Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / a c t a a s t r o

On the quasi-equilibria of the BiElliptic four-body problem with non-coplanar

motion of primaries
Nima Assadian, Seid H. Pourtakdoust∗
Center for Research and Development in Space Science and Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In this study the effect of the Sun on the Lagrange points of the Earth–Moon system is
Received 17 January 2009 investigated. A restricted four-body problem (R4BP) is introduced to take into account the
Received in revised form effect of the Sun, Earth and Moon on the motion of an infinitesimal particle. The motion of
10 May 2009
the Earth–Moon-barycenter (EMB) around the Sun is considered to be elliptic in the ecliptic
Accepted 11 May 2009
plane. Similarly, the motion of the Moon around the Earth is presumed to be elliptic, but out
Available online 3 July 2009
of the ecliptic plane. In this way, a spatial R4BP with non-coplanar motion of primaries is
Keywords: derived, which is named as BiElliptic problem (BEP). Transforming the equations of motion
Restricted four-body problem (R4BP) to a coordinate system originated at the EMB that rotates with the variable angular velocity
BiElliptic problem (BEP) of the Moon around the Earth, allows for the investigation of the effect of the Sun on the
Lagrange points Lagrange points of the Earth–Moon circular restricted three-body system. The results reveal
Quasi-equilibria that the L1 and L2 points are replaced with nearby complex quasi-periodic orbits with
Quasi-periodic orbits considerable deviation from the Earth–Moon line of axes. These orbits are highly unstable
Non-coplanar motion of primaries
and were found with the aid of a new algorithm developed for this purpose. The L3 quasi-
equilibrium is greatly displaced, such that its trace approaches those of L4 and L5 with con-
siderable overlaps. Also, for some specific time intervals two additional quasi-equilibrium
points are detected for the real Sun–Earth–Moon BEP. In addition, a parametric study is also
performed to detect the conditions for which the structure of the quasi-equilibria changes.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction written in a rotating frame having an angular velocity equiv-

The motion of a particle in a multi-gravitational field is
among the most interesting topics of dynamical systems and
space mission design [1,2]. There are great studies in the field
of two- and three-body problem advocated to mission de-
sign, optimal trajectories, etc. The circular restricted three-
body problem (CRTBP) is the simplest model utilized in the
field of three-body problem (TBP) and forms the basis of the
modern trajectory planning [1,3]. In this model the motion
of an infinitesimal particle in the field of two major bod-
ies revolving in a circular orbit around their barycenter is
considered. The equations of motion of CRTBP are generally
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66164952; fax: +98 21 66022731.
E-mail address: pourtak@sharif.edu (S.H. Pourtakdoust).
alent to that of the primaries. If the object is moving only
in the plane of the primaries, the planar restricted three-
body problem (PRTBP) can be used. However, considering
the fact that many orbits of the center manifold of collinear
Lagrange points are three-dimensional in nature and many
interplanetary missions utilize out of the ecliptic plane
trajectories, the PRTBP is not so much applicable for such
applications.
The Lagrange points, the known equilibrium points of the
CRTBP, and the dynamics of the system around them have
been the topic of many studies for decades. Although these
points do not exist in the case of more than two major bodies
and even in elliptical restricted three-body problem (ERTBP),
the dynamics of a spacecraft moving near these points are
still of concern and are focused in many research studies
[3–12,22].

0094-5765/$ - see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.05.014
46 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58
ERTBP is the first improvement over the CRTBP by con-
sidering an elliptical motion of the two primaries as opposed
to a circular one [3]. This model is similar to CRTBP in a time
dependent coordinate system [13]. The dynamics near the
Lagrange points of ERTBP is still of interest in many studies
[4,5,14]. Some of these works deal only with specific mass
ratios of the ERTBP [4,14].
The motion of four bodies under mutual gravitational
field has been investigated in many aspects. Some of these
studies, like rhombus four-body [15,16] problem, are not
applicable for a real four-body system in the solar system.
There are also some investigations about the motion of minor
bodies such as asteroids, in a four-body context. For instance,
Tsui [17] has studied the motion of binary asteroids and
the dynamics of capture under the influence of the Sun and
some planets. In such models, the mass of the object under
study is considerable. There are also studies that consider
the mass distribution of some primaries [18]. These models
can be applied for the orbiters near the asteroids. The model
of such works however, cannot be applied for the motion of
a spacecraft in the gravitational field of three major celestial
bodies.
Generally, the motion of a spacecraft under the influence
of n−1 major celestial bodies is referred to as a `restricted n-
body problem'. In such cases, the nth body is the spacecraft
which does not affect the motion of the n−1 major bodies,
from now on called the primaries. The main purpose of this
study is to derive an analytical model for the restricted four-
body problem (R4BP) close to the real motion of the solar
system and to investigate the Sun–Earth–Moon system as a
special case.
The motion of a body under the influence of three other
major bodies has also been attempted in several studies dur-
ing the past decades. It is important to note that in many of
these studies, the motion of primaries does not necessarily
match the real motion of the Sun and planets of the solar
system. Lagrange solution of the TBP with rotating equilat-
eral triangle configuration is one of these models [19].
In most of the developed models for analytical purposes,
the effect of the fourth major body is added to the restricted
three-body problem (RTBP). The bicircular problem (BCP) is
the simplest model in this area which was initially intro-
duced by Cronin et al. [20]. In his model the Earth and the
Moon were assumed to move in circular orbits around their
center of mass and their center of mass also moves in circu-
lar orbit around the Sun in the same plane. This model can
be expressed in the standard coordinate system of CRTBP of
the Earth–Moon system in which the Sun is in a circular or-
bit around the origin. This model is still in use by several
recent researchers [6,7,21,22]. Castellà and Jorba [22] also
presented another model called circular–elliptical in which
the Earth and Moon revolve in elliptical orbit around their
barycenter, but Earth–Moon-barycenter (EMB) still revolves
in a circular orbit around the Sun.
The motion of the primaries in the BCP is not coherent
with the solution of the TBP. Andreu [23] modified the BCP
model to be coherent with the TBP motion of primaries.
He developed the quasi-bicircular problem (QBCP) model in
his Ph.D. dissertation in which he used a Fourier expansion
solution of the Jacobi formulation of the TBP for the motion
of the primaries in the plane [23,24]. This model is named
in some references as bicircular coherent periodic model
(BCCP) [11]. Andreu used the QBCP to study the dynamics
near the collinear libration points (mostly L2) of the CRTBP
Earth–Moon system [24]. He also computed quasi-periodic
translunar Halo orbits of the QBCP and studied the dynamics
around them [8,9,25].
Howell and Spencer [10] utilized a perturbation scheme
on the basic circular orbits of primaries. They used the
methodology of Musen and Carpenter [26] and assumed a
trigonometric series for the perturbations and numerically
determined the coefficients such that a periodic solution
can be found [26,27].
Gabern and Jorba [11] utilized the methodology of An-
dreu [23] to study the effect of Saturn on the triangular
libration points (L4 and L5) of the Sun–Jupiter RTBP sys-
tem. They utilized a periodic solution of the TBP for the
Sun–Jupiter–Saturn. The motion of primaries is in the same
plane and the orbital elements of periodic motion of pri-
maries differ from the data of JPL ephemeris computation
system [28]. They developed their model for the restricted
five-body problem with the same methodology [29,30].
Scheers presented a Hill's R4BP model [12]. He derived
the equations of motion for the four bodies and used the
Hill's approximation to simplify the equations. In this way,
he reached the two-body motion for the position of the
barycenter of the three minor bodies (Earth, Moon and Par-
ticle) and perturbed it from a circular orbit to obtain the
equations of the perturbation parameter. The Hill equation
of the motion of the Moon was solved with Fourier series
approximation. The solution of the R4BP is parameterized
with the parameter of the Variation orbit family of the mo-
tion of the Moon. Scheers used this model to investigate the
periodic orbits near the triangular libration points L4 and L5.
The main problem with the above mentioned coherent
R4BPs is that the solutions are only periodic and at most
coherent with TBP and are not necessarily consistent with
the real system.
Most of the works in the field of R4BP study the effect
of the fourth body on the Halo orbits around the collinear
points L1 and L2, the orbits around the triangular libration
points L4 and L5, the dynamics of capture near triangular
libration points (Trojans motion) and so on. Thus, the effect
of the fourth body on the dynamics near the Lagrange points
themselves and the existence of new quasi-equilibria have
not been attempted.
There are two motivations for this study. First, the motion
of the Moon around the Earth is not in the same plane as
that of the Earth around the Sun. The inclination of about
5◦ for the orbit of the Moon relative to the ecliptic cannot
be ignored in a realistic analysis. Secondly, in the context
of R4BP, the previous studies are generally analytical to a
degree that the geometry of the three primaries cannot be
initiated with the real values of the ephemeris data.
In this study, the equations of motion of the Sun–Earth–
Moon R4BP are developed, starting with the general four-
body problem model. Then, by ignoring the effect of the
infinitesimal particle on the motion of the major bodies,
the equations of motion of the infinitesimal particle are de-
rived using TBP motion for the primaries. Subsequently, the
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 47

equations of motion are transformed into a coordinate sys- m4(Particle)

tem that rotates with the Earth–Moon line of sight and the
distances are scaled to keep the Earth–Moon distance as r
unity. The origin of this coordinate system is selected at the
Earth–Moon barycenter. This coordinate system is similar to EMB m3(Moon)
r
the definition of CRTBP and so it can be used to study the
effect of the Sun on the Lagrange points arising in the CRTBP m2(Earth)
of the Earth–Moon system. R
Although the equations of motion of the infinitesimal
particle is derived using the TBP dynamics for the primaries,
the position vectors from the Earth to the Moon and from
the Sun to the EMB are assumed to match elliptic orbits. In m1(Sun)
this way, not only the out of ecliptic motion of the primaries
(the Earth and the Moon) can be modeled, but also the peri- Fig. 1. Definition of relative position vectors.

odicity of the forcing functions is held. Due to the existence

of two elliptic orbits in this model, it is nominated as BiEllip-
tic problem (BEP). By selecting the real values of the elliptic For the purpose of this study m1 is the Sun, m2 is the Earth,
motions of the EMB and the Moon, the model can accurately m3 is the Moon, and m4 is an infinitesimal mass. For the
predict the motion of an object in the gravitational field of R4BP under study, the effect of m4 on the primaries can be
the Sun, Earth and Moon. By allowing any combination of ignored.
orbital elements in the BEP model, it can be applied to the Considering the vectors R, r and q shown in Fig. 1, the
motion of spacecrafts in the gravitational field of the Sun relative position vectors of the bodies can be expressed as
with any planet of the solar system and one of its moons.
r12 = R − r (4a)
The equations of motion are used to compute the quasi-
periodic orbits replacing the collinear points L1 and L2. The
r13 = R + (1 − )r (4b)
orbits are highly unstable and a new algorithm is developed
to compute these quasi-periodic orbits. The method utilizes r14 = q + R (4c)
the trace of quasi-equilibrium points of the BEP computed
from Newton's method. The stability of the closed orbits near r24 = q + r (4d)
L1 and L2 are investigated via a monodromy matrix.
Expanding the methodology for other quasi-equilibrium r34 = q − (1 − )r (4e)
points shows that, in some intervals of time, more than five
The vector R is from the Sun to the EMB, the vector r is from
quasi-equilibria exist. This phenomenon inspires the exis-
the Earth to the Moon, and the vector q is from the EMB to
tence of more or less quasi-equilibria in other mass ratios of
the particle.  is the ratio of the Moon's mass to the sum of
the BEP. Therefore, a parametric study is performed in re-
masses of the Earth and the Moon:
gions for which the equilibrium condition is totally different
from those arising in the RTBP. m3
= (5)
m2 + m3
2. Equations of motion So, the EMB is r away from the Earth and ( − 1)r away
from the Moon. This definition of  is consistent with that
2.1. General governing equations of the RTBP,  is named as the mass ratio of the RTBP.
Utilizing Eqs. (3) and (4), the following equations of mo-
The equations of motion of the four bodies can be ex- tion for the infinitesimal particle can be derived:
pressed as follows:
 
R − r R + (1 − )r R+q
1 *  Gmi mj q̈ = Gm1 (1 − ) +  −
r̈i = , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (1) |R − r|3 |R + (1 − )r|3 |R + q|3
mi *ri rij q + r q − (1 − )r
1 ⱕ i<j ⱕ 4
− Gm2 − Gm3 (6)
|q + r|3 |q − (1 − )r|3
where G is the universal gravitational constant, ri is the po-
sition vector of the ith mass mi relative to the origin of the In this formulation, the motion of primaries is consis-
inertial coordinate system, and rij is the distance between tent with the general TBP. The method for computing the
ith and jth masses R and r vectors is explained in the next section. Non-
dimensionalizing the Gm quantities such that G(m2 +m3 )=1,
rij = rj − ri rij = |rij |, i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4 (2) results in

R − r
By expanding the Eq. (1), the governing equations can be q̈ = ( − 1) (1 − )
expressed as follows: |R − r|3

R + (1 − )r R+q
+ −

4
Gmj rij |R + (1 − )r|3 |R + q| 3
r̈i = , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (3) q + r q − (1 − )r
j=1
rij3 − (1 − ) − (7)
j
i |q + r|3 |q − (1 − )r|3
48 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

where  is the total mass ratio: current model and so it can be used for space mission design
m + m2 + m3 purposes. As well, in QBCP, a specific periodic solution for
= 1 (8) the primaries (the Sun, Earth, and Moon) is inserted in the
m2 + m3
model and the initial condition of position and velocities of
2.2. Motion of the primaries the primaries should be translated to the orbital elements.

