Advertisement

Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 301–330 | Cite as

The theory of asynchronous relative motion I: time transformations and nonlinear corrections

  • Javier Roa
  • Jesús Peláez
Original Article

Abstract

Using alternative independent variables in lieu of time has important advantages when propagating the partial derivatives of the trajectory. This paper focuses on spacecraft relative motion, but the concepts presented here can be extended to any problem involving the variational equations of orbital motion. A usual approach for modeling the relative dynamics is to evaluate how the reference orbit changes when modifying the initial conditions slightly. But when the time is a mere dependent variable, changes in the initial conditions will result in changes in time as well: a time delay between the reference and the neighbor solution will appear. The theory of asynchronous relative motion shows how the time delay can be corrected to recover the physical sense of the solution and, more importantly, how this correction can be used to improve significantly the accuracy of the linear solutions to relative motion found in the literature. As an example, an improved version of the Clohessy-Wiltshire (CW) solution is presented explicitly. The correcting terms are extremely compact, and the solution proves more accurate than the second and even third order CW equations for long propagations. The application to the elliptic case is also discussed. The theory is not restricted to Keplerian orbits, as it holds under any perturbation. To prove this statement, two examples of realistic trajectories are presented: a pair of spacecraft orbiting the Earth and perturbed by a realistic force model; and two probes describing a quasi-periodic orbit in the Jupiter-Europa system subject to third-body perturbations. The numerical examples show that the new theory yields reductions in the propagation error of several orders of magnitude, both in position and velocity, when compared to the linear approach.

