, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 249–263 | Cite as

Target selection for a small low-thrust mission to near-Earth asteroids

  • Alessio Mereta
  • Dario IzzoEmail author


The preliminary mission design of spacecraft missions to asteroids often involves, in the early phases, the selection of candidate target asteroids. The final result of such an analysis is a list of asteroids, ranked with respect to the necessary propellant to be used, that the spacecraft could potentially reach. In this paper we investigate the sensitivity of the produced asteroids rank to the employed trajectory model in the specific case of a small low-thrust propelled spacecraft beginning its journey from the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrangian point and heading to a rendezvous with some near-Earth asteroid. We consider five increasingly complex trajectory models: impulsive, Lambert, nuclear electric propulsion, nuclear electric propulsion including the Earth's gravity, solar electric propulsion including the Earth's gravity and we study the final correlation between the obtained target rankings. We find that the use of a low-thrust trajectory model is of great importance for target selection, since the use of chemical propulsion surrogates leads to favouring less attractive options 19% of times, a percentage that drops to 8% already using a simple nuclear electric propulsion model that neglects the Earth's gravity effects and thrust dependence on the solar distance. We also find that for the study case considered, a small interplanetary CubeSat named M-ARGO, the inclusion of the Earth's gravity in the considered dynamics does not affect the target selection significantly.


low-thrust asteroid selection near-Earth asteroids mission analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Roger Walker for leading the team during the Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) M-ARGO study, our colleagues in ESA/ESOC who motivated us to perform this work and all the CDF study members without whose contribution the M-ARGO study case here used would not have existed.


  1. [1]
    Benkhoff, J., van Casteren, J., Hayakawa, H., Fujimoto, M., Laakso, H., Novara, M., Ferri, P., Middleton, H. R., Ziethe, R. BepiColomboComprehensive exploration of mercury: mission overview and science goals. Planetary and Space Science, 2010, 58 (1–2): 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Kawaguchi, J., Fujiwara, A., Uesugi, T. Hayabusa–Its technology and science accomplishment summary and Hayabusa-2. ActaAstronautica, 2008, 62(10): 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Russell, C. T., Raymond, C. A. The dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres. Space Science Reviews, 2011, 163 (1–4): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Racca, G. D., Marini, A., Stagnaro, L., Van Dooren, J., Di Napoli, L., Foing, B. H., Lumb, R., Volp, J., Brinkmann, J., Grunagel, R., Estublier, L. Tremolizzo, E., McKay, M. Camino, O., Schoemaekers, J., Hechler, M., Khan, M., et al. SMART-1mission description and development status. Planetary and Space Science, 2002, 50(14–15): 1323–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Barucci, M. A., Yoshikawa, M., Michel, P., Kawagushi, J., Yano, H., Brucato, J. R., Franchi, I. A., Dotto, E., Fulchignoni, M., Ulamec, S., Marco Polo Science Team. MARCOPOLO: near earth object sample return mission. Experimental Astronomy, 2009, 23(3): 785–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Harris, A. W., Benz, W., Fitzsimmons, A., Green, S. F., Michel, P., Valsecchi, G. B. Target selection for the Don quijote mission. Report to ESAof the Near-Earth Asteroid Mission Advisory Panel, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Edelbaum, T. N. Propulsion requirements for controllable satellites. ARS Journal, 1961, 31(8): 1079–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Yam, C. H., Izzo, D., Biscani, F. Towards a high fidelity direct transcription method for optimisation of low- thrust trajectories. The 4th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Sims, J., Finlayson, P., Rinderle, E., Vavrina M., Theresa, D., Kowalkowski, T. Implementation of a low-thrust trajectory optimizationalgorithm for preliminary design. AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    McConaghy, T. T., Debban, T., Petropoulos, A., Longuski, J. Design and optimization of low-thrust trajectories with gravity assists. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2003, 40(3): 380–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    Izzo, D. Revisiting Lambert's problem. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 2015, 121(1): 1–15.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Biscani, F., Izzo, D., Mrtens, M. esa/pagmo2: pagmo 2.7. Zenodo, 2018, Scholar
  14. [14]
    Gill, P., Murray, W., Saunders, M. SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM review, 2005, 47(1): 99–131.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Pontryagin, L. S. Mathematical theory of optimal processes. Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Tsiolkovsky, K. E. Exploration of the universe with reaction machines. The Science Review, 1903.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Izzo, D., Hennes, D., Simoes, L. F., Martens, M. Designing complex interplanetary trajectories for the global trajectory optimizationcompetitions. Space Engineering, 2016, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Concepts TeamEuropean Space Research and Technology CenterNoordwijk 1the Netherlands

Personalised recommendations