DOCSLIB.ORG

Relative Orbital Motion Dynamical Models for Orbits About Nonspherical Bodies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relative Orbital Motion Dynamical Models for Orbits About Nonspherical Bodies Relative Orbital Motion Dynamical Models for Orbits about Nonspherical Bodies Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Burnett, Ethan Ryan Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 07:16:25 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/628098 Relative Orbital Motion Dynamical Models for Orbits about Nonspherical Bodies by Ethan R. Burnett Copyright c Ethan R. Burnett 2018 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science With a Major in Aerospace Engineering In the Graduate College The University of Arizona 2 0 1 8 2 3 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Eric Butcher, for his encouragement and excellent teaching. I greatly enjoyed working with my research colleagues: Mohammad Maadani, Bharani Malladi, David Yaylali, Jingwei Wang, Morad Nazari, and Arman Dabiri. I thank my parents and my brothers for their steadfast support. 4 Vita Education Master of Science, Aerospace Engineering Emphasis: Dynamics and Control University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ May 2018 Bachelor of Science, Aerospace Engineering Minor, Physics University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ May 2016 Publications Ethan Burnett and Eric Butcher, \Linearized Relative Orbital Motion Dynamics in a Ro- tating Second Degree and Order Gravity Field," AAS 18-232, AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Snowbird, UT, August 19 { 23, 2018 (submitted) Ethan Burnett, Eric Butcher, and T. Alan Lovell, \Linearized Relative Orbital Motion Model About an Oblate Body Without Averaging," AAS 18-218, AAS/AIAA Astrodynam- ics Specialist Conference, Snowbird, UT, August 19 { 23, 2018 (submitted) Ethan Burnett and Andrew J. Sinclair, \Interpolation on the Unit Sphere in Laplace's Method," AAS 17-793, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Columbia River Gorge, Stevenson, WA, August 20 { 24, 2017 Kristofer Drozd, Ethan Burnett, Eric Sahr, Drew McNeely, Vittorio Franzese, and Natividad Ramos Mor´on,\Block-Like Explorer of a Near-Earth Body by achieving Orbital Proximity (BEEBOP)," AAS 17-846, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Columbia River Gorge, Stevenson, WA, August 20 { 24, 2017 Eric Butcher, Ethan Burnett, Jingwei Wang, and T. Alan Lovell, \A New Time-Explicit J2-Perturbed Nonlinear Relative Orbit Model with Perturbation Solutions," AAS 17-758, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Columbia River Gorge, Stevenson, WA, August 20 { 24, 2017 Eric Butcher, Ethan Burnett, and T. Alan Lovell, \Comparison of Relative Orbital Motion Perturbation Solutions in Cartesian and Spherical Coordinates," AAS 17-202, AIAA/AAS Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, San Antonio, TX, February 5 { 9, 2017 5 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................. 7 List of Tables .................................. 9 Abstract ..................................... 10 1. Introduction ................................ 11 2. Orbital Motion and Relative Motion ................ 15 2.1. Classical Theory of Satellite Orbits . 15 2.1.1. Gravitation . 15 2.1.2. The Two-Body Problem and Elliptic Orbits . 16 2.1.3. Orbital Elements for Elliptic and Circular Orbits . 18 2.2. Analytical Relative Dynamics of Co-orbiting Bodies . 19 2.2.1. Relative Orbital Motion . 20 2.2.2. The Hill-Clohessy-Wiltshire Model . 21 2.2.3. Representing Model Error . 26 2.3. Orbital Perturbations . 28 2.3.1. Perturbed Orbital Motion . 28 2.3.2. Types of Perturbations . 29 2.3.3. Perturbed Relative Orbital Motion . 30 3. Nonspherical Body Gravitation and Orbital Mechanics .... 34 3.1. Gravitational Potential Expressed by Spherical Harmonics . 34 3.2. The Shape of the Earth . 37 3.3. Orbital Motion under the Influence of J2 ................ 37 3.4. Moons, Planetoids, and Asteroids . 38 6 Table of Contents|Continued 3.5. Orbital Motion about Small Asteroids . 39 4. A J2-Perturbed Relative Orbit Model ............... 43 4.1. Formulation . 43 4.1.1. Case of Vanishing Chief Eccentricity . 47 4.2. Model Analysis and Validation . 50 5. A Linearized Relative Orbit Model for Orbits in a Rotating Second Degree and Order Gravity Field .............. 55 5.1. Formulation . 55 5.1.1. Case of Vanishing Chief Eccentricity . 70 5.1.2. Extension to Eccentric Chief Orbits . 74 5.2. Model Analysis . 77 5.2.1. The Case of Equatorial Orbits . 77 5.2.2. A Special Case LTI Model . 78 5.2.3. Analysis of Unstable and Stable Eigenspaces . 82 5.3. Model Validation via Simulation . 87 5.3.1. Hypothetical Asteroid for Case Studies . 88 5.3.2. Variable Chief Inclination with Constant Γ . 88 5.3.3. Variable Γ with Constant Chief Inclination . 95 5.3.4. Variable Chief Semimajor Axis with Constant Body Rotation Rate . 99 5.3.5. Interesting Cases . 101 6. Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Work ......... 107 References .................................... 109 7 List of Figures Figure 2.1. Elliptical Orbit Geometry22 .................... 18 Figure 2.2. The 3-1-3 Euler Angles and the Orbit Plane23 .......... 19 Figure 2.3. Relative Motion Problem Geometry . 20 Figure 2.4. Relative Distance for Unperturbed and Perturbed Cases . 32 Figure 2.5. ∆h(t) for Unperturbed and Perturbed Cases . 32 Figure 3.1. Primary Body Mass Distribution Geometry . 34 21 Figure 3.2. Nodal Regression due to J2 ................... 38 Figure 3.3. Asteroids and Comets Visited by Spacecraft24 .......... 39 Figure 3.4. Spacecraft Orbital Ejection due to SRP Forces . 42 Figure 3.5. Spacecraft Orbital Velocity Before and During Ejection . 42 Figure 4.1. Relative Orbit for 4 Orbits (LEO with J2)............ 51 Figure 4.2. Small Parameter Values for Two Orbits (LEO with J2)..... 52 Figure 4.3. Radial Error (LEO) . 53 Figure 4.4. Along-Track Error (LEO) . 53 Figure 4.5. Cross-Track Error (LEO) . 53 Figure 4.6. Error Norm (LEO) . 53 Figure 4.7. Maximum Error Norm over Two Orbits vs. Chief Orbit Radius 54 Figure 5.1. Problem Geometry for Orbiting a Rotating Ellipsoidal Body . 58 Figure 5.2. Libration Points for Rotating Ellipsoidal Body . 79 Figure 5.3. Superposition of In-Plane Modes at Stable Libration Point . 84 Figure 5.4. Simulated In-Plane Motion at Stable Libration Point . 84 Figure 5.5. Stable and Unstable Manifolds (Unstable Libration Point) . 87 Figure 5.6. Average Modeling Error vs. Inclination, Γ = 2:4 . 90 8 List of Figures|Continued Figure 5.7. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, Γ = 2:4....................................... 92 Figure 5.8. Average Modeling Error vs. Inclination, Γ = 1:2 . 93 Figure 5.9. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, Γ = 1:2....................................... 93 Figure 5.10. Average Modeling Error vs. Inclination, Γ = 0:8 . 94 Figure 5.11. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, Γ = 0:8....................................... 95 Figure 5.12. Average Modeling Error vs. Γ, i = 10◦ .............. 96 Figure 5.13. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, i = 10◦ 97 Figure 5.14. Average Modeling Error vs. Γ, i = 45◦ .............. 97 Figure 5.15. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, i = 45◦ 98 Figure 5.16. Average Modeling Error vs. Γ, i = 75◦ .............. 98 Figure 5.17. Maximum Deviation of Relative Orbit Angular Momentum, i = 75◦ 99 Figure 5.18. Average Modeling Error vs. Semimajor Axis, i = 75◦ ...... 100 Figure 5.19. Max Deviation of Relative Angular Momentum vs. Semimajor Axis...................................... 100 Figure 5.20. Relative Distance with Relative Orbit Resonance . 103 Figure 5.21. ∆h(t) with Relative Orbit Resonance . 103 Figure 5.22. Model Error (Relative Orbit Resonance Case) . 104 Figure 5.23. Relative Orbit (Resonance Case) . 104 Figure 5.24. Relative Orbit (Marginal Stability Case) . 106 Figure 5.25. Model Error (Marginal Stability Case) . 106 9 List of Tables Table 2.1. Orbital Elements and Differences . 31 Table 3.1. Asteroid Physical Parameters . 40 Table 4.1. Orbital Elements for LEO Relative Orbit Scenario with J2 ... 51 Table 5.1. Unique O Matrix Terms in 5.31, Oij = Oji ............ 62 Table 5.2. Unique E Matrix Terms in 5.32, Eij = Eji ............ 62 Table 5.3. Unstable and Stable Eigenvalues for Example Case . 83 Table 5.4. Simulated Asteroid Data . 88 Table 5.5. Orbital Elements, Variable Chief Inclination . 88 Table 5.6. Orbital Elements, Variable Chief Semimajor Axis . 99 10 Abstract RELATIVE ORBITAL MOTION DYNAMICAL MODELS FOR ORBITS ABOUT NONSPHERICAL BODIES by Ethan R. Burnett Master of Science University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona, 2018 Dr. Eric A. Butcher, Chair Relative orbital motion dynamical models are presented and discussed. Two types of models are primarily discussed in this work: a linear relative motion model account- ing for J2 (the gravitational parameter associated with the oblateness of the Earth), and a new linear relative motion model accounting for both nonzero second degree and order gravity terms C20 = −J2 and C22. The latter model, referred to as the \second-order model," is useful for simulating and studying spacecraft relative motion in orbits about uniformly rotating asteroids. This model is derived in two alternate forms. The first makes use of averaging in the kinematics and the second avoids any use of averaging. Additional work is devoted to analyzing the stability of relative orbital motion in rotating second degree and order gravity fields. To facilitate this, a parameter called the relative orbit angular momentum is introduced. For commensurate angular rates of primary body rotation and orbital mean mo- tion, a special case linear time-invariant (LTI) model is obtained from the unaveraged second-order model. This is connected to the topic of libration points in the body frame of rotating gravitating triaxial ellipsoids, and shown to successfully predict the instability of libration points collinear with the long axis and the stability of libration points collinear with the short axis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Low Thrust Manoeuvres to Perform Large Changes of RAAN Or Inclination in LEO
    Facoltà di Ingegneria Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Ingegneria Aerospaziale Master Thesis Low Thrust Manoeuvres To Perform Large Changes of RAAN or Inclination in LEO Academic Tutor: Prof. Lorenzo CASALINO Candidate: Filippo GRISOT July 2018 “It is possible for ordinary people to choose to be extraordinary” E. Musk ii Filippo Grisot – Master Thesis iii Filippo Grisot – Master Thesis Acknowledgments I would like to address my sincere acknowledgments to my professor Lorenzo Casalino, for your huge help in these moths, for your willingness, for your professionalism and for your kindness. It was very stimulating, as well as fun, working with you. I would like to thank all my course-mates, for the time spent together inside and outside the “Poli”, for the help in passing the exams, for the fun and the desperation we shared throughout these years. I would like to especially express my gratitude to Emanuele, Gianluca, Giulia, Lorenzo and Fabio who, more than everyone, had to bear with me. I would like to also thank all my extra-Poli friends, especially Alberto, for your support and the long talks throughout these years, Zach, for being so close although the great distance between us, Bea’s family, for all the Sundays and summers spent together, and my soccer team Belfiga FC, for being the crazy lovable people you are. A huge acknowledgment needs to be address to my family: to my grandfather Luciano, for being a great friend; to my grandmother Bianca, for teaching me what “fighting” means; to my grandparents Beppe and Etta, for protecting me
    [Show full text]
  • Osculating Orbit Elements and the Perturbed Kepler Problem
    Osculating orbit elements and the perturbed Kepler problem Gmr a = 3 + f(r, v,t) Same − r x & v Define: r := rn ,r:= p/(1 + e cos f) ,p= a(1 e2) − osculating orbit he sin f h v := n + λ ,h:= Gmp p r n := cos ⌦cos(! + f) cos ◆ sinp ⌦sin(! + f) e − X +⇥ sin⌦cos(! + f) + cos ◆ cos ⌦sin(! + f⇤) eY actual orbit +sin⇥ ◆ sin(! + f) eZ ⇤ λ := cos ⌦sin(! + f) cos ◆ sin⌦cos(! + f) e − − X new osculating + sin ⌦sin(! + f) + cos ◆ cos ⌦cos(! + f) e orbit ⇥ − ⇤ Y +sin⇥ ◆ cos(! + f) eZ ⇤ hˆ := n λ =sin◆ sin ⌦ e sin ◆ cos ⌦ e + cos ◆ e ⇥ X − Y Z e, a, ω, Ω, i, T may be functions of time Perturbed Kepler problem Gmr a = + f(r, v,t) − r3 dh h = r v = = r f ⇥ ) dt ⇥ v h dA A = ⇥ n = Gm = f h + v (r f) Gm − ) dt ⇥ ⇥ ⇥ Decompose: f = n + λ + hˆ R S W dh = r λ + r hˆ dt − W S dA Gm =2h n h + rr˙ λ rr˙ hˆ. dt S − R S − W Example: h˙ = r S d (h cos ◆)=h˙ e dt · Z d◆ h˙ cos ◆ h sin ◆ = r cos(! + f)sin◆ + r cos ◆ − dt − W S Perturbed Kepler problem “Lagrange planetary equations” dp p3 1 =2 , dt rGm 1+e cos f S de p 2 cos f + e(1 + cos2 f) = sin f + , dt Gm R 1+e cos f S r d◆ p cos(! + f) = , dt Gm 1+e cos f W r d⌦ p sin(! + f) sin ◆ = , dt Gm 1+e cos f W r d! 1 p 2+e cos f sin(! + f) = cos f + sin f e cot ◆ dt e Gm − R 1+e cos f S− 1+e cos f W r An alternative pericenter angle: $ := ! +⌦cos ◆ d$ 1 p 2+e cos f = cos f + sin f dt e Gm − R 1+e cos f S r Perturbed Kepler problem Comments: § these six 1st-order ODEs are exactly equivalent to the original three 2nd-order ODEs § if f = 0, the orbit elements are constants § if f << Gm/r2, use perturbation theory
    [Show full text]
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object
    Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object by Nathan C. Shupe B.A., Swarthmore College, 2005 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2010 This thesis entitled: Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object written by Nathan C. Shupe has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Daniel Scheeres Prof. George Born Assoc. Prof. Hanspeter Schaub Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. iii Shupe, Nathan C. (M.S., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object Thesis directed by Prof. Daniel Scheeres Based on the recommendations of the Augustine Commission, President Obama has pro- posed a vision for U.S. human spaceflight in the post-Shuttle era which includes a manned mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO). A 2006-2007 study commissioned by the Constellation Program Advanced Projects Office investigated the feasibility of sending a crewed Orion spacecraft to a NEO using different combinations of elements from the latest launch system architecture at that time. The study found a number of suitable mission targets in the database of known NEOs, and pre- dicted that the number of candidate NEOs will continue to increase as more advanced observatories come online and execute more detailed surveys of the NEO population.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling
    Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling by Zachary James Folcik B.S. Computer Science Michigan Technological University, 2000 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2008 © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author:_______________________________________________________ Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics May 23, 2008 Certified by:_____________________________________________________________ Dr. Paul J. Cefola Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Supervisor Certified by:_____________________________________________________________ Professor Jonathan P. How Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Advisor Accepted by:_____________________________________________________________ Professor David L. Darmofal Associate Department Head Chair, Committee on Graduate Students 1 [This page intentionally left blank.] 2 Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling by Zachary James Folcik Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on May 23, 2008 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics ABSTRACT The development of electric propulsion technology for spacecraft has led to reduced costs and longer lifespans for certain
    [Show full text]
  • Orbit Conjunction Filters Final
    AAS 09-372 A DESCRIPTION OF FILTERS FOR MINIMIZING THE TIME REQUIRED FOR ORBITAL CONJUNCTION COMPUTATIONS James Woodburn*, Vincent Coppola† and Frank Stoner‡ Classical filters used in the identification of orbital conjunctions are described and examined for potential failure cases. Alternative implementations of the filters are described which maintain the spirit of the original concepts but improve robustness. The computational advantage provided by each filter when applied to the one versus all and the all versus all orbital conjunction problems are presented. All of the classic filters are shown to be applicable to conjunction detection based on tabulated ephemerides in addition to two line element sets. INTRODUCTION The problem of on-orbit collisions or near collisions is receiving increased attention in light of the recent collision between an Iridium satellite and COSMOS 2251. More recently, the crew of the International Space Station was evacuated to the Soyuz module until a chunk of debris had safely passed. Dealing with the reality of an ever more crowded space environment requires the identification of potentially dangerous orbital conjunctions followed by the selection of an appropriate course of action. This text serves to describe the process of identifying all potential orbital conjunctions, or more specifically, the techniques used to allow the computations to be performed reliably and within a reasonable period of time. The identification of potentially dangerous conjunctions is most commonly done by determining periods of time when two objects have an unacceptable risk of collision. For this analysis, we will use the distance between the objects as our proxy for risk of collision.
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Orbits
    Course Notes for Ocean Colour Remote Sensing Course Erdemli, Turkey September 11 - 22, 2000 Module 1: Satellite Orbits prepared by Assoc Professor Mervyn J Lynch Remote Sensing and Satellite Research Group School of Applied Science Curtin University of Technology PO Box U1987 Perth Western Australia 6845 AUSTRALIA tel +618-9266-7540 fax +618-9266-2377 email <[email protected]> Module 1: Satellite Orbits 1.0 Artificial Earth Orbiting Satellites The early research on orbital mechanics arose through the efforts of people such as Tyco Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo who were clearly concerned with some of the fundamental questions about the motions of celestial objects. Their efforts led to the establishment by Keppler of the three laws of planetary motion and these, in turn, prepared the foundation for the work of Isaac Newton who formulated the Universal Law of Gravitation in 1666: namely, that F = GmM/r2 , (1) Where F = attractive force (N), r = distance separating the two masses (m), M = a mass (kg), m = a second mass (kg), G = gravitational constant. It was in the very next year, namely 1667, that Newton raised the possibility of artificial Earth orbiting satellites. A further 300 years lapsed until 1957 when the USSR achieved the first launch into earth orbit of an artificial satellite - Sputnik - occurred. Returning to Newton's equation (1), it would predict correctly (relativity aside) the motion of an artificial Earth satellite if the Earth was a perfect sphere of uniform density, there was no atmosphere or ocean or other external perturbing forces. However, in practice the situation is more complicated and prediction is a less precise science because not all the effects of relevance are accurately known or predictable.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Orbit Determination
    Preface The modem field of orbit determination (OD) originated with Kepler's inter­ pretations of the observations made by Tycho Brahe of the planetary motions. Based on the work of Kepler, Newton was able to establish the mathematical foundation of celestial mechanics. During the ensuing centuries, the efforts to im­ prove the understanding of the motion of celestial bodies and artificial satellites in the modem era have been a major stimulus in areas of mathematics, astronomy, computational methodology and physics. Based on Newton's foundations, early efforts to determine the orbit were focused on a deterministic approach in which a few observations, distributed across the sky during a single arc, were used to find the position and velocity vector of a celestial body at some epoch. This uniquely categorized the orbit. Such problems are deterministic in the sense that they use the same number of independent observations as there are unknowns. With the advent of daily observing programs and the realization that the or­ bits evolve continuously, the foundation of modem precision orbit determination evolved from the attempts to use a large number of observations to determine the orbit. Such problems are over-determined in that they utilize far more observa­ tions than the number required by the deterministic approach. The development of the digital computer in the decade of the 1960s allowed numerical approaches to supplement the essentially analytical basis for describing the satellite motion and allowed a far more rigorous representation of the force models that affect the motion. This book is based on four decades of classroom instmction and graduate- level research.
    [Show full text]
  • New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion
    New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion Michelle Chernick∗ and Simone D'Amicoy Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA This paper addresses the fuel-optimal guidance and control of the relative motion for formation-flying and rendezvous using impulsive maneuvers. To meet the requirements of future multi-satellite missions, closed-form solutions of the inverse relative dynamics are sought in arbitrary orbits. Time constraints dictated by mission operations and relevant perturbations acting on the formation are taken into account by splitting the optimal recon- figuration in a guidance (long-term) and control (short-term) layer. Both problems are cast in relative orbit element space which allows the simple inclusion of secular and long-periodic perturbations through a state transition matrix and the translation of the fuel-optimal optimization into a minimum-length path-planning problem. Due to the proper choice of state variables, both guidance and control problems can be solved (semi-)analytically leading to optimal, predictable maneuvering schemes for simple on-board implementation. Besides generalizing previous work, this paper finds four new in-plane and out-of-plane (semi-)analytical solutions to the optimal control problem in the cases of unperturbed ec- centric and perturbed near-circular orbits. A general delta-v lower bound is formulated which provides insight into the optimality of the control solutions, and a strong analogy between elliptic Hohmann transfers and formation-flying control is established. Finally, the functionality, performance, and benefits of the new impulsive maneuvering schemes are rigorously assessed through numerical integration of the equations of motion and a systematic comparison with primer vector optimal control.
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Splat II: an Inelastic Collision with a Surface-Launched Projectile and the Maximum Orbital Radius for Planetary Impact
    European Journal of Physics Eur. J. Phys. 37 (2016) 045004 (10pp) doi:10.1088/0143-0807/37/4/045004 Satellite splat II: an inelastic collision with a surface-launched projectile and the maximum orbital radius for planetary impact Philip R Blanco1,2,4 and Carl E Mungan3 1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Grossmont College, El Cajon, CA 92020- 1765, USA 2 Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182- 1221, USA 3 Physics Department, US Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-1363, USA E-mail: [email protected] Received 26 January 2016, revised 3 April 2016 Accepted for publication 14 April 2016 Published 16 May 2016 Abstract Starting with conservation of energy and angular momentum, we derive a convenient method for determining the periapsis distance of an orbiting object, by expressing its velocity components in terms of the local circular speed. This relation is used to extend the results of our previous paper, examining the effects of an adhesive inelastic collision between a projectile launched from the surface of a planet (of radius R) and an equal-mass satellite in a circular orbit of radius rs. We show that there is a maximum orbital radius rs ≈ 18.9R beyond which such a collision cannot cause the satellite to impact the planet. The difficulty of bringing down a satellite in a high orbit with a surface- launched projectile provides a useful topic for a discussion of orbital angular momentum and energy. The material is suitable for an undergraduate inter- mediate mechanics course. Keywords: orbital motion, momentum conservation, energy conservation, angular momentum, ballistics (Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal) 4 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Mechanics Course Notes
    Orbital Mechanics Course Notes David J. Westpfahl Professor of Astrophysics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology March 31, 2011 2 These are notes for a course in orbital mechanics catalogued as Aerospace Engineering 313 at New Mexico Tech and Aerospace Engineering 362 at New Mexico State University. This course uses the text “Fundamentals of Astrodynamics” by R.R. Bate, D. D. Muller, and J. E. White, published by Dover Publications, New York, copyright 1971. The notes do not follow the book exclusively. Additional material is included when I believe that it is needed for clarity, understanding, historical perspective, or personal whim. We will cover the material recommended by the authors for a one-semester course: all of Chapter 1, sections 2.1 to 2.7 and 2.13 to 2.15 of Chapter 2, all of Chapter 3, sections 4.1 to 4.5 of Chapter 4, and as much of Chapters 6, 7, and 8 as time allows. Purpose The purpose of this course is to provide an introduction to orbital me- chanics. Students who complete the course successfully will be prepared to participate in basic space mission planning. By basic mission planning I mean the planning done with closed-form calculations and a calculator. Stu- dents will have to master additional material on numerical orbit calculation before they will be able to participate in detailed mission planning. There is a lot of unfamiliar material to be mastered in this course. This is one field of human endeavor where engineering meets astronomy and ce- lestial mechanics, two fields not usually included in an engineering curricu- lum.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Space Mechanics
    LECTURE NOTES ON SPACE MECHANICS Dr. P K Mohanta Associate Professor AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING (Autonomous) Dundigal – 500043, Hyderabad 1 Contents 1 Introduction to Space Mechanics .................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Basic concepts ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 The solar system ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2.1 Classify the planets of our solar system. ................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 What are the Characteristics of Small Rocky Planets ............................................................... 7 1.2.3 What are the Characteristics of Gas Giants ............................................................................... 7 1.2.4 Meteorite vs. Meteoroid ............................................................................................................ 9 1.2.5 Comets..................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Reference frames and coordinate systems ...................................................................................... 12 1.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]