For the purpose of this study, the motion of the primaries 2.3. Equations of motion in rotational frame
is considered to be known. The EMB is assumed to move
in an elliptic orbit around the Sun in the ecliptic plane (for As mentioned above, the purpose of this investigation is
the vector R) and the motion of the Moon around the Earth to study the effect of the Sun on the Lagrange points arising
is also elliptic, but its plane of motion is out of the ecliptic in the RTBP of the Earth–Moon system. The equations of
plane (for the vector r). That is why the model is named motion in the RTBP are expressed in the rotating frame with
BiElliptic problem. angular velocity of the primaries around their center of mass.
For any time t, after the initial time t0 , the eccentric To compare the results of the current study to that of the
anomaly E of the motion in elliptic orbits should satisfy these RTBP of the Earth–Moon system, a new coordinate system
equations: is defined that rotates with the line connecting the Earth to
the Moon (r). Thus, due to the elliptic motion of the Moon
nm (t − t0 ) = 2km  + (Em − E0m ) − em (sin Em − sin E0m ) (9a)
around the Earth, the angular velocity is not constant. From
ne (t − t0 ) = 2ke  + (Ee − E0e ) − ee (sin Ee − sin E0e ) (9b) this point forward, N stands for this new coordinate system.
The origin of N is selected to be coincident with the EMB.
in which the subscripts m and e stand for the motion of the The x axis of N is in the direction from Earth to the Moon.
Moon around the Earth and the motion of the EMB around Thus, by scaling the distance unit such that r =1, the position
the Sun, respectively. The subscript 0 denotes the initial con- of the Earth and the Moon in the N coordinate system are
ditions. The e and n represent the eccentricity and mean (−, 0, 0)T and (1−, 0, 0)T , respectively. The z axis is selected
motion of the elliptic orbits and k is the number of revolu- to be in the direction of angular momentum vector of the
tions. Given the initial conditions and the orbital elements motion of Moon around the Earth and so is perpendicular
of the elliptic orbits, Eq. (9) can be solved for the eccentric to the plane of its elliptic motion (of the Moon around the
anomaly. Subsequently, the magnitude of the vectors R and Earth). This definition of units and coordinates matches the
r can be computed through the following relations: standard definition of non-dimensional RTBP.
The CIN is defined to be the rotation matrix from the in-
r = am (1 − em cos Em ) (10a)
ertial coordinate system to the N coordinate system, so:
R = ae (1 − ee cos Ee ) (10b)
qN = CIN qI (11)
in which the ai s are the semi-major axes of the elliptic orbits.
Using inclination, the argument of periapsis and the right Therefore, using Eq. (7) and the fact that distances are nor-
ascension of the ascending node, the vectors R and r can be malized relative to r, the equations of motion in the N coor-
expressed in any coordinate system. The selected coordinate dinate system becomes
systems and distance unit are stated in the next section.
The orbital elements of the EMB around the Sun and the q̈N + 2CIN ĊNI q̇N + CIN C̈NI qN

Moon around the Earth vary slightly with time. The selec- ( − 1) R − r
= (1 − )
tion of EMB instead of the Earth as the target of the R is cho- r3 |R − r|3

sen to minimize these variations. The main cause of these R + (1 − )r R+q
+ −
perturbations is the third body effect on the motion of the |R + (1 − )r|3 |R + q|3
primaries, and is not considered in this study. The change (1 − ) q + r  q − (1 − )r
in orbital elements of the motion of the primaries can be − − 3 (12)
r3 |q + r|3 r |q − (1 − )r|3
found by using the JPL ephemeris computation software, JPL
HORIZONS system [28]. To obtain the rotation matrix CIN , at first a coordinate system
It should be pointed out that Eq. (7) is derived using the E is defined that rotates with N, but does not expand or
full TBP motion of the primaries. The acceleration terms in contract to keep r unity. So, CIN can be obtained by utilizing
Eq. (7) shows this fact. Therefore, the equations of motion the rotation matrix CIE :
are not restricted to elliptic orbits. But, for simplicity, the
computation of vectors R and r are based on their elliptic 1 E
CIN = C (13)
orbits, instead of solving the TBP equations for the motion of r I
the primaries. Three main advantages arise in this assump- The required matrices in the Eq. (12) are
tion; the forcing function can be periodic, the computation
of vectors R and r is simple, and the equations of motion can ṙ
CIN ĊNI = CIE ĊEI + I (14a)
be initialized with the physical orbital elements of the real r
systems.
2ṙ E I r̈
One of the advantages of the BEP model over the mod- CIN C̈NI = CIE C̈EI + C Ċ + I (14b)
r I E r
els such as QBCP is that, for any given time, the orbital el-
ements of the elliptic orbits can be directly inserted in the where the I is identity matrix.
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 49

XN , X E Using Eqs. (12)–(18), and the definition of 3 given below:

ZI
YI 1
YN , YE Moon 3 = = 1 − 2 (19)
ZN , ZE 1 + em cos m
r allows the final equations of motion for the infinitesimal
R Earth particle to be expressed as
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ −2˙ (
˙ −
˙ ) + ˙ 2
⎞
Vernal
¨ x m 1 x y 3 m x
XI Equinox ⎝
¨ ⎠ = ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ −2˙ m ( 1
˙ y +
˙ x ) + 3 ˙ m
y ⎠
y
Sun
Ecliptic Plane
¨ z −2˙ m 1
˙ z − 2 ˙ m
z
2

