Advertisement

Analysis of J2-Perturbed Relative Orbits for Satellite Formation Flying

  • C. Xu
  • R. Tsoi
  • N. Sneeuw
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 129)

Abstract

We study the concept of satellite formation flying in a geodetic context, namely as a viable alternative for future gravity field satellite missions. The feasibility of formation flight is demonstrated. In particular the stability of such a formation in a J 2 gravity field is investigated. To this end three orbit computation approaches are compared: 1) numerical integration of Newton’s equations (nn) of motion, 2) numerical integration of Hill equations (he), and 3) a new set of nontrivial, non-homogeneous analytical solutions of he.

Hill equations provide an elementary description of relative orbital motion. In order to accommodate J 2 gravitational perturbations we modify the he in several steps: evaluating the J 2 disturbing force function on the nominal orbit; changing the orbital rotation rate (frequency matching), due to in-orbit J 2 precession; as well as evaluating the time-averaged J 2 gravity gradient tensor. The resulting he are solved analytically.

The orbit simulations show that the analytical solution of the modified he are consistent with their numerically integrated counterpart. Differences with respect to the reference nn method remain, which means that not all J 2 effects have been captured yet in the modified he. The usefulness of HE as a formation design tool are demonstrated by simulations of circular relative motion.

Keywords

formation flying Hill equations (heJ2-perturbed orbits numerical integration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguirre-Martinez M, Sneeuw N (2003) Needs and tools for future gravity measuring missions. Space Science Reviews 108(1–2):409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hill G (1878) Research in the lunar theory. American Journal of Mathematics I pp. 5–26,129–147,245–260.Google Scholar
  3. Kaplan M (1976) Modern Spacecraft Dynamics & Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  4. NASA (2004) LISA website. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/.Google Scholar
  5. Schaub H (2002) Spacecraft relative orbit geometry description through orbit element differences. 14th US National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, VA.Google Scholar
  6. Schaub H, Junkins JL (2003) Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems. AIAA Education Series, Reston,VA.Google Scholar
  7. Schweighart S, Sedwick R (2001) A perturbative analysis of geopotential disturbances for satellite formation flying. In: Proceeding of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, vol. 21, pp. 1001–1019.Google Scholar
  8. Schweighart S, Sedwick R (2002) High-fidelity linearized J 2 model for satellite formation flight. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 25(6):1073–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Seeber G (1993) Satellite Geodesy. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Sneeuw N (2002) LISA/Cartwheel orbit type for future gravity field satellite missions. In: Proc. W.A. Heiskanen Symposium in Geodesy, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  11. Sneeuw N, Schaub H (2004) Satellite clusters for next generation gravity field missions. In: IAG Proceedings for Gravity, Geoid and Satellite Missions 2004, IAG.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Xu
    • 1
  • R. Tsoi
    • 1
  • N. Sneeuw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geomatics EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations