The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 335–363

Near Ballistic Halo-to-Halo Transfers between Planetary Moons

Article

Abstract

Intermoon transfers are important components of planetary tour missions. However, these transfers are challenging to design due in part to the chaotic environment created by the multi-body dynamics. The specific objective of this work is to develop a systematic methodology to find fuel optimal, near ballistic Halo-to-Halo trajectories between planetary moons, and we achieve this goal by combining dynamical systems theory with a variety of nonlinear programming techniques. The spacecraft is constrained to start at a Halo orbit of a moon and end at another Halo orbit of a second moon. Our approach overcomes the obstacles of the chaotic dynamics by combining multiple “resonant-hopping” gravity assists with manifolds that control the low-energy transport near the Halo orbits of the moons. To help construct good initial guesses, contours of semimajor axes that can be reached by falling off a Halo orbit are presented. An empirical relationship is then derived to find quickly the boundary conditions on the Halo orbits that lead to ballistic capture and escape trajectories, and connect to desired resonances. The overall optimization procedure is broken into four parts of increasing fidelity: creation of the initial guess from unstable resonant orbits and manifolds, decomposition and optimization of the trajectory into two independent ideal three-body portions, end-to-end refinement in a patched three-body model, and transition to an ephemeris model using a continuation method. Each step is based on a robust multiple shooting approach to reduce the sensitivities associated with the close approach trajectories. Numerical results of an intermoon transfer in the Jovian system are presented. In an ephemeris model, using only 55 m/s and 205 days, a spacecraft can transfer between a Halo orbit of Ganymede and a Halo orbit of Europa.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Europa Jupiter System Missions, NASA/ESA Joint Summary Report, Jan. 2009.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter: ESA Contribution to the Europa Jupiter System Missions, Assessment Study Report ESA-SRE(2008)2, Feb. 2009.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    JOHANNESEN, J. and D’AMARIO, L. “Europa Orbiter Mission Trajectory Design,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 103, No. 1, AAS 99-360, 1999, pp. 895–908.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    HEATON, A.F., STRANGE, N.J., LONGUSKI, J.M., and BONFIGLIO, E.P. “Automated Design of the Europa Orbiter Tour.” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 39, 1 (Jan. 2002), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    RENARD, P., KOECK, C., KEMBLE, S., ATZEI, A., and FALKNER, P. “System Concepts and Enabling Technologies for an ESA Low-Cost Mission to Jupiter/Europa.” Presented as paper IAC-04-Q.2.A.02, 2004. 55th International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4–8.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    BOUTONNET, A., PASCALE, P.D., and CANALIAS, E. “Design of the Laplace Mission.” Presented as paper IAC-08-C1.6, 2008. 59th International Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, Sep. 29–Oct. 3.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    LANGEVIN, Y. “Mission Design Issues for the European Orbiter of ESJM/LAPLACE: Callisto Flybys Sequence.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 135, 2 (2009), 967–986, No. AAS 09-359.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    KHAN, M., CAMPAGNOLA, S., and CROON, M. “End-to-End Mission Analysis for a Low-Cost, Two-Spacecraft Mission to Europa.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 119, 1 (2004), 463–472. No. AAS 04-132.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    SWEETSER, T., MADDOCK, T.R., JOHANNESEN, J., BELL, J., WEINSTEIN, S., et al. “Trajectory Design for a Europa Orbiter Mission: a Plethora of Astrodynamic Challenges.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 95, 2 (1997), 901–920. No. AAS 97-174.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    SIMS, J.A., LONGUSKI, J.M., and STAUGLER, A.J. “Vinfinity Leveraging for Interplanetary Missions: Multiple-Revolution Orbit Techniques.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 20, 3 (May 1997), 409–415.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    CAMPAGNOLA, S. and RUSSELL, R.P. “The Endgame Problem Part 1; V-infinity Leveraging Technique and the Leveraging Graph.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 33, 2 (2010), 463–475.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    WOOLLEY, R. Endgame Strategies for Planetary Moon Orbiters. PhD thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2010.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    BRINCKERHOFF, A.T. and RUSSELL, R.P. “Pathfinding and V-Infinity Leveraging for Planetary Moon Tour Missions.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 134, 3 (2009), 1833–1850. No. AAS 09-222.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    STRANGE, N.J., CAMPAGNOLA, S., and RUSSELL, R.P. “Leveraging Flybys of Low Mass Moons to Enable an Enceladus Orbiter.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 135, 3 (2009), 2207–2226. No, AAS 09-435.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    CAMPAGNOLA, S., STRANGE, N.J., and RUSSELL, R.P. “A fast tour design method using non-tangent v-infinity leveraging transfers.” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 108, 2 (2010), 165–186.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    WOOLLEY, R.C. and SCHEERES, D.J. “Optimal pathways for sequences of v-infinity leveraging maneuevers.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 136, 2 (2010), 1747–1766. No. AAS 10-219.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    CAMPAGNOLA, S. and RUSSELL, R.P. “The Endgame Problem Part 2: Multi-Body Technique and T-P Graph.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 33, 2 (2010), 476–486.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    GOMEZ, G., KOON, W.S., LO, M.W., MARSDEN, J.E., MASDEMONT, J., and ROSS, S.D. “Connecting orbits and invariant manifolds in the spatial restricted three-body problem.” Nonlinearity 17, 5 (Sept. 2004), 1571–1606.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    HOWELL, K.C., BARDEN, B.T., and LO, M.W. “Application of Dynamical Systems Theory to Trajectory Design for a Libration Point Mission.” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 45, 2 (June 1997), 161–178.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    BELBRUNO, E. “A Low Energy Lunar Transportation System Using Chaotic Dynamics.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 123, 3 (2005), 2059–2066. No. AAS 05-382.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    LO, M.W. “The Lunar L1 Gateway: Portal to the Stars and Beyond.” Presented as paper 2001-4768, 2001. AIAA Space Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    RUSSELL, R.P. and LAM, T. “Designing Ephemeris Capture Trajectories at Europa Using Unstable Periodic Orbits.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 30, 2 (2007), 482–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    ROSS, S.D., KOON, W.S., LO, M.W., and MARSDEN, J.E. “Design of a Multi-Moon Orbiter.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 114, 1 (2003), 669–684. No. AAS 03-143.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    KOON, W.S., LO, M.W., MARSDEN, J.E., and ROSS, S.D. “Constructing a Low Energy Transfer Between Jovian Moons.” Contemporary Mathematics 292 (2002), 129–145.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    LO, M.W. “The Interplanetary Superhighway and the Origins Program,” Mar. 2002. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    YAMATO, H. and SPENCER, D.B. “Orbit Transfer Via Tube Jumping in Planar Restricted Problems of Four Bodies.” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 42, 2 (2005), 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    ANDERSON, R.L. Low Thrust Trajectory Design for Resonant Flybys and Captures Using Invariant Manifolds. PhD thesis, University of Colorado, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    GOMEZ, G., KOON, W.S., LO, M.W., MARSDEN, J.E., MASDEMONT, J., and ROSS, S.D. “Invariant manifolds, the spatial three-body problem and space mission design.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 109, 1 (2001), 3–22. No. AAS 01-301.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    GROVER, P. and ROSS, S.D. “Designing Trajectories in a PlanetMoon Environment using the Controlled Keplerian Map.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 32, 2 (Mar. 2009), 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    LANTOINE, G., RUSSELL, R.P., and CAMPAGNOLA, S. “Optimization of Low-Energy Resonant Hopping Transfers between Planetary Moons.” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 68, No. 7–8, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.09.021.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    LARA, M. and RUSSELL, R. “Computation of a Science Orbit About Europa.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 30, 1 (2007), 259–263.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    DAVIS, K.E. Locally Optimal Transfer Trajectories Between Libration Point Orbits Using Invariant Manifolds. PhD thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2009.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    ROSS, S.D. and SCHEERES, D.J. “Multiple Gravity Assists, Capture, and Escape in the Restricted Three-Body Problem.” SIAM J. Applied Dynamical Systems 6, 3 (July 2007), 576–596.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    SCHROER, C.G. and OTT, E. “Targeting in Hamiltonian Systems That Have Mixed Regular/Chaotic Phase Spaces.” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 7, 4 (Dec. 1997), 512–519.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    HOWELL, K.C., BARDEN, B.T., WILSON, R.S., and LO, M.W. “Trajectory Design Using a Dynamical Systems Approach With Application to Genesis.” In Proceedings of the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Conference (Sun Valley, Aug. 1997), AIAA, pp. 1665–1684.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    KOON, K.S., LO, M.W., MARSDEN, J.E., and ROSS, S.D. Dynamical Systems, the Three-Body Problem and Space Mission Design. Marsden Books, 2008. ISBN 978-0-615-24095-4.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    PETROPOULOS, A.E. and RUSSELL, R.P. “Low-Thrust Transfers Using Primer Vector Theory and a Second-Order Penalty Method.” No. AIAA-2008-6955, Aug. 2008. AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    KOLEMEN, E., KASDIN, J.N., and GURFIL, P. “Quasi-Periodic Orbits of the Restricted Three-Body Problem Made Easy.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on New Trends in Astrodynamics and Applications (Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007), vol. 886, AIP Conference Proceedings, pp. 68–77.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    MASDEMONT, J.J. “High-Order Expansions of Invariant Manifolds of Libration Point Orbits With Applications to Mission Design.” Dynamical Systems 20, 1 (Mar. 2005), 59–113.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    HOWELL, K., BECKMAN, M., PATTERSON, C., and FOLTA, D. “Representations of Invariant Manifolds for Applications in Three-Body Systems.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 119, 3 (2004), 2951–2970. No. 04-287.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    GOMEZ, G., LLIBRE, J., MARTINEZ, R., and SIMÓ, C. Dynamics and Mission Design Near Libration Points Volume I: Fundamentals: The Case of Collinear Libration Points, vol. 2 of World Scientific Monograph Series in Mathematics. World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2001.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    FLOQUET, G. “Sur les équations différentielles linéaires àè coefficients périodiques.” Annales Scientifiques de l’ENS 12 (1883), 47–88.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    SHINBROT, T., OTT, E., GREBOGI, C., and YORKE, J.A. “Using Chaos to Direct Trajectories To Targets.” Physical Review Letters 65 (Dec. 1990), 3215–3218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    MORRISON, D.D., RILEY, J.D., and ZANCANARO, J.F. “Multiple Shooting Method for Two-Point Boundary Value Problems.” Communications of the ACM 5, 12 (Dec. 1962), 613–614.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    LANTOINE, G. and RUSSELL, R.P. “A Unified Framework for Robust Optimization of Interplanetary Trajectories.” No. AIAA-2010-7828, Aug. 2010. AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Speciahst Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    GILL, P.E., MURRAY, W., and SAUNDERS, M.A. SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization. SIAM journal on optimization 12, 4 (2002), 979–1006.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    MARTINS, J.R., STURDZA, P., and ALONSO, J.J. “The Complex-Step Derivative Approximation.” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 29, 3 (2003), 245–262.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    RUSSELL, R.P. and STRANGE, N.J. “Planetary Moon Cycler Trajectories.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 32, 1 (2009), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
  50. [50]
    BAGENAL, F., DOWLING, T., and MCKINNON, W. Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere. Cambridge Planetary Science. Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    GAWLIK, E., MARSDEN, J., CAMPAGNOLA, S., and MOORE, A. “Invariant Manifolds, Discrete Mechanics, and Trajectory Design for a Mission to Titan.” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 134, 3 (2009), 1887–1904. No. 09-226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Astronautical Society, Inc. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aerospace EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering MechanicsThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations