Fundamentals of Space Engineering

Sharif University of Technology Lecture Notes 2025-2

Department of Aeronautics and Introduction
Astronautics

Please note that this document has been prepared and is intended exclusively for educational purposes.
As with any informational resource, engage with the content critically. Evaluate the credibility of the
information presented, considering multiple perspectives and evidence-based sources. Question,
analyze, and verify the accuracy of the ideas discussed, and only accept those that are supported by
credible evidence. Don't be afraid to challenge assumptions and ask questions. By adopting this
approach, I hope you will be able to extract meaningful insights from this material and integrate it
effectively into your learning journey.

From Ancient Skies to Orbital Revolution, Understanding Space, Orbits, and the Satellite Era

Ancient View: Challenging the Flat Earth

Early civilizations (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Vedic) conceptualized Earth as a flat plane beneath a celestial
dome, a model grounded in sensory experience but limited by observational constraints. By the 4th century
BCE, Greek scholars marshaled empirical evidence against this view:

• Aristotle documented Earth’s curved shadow on the Moon during lunar eclipses—a geometric proof
requiring a spherical body.
• Eratosthenes executed a landmark experiment: Measuring the zenith angle difference of the Sun
between Syene (Aswan) and Alexandria at summer solstice, he calculated Earth’s circumference as
≈252,000 stadia. Modern reconstructions (using 157.5 m/Stadion) yield ≈39,690 km, within 1% of the
equatorial value (40,075 km). This established geodesy as a quantitative science.
By the Hellenistic era, the spherical Earth was axiomatic for scholars. This shift exemplifies a core
engineering principle: models must be falsifiable through observation and measurement.

Reflection: Eratosthenes achieved precision with rudimentary tools. What modern engineering challenges
could be addressed by re-examining "simple" first principles?

Celestial Models: From Geocentrism to Heliocentrism

• Ptolemy’s Geocentric System (2nd century CE)

Ptolemy formalized a mathematically sophisticated geocentric model using epicycles (circles upon circles) to
predict planetary positions. While accurate for naked-eye astronomy over short timescales, its complexity
grew untenable as positional errors accumulated. Crucially, it treated celestial and terrestrial physics as
fundamentally distinct, a barrier to unified mechanics.

• The Copernican Revolution (16th–17th century)

1 Copyright © 2025 Khodabakhsh

Copernicus proposed a heliocentric framework (De Revolutionibus), placing the Sun at the center with planets
in circular orbits. Though initially less accurate than Ptolemy’s model, it eliminated major epicycles and
explained retrograde motion geometrically.

Kepler, leveraging Tycho Brahe’s precise observational data, derived his Three Laws of Planetary Motion:

• Elliptical Orbits: Planets orbit the Sun in ellipses, with the Sun at one focus.
• Equal Area Law: A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps equal areas in equal times
(implying variable orbital velocity).
• Harmonic Law: 𝑇 2 ∝ 𝑎3 , where 𝑇 is orbital period and 𝑎 is semi-major axis. This established a
universal scaling relationship.

Galileo Galilei provided empirical validation using the telescope:

• Observed Jupiter’s four largest moons orbiting it, proving not all bodies circle Earth.
• Documented Venus’ full phase cycle, only explicable if Venus orbits the Sun.

Reflection: Kepler abandoned perfect circles, a philosophical shift critical to accuracy. When should
engineers prioritize empirical fidelity over aesthetic ideals in system design?

Newton ’s Synthesis: Unifying Celestial and Terrestrial Mechanics

Newton resolved the disconnect between heaven and Earth through two foundational pillars:

• Second Law of Motion: 𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎 (Force = mass × acceleration).

𝑚 𝑚
• Law of Universal Gravitation: 𝐹𝑔 = 𝐺 ⋅ 𝑟1 2 2 , where 𝐺 is the gravitational constant, 𝑚1 , 𝑚2 are
masses, and 𝑟 is separation distance.

The Cannonball Thought Experiment: Newton envisioned a cannon atop a mountain firing projectiles
horizontally:

• Low velocity: The projectile falls to Earth along a curved path (ballistic trajectory).
• Critical velocity: Earth’s surface curves away at the same rate as the projectile falls. The projectile
enters perpetual free fall, i.e., orbit.
This revealed orbits as a balance between inertia (tangential velocity) and gravity (centripetal
acceleration), not a state of "zero gravity."

Defining Orbit: The Physics of Controlled Free Fall

An orbit is a closed trajectory where an object’s forward velocity counteracts gravitational acceleration such
that it continuously "misses" the central body. Key principles:

• Orbital Velocity: For a circular orbit at altitude ℎ above a spherical body:

𝐺𝑀
𝑣orb = √
𝑅+ℎ

where 𝐺 is the gravitational constant, 𝑀 is the Earth’s mass (5.97 × 1024 kg), 𝑅 is the Earth’s
equatorial radius (6378 km).

Sharif University of Technology,

2 Fundamentals of Space Engineering Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2025
 • At 200 km altitude (typical Low Earth Orbit, LEO): 𝑣orb ≈ 7.8 km/s.
• Microgravity Environment: Orbiting objects experience apparent weightlessness not due to absence of
gravity (Earth’s gravity at 200 km is ≈ 94% of surface gravity), but because the spacecraft and its
contents accelerate together under gravity, free fall.
• Stability: In ideal vacuum conditions, no propulsion is needed to maintain orbit (per Newton’s first
law). Real orbits require correction for perturbations (atmospheric drag, gravitational anomalies, solar
radiation pressure).

Engineering Implication: Achieving orbit demands horizontal velocity > 7.8 km/s, not mere altitude. This
explains why rockets ascend vertically initially (to exit the atmosphere efficiently) before pitching over to
accelerate horizontally.

Reflection: Newton’s cannonball ignores atmospheric drag. How does this limitation shape modern launch
vehicle staging strategies?

The Satellite Era: From Theory to Reality

Newton’s laws enabled precise orbital prediction. The launch of Sputnik 1 (1957) validated these principles
operationally, initiating the satellite era. Today, over 8,000 active satellites leverage Keplerian mechanics and
Newtonian gravity for applications from GPS (requiring relativistic corrections) to Earth observation. This
progression, from Eratosthenes’ shadows to interplanetary trajectories, underscores a fundamental truth: Space
engineering rests on immutable physical laws, but its advancement demands relentless empirical validation
and paradigm refinement.

The Theoretical Foundation: Tsiolkovsky ’s Vision

In 1903, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky published Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices,
establishing the mathematical bedrock of astronautics. His rocket equation resolved the fundamental challenge
of spaceflight:

𝑚0
Δ𝑣 = 𝑣𝑒 ln ( )
𝑚𝑓

where Δ𝑣 is the velocity change, 𝑣𝑒 is the exhaust velocity, and 𝑚0 /𝑚𝑓 is the mass ratio (initial to final mass).
This equation revealed a ruthless truth: achieving orbit requires discarding mass (via staging) or extreme
propellant efficiency. Tsiolkovsky further envisioned liquid propellants (superior to solids in controllability),
multi-stage rockets ("rocket trains"), and orbital habitats (concepts dismissed as fantasy until empirically
validated decades later!). His maxim "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever"
encapsulates space engineering’s existential imperative: transcend planetary boundaries through physics and
ingenuity.

Reflection: Tsiolkovsky derived his equation using only Newtonian mechanics and calculus. How does this
exemplify the power of first-principles thinking in overcoming seemingly insurmountable engineering
barriers?

From Theory to Practice: The Pioneers

Robert H. Goddard (USA)

Sharif University of Technology,

3 Fundamentals of Space Engineering Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2025
Goddard launched the first liquid-fueled rocket (gasoline/liquid oxygen) in Auburn, Massachusetts. Though
it reached only 12.5 m altitude, it proved controllable thrust modulation, a critical advance over solid rockets.
His 214 patents (e.g., gyroscopic guidance, turbopumps) became foundational to modern launch vehicles.

Wernher von Braun & the V-2 Legacy

During WWII, von Braun’s team developed the V-2 rocket, the first human-made object to reach space (1944,
80–100 km altitude). Though a weapon, its engineering breakthroughs were pivotal:

• Supersonic aerodynamics and inertial guidance

• Regeneratively cooled combustion chamber
• Post-war, captured V-2 hardware and personnel formed the core of U.S. (Redstone rocket) and Soviet
(R-7 ICBM) programs.

Sputnik 1: Igniting the Space Age (October 4, 1957)

The USSR’s Sputnik 1 (83.6 kg sphere, 58 cm diameter) achieved Earth orbit (215 × 939 km, 96.2-min period),
transmitting radio "beeps" for 21 days. Its success:

• Validated orbital mechanics predictions in practice

• Demonstrated miniaturized telemetry and power systems (silver-zinc batteries)
• Triggered the Space Race, accelerating investment in aerospace R&D by orders of magnitude.

Engineering Insight: Sputnik’s simplicity was strategic: it proved orbit insertion with minimal subsystems.
Modern smallsats (e.g., CubeSats) inherit this philosophy, maximizing science per kilogram.

The Space Race: Accelerated Innovation (1957–1975)

Cold War competition compressed decades of progress into years:

• 1961: Yuri Gagarin’s Vostok 1 flight (180 km altitude, 108-min orbit) proved human survivability in
microgravity.
• 1969: Apollo 11’s lunar landing required unprecedented systems integration:
• Saturn V’s 3,500-ton thrust (F-1 engines)
• Precision orbital rendezvous (LEM ascent stage + CSM)
• Real-time computing (Apollo Guidance Computer: 0.043 MHz)
• Deep Space Pioneers:
• Mariner 2 (1962): First Venus flyby, validating interplanetary navigation.
• Voyager 1 & 2 (1977): Leveraged gravity assists for the "Grand Tour" of outer planets. Their
Golden Records, engraved with sounds, images, and stellar maps, epitomize engineering as
cultural legacy.

Enduring Legacies

• Systems Engineering: Apollo’s 400,000+ components demanded rigorous verification, a discipline

now standard in complex projects.
• Reliability Focus: Redundant systems (e.g., triple-redundant computers in Shuttle) emerged from life-
critical mission needs.

Evolution of Space Systems: Satellites and Launchers

Satellite Generational Shifts

Sharif University of Technology,

4 Fundamentals of Space Engineering Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2025
 1950s–60s Sputnik, Explorer 1 Basic telemetry; discovered Van Allen belts
1970s–80s Intelsat IV, GPS Block I Geostationary comms; multi-spectral imaging
1990s–2000s Iridium constellation, Hubble Global networks; precision optics in LEO
2010s–today Starlink (>5,000 sats), JWST Mass production; deployable optics; debris mitigation

Launch Vehicle Revolution

• Expendable Era: Saturn V (140 t to LEO) achieved lunar missions but cost ~$1.2B/launch (2023 USD).
• Partial Reusability: Space Shuttle reduced costs marginally but required extensive refurbishment
($1.5B/launch).
• Full Reusability: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 (booster landings since 2015) cut launch costs by 90% vs. legacy
systems. Starship (in development) targets <$10M/launch through rapid reuse.

Critical Challenge: Achieving orbit requires horizontal velocity (~7.8 km/s for LEO), not just altitude. Staging
is essential because:

𝑚0 Δ𝑣
= exp ( )
𝑚𝑓 𝑣𝑒

For Δ𝑣 = 9.4 km/s ( to reach LEO with atmospheric and other losses) and 𝑣𝑒 = 3 km/s (typical for
hydrolox), mass ratio is 𝑚0 /𝑚𝑓 ≈ 23 which means it is impossible to reach LEO in a single stage.

Why Space? Solving Earth-Bound Problems

Space systems address challenges intractable on Earth:

• Climate Science:
• GRACE satellites detect groundwater depletion via microgravity changes (mass resolution: 1
cm water equivalent).
• OCO-2 maps CO₂ sources/sinks at 3-km resolution, informing emission policies.
• Global Equity: Starlink provides low-latency internet to Antarctica research stations and Pacific atolls.
• Fundamental Physics: Planck satellite’s cosmic microwave background maps constrained universe age
to 13.8 billion years (±20 Myr).

Mission Lifecycle: From Conception to Operations

Space missions follow structured phases (per NASA/ESA standards):

• Phase A (Concept): Define objectives and feasibility. Example: "Monitor Arctic sea ice thickness
daily" → Requires LEO radar satellite (e.g., CryoSat-2).
• Phase B (Preliminary Design): Trade studies (e.g., solar power vs. radioisotope thermoelectric
generators for outer planets).
• Phase C/D (Build/Test): Environmental testing (thermal vacuum, vibration) simulates launch/orbital
stresses. A single satellite may undergo 10,000+ test hours.
• Phase E (Operations): Ground stations downlink 10–100 TB/day for Earth observation constellations.

The Mission Triangle: Every mission balances three competing priorities,

• Performance (capability)
• Cost (budget)
• Schedule (timeline)

Sharif University of Technology,

5 Fundamentals of Space Engineering Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2025
You can optimize only two simultaneously:

• James Webb Space Telescope: Max performance + reliability → $10B, 25 years.

• Planet Labs Doves: Low cost ($500k/sat) + rapid schedule (weeks from build to launch) → Limited
resolution/lifetime.

Reflection: The DART mission (2022) altered an asteroid’s orbit, a planetary defense test. Should such high-
risk missions prioritize schedule over cost?

The Future: Engineering the Next Frontier

Near-Term (2020s–2030s)

• Lunar Infrastructure: NASA’s Artemis program aims for sustainable lunar presence using Starship
HLS and surface habitats.
• On-Orbit Servicing: Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV) docks with aging
satellites to extend life, proving in-space repair economics.
• Debris Mitigation: ESA’s ClearSpace-1 (2026) will capture space junk using robotic arms.

Mid/Long-Term (2030s+)

• Mars Sample Return: Requires autonomous orbital rendezvous 225 million km from Earth.
• Interstellar Probes: Breakthrough Starshot’s laser-propelled nanocrafts target 20% lightspeed to Alpha
Centauri.
• Planetary Defense: Scaling DART’s kinetic impactor technique for civilization-scale threats.

Why Space Engineering Matters

Space engineering is humanity’s most interdisciplinary endeavor, merging fluid dynamics, AI, materials
science, and ethics to solve problems from climate collapse to cosmic context. The field’s history teaches a
profound lesson: constraints breed innovation. Tsiolkovsky’s mass ratios, Apollo’s weight budgets, and
Starlink’s cost targets all forced radical creativity. Today, a single engineer might design a CubeSat
spectrometer to monitor methane leaks or code AI for autonomous lunar rovers. As you progress in this course,
remember: the equations you derive and systems you model will shape whether humanity remains in its
cradle—or builds a future among the stars.

Reflection: Tsiolkovsky never saw a rocket fly. What "impossible" mission would you dedicate your career to
enabling?

Key Terminology

• Mass Ratio (𝑚0 /𝑚𝑓 ): Initial mass (propellant + structure + payload) divided by final mass (structure
+ payload).
• Specific Impulse (𝐼𝑠𝑝 ): Thrust per unit propellant flow rate (𝐼𝑠𝑝 = 𝑣𝑒 /𝑔0), a rocket efficiency metric.
• Staging: Jettisoning depleted mass to improve Δ𝑣 efficiency.
• Systems Engineering: Holistic integration of subsystems to meet mission objectives under constraints.
• Semi-major axis ( ): Half the longest diameter of an elliptical orbit.
• Periapsis/Perigee: Closest point to the central body in an orbit.
• Microgravity: Condition of near-weightlessness in free fall, not absence of gravity.
• Perturbations: Non-ideal forces (drag, third-body gravity) perturbing Keplerian orbits.

Sharif University of Technology,

6 Fundamentals of Space Engineering Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2025