Skip to main content
Log in

J2 Invariant Relative Orbits for Spacecraft Formations

  • Published:
Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An analytic method is presented to establish J 2 invariant relative orbits. Working with mean orbit elements, the secular drift of the longitude of the ascending node and the sum of the argument of perigee and mean anomaly are set equal between two neighboring orbits. By having both orbits drift at equal angular rates on the average, they will not separate over time due to the J2 influence. Two first order conditions are established between the differences in momenta elements (semi-major axis, eccentricity and inclination angle) that guarantee that the drift rates of two neighboring orbits are equal on the average. Differences in the longitude of the ascending node, argument of perigee and initial mean anomaly can be set at will, as long as they are setup in mean element space. For near polar orbits, enforcing both momenta element constraints may result in impractically large relative orbits. It this case it is shown that dropping the equal ascending node rate requirement still avoids considerable relative orbit drift and provides substantial fuel savings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aksnes, K.: 1972, ‘On the use of the hill variables in artifical satellite theory: Brouwer's theory’, J. Astr. Astrophy. 17, 70-75.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brouwer, D.: 1959, ‘Solution of the problem of artifical satellite theory without drag'. Astronaut. J. 64(1274), 378-397.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Carter, T. E.: 1998, ‘State transition matrix for terminal rendezvous studies: Brief survey and new example'. J. Guid. Nav. Cont.148-155.

  4. Coffey, S. L. and Deprit, A.: 1982, ‘Third order solution for artificial satellites'. AIAA J. Guid. Cont. Dyn. 5(4).

  5. Kapila, V., Sparks, A. G., Buffington, J. M. and Yan, Q.: 1999, ‘Spacecraft Formation Flying: Dynamics and Control’, In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Diego, California, pp. 4137-4141.

  6. Lyddane, R. H.: 1963, ‘Small eccentricities or inclinations in the Brouwer theory of the artificial satellite’, Astronom. J. 68(8), 555-558.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sedwick, R., Miller, D. and Kong, E.: 1999, ‘Mitigation of Differential Perturbations in Clusters of Formation Flying Satellites’, In: AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting. Paper No. AAS 99-124.

  8. Xing, G. Q., Parvez, S. A. and Folta, D.: 1991, ‘Implementation of Autonomous GPS Guidance and Control for the Spacecraft Formation Flying’, In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference. San Diego, California, 4163-4167.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaub, H., Alfriend, K.T. J2 Invariant Relative Orbits for Spacecraft Formations. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 79, 77–95 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011161811472

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011161811472

Navigation