DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Satemite Mition to a Lunar Orbiter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Of Satemite Mition to a Lunar Orbiter https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19660021250 2020-03-16T20:50:47+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server 4 \I NATIONAL AERONAUTIC5 AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Technical Memorandum No. 33-287 AppJication of Double-A veraged Equations of SateMite Mition to a Lunar Orbiter GPO PRICE $ CFSTI PRICE(S1 $ Hard c?py (HC) //029 Microfiche (MF) /dm ff 653 Jutv 65 ET PROPULSlON LABORATORY CALIFORNIA lNSTlTUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PASADENA,CALIFORNIA June 30, 1966 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Technical Memorandum No. 33-287 Application of Double-Averaged Equations of Satellite Motion to a Lunar Orbiter J. Lore11 T. Hamilton, Manager Systems Analysis Section JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PAs A D EN A. CALIF o R N IA June 30, 1966 - JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 CONTENTS I I.lnhwluction.f.. , . 1 II. Derivation of the Double-Averaged Equations . , . 2 111. Double-Averaged Equations With Oblateness . 5 IV. Implications for Lifetime of a Lunar Satellite . 8 V. Conclusions . , . 13 References . 14 1. Semimajoraxis . 9 2. Eccentricity . 10 3. Longitude of ascending node . 10 4. Inclination . 11 5. Argument of pericenier . 11 6. Radius of closest approach . 12 7. Effect of Earth and Sun on radius of closest approach . 13 ill IPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 ABSTRACT Equations of motion for satellites disturbed by both third-body and oblateness effects are presented in their averaged and double-averaged forms. These equations are appropriate for long-term studies of satel- lite orbits. In particular, they should serve as the starting point for study and classification of orbits of close lunar satellites. 1. INTRODUCTION This Report presents La,eresults of some o1 LA,eresearch study to a numerical analysis and a classification of the done in connection with determining the effects of third- motion. Reference 4 contains an analysis of Earth satellite body perturbations on satellite motion. In particular, the orbits perturbed by the Sun and Moon, and Lidov, in material contained herein supplements work already re- Ref. 5, presents a general treatment of the subject. ported in Refs. 1, 2, and 3. The work discussed in this Report is aimed specifically at artificial satellites of the Moon and is with The motion of a satellite with periodic perturbation concerned the applicability of the double-averaged equations. may be described mathematically in any one of three In Part 11, the double-averaged equations are derived di- ways: (1) by the complete equations of motion, (2) by the rectly from the complete equations of motion. This averaged equations of motion, or (3) by the double- derivation and the form of the result should be compared averaged equations of motion. with the single-averaged equations as given in Ref. 3. It is included here for completeness, since it was not given in the referenced papers. In the double-averaged equations, the averages are taken with respect to both the satellite period and the third-body period. The resulting differential equations In Part 111, the implications for satellite lifetimes are are comparatively simple, lending themselves to analytical interpreted in terms of specific orbits. Here, the complete and simple numerical interpretation. Williams and Lorell equations of motion were integrated, showing both short- (Ref. 1) used these equations in an analytical interpreta- term and long-term effects. In addition, the effects of the tion of the motion, while Lorell (Ref. 2) extended the Sun and the Earth are compared. * JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 II. DERIVATION OF THE DOUBLE-AVERAGED EQUATIONS The motion of a satellite perturbed only by a distant third body has been studied recently using averaging methods (Refs. 15). In Ref. 3, the basic single-averaged equations are derived. (Single average refers to average with respect to the satellite motion only; double average refers to average with respect to both the satellite motion and the third- body motion.) In Refs. 15, the single-averaged equations are presented for the third body in an arbitrary orbit. This model is applicable to general situations (e.g., Moon satellite perturbed by Earth and Sun). The position of the third body with respect to the reference coordinate system is arbitrary. On the other hand, the model for the double-averaged equations assigns the third body to an elliptic orbit in the x-y plane. The double-averaged equations are of doubtful value for simulation purposes. However, for general study of long- term orbit behaviors, they are very useful. References 1,2, 4, and 5 include studies and classification of orbits using these equations. References 2 and 5 suggest in addition the inclusion of oblateness effects in such studies, and pre- sent the appropriate equations. Performance of these studies, however, remains €or the future. The perturbing function due to a third body is well known, and may be found in any text on celestial mechanics. A form suitable to the present use is given by Clemence and Brouwer (Ref. 6, p. 310): )...I+ in which the expansion is in powers of r/r3,where' R = disturbing function r = distance from satellite to primary r3 = distance from disturbing third body to primary $ = satellite-primary-third-body angle In the case of an artificial satellite of the Moon disturbed by the Earth, the ratio r/r3 is of the order 1/10. There- fore, it is reasonable as a first approximation to consider the truncated disturbing function The derivation of the single-averaged equations is given in Refs. 1 and 2 in matrix form, and will not be repeated here. The derivation of the double-averaged equations follows. - Let a bar denote a single average and a double bar a double average; e.g., R, E, and 6 are the perturbing function and its single and double averages. The procedure is to represent R first in Cartesian coordinates and then in Kepler elements, assuming the third body in a Kepler ellipse about the primary. Thus, 'The units here are arbitrary. However, for use in conjunction with the equations for oblateness, the unit of length must be the lunar radius (see footnote 5). 2 JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 * where Y - = cosusinR cosisinucoss2 r + in which t(=o+f f 1 _-- p l+ecosf and p=a(l-e*)=semilatusredum a, e, i, o,R = usual Kepler elements f = true anomaly With subscript 3 on each variable, the notation described by the above equations applies to the third-body motion. Choose the coordinate axes so that the third-body orbit is in the x-y plane, and the x-axis is in the direction of peri- apsis of the third-body orbit. Then, x3 - = coSf3 r3 Y3 - = sinf3 (4) f-3 and After expanding and averaging twice, JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 The next step is to evaluate the averages. To start with, it is understood that averaging over the satellite variable means an average with respect to the mean anomaly of the satellite orbit, and for the third body, the average is with respect to the mean anomaly of its orbit. Averages are obtained as follows: where M is the mean anomaly and Thus, the last two terms of Eq. (6) may be combined to give But, Furthermore, 2= sinfcosf df = 0 (1 + emsf)' and Hence, the expression in Eq. (10) becomes - Finally, substituting and combining terms in Eq. (6), the expression for is found to be2 *The double bar ( =) is omitted from the Kepler elements in these equations because there is no ambiguity; i.e., all variables are aver- aged variables. 4 JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 The double-averaged equations of motion are then derived by substituting this disturbing function in the Lagrange planetary equation, giving da - =O dt de p3e (1 - e’)% - - --15 - , - e2 3/2 sin 20 sin2i dt 8 flu;, ( 3) do, 3 p3 (1 - e2)% 5 sin2w (e2- sin2i) _-- - dt 2 na; (1 - [I+ 2(1- e.) 1 and if x is the sixth Kepler element representing time of pericenter passage, ez - sin?i [(l- e2)cos2 o 2 (3 2e2)sin2 01 dt + + + 111. DOUBLE-AVERAGED EQUATIONS WITH OBLATENESS To account for both oblateness of the primary and third-body effects, it is necessary to consider the relative orien- tation between the primary’s equator and the third-body orbits. A convenient way to identify the important angles and the relations between them is to set up three right-handed coordinate systems as follow^:^ 1. x, y, z, with the xy-plane the plane of the third-body orbit 2. Z, ij, Z, with the @-plane the plane of the satellite orbit, and the x-axis in the direction of periapsis 3. x’, y‘, z‘, with the x’y’-plane the plane of the equator and the x-axis in arbitrary direction (to be specialized later) Let the coordinate transformations be given in terms of Euler angles: (i)=A( ;) = B( 3) (;;)=c(;) ’The bar (-) notation here is not to be confused with its previous meaning as an average. 5 ~~ JPL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 33-287 Thus, B = AC-I (24) Here the matrices A, B, and C can be written in terms of the respective sets of Euler angles: with inverse A-’ given by --- The matrices B and B-’ are of the same form, but with barred angles;‘ i.e., 0, O, i. The matrices C and C-’ are of the same form, but with primed angles; i.e., Q’, or, i’. Spec%cally, de Euler angles 0, m, i relate the satellite orbit to the third-body orbit; the angles 5, 0, :relate the satellite orbit to de equator; and the angles a’, a‘, i‘ relate the equator to the third-body orbit.
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]
  • 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]
  • Non-Averaged Regularized Formulations As an Alternative to Semi-Analytical Orbit Propagation Methods
    Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Non-averaged regularized formulations as an alternative to semi-analytical orbit propagation methods Davide Amato ¨ Claudio Bombardelli ¨ Giulio Ba`u ¨ Vincent Morand ¨ Aaron J. Rosengren Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract This paper is concerned with the comparison of semi-analytical and non-averaged propagation methods for Earth satellite orbits. We analyse the total integration error for semi-analytical methods and propose a novel decomposition into dynamical, model truncation, short-periodic, and numerical error com- ponents. The first three are attributable to distinct approximations required by the method of averaging, which fundamentally limit the attainable accuracy. In contrast, numerical error, the only component present in non-averaged methods, can be significantly mitigated by employing adaptive numerical algorithms and regularized formulations of the equations of motion. We present a collection of non-averaged methods based on the integration of existing regularized formulations of the equations of motion through an adaptive solver. We implemented the collection in the orbit propagation code THALASSA, which we make publicly available, and we compared the non-averaged methods to the semi-analytical method implemented in the orbit prop- agation tool STELA through numerical tests involving long-term propagations (on the order of decades) of LEO, GTO, and high-altitude HEO orbits. For the test cases considered, regularized non-averaged methods were found to be up to two times slower than semi-analytical for the LEO orbit, to have comparable speed for the GTO, and to be ten times as fast for the HEO (for the same accuracy).
    [Show full text]
  • A Delta-V Map of the Known Main Belt Asteroids
    Acta Astronautica 146 (2018) 73–82 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro A Delta-V map of the known Main Belt Asteroids Anthony Taylor *, Jonathan C. McDowell, Martin Elvis Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: With the lowered costs of rocket technology and the commercialization of the space industry, asteroid mining is Asteroid mining becoming both feasible and potentially profitable. Although the first targets for mining will be the most accessible Main belt near Earth objects (NEOs), the Main Belt contains 106 times more material by mass. The large scale expansion of NEO this new asteroid mining industry is contingent on being able to rendezvous with Main Belt asteroids (MBAs), and Delta-v so on the velocity change required of mining spacecraft (delta-v). This paper develops two different flight burn Shoemaker-Helin schemes, both starting from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and ending with a successful MBA rendezvous. These methods are then applied to the 700,000 asteroids in the Minor Planet Center (MPC) database with well-determined orbits to find low delta-v mining targets among the MBAs. There are 3986 potential MBA targets with a delta- v < 8kmsÀ1, but the distribution is steep and reduces to just 4 with delta-v < 7kms-1. The two burn methods are compared and the orbital parameters of low delta-v MBAs are explored. 1. Introduction [2]. A running tabulation of the accessibility of NEOs is maintained on- line by Lance Benner3 and identifies 65 NEOs with delta-v< 4:5kms-1.A For decades, asteroid mining and exploration has been largely dis- separate database based on intensive numerical trajectory calculations is missed as infeasible and unprofitable.
    [Show full text]