( − 1) R − r
+ (1 − )
r3 |R − r|3

R + (1 − )r R+q
Fig. 2. Geometry of the BiElliptic problem. + −
|R + (1 − )r|3 |R + q|3
(1 − ) q + r  q − (1 − )r
− − 3 (20)
r3 |q + r|3 r |q − (1 − )r|3
By definition of inclination im , argument of perigee m ,
right ascension of the ascending node m , and the true It should be pointed out that in the N coordinate system, the
anomaly m of the elliptic motion of the Moon around the vectors R and r will be
Earth, the rotation matrix CIE can be computed utilizing three
successive rotations through angles m , im , and m + m R = (Rx Ry Rz )T (21a)
around the z, y, and again z axes, respectively (Fig. 2). In this
way, the resulting rotation matrix will be r = (1 0 0)T (21b)
⎛ ⎞
cL +L cL − sL + ci s c+ s + s+ ci c s+ si 3. The quasi-equilibrium points
CIE = ⎝ −s+ c − c+ ci s −s+ s + c+ ci c c+ si ⎠
si s −si c ci The equilibria of the CRTBP do not exist in the R4BP
(15) and are replaced with quasi-periodic orbits. The equa-
tions of motion of the infinitesimal particle constitute a
in which the s and c stand for sin  and cos , respectively.
non-autonomous system. In such a system, the equations
Also note that the subscripts m is dropped for simplicity of
of motion are explicitly functions of time. In the model
the matrix formula. Using the above equation and consider-
developed, the semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination,
ing the fact that only m varies with time, the matrices re-
argument of perigee, and right-ascension of the ascending
lating to the first and second time derivatives of CIE can be
node of the elliptic orbits are the parameters defining the
computed from
characteristics of the system. The initial conditions of the
⎛ ⎞ primaries defined by the initial true anomalies of the elliptic
0 −1 0
= ˙ m ⎝ 1 orbits characterize the time dependency of the motion.
CIE ĊEI 0 0⎠ (16a)
For the purpose of this study, the orbital elements of
0 0 0
the Earth–Moon–Sun system are of interest. The orbital ele-
⎛ ⎞ ments of the motion of the Moon around the Earth and the
−˙ 2m −¨ m 0
CIE C̈EI = ⎝ ¨ m −˙ 2m 0⎠ (16b) EMB around the Sun slightly vary with time. These variations
0 0 0 are mostly due to gravitational effects of the other bodies
in the solar system. In this study, a specific condition that is
The motion of the Moon around the Earth is also considered outlined below will be selected for the orbital elements.
elliptic. Thus, the following relations can be used: As it was stated earlier, one of the incentives of this inves-
tigation is to find closed orbits at locations of the collinear
¨ m = −2˙ 2m 1 (17a) libration points L1 and L2. To this end, the forcing function
should be periodic. The forcing function on the motion of
ṙ the infinitesimal particle is a function of the position vectors
= ˙ m 1 (17b)
r R and r. So, the time changes in R and r should be such that
periodic changes in one is an integer factor of the other one.
r̈ Using JPL HORIZONS system [28], the period of the changes
= ˙ 2m 2 (17c)
r in R is almost 356.25 days and for r is about 27 days. The
exact value of the ratio between them is selected to be 13.5.
where
So, after two years the time history of the R has covered
em sin m two periods, while r has covered 27 periods. Therefore, the
1 = (18a)
1 + em cos m configuration of the Earth–Moon–Sun has the period of two
years. The resulting orbital elements in Table 1 are for 16th
em cos m of November of 2000, taken from JPL HORIZONS system [28]
2 = (18b)
1 + em cos m system. It should be noted that this selection does not affect
50 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

Table 1
Orbital parameters of the Moon and EMB elliptic orbits (based on JPL HORIZONS at 16 November 2000, 00:00 GMT, JDN = 2 451 864.5).

Orbital parameter Moon around the Earth EMB around the Sun

Gravitational parameter (km3 /s2 ) GME 4.03503233479×105 GMS 1.32712843521×1011

Semi-major axis (km) am 3.822584565835112×105 ae 1.496011081421893×108
Eccentricity em 4.249330015460338×10−2 ee 1.673566298812362×10−2
Inclination (deg.) im 5.131091707470521 ie 1.465615605569964×10−4
Argument of periapsis (deg.) m 345.9487581746202 e 297.3257629500073
Right ascension of the ascending node (deg.) m 106.7632242295183 e 165.5442682079424
Orbital period (days) Tm 27.05691449265352 Te 365.2681999044657

Table 2
Mass parameters of the Sun–Earth–Moon BEP.

Mass parameter Symbol Value 0.004 L1 Trace

Equilibrum Orbit
Sun gravitational parameter Gm1 11
1.3271243994×10 km /s 3 2 L1 (in RTBP)
0.003
Earth gravitational parameter Gm2 3.98600044×105 km3 /s2
Moon gravitational parameter Gm3 4.9027957987×103 km3 /s2
Mass ratio of the RTBP  0.01215058561 0.002
Total mass ratio  328 901.8821
0.001

y
0
the generality of the equations and is utilized only to search
for the periodic orbits.
-0.001
The gravitational parameter of an elliptic orbit pertaining
to two significant bodies such as the Earth and the Moon -0.002
is usually taken as the sum of their respective gravitational
parameters. This parameter is denoted by GM , values of -0.003
which are listed in Table 1 using JPL ephemeris data. The
mass ratios of the BEP of the Sun–Earth–Moon are also given 0.836 0.838 0.84 0.842 0.844
in Table 2. x

3.1. Quasi-periodic orbits of L1 and L2

L1 Trace
The three equilibrium points of the CRTBP L1, L2, and 0.0002 Equilibrum Orbit
L1 (in RTBP)
L3 lying on the x axis are called collinear libration points
or Eulerian points. The dynamics near collinear points are
the center×center×saddle type. Saddle-type dynamics is due
0.0001
to a linearly stable and a linearly unstable mode present in
the dynamics close to these equilibrium points. The unstable
z

mode makes it difficult to find the closed orbits around the

collinear points. Besides, the dynamics of the system is time 0
varying, and so, it is a challenge to find the invariant trajec-
tories. The difficulty intensifies, considering the fact that the
orbits should close themselves in at least a period of two
years and after 27 revolutions of the Moon. In this study -0.0001
an efficient and simple algorithm is utilized in order to find
such closed orbits around the collinear points L1 and L2.
0.836 0.838 0.84 0.842 0.844
At first, for the period of two years the trace of the quasi-
x
equilibrium points is computed. To find the trace of quasi-
equilibrium points, at each time stage the time is frozen and
Fig. 3. Trace of L1 quasi-equilibrium point over two years and quasi-pe-
the equilibrium points of the resulting system (20) are found. riodic orbit around it in the (a) XN YN plane and (b) XN ZN plane.
The equilibrium points are found using Newton's method.
In this regard the Jacobian matrix is needed, which will be
derived in the next section.
Using the trace of quasi-equilibrium points, the velocity
and acceleration required for this motion, is found through along the trace. This process is iterated until the integral of
a finite difference scheme. Subsequently, the velocity and change in the position of the quasi-equilibria for the period
acceleration as functions of time are replaced in the Eq. (20) of two years goes below a pre-specified tolerance. The result
to determine the position of the quasi-equilibrium points would be a `quasi-periodic orbit' trajectory that satisfies the
that satisfy the biased equations of motion. The modified equations of motion and closes itself due to the periodicity
trace can be used next to refine the velocity and acceleration in the forcing function with a period of two years.
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 51

is much less than the deviation relative to XN axis in XN YN

L2 Trace
plane. The Earth–Moon distance varies between am (1 − em )
0.02 Equilibrum Orbit and am (1 + em ). Using the data provided in Table 1 the
L2 (in RTBP)
Earth–Moon distance is at least 366,000 km. So, the 0.001
units in the N system means more than 366 km, which is
0.01 significant for detailed analyses.
The effect of the Sun on the equilibrium points L1 and
L2 of the Earth–Moon system is investigated in this section.
For mass ratios  and  other than for the Sun–Earth–Moon
y

0
system, the results will be different and are discussed in the
following sections.

-0.01
3.2. Stability analysis

The eigenvalues of the CRTBP with  = 0.01215058561

-0.02 for L1 and L2 are
1.155 1.16 1.165 1.17 1.175
x
1,2 = ±2.9320559336, 3,4 = ±2.3343858851i,
0.0008 5,6 = ±2.2688310950i
0.0007 L2 Trace
Equilibrum Orbit
0.0006 L2 (in RTBP)
and

0.0005 1,2 = ±2.1586743203, 3,4 = ±1.8626458622i,

0.0004 5,6 = ±1.7861761429i
0.0003
respectively. The stable and unstable manifolds of the sys-
0.0002
z

tem for L1 and L2 are due to 1,2 . The behavior of the pe-
0.0001 riodic and quasi-periodic orbits of a system can be studied
0 utilizing the monodromy matrix. If X(t, X0 ) is the solution of
-0.0001 the differential equation set Ẋ = g(X) with initial condition
X0 , the monodromy matrix (t0 , t) is defined as the differ-
-0.0002
ential of the solution X(t, X0 ) to the initial condition X0 after
-0.0003 a period of T. The differential equation for the monodromy
-0.0004 matrix is as follows:
1.155 1.16 1.165 1.17 1.175
x
˙ (t0 , t) = Dg (t0 , t)
 (22)
Fig. 4. Trace of L2 quasi-equilibrium point over two years and quasi-pe-
riodic orbit around it in the (a) XN YN plane and (b) XN ZN plane.
Implementing the above methodology using the data pro-
vided in Tables 1 and 2, the closed orbits are found after five
iterations. The resulting orbits around L1 and L2 are shown
with the initial condition (t, t0 ) = I, which I is the identity
matrix. Dg is a matrix representing the partial derivative
of the right hand side of differential equations, g(X), to the
states. The solution of Eq. (22) is generally named as the
fundamental solution matrix. Eq. (22) should be solved with
initial condition through a period of quasi-periodic orbit T
in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. As can be seen, the proposed to find (0, T) as monodromy matrix.
scheme has converged toward the solution quickly and in For simplicity, the equations of motion derived in Section
the presence of asymmetry of the motion of the primaries 2 can be expressed in the following format:
(mostly due to the eccentricity and the argument of periap- ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
sis of the primaries elliptic orbits) as well as non-harmonic
¨ x −2˙ m ( 1
˙ x −
˙ y ) x (t, q)
⎝
¨ ⎠ = ⎝ −2˙ m (
˙ +
˙ ) ⎠ + f(t) + ⎝ y (t, q) ⎠ (23)
starting condition (due to the initial true anomalies of the y 1 y x

Moon's and EMB's elliptic orbits).

¨ z −2˙ m 1
˙ z z (t, q)
The revolution of the Sun around the origin of the EMB
in which
system causes the invariant orbits near L1 and L2 to have
significant y components. The deviation of the L2 invariant  
( − 1) r12 r13
orbit relative to XN axis in XN YN plane is an order of magni- f(t) = (1 − ) + (24a)
r3 3
r12 3
r13
tude larger than L1. This result is justifiable considering the
fact that L2 is farther from the Earth than L1. Therefore, the
Sun influences L2 of the Earth–Moon system more than L1. ˙ 2m
(t, q) = ( 3
2x + 3
2y − 2
2z )
The inclination of the Moon's orbit causes the out of plane 2
motion of the invariant orbits. Due to even a small 5◦ of in- ( − 1) (1 − ) 
+ + 3 + 3 (24b)
clination, the deviation of the orbits from the XN YN plane r3 r14 r r24 r r34
52 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

By defining the state vector X such that: 1 +

X = (q q̇)T = (
x
y
z
˙ x
˙ y
˙ z )T (25) +
0.75
L5 Trace
the partial derivative matrix of the right-hand side of the
0.5 L4 Trace
differential equations is L3 Trace
+ Lagrange Points (in RTBP)
⎛ ⎞ 0.25
0 0 0 1 0 0 Primaries (Earth-Moon)
⎜ 0 0 0 0 1 0 ⎟ + Sample (120th day)
⎜ ⎟ 0 ++
⎜ 0 ⎟

y
0 0 0 0 1
Dg = ⎜⎜ xx xy xz −2˙ m
⎟ (26)
⎟
⎜ 1 2˙ m 0 ⎟ -0.25
⎝   −2˙ −2˙ 0 ⎠
yx yy yz m m 1
zx zy zz 0 0 −2˙ m 1 -0.5
where -0.75 +
  +
( − 1) 3(
x + Rx )2
xx = ˙ 2m 3 − 3
1− 2
-1
r3 r14 r14
  -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
(1 − ) 3(
x + )2
− 3
1 − 2 x
r3 r24 r24
 
 3(
x − 1 + )2 Fig. 5. Traces of the L3, L4 and L5 quasi-equilibria over two years in the
− 3
1− 2
(27a) XN YN plane.
r3 r34 r34
  for the system under study for the period of two years. To
( − 1) 3(
y + Ry )2
yy = ˙ 2m 3 − 3
1− 2
find a criteria for the level of instability, the monodromy
r3 r14 r14 matrix is computed after only one month (one revolution of
 
(1 − ) 3
y2
the Moon around the Earth), the eigenvalues of which for L1
− 1− 2
3
r3 r24 r24 and L2 are
 
 3
2y 1 = 1.4325 × 108 , 2 = 5.3265 × 10−8 ,
− 1 − (27b)
3
r3 r34 2
r34 3,4 = −0.6813 ± 0.7320i, 5,6 = −0.3487 ± 0.9373i
 
( − 1) 3(
z + Rz )2 and
zz = − ˙ 2m 2 − 3 3 1− 2
r r r14 1 = 3.3272 × 105 , 2 = 3.0056 × 10−6 ,
 14 
(1 − ) 3
2 3,4 = −0.2055 ± 0.9787i, 5,6 = −0.25911 ± 0.9658i
− 3
1 − 2z
r r24
3 r24
  respectively. As noted, the magnitudes of the two complex
 3
2z conjugate pairs are almost one and these eigenvalues are
− 3
1− 2 (27c)
r3 r34 r34 related to center×center dynamics near L1 and L2. The pair
1,2 are almost inverse of each other and are related to the
3( − 1)(
x + Rx )(
y + Ry )
xy = yx = hyperbolic characteristics of the quasi-periodic orbit. The
5
r3 r14 eigenvector corresponding to 1 gives the expansive direc-
3(1 − )(
x + )
y tion of the quasi-periodic solution. The large values of 1 for
+ 5 quasi-periodic orbits of L1 and L2 shows the high level of
r3 r24
instability in these orbits.
3(
x − 1 + )
y
+ 5
(27d)
r3 r34 3.3. Other quasi-equilibrium points
3( − 1)(
x + Rx )(
z + Rz )
xz = zx = 5 In this study, the changes in the Lagrange points of the
r3 r14
Earth–Moon RTBP system are of primary interest. The BEP
3(1 − )(
x + )
z
+ model is also developed in this way. So, in spite of the fact
5
r3 r24 that it is possible to find quasi-equilibrium points far from
3(
x − 1 + )
z the Earth–Moon system, the set of quasi-equilibrium points
+ 5
(27e)
r3 r34 within the realm of the Earth–Moon RTBP is of immediate
concern.
3( − 1)(
y + Ry )(
z + Rz ) For the BEP with real Sun–Earth–Moon parameter val-
yz = zy = 5
r3 r14 ues, the variation in L1 and L2 is small and the closed orbits
3(1 − )
y
z 3
y
z could be found. But, for the other libration points L3 to L5
+ 5
+ 5
(27f) the results are totally different. The initial trace of quasi-
r3 r24 r3 r34
equilibrium points with the data of Tables 1 and 2 are shown
The period of closed orbits of L1 and L2 shown in Figs. 3 in Fig. 5. As evidenced by this graph, the variations in L3, L4,
and 4, respectively, is two years. Solution of Eq. (22) diverges and L5 are so large that cannot be traced via an un-propelled
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 53

1.6
L5 Trace
1 L4 Trace 1.4 L5 Trace
L3 Trace L4 Trace
0.8 1.2 L3 Trace

0.6 1

0.4 0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
xL

yL
0.2
-0.2
0
-0.4 -0.2
-0.6 -0.4
-0.8 -0.6

-1 -0.8
-1
-1.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -1.2
t (day) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
t (day)

Magnified Zone
1.2 Magnified Zone
1.6
1 L5 Trace
L4 Trace 1.4
L3 Trace L5 Trace
0.8 L4 Trace
1.2 L3 Trace
0.6 1
0.4 0.8
0.2 0.6
0.4
xL

0
yL

0.2
-0.2
0
-0.4
-0.2
-0.6
-0.4
-0.8 -0.6
-1 -0.8
-1.2 -1
280 300 320 340 360
-1.2
t (day) 280 300 320 340 360
t (day)
Fig. 6. x-coordinate time history of the L3, L4 and L5 quasi-equilibrium
points. Fig. 7. y-coordinate time history of the L3, L4 and L5 quasi-equilibrium
points.

spacecraft. It means that the velocity and acceleration re-

quirements are such that cannot be generated solely by the
gravitational field of the primaries. The variation of L3 trace
in time overlaps those of L4 and L5.
Another interesting phenomenon that appears in the
system under study is that at some intervals of time there
are more than five quasi-equilibria present in the system.
One sample of such conditions occurs for the 120th day
from the initial condition noted in Fig. 5 with `+'. To see
this phenomenon clearly, the x and y coordinates of the
quasi-equilibrium points L3 to L5 are plotted vs. time in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. As can be seen in these graphs,
when the trace of Lagrange points L3 to L5 are followed, for
some intervals of time each of the branches of L3, L4, or L5
traces break into three points. Days 287 and 308 from the
start time are specifically marked in the magnified graphs of
Figs. 6 and 7. On the 287th day, there are three
quasi-equilibria for L4 and on the 308th day there are three
quasi-equilibria for L3. The branches are found by time
marching and determining the closest quasi-equilibria to
each Lagrange point. For example, it is shown in a magni-
fication of the graph of Fig. 7 that the y component of the
L3 branch varies from −1 to +1 in a short period of time,
but still the points belong to the L3 branch due to con-
tinuation of the marching process involved in finding the
quasi-equilibria.
One of direct and simple conclusions drawn from the
results of Figs. 6 and 7 is that for the time at which one
of branches break into three points, the other branches
have only one solution. So, the maximum number of quasi-
equilibrium points at each point in time does not exceed
54 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

9
1.5
8
1
No. of Quasi-Equilibria

7
0.5

xL
0

5
-0.5

4 -1

3 -1.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (day) t (day)

Fig. 8. Number of quasi-equilibria found as a function of time for the

Sun–Earth–Moon system. 1.5

0.5
yL

-0.5

-1

-1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
t (day)

Fig. 10. x- and y-coordinate time histories of the quasi-equilibrium points

for  = 0.3,  = 1.0 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.

Fig. 9. Maximum number of quasi-equilibria for various mass ratios with

ae /am = 391.36.
seven. The number of quasi-equilibrium points as a function
of time is plotted in Fig. 8.
3.4. Parametric study
The quasi-equilibria which appear and vanish in time
can be used as transition or maneuver points in the field of
advanced mission design and trajectory optimization. This is
because the acceleration due to the primaries in the rotating
coordinate system is zero for these quasi-equilibria.
The results of the previous sections for the Sun–Earth–
Moon system reinforce the idea of having more or less
quasi-equilibria at the different values of mass ratios. So, a
parametric study is done for the purpose of analyzing the
effect of defining parameters of the BEP (,  and ae /am ,
etc.) on the appearance of quasi-equilibria. For this analy-
sis, the elliptic orbits should be defined. For each ,  and
gravitational parameter of the Earth, Gm2 is fixed and Gm1
and Gm3 are computed for the corresponding  and :

Gm3 = Gm2 (28a)
1−
Gm1 = ( − 1)(Gm2 + Gm3 ) (28b)
Any scaling factor of Gmi 's does not affect the result of our
qualitative analysis and only changes the time unit.
For the purpose of this parametric study, the orbital ele-
ments: argument of periapsis, right ascension of the ascend-
ing node, and the initial true anomalies of the elliptic orbits
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 55

1
+ 1
+
+
0.5 Trace of Quasi-Equilibrium Points
Lagrange Points in CRTBP
Primaries
+ Sample (14th day) 0.5

0 + +
y

xL
0
-0.5
+
+
+ -0.5
-1

-1 0 1 -1
x 0 10 20
t (day)
Fig. 11. Trace of quasi-equilibrium points in the XN YN plane for  = 0.3,
 = 1.0 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.
1

are set to zero. These parameters just distort the graphs and
have no significant effect. The inclination of elliptic orbits 0.5
just creates a z component for the quasi-equilibria, so is as-
sumed to be zero.
Initially, the eccentricities are also set to zero. Due to
zero inclination, there is no z component in the quasi-
yL

equilibrium points. The semi-major axes are the same as
the Sun–Earth–Moon system (Table 1). So, the change in
R have a period larger than r. To follow all the changes in
the dynamics of the motion, a period equal to twice of the
period of the motion of the m2 − m3 barycenter around m1
is selected as final time. For the different values of  and ,
the maximum number of quasi-equilibrium points are com-
puted. The results are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that for
some combination of mass ratios the maximum number of
quasi-equilibria may be three, five, seven, or nine. For very
small values of  and moderate values of , the number of
quasi-equilibria is five.
As it was seen in the real Sun–Earth–Moon BEP, five
branches of quasi-equilibria can produce seven quasi-
equilibria for some time intervals. These branches can also
produce nine quasi-equilibria at different mass ratios. How-
ever, for some combinations of mass ratios, there are only
three branches that can either have five or seven quasi-
equilibria for some time intervals.
A typical sample point of  = 0.3,  = 1.0 × 107 corre-
sponding to nine quasi-equilibrium points is selected from
Fig. 9. Time history of the x and y coordinates of the result-
ing quasi-equilibrium points are plotted in Fig. 10. It can be
seen that simultaneous break-down of two branches causes
the nine quasi-equilibrium points to appear at some instants
of time. The trace of these quasi-equilibrium points in XN YN
plane is plotted in Fig. 11. Sample quasi-equilibrium points
on the14th day are also marked with `+'. Comparison with
the Lagrange points of the corresponding CRTBP system in-
spires that for the selected combination of mass ratios, the
L2 point no longer exists. The L1 trace is still near the L1 of
0
-0.5
-1
0 10 20
t (day)
Fig. 12. x- and y-coordinate time histories of the quasi-equilibrium points
for  = 0.48,  = 3.4 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.
the corresponding CRTBP system. The L1 trace in Fig. 10 is
near xL = 0.3 and yL = 0. Other four branches overlap each
other at some stages of time.
For a maximum of three quasi-equilibrium points, there
are only two regions in Fig. 9. At first, a point  = 0.48,
 = 3.4 × 107 is selected from the top-left portion of this fig-
ure. Its corresponding time histories are shown in Fig. 12.
Due to choosing  near 0.5, L1 is almost near the origin
(Fig. 13) and two other branches exist, which wrap the pri-
maries.
In addition, the other region in which there are at most
three quasi-equilibrium points in the bottom-right corner of
Fig. 9 is also further studied. A sample point with  = 0.06,
 = 8.0 × 107 is selected from this region, and interestingly,
the results are different from the previous one. The time his-
tories of the x and y coordinates of quasi-equilibrium points
56 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58

0.5
+
Trace of Quasi-Equilibrium Points
Lagrange Points in CRTBP
Primaries 0.5
+ Sample (10th day)

0
y

xL
0

+
-0.5
-0.5

-1
-1
-1 0 1
0 5 10 15 20
x
t (day)
Fig. 13. Trace of quasi-equilibrium points in the XN YN plane for  = 0.48,
 = 3.4 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.

are show in Fig. 14, and the trace in XN YN plane is plotted in 0.5
Fig. 15. As it can be seen this time, the L1 no longer exists
and one quasi-equilibrium point revolves around the minor
primary and the two other quasi-equilibrium points revolve
around the major primary. Keep in mind that the  and 
values of the Sun–Earth–Moon system are almost 0.012 and
yL

3×105 , respectively (Table 2). Therefore, if the mass of the
Sun was 200 times its current mass, and the ratio ae /am was
the same as current value, with no eccentricity and inclina-
tion, the Lagrange points would not have been established
in the Earth–Moon system at all.
Similar to the Gm scaling effect mentioned earlier in this
section, different values of ae and am would also yield similar
results, only with different time units as long as the ratio
ae /am is kept constant. Thus, for analyzing the effect of semi-
major axes, the ratio ae /am is divided by 2. The maximum
number of quasi-equilibria as a function of mass ratios is
plotted in Fig. 16 for this condition. It is realized from this
graph that the results are almost the same, qualitatively. It
means that if one looks at the Fig. 9 in the range  < 1 × 108
and looks at Fig. 16 in the range  < 1.5 × 107 , the graphs
look very similar. However, the transitions between different
numbers of quasi-equilibria occur at different values of .
The eccentricity of the orbit of m2 −m3 barycenter around
m1 has small effect on the results. However, the eccentricity
em of the elliptic orbit of m3 around m2 has a major impact
on the results. The maximum number of quasi-equilibria as
a function of mass ratios is plotted in Fig. 17 for ee = 0.1.
4. Concluding remarks
A new R4BP model named as BiElliptic problem has been
introduced. The BEP can be applied to the motion of an in-
finitesimal particle in the gravitational field of three bodies;
two of them revolve around their barycenter, while their
barycenter revolves around a third body. The BEP can model
the non-coplanar motion of primaries and can be initiated
0
-0.5
0 5 10 15 20
t (day)
Fig. 14. x- and y-coordinate time histories of the quasi-equilibrium points
for  = 0.06,  = 8.0 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.
with the real orbital elements of celestial bodies in the So-
lar system. The BEP model is used to compute the closed
orbits near L1 and L2 of the Earth–Moon system in the pres-
ence of the Sun. The highly unstable invariant quasi-periodic
orbits of L1 and L2 are computed based on the trace of
the Sun–Earth–Moon quasi-equilibria. The trace of quasi-
equilibria of the system is found by freezing the time and
finding the equilibrium points of the resulting system. The
traces of quasi-equilibria for the L3, L4 and L5 reveal that
for some intervals of time the Sun–Earth–Moon BEP has
more than five quasi-equilibrium points. This phenomenon
brought to mind the idea of searching for additional or fewer
quasi-equilibria at the different mass ratios of the system.
The idea has been followed and the results show that for
some values of mass ratios the L1 and L2 equilibrium points
of the corresponding RTBP totally vanish.
 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58 57

1
Trace of Quasi-Equilibrium Points
Lagrange Points in CRTBP
Primaries
+ Sample (10th day)

0.5

0
y

+
+

-0.5

-1
-1 0 1
x
Fig. 17. Maximum number of quasi-equilibria for various mass ratios with
Fig. 15. Trace of quasi-equilibrium points in the XN YN plane for  = 0.06, ae /am = 391.36 and em = 0.1.
 = 8.0 × 107 , and ae /am = 391.36.

[6] E. Castellà, À. Jorba, On the vertical families of two-dimensional

Fig. 16. Maximum number of quasi-equilibria for various mass ratios with
ae /am = 195.68.
References
[1] G. Gómez, À. Jorba, C. Simó, Dynamics and Mission Design Near
Libration Points, Vol. III: Advanced Methods for Collinear Points,
World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
[2] K.R. Meyer, G.R. Hall, Introduction to Hamiltonian dynamical systems
and the N-body problem, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 90,
Springer, New York, 1992.
[3] V. Szebehely, Theory of Orbits: The Restricted Problem of Three
Bodies, Academic Press, New York, 1967.
[4] J.M. Cors, C. Pinyol, J. Soler, Periodic solutions in the spatial elliptic
restricted three-body problem, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 154
(2001) 195–206.
[5] J.F. Palacián, P. Yanguas, S. Fernández, M.A. Nicotra, Searching for
periodic orbits of the spatial elliptic restricted three-body problem
by double averaging, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 213 (2006)
15–24.
tori near the triangular points of the bicircular problem, Celestial
Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 76 (2000) 35–54.
[7] À. Jorba, A numerical study on the existence of stable motions near
the triangular points of the real Earth–Moon system, Astronomy and
Astrophysics 364 (2000) 327–338.
[8] M.A. Andreu, C. Simó, Translunar Halo orbits in the quasi-bicircular
problem, Universitat de Barcelona (UB) and Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona UB-UPC Dynamical Systems Group,
Preprints 1997, http://www.maia.ub.es/dsg/1997/9701andreu.ps.gz
accessed at 14 June 2008.
[9] M.A. Andreu, Preliminary study on the translunar Halo orbits of
the real Earth–Moon system, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Astronomy 86 (2003) 107–130.
[10] K.C. Howell, D.B. Spencer, Periodic orbits in the restricted four-body
problem, Acta Astronautica 13 (8) (1986) 473–479.
[11] F. Gabern, À. Jorba, A restricted four-body model for the dynamics
near the Lagrangian points of the Sun–Jupiter system, Discrete and
Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series B 1 (2) (2001) 143–182.
[12] D.J. Scheeres, The restricted hill four-body problem with applications
to the Earth–Moon–Sun system, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Astronomy 70 (1998) 75–98.
[13] V. Szebehely, E.O. Giacaglia, On the elliptic restricted problem of
three bodies, Astronomical Journal 69 (3) (1964) 230–235.
[14] G. Gómez, M. Ollé, A note on the elliptic restricted three-body
problem, Celestial Mechanics 39 (1986) 33–55.
[15] T. Ouyang, Z. Xie, Collinear central configuration in four-body
problem, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 93 (2005)
147–166.
[16] E.A. Lacomba, E. Pérez-Chavela, Motions close to escapes in the
rhomboidal four body problem, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Astronomy 57 (1993) 411–437.
[17] K.H. Tsui, Satellite capture in a four-body system, Planet. Space Sci.
50 (2002) 269–276.
[18] D.J. Scheeres, J. Bellerose, The restricted Hill full 4-body problem:
application to spacecraft motion about binary asteroids, Dyn. Sys. Int.
J. 20 (1) (2005) 23–44.
[19] A. Majorana, On a four-body problem, Celestial Mechanics and
Dynamical Astronomy 25 (1981) 267–270.
[20] J. Cronin, P.B. Richards, L.H. Russell, Some periodic solutions of a
four-body problem, Icarus 3 (1964) 423–428.
[21] A. Prado, Numerical and analytical study of the gravitational capture
in the bicircular problem, Advances in Space Research 36 (2005) 578
–584.
[22] E. Castellà, À. Jorba, The Lagrangian points of the real Earth–Moon
system, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Differential
Equations, EQUADIFF 2003, Belgium, 2003, pp. 3–12.
[23] M.A. Andreu, The quasi-bicircular problem, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Barcelona, 1998.
58 N. Assadian, S.H. Pourtakdoust / Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 45 -- 58
[24] M.A. Andreu, C. Simó, The quasi-bicircular problem for the
Earth–Moon–Sun parameters. Universitat de Barcelona (UB) and
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona UB-UPC
Dynamical Systems Group, Preprints 2000, http://www.maia.ub.
es/dsg/2000/0002andreu.ps.gz accessed at 14 June 2008.
[25] M.A. Andreu, Dynamics in the center manifold around L2 in the quasi-
bicircular problem, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 84
(2002) 105–133.
[26] P. Musen, L. Carpenter, On the general planetary perturbations in
rectangular coordinates, Journal of Geophysical Research 68 (9) (1963)
2727–2734.
[27] R. Kolenkiewicz, L. Carpenter, Periodic motion around the triangular
libration point in the restricted problem of four bodies, Astronomical
Journal 72 (2) (1967) 180–183.
[28] JPL HORIZONS on-line solar system data and ephemeris computation
service, http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi accessed at 14 June 2008.
[29] F. Gabern, À. Jorba, Generalizing the restricted three-body problem.
The bianular and tricircular coherent problems, Astronomy and
Astrophysics 420 (2) (2004) 751–762.
[30] F. Gabern, À. Jorba, Restricted four and five-body problems in the Solar
system, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Libration
Point Orbits and Applications, Girona, Spain, 2002.