Keywords

Relative motion Nonlinear effects Time transformations Regularization Stability Clohessy-Wiltshire solution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out within the framework of the research project entitled “Dynamical Analysis, Advanced Orbital Propagation, and Simulation of Complex Space Systems” (ESP2013-41634-P) supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Authors thank the Spanish Government for its support and H. Urrutxua for reading the manuscript carefully and making valuable suggestions. J. Roa especially thanks “La Caixa” for his doctoral fellowship. The comments from an anonymous reviewer greatly improved the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Alfriend, K.T., Gim, D.W., Schaub, H.: Gravitational perturbations, nonlinearity and circular orbit assumption effects on formation flying control strategies. In: AAS Guidance and Control Conference, AAS 00-012 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. Alfriend, K.T., Vadali, S.R., Gurfil, P., How, J., Breger, L.: Spacecraft Formation Flying: Dynamics, Control, and Navigation. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Archinal, B.A., Ahearn, M.F., Bowell, E., Conrad, A., Consolmagno, G.J., et al.: Report of the IAU working group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2009. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 109(2), 101–135 (2011)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bombardelli, C., Gonzalo, J.L., Roa, J.: Compact Solution of Circular Orbit Relative Motion in Curvilinear Coordinates. In, : AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference. AAS 15–661(2015), (2015)Google Scholar
  5. Bombardelli, C., Gonzalo, J.L., Roa, J.: Approximate Solution of Non-linear Circular Orbit Relative Motion in Curvilinear Coordinates. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astronomy (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9716-x
  6. Broucke, R.A.: Solution of the elliptic rendezvous problem with the time as independent variable. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(4), 615–621 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broucke, R.A., Cefola, P.J.: On the equinoctial orbit elements. Celest. Mech. 5(3), 303–310 (1972)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Brouwer, D., Clemence, G.M.: Methods of Celestial Mechanics. Methods of Celestial Mechanics, by D Brouwer and GM Clemence. Academic Press, New York (1961)Google Scholar
  9. Burdet, C.A.: Theory of Kepler motion: the general perturbed two body problem. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik ZAMP 19(2), 345–368 (1968)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, T.E.: (1990) New form for the optimal rendezvous equations near a Keplerian orbit. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 13(1), 183–186 (1990)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, T.E.: State transition matrices for terminal rendezvous studies: brief survey and new example. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 21(1), 148–155 (1998)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Casotto, S.: Position and velocity perturbations in the orbital frame in terms of classical element perturbations. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 55(3), 209–221 (1993)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Clohessy, W.H., Wiltshire, R.S.: Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. J. Aerosp. Sci. 29(9), 653–658 (1960)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Condurache, D., Martinuşi, V.: Relative spacecraft motion in a central force field. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 30(3), 873–876 (2007)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Condurache, D., Martinuşi, V.: Exact solution to the relative orbital motion in eccentric orbits. Sol. Syst. Res. 43(1), 41–52 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Condurache, D., Martinusi, V.: Quaternionic exact solution to the relative orbital motion problem. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33(4), 1035–1047 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Amico, S., Montenbruck, O.: Proximity operations of formation-flying spacecraft using an eccentricity/inclination vector separation. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 29(3), 554–563 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deprit, A.: Ideal elements for perturbed Keplerian motions. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 79, 1–15 (1975)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Deprit, A., Elipe, A., Ferrer, S.: Linearization: Laplace vs. Stiefel. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 58(2), 151–201 (1994)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gim, D.W., Alfriend, K.T.: State transition matrix of relative motion for the perturbed noncircular reference orbit. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(6), 956–971 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gim, D.W., Alfriend, K.T.: Satellite relative motion using differential equinoctial elements. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 92(4), 295–336 (2005)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gurfil, P.: Relative motion between elliptic orbits: generalized boundedness conditions and optimal formationkeeping. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 28(4), 761–767 (2005)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurfil, P., Kasdin, N.: Canonical modelling of coorbital motion in hill’s problem using epicyclic orbital elements. Astron. Astrophys. 409, 1135–1140 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurfil, P., Kasdin, N.J.: Nonlinear modelling of spacecraft relative motion in the configuration space. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 27(1), 154–157 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gurfil, P., Lara, M.: Motion near frozen orbits as a means for mitigating satellite relative drift. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 116(3), 213–227 (2013)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, G.W.: Researches in the lunar theory. Am. J. Math. 1(2), 129–147 (1878)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Karlgaard, C.D., Lutze, F.H.: Second-order relative motion equations. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(1), 41–49 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kustaanheimo, P., Stiefel, E.: Perturbation theory of Kepler motion based on spinor regularization. J. Reine Angew. Math. 218, 204–219 (1965)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Laplace, P.S.: Traité de Mécanique Céleste. Paris, Duprat et Bachelier. Reprinted in Oeuvres. Paris, Imprimerie royale, 1843. (1799)Google Scholar
  30. Lawden, D.F.: Optimal Trajectories for Space Navigation. Butterworths, London (1963)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Levi-Civita, T.: Sur la régularisation du probleme des trois corps. Acta Math. 42(1), 99–144 (1920)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. London, H.S.: Second approximation to the solution of the rendezvous equations. AIAA J. 1(7), 1691–1693 (1963)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinuşi, V., Gurfil, P.: Solutions and periodicity of satellite relative motion under even zonal harmonics perturbations. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 111(4), 387–414 (2011)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Moser, J.: Regularization of Kepler’s problem and the averaging method on a manifold. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 23(4), 609–636 (1970)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Peláez, J., Hedo, J.M., de Andrés, P.R.: A special perturbation method in orbital dynamics. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 97(2), 131–150 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson, D.L., Mitchell, J.W.: A third-order analytical solution for relative motion with a circular reference orbit. J. Astronaut. Sci. 51(1), 1–12 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Roa, J.: Regularization in Astrodynamics: applications to relative motion, low-thrust missions, and orbit propagation. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Madrid, September 2016. Chaps. 6, 7 and 8. (2016)Google Scholar
  38. Roa, J., Peláez, J.: Frozen-anomaly transformation for the elliptic rendezvous problem. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 121(1), 61–81 (2015a)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Roa, J., Peláez, J.: Orbit propagation in Minkowskian geometry. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 123(1), 13–43 (2015b)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Roa, J., Peláez, J.: The theory of asynchronous relative motion II. Unified and regular solution for any type of reference orbit. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. (2017). doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9730-z
  41. Roa, J., Urrutxua, H., Peláez, J.: Stability and chaos in Kustaanheimo-Stiefel space induced by the Hopf fibration. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459(3), 2444–2454 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaub, H.: Relative orbit geometry through classical orbit element differences. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 27(5), 839–848 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sengupta, P., Vadali, S.R., Alfriend, K.T.: Second-order state transition for relative motion near perturbed, elliptic orbits. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 97(2), 101–129 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Sperling, H.J.: Computation of Keplerian conic sections. ARSJ 31(5), 660–661 (1961)Google Scholar
  45. Sundman, K.F.: Mémoire sur le problème des trois corps. Acta Math. 36(1), 105–179 (1913)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Szebehely, V.: Theory of Orbits: the Restricted Problem of Three Bodies. Academic Press, New York (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Tschauner, J., Hempel, P.: Rendezvous zu einem in elliptischer Bahn umlaufenden Ziel. Astronaut. Acta 11(2), 104 (1965)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Urrutxua, H.: High Fidelity Models for Near-Earth Object Dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Madrid, April 2015. Chap. 4. (2015)Google Scholar
  49. Urrutxua, H., Sanjurjo-Rivo, M., Peláez, J.: Dromo propagator revisited. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 124(1), 1–31 (2016)Google Scholar
  50. Vaddi, S.S., Vadali, S.R., Alfriend, K.T.: Formation flying: accommodating nonlinearity and eccentricity perturbations. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(2), 214–223 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vallado, D.A., Alfano, S.: Curvilinear coordinate transformations for relative motion. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 118(3), 253–271 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamanaka, K., Ankersen, F.: New state-transition matrix for relative motion on an arbitrary elliptical orbit. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 25(1), 60–66 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Space Dynamics GroupTechnical University of Madrid (UPM)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations