Advertisement

Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 143–168 | Cite as

Bandlimited implicit Runge–Kutta integration for Astrodynamics

  • Ben K. BradleyEmail author
  • Brandon A. Jones
  • Gregory Beylkin
  • Kristian Sandberg
  • Penina Axelrad
Original Article

Abstract

We describe a new method for numerical integration, dubbed bandlimited collocation implicit Runge–Kutta (BLC-IRK), and compare its efficiency in propagating orbits to existing techniques commonly used in Astrodynamics. The BLC-IRK scheme uses generalized Gaussian quadratures for bandlimited functions. This new method allows us to use significantly fewer force function evaluations than explicit Runge–Kutta schemes. In particular, we use a low-fidelity force model for most of the iterations, thus minimizing the number of high-fidelity force model evaluations. We also investigate the dense output capability of the new scheme, quantifying its accuracy for Earth orbits. We demonstrate that this numerical integration technique is faster than explicit methods of Dormand and Prince 5(4) and 8(7), Runge–Kutta–Fehlberg 7(8), and approaches the efficiency of the 8th-order Gauss–Jackson multistep method. We anticipate a significant acceleration of the scheme in a multiprocessor environment.

Keywords

Numerical integration Implicit Runge–Kutta Initial value problem Orbit propagation Symplectic property 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was made with Government support under and awarded by DoD, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship, 32 CFR 168a. B. Jones’ contribution to this work was funded by Air Force Research Laboratories contract FA9453-08-C-0165. The research of G. Beylkin was partially supported by AFOSR Grants FA9550-07-1-0135 and STTR Phase I Grant 1118-001-01.

Supplementary material

10569_2014_9551_MOESM1_ESM.zip (121 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (zip 121 KB)

