineering: The new SMAD. Microcosm Press.
18. Toraman, Y. (2024). Space logistics and risks: A study on spacecraft. Journal of Polytechnic, 28(2), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.1472919.
19. Yılmaz, U. C., & Oz, I. (2019). Design trade-offs in fully electric, hybrid and full chemical propulsion communication satellite. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 2(3), 124-133. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis.02.03.654206.
20. Yumusak, N., & Oz, I. (2025). A novel spaceborne antenna repositioning method for reliable communication in inclined satellites. International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, 43(3), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/sat.1558.