References

  1. Aristoff, J.M., Poore, A.B.: Implicit Runge–Kutta methods for orbit propagation. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis, MN, AIAA 2012–4880 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Aristoff, J.M., Horwood, J.T., Poore, A.B.: Implicit Runge–Kutta methods for uncertainty propagation. In: Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), Maui, HI (2012)Google Scholar
  3. Aristoff, J.M., Horwood, J.T., Poore, A.B.: Orbit and uncertainty propagation: a comparison of Gauss–Legendre-, Dormand–Prince-, and Chebyshev–Picard-based approaches. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 118, 13–28 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, K.E., Han, W., Stewart, D.E.: Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai, X.: Modified Chebyshev–Picard iteration methods for solution of initial value and boundary value problems. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Bai, X., Junkins, J.L.: Modified Chebyshev–Picard iteration methods for orbit propagation. J. Astronaut. Sci. 58(4), 583–613 (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai, X., Junkins, J.L.: Modified Chebyshev–Picard iteration methods for solution of boundary value problems. J. Astronout. Sci. 58(4), 615–642 (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bai, X., Junkins, J.L.: Modified Chebyshev–Picard iteration methods for station-keeping of translunar halo orbits. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 1–18 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. Barrio, R., Palacios, M., Elipe, A.: Chebyshev collocation methods for fast orbit determination. Appl. Math. Comput. 99, 195–207 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Berry, M.M.: A variable-step double integration multi-step integrator. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Berry, M.M., Healy, L.M.: Comparison of accuracy assessment techniques for numerical integration. In: 13th Annual AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Ponce, Puerto Rico, AAS 03-171 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Berry, M.M., Healy, L.M.: Implementation of Gauss–Jackson integration for orbit propagation. J. Astronaut. Sci. 52(3), 331–357 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Betts, J.T., Erb, S.O.: Optimal low thrust trajectories to the moon. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 2(2), 144–170 (2003)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Beylkin, G.: On the fast Fourier transform of functions with singularities. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 2(4), 363–381 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Beylkin, G., Monzón, L.: On generalized Gaussian quadratures for exponentials and their applications. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 12(3), 332–373 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Beylkin, G., Sandberg, K.: Wave propagation using bases for bandlimited functions. Wave Motion 41(3), 263–291 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Beylkin, G., Sandberg, K.: ODE solvers using band-limited approximations. J. Comput. Phys. 265, 156–171 (2014)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Blanes, S., Iserles, A.: Explicit adaptive symplectic integrators for solving Hamiltonian systems. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 114, 297–317 (2012)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Blanes, S., Casas, F., Farrés, A., Laskar, J., Makazaga, J., Murua, A.: New families of symplectic splitting methods for numerical integration in dynamical astronomy. Appl. Numer. Math. 68, 58–72 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Bogacki, P., Shampine, L.F.: Interpolating high-order Runge–Kutta formulas. Comput. Math. Appl. 20(3), 15–24 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Bond, V., Allman, M.: Modern Astrodynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1996)Google Scholar
  22. Bradley, B.K., Jones, B.A., Beylkin, G., Axelrad, P.: A new numerical integration technique in astrodynamics. In: 22nd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Charleston, SC, AAS 12-216 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Breiter, S., Métris, G.: Symplectic mapping for satellites and space debris including nongravitational forces. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 71(2), 79–94 (1999)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Butcher, J.C.: Implicit Runge–Kutta processes. Math. Comput. 18, 50–64 (1964)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Calvo, M., Montijano, J.I., Randez, L.: A fifth-order interpolant for the Dormand and Prince Runge–Kutta method. Comput. Appl. Math. 29(1), 91–100 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Dormand, J.R., Prince, P.J.: A family of embedded Runge–Kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 6(1), 19–26 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Dormand, J.R., Prince, P.J.: Runge–Kutta triples. Comput. Math. Appl. 12A(9), 1007–1017 (1986)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Dutt, A., Rokhlin, V.: Fast Fourier transforms for nonequispaced data. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14(6), 1368–1393 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Farrés, A., Laskar, J., Blanes, S., Casas, F., Makazaga, J., Murua, A.: High precision symplectic integrators for the solar system. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 116, 141–174 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fehlberg, E.: Classical fifth-, sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-order Runge–Kutta formulas with stepsize control. Technical Report NASA TR R-287, NASA Technical, Report (1968)Google Scholar
  31. Fox, K.: Numerical integration of the equations of motion of celestial mechanics. Celest. Mech. 33, 127–142 (1984)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Grebow, D.J., Ozimek, M.T., Howell, K.C.: Advanced modeling of optimal low-thrust lunar pole-sitter trajectories. Acta Astronaut. 67(7–8), 991–1001 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grebow, D.J., Ozimek, M.T., Howell, K.C.: Design of optimal low-thrust lunar pole-sitter missions. J. Astronaut. Sci. 58(1), 55–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hairer, E., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Hairer, E., Nørsett, S., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems, second revised edn. Springer, Berlin (1993)Google Scholar
  36. Hairer, E., Lubich, C., Wanner, G.: Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations. No. 31 in Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  37. Herman, A.L., Conway, B.A.: Direct optimization using collocation based on high-order Gauss–Lobatto quadrature rules. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 19(3), 592–599 (1996)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Herman, A.L., Conway, B.A.: Optimal, low-thrust, earth–moon orbit transfer. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 21(1), 141–147 (1998)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Herman, J.F., Jones, B.A., Born, G.H., Parker, J.S.: A comparison of implicit integration methods for astrodynamics. In: AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Hilton Head, SC, AAS 13-905 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. Hubaux, C., Lemaître, A., Delsate, N., Carletti, T.: Symplectic integration of space debris motion considering several Earth’s shadowing models. Adv. Space Res. 49(10), 1472–1486 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Iserles, A.: A First Course in the Numerical Analysis of Differential Equations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackson, J.: Note on the numerical integration of \(\text{ d }^2 x/\text{ d }^2 t = f(x, t)\). Mon. Notes R. Astron. Soc. 84, 602–606 (1924)ADSGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones, B.A.: Orbit propagation using Gauss-Legendre collocation. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Minneapolis, MN, AIAA 2012-4967 (2012)Google Scholar
  44. Jones, B.A., Anderson, R.L.: A survey of symplectic and collocation integration methods for orbit propagation. In: 22nd Annual AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Charleston, SC, AAS 12-214 (2012)Google Scholar
  45. Kelso, T.S., Alfano, S.: Satellite orbital conjunction reports assessing threatening encounters in space (SOCRATES). In: 15th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Conference, Copper Mountain, CO, AAS 05-124 (2005)Google Scholar
  46. Landau, H.J., Pollak, H.O.: Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis and uncertainty II. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 40, 65–84 (1961)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. Landau, H.J., Pollak, H.O.: Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis and uncertainty III. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 41, 1295–1336 (1962)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemoine, F., Kenyon, S., Factor, J., Trimmer, R., Pavlis, N., Chinn, D., et al.: The development of the joint NASA GSFC and the national imagery and mapping agency (NIMA) geopotential model EGM96. NASA (1998)Google Scholar
  49. Mikkola, S.: Efficient symplectic integration of satellite orbits. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 74(4), 275–285 (1999)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. Mikkola, S., Palmer, P., Hashida, Y.: A symplectic orbital estimator for direct tracking on satellites. J. Astronaut. Sci. 48(2), 109–125 (2000)Google Scholar
  51. Montenbruck, O., Gill, E.: Satellite Orbits: Models, Methods and Applications, corrected 3rd printing 2005 edn. Springer, Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  52. Nguyen-Ba, T., Desjardins, S.J., Sharp, P.W., Vaillancourt, R.: Contractivity-preserving explicit Hermite–Obrechkoff ODE solver of order 13. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 117, 423–434 (2013)Google Scholar
  53. Ozimek, M.T., Grebow, D.J., Howell, K.C.: Design of solar sail trajectories with applications to lunar south pole coverage. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 32(6), 1884–1897 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozimek, M.T., Grebow, D.J., Howell, K.C.: A collocation approach for computing solar sail lunar pole-sitter orbits. Open Aerosp. Eng. J. 3, 65–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parcher, D.W., Whiffen, G.J.: Dawn statistical maneuver design for vesta operations. In: 21st Annual AAS/AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana (2011)Google Scholar
  56. Prince, P.J., Dormand, J.R.: High order embedded Runge–Kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 7, 67–75 (1981)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. Rose, D., Dullin, H.R.: A symplectic integrator for the symmetry reduced and regularised planar 3-body problem with vanishing angular momentum. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 117, 169–185 (2013)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanz-Serna, J.M.: Runge–Kutta schemes for Hamiltonian systems. BIT Numer. Math. 28(4), 877–883 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  59. Shampine, L.F., Reichelt, M.W.: The MATLAB ODE suites. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18, 1–22 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. Slepian, D.: Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis and uncertainty IV. Extensions to many dimensions; generalized prolate spheroidal functions. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 43, 3009–3057 (1964)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. Slepian, D.: Some asymptotic expansions for prolate spheroidal wave functions. J. Math. Phys. 44, 99–140 (1965)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. Slepian, D.: Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis, and uncertainty—v: the discrete case. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 57(5), 1371–1430 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Slepian, D.: Some comments on Fourier analysis, uncertainty and modeling. SIAM Rev. 25(3), 379–393 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. Slepian, D., Pollak, H.O.: Prolate spheroidal wave functions, Fourier analysis and uncertainty I. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 40, 43–63 (1961)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. SPADOC Computation Center: Mathematical foundation for SCC astrodynamic theory. NORAD Technical Publication TP-SCC-008, Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command (1982)Google Scholar
  66. Tapley, B.D., Schutz, B.E., Born, G.H.: Statistical Orbit Determination. Elsevier Inc, Burlington (2004)Google Scholar
  67. Tsitouras, C.: Optimized explicit Runge–Kutta pair of orders 9(8). Appl. Numer. Math. 38(1–2), 123–134 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsitouras, C.: Runge–Kutta interpolants for high precision computations. Numer. Algorithms 44(3), 291–307 (2007)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. van der Houwen, P.J., Sommeijer, D.P.: Parellel iteration of high-order Runge–Kutta methods with stepsize control. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 29(1), 111–127 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  70. Xiao, H., Rokhlin, V., Yarvin, N.: Prolate spheroidal wavefunctions, quadrature and interpolation. Inverse Probl. 17(4), 805–838 (2001)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben K. Bradley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brandon A. Jones
    • 1
  • Gregory Beylkin
    • 2
  • Kristian Sandberg
    • 3
  • Penina Axelrad
    • 1
  1. 1.Colorado Center for Astrodynamics ResearchUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Computational Solutions, Inc.BoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations