Sie sind auf Seite 1von 78

Spacecraft transfers to the L3 point of the Sun-Earth system

Celestial Mechanics Working Seminar Universitat de Barcelona - 18 Nov. 2009


E.Fantino, M.Tantardini, Y.Ren, P.Pergola, G.Gmez, J.Masdemont o

The solution to a new ight dynamics problem as a journey into orbital mechanics and multi-body dynamics

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3 L3 : a hard place to live

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3 L3 : a hard place to live Classical, high-thrust two-body maneuvers (HT)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3 L3 : a hard place to live Classical, high-thrust two-body maneuvers (HT) Gravity assisted patched conics with optimization (GA)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3 L3 : a hard place to live Classical, high-thrust two-body maneuvers (HT) Gravity assisted patched conics with optimization (GA) Invariant manifold strategy (IM)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Contents

Statement of the problem Scientic objectives of a mission to L3 L3 : a hard place to live Classical, high-thrust two-body maneuvers (HT) Gravity assisted patched conics with optimization (GA) Invariant manifold strategy (IM) Low-thrust optimal problem (LT)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Statement of the problem

L3 is the third collinear libration point in the Sun-Earth CR3BP

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Statement of the problem

L3 is the third collinear libration point in the Sun-Earth CR3BP Position in synodical barycentric coordinates obtained by solution of quintic Lagrange equation: x = 1.0000012668, r1 = 0.9999982264 slightly inner orbit wrt Earths

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Statement of the problem

L3 is the third collinear libration point in the Sun-Earth CR3BP Position in synodical barycentric coordinates obtained by solution of quintic Lagrange equation: x = 1.0000012668, r1 = 0.9999982264 slightly inner orbit wrt Earths Getting there is essentially a re-phasing problem = add 180 in true anomaly

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Whereas both L1 and L2 have been exploited for a long time as host places for space probes, no space mission has ever been sent to L3

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

What science from L3?

solar physics

relativity

asteroids

Space weather / solar activity monitoring


supplementary observations (wrt L1 or Earth) part of a formation of s/c around the Sun

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

What science from L3?

solar physics

relativity

asteroids

Space weather / solar activity monitoring


supplementary observations (wrt L1 or Earth) part of a formation of s/c around the Sun

Fundamental physics experiments: gravitational light bending


follow-up of Cassini/Huygens radio science measurements

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

What science from L3?

solar physics

relativity

asteroids

Space weather / solar activity monitoring


supplementary observations (wrt L1 or Earth) part of a formation of s/c around the Sun

Fundamental physics experiments: gravitational light bending


follow-up of Cassini/Huygens radio science measurements

Tracking of hidden NEOs: blind spot at superior conjunction with the Sun

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

The adversities at L3
Communicating with the Earth large orbits (Halo or Lyapunov 0.1 AU in y ) or relay satellites at L4 /L5

Gravitational perturbations (Jupiter, Venus) station keeping strategy

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

HT in Sun-s/c 2BP
High-thrust engines impulsive V s Keplerian (two-body), heliocentric orbits Planar approximation Connecting conic arcs with maneuvers at the patch points in order to eliminate discontinuities in the velocity vectors Note that the Hohman transfer is not applicable here: transfer from/to the same circular orbit with one 180o elliptical arc and two tangential burns can only be made through the circular orbit itself at arrival the s/c encounters the Earth, not L3 !

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic transfer (1/2)

three-burns, two half elliptic arcs, total transfer angle = 2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic transfer (1/2)

three-burns, two half elliptic arcs, total transfer angle = 2 requirement: arrival point be in opposition to the Earth a relation between sum of transfer times on the two elliptic orbits and Earths orbital period: (ra + rb )3 + 8GM (rb + rc )3 n = T , 8GM 2 n = 1, 3, 5, ...

thus providing the distance rb .

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic transfer (2/2)

Note that Vb << Best option: n = 3, TOF = 1.5 years, V = 6.7 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Two-tangent burn transfer


At the limit in which the dierence between departure and arrival orbits is neglected the apoapsis maneuver (Vb ) disappears the transfer covers one full ellipse

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic one-tangent burn transfer (1/2)

two elliptic arcs (e1 and e2 ), total transfer angle < 2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic one-tangent burn transfer (1/2)

two elliptic arcs (e1 and e2 ), total transfer angle < 2 three-burns: one tangential (Va )

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Bi-elliptic one-tangent burn transfer (2/2)


Timing/phasing requirement: (ra + rb )3 n + Te2 = T , 8GM 2 n = 1, 3, 5, ...

Given n and rb , Te2 allows to solve the Lambert problem for the second arc. For = 270 , the best option ies to 1.7 AU, costs 16.9 km/s, and takes 1 year and 3 months

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (1/2)

many (m) revolutions on one and the same ellipse

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (1/2)

many (m) revolutions on one and the same ellipse at each rev. a phase dierence wrt the Earth is gained: = /m

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (1/2)

many (m) revolutions on one and the same ellipse at each rev. a phase dierence wrt the Earth is gained: = /m two burns: one to insert, one to leave

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (1/2)

many (m) revolutions on one and the same ellipse at each rev. a phase dierence wrt the Earth is gained: = /m two burns: one to insert, one to leave 2m + 1 transfer time Tm : Tm = T , m = 1, 2, 3, ... 2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (1/2)

many (m) revolutions on one and the same ellipse at each rev. a phase dierence wrt the Earth is gained: = /m two burns: one to insert, one to leave 2m + 1 transfer time Tm : Tm = T , m = 1, 2, 3, ... 2 time/rev. Te = Tm /m and apoapsis distance rb = 2a ra

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Multi-revolution transfer (2/2)

Trade-o between TOF and V m = 2 4 TOF = 2.5 4.5 yrs; V = 4 2.5 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Optimized GA patched conics


Assumptions: 3D Patched Conics method

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Optimized GA patched conics


Assumptions: 3D Patched Conics method Two-Body models: Sun-s/c, planet - s/c

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

... assumptions

The planetary motion is modelled by means of ephemerides (in the form of interpolating polynomials)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

... assumptions

The planetary motion is modelled by means of ephemerides (in the form of interpolating polynomials) L3 geometrically dened: Earths true anomaly + 180o

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

... assumptions

The planetary motion is modelled by means of ephemerides (in the form of interpolating polynomials) L3 geometrically dened: Earths true anomaly + 180o Arrival event: L3 is modeled as a planet with zero mass

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

... assumptions

The planetary motion is modelled by means of ephemerides (in the form of interpolating polynomials) L3 geometrically dened: Earths true anomaly + 180o Arrival event: L3 is modeled as a planet with zero mass Impulsive maneuvers only (= no low-thrust)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

... assumptions

The planetary motion is modelled by means of ephemerides (in the form of interpolating polynomials) L3 geometrically dened: Earths true anomaly + 180o Arrival event: L3 is modeled as a planet with zero mass Impulsive maneuvers only (= no low-thrust) Maneuvers are only allowed at the swingby pericenters

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (1/6)
Given: start date (and position), end date (and position), names and order (= sequence) of n planets to be encountered and dates of encounters, a trajectory is designed by solving n + 1 3D Lambert problems, estimating one V for each planetary encounter: it has to be provided by planet + engine, computing the swingby parameters (orbital elements of the hyperbolas)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (2/6)
A few words on the swingby: Vi Vo = = vi vP vo vP

If Vi = Vo the swingby is natural. In general, this does not occur, and incoming and outgoing hyperbolas are dierent: = +

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (3/6)
But we can impose that they pass through a common pericenter (rm ) where the dierence in the velocity vectors is supplied by the engine (if possible) Vo Vi Vi Vo 1 ; 2 2 1 + Vi /Vcm GMP rm

sin( + + ) sin +
2 Vcm

= = =

sin =

1 2 2 1 + Vo /Vcm

Hence, rm is the unknown to be determined as solution of a nonlinear equation sin1 Finally: V = Vm+ Vm =
2 Vo + 2GMP /rm 2 Vi + 2GMP /rm

Vo Vi Vi Vo

= sin1

1 2 2 1 + Vi /Vcm

+ sin1

1 2 2 1 + Vo /Vcm

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (4/6)
Optimization problem with: n planetary swinbgys

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (4/6)
Optimization problem with: n planetary swinbgys n + 2 dates ( = n swingbys + departure + arrival)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (4/6)
Optimization problem with: n planetary swinbgys n + 2 dates ( = n swingbys + departure + arrival) n + 2 (potential) maneuvers

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (4/6)
Optimization problem with: n planetary swinbgys n + 2 dates ( = n swingbys + departure + arrival) n + 2 (potential) maneuvers a set of nonlinear constraints wrt minimum swinbgy altitude

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (5/6)
Objective function to be minimized:
n

C = Vd + Va +
i=0

VGAi + Wi

(RPi + hmin i ri )2 2 RPi

At the i th swingby: VGAi = magnitude of periapsis maneuver RPi = equatorial radius of the planet ri = periapsis distance of the current solution hmin i = minimum allowed swingby altitude Wi = weight (0 or 10 100)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Procedure (6/6)
Optimization strategy: 1. Initial guesses (= dates) are given by a global optimizer: genetic algorithm (when n >>) or grid search on a discrete range of dates (when n = 1, 2). 2. Look for local optimization based on varying the dates, aiming at minimum of C with SQP/Simplex algorithm: at each iteration a full trajectory from departure to arrival is computed, and the objective function is evaluated.

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Example of grid search: EVL3

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Sequences
Pl. sequence EEL3 E4r1 E2r2 L3 E2r1 E2r2 L3 EL3 EML3 EVVEL3 EVEML3 EMEL3 EMVL3 EVEL3 EVML3 EVVL3 VTot 3.80 4.72 4.95 6.57 6.26 6.94 7.89 9.85 11.65 11.80 12.82 14.40 VB 2.80 4.13 4.31 0.01 18.57 10.77 2.40 8.18 13.01 9.27 10.22 TOF 586 2674 2321 548 560 1248 1080 1236 757 859 737 964

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Earth-Mars-L3

TOF = 1 y 195 d Vd = 3.22 km/s Va = 3.04 km/s VTot = 6.26 km/s Mars swingby: TOF to encounter = 341 d V = 0 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Earth-Venus-Venus-Earth-L3

TOF = 3 y 122 d Vd = 3.0 km/s Va = 3.7 km/s Vtot = 6.9 km/s Venus swingby: TOF to encounter = 172 d V = 0.07 km/s Venus swingby: TOF to encounter = 449 d V = 0 km/s Earth swingby: TOF to encounter = 84 d V = 0.12 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Earth-Earth-L3

TOF = 1 y 221 d Vd = 0.0014 km/s Va = 3.29 km/s Vtot = 3.8 km/s Earth swingby: TOF to encounter = 39 d V = 0.51 km/s Very low (< 0.5 km/s) incoming relative speed TO BE VERIFIED!

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Feasible alternative: resonant swingbys

Introduce two intermediate elliptical orbits with semimajor axis 1 AU, so that they are cheap to reach and leave, and resonant with the Earth: after a number of revolutions on the rst ellipse, the s/c encounters the Earth where the swingby occurs BUT it is fast. After the swingby, the s/c and enters the second ellipse and after the appropriate number of revolutions returns to the orbit of the Earth to encounter L3 . Rather cheap (4 km/s), feasible, BUT long (>> 2000 days).

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

An inner resonant swingby

TOF = 7 yrs 4 months Vd = 2.5 km/s Va = 2.1 km/s Vtot = 4.7 km/s Earth swingby: TOF to encounter = 4 yrs V = 0.08 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

An outer resonant swingby

TOF = 6 yrs 6 months Vd = 2.6 km/s Va = 2.3 km/s Vtot = 4.9 km/s Earth swingby: TOF to encounter = 4 yrs V = 0.08 km/s

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

IM transfers

Genesis

Herschel/Planck

Genesis and Herschel/Planck eciently used the IMs of periodic orbits around L1 and L2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

IM transfers

Genesis

Herschel/Planck

Genesis and Herschel/Planck eciently used the IMs of periodic orbits around L1 and L2 How about using the IMs of periodic orbits around L3 to send a s/c there?

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

IM transfers

Genesis

Herschel/Planck

Genesis and Herschel/Planck eciently used the IMs of periodic orbits around L1 and L2 How about using the IMs of periodic orbits around L3 to send a s/c there? How do these objects look like?

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Horseshoe motion
We know that in the range 0 < < 0.01174 the IMs of L3 have a horseshoe shape [Barrabs & Oll (2006)]. e e In particular, it holds for = 3.0404234 106 . And it can be extended to the IMs of planar Lyapunov orbits of L3 . Examples of natural objects: Saturns co-orbital satellites Janus and Epimetheus (Voyager). some near-Earth asteroids (e.g., Asteroid 2002 AA29)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Planar Lyapunov orbits around L3

74 planar Lyapunov orbits of L3 with J in [2.9855538, 3.0000061] x-amplitude in [104 , 101 ] AU and y -amplitude up to 0.25 AU

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

IMs
The time to approach the progenitor Lyapunov orbit from the point of closest approach to the Earth depends on 1/3 [Font (1990)] (1/2 for L1 and L2 ) and this justies the large times found throughout the family wrt the typical times covered by IMs of L1 and L2 :

700 yrs

800 yrs

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

An alternative? Unstable IMs of L1/L2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Propellant and time budget (1/2)


We chose a Poincare section at y = 0 (one might obtain better results on other sections). There from each pair [manifold trajectory, Lyapunov orbit] intersecting at a given x coordinate, the insertion maneuver Vi is computed: Vi = xIM + (yIM yLy ) 2 2 2

The time of ight varies with the trajectory on the manifold. The variations are approx. the same on the two manifolds. The TOF can be represented as a function of the location of the starting point (IC) on the progenitor L1 /L2 Lyapunov (given as a time in units of the period).

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Propellant and time budget (2/2)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

LT transfers
Assumptions: Planar Sun-s/c two-body model Electrical engine always ON, providing constant thrust Departure from the surface of Earths sphere of inuence, from either L1 or L2 Arrival: s/c at rest at L3

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Dynamical equations
GM T x + x r3 m GM T y = 3 y + y r m T m = g0 Isp x =

(1) (2)

where: T = thrust (force) provided by the engine = 90 mN m = s/c mass = 500 kg g0 = gravitational acceleration at the Earths surface Isp = specic impulse of the engine = 3100 s = (x , y ) = direction of thrust (unit vector)

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Optimal control
The trajectory is solved as an optimal control problem (see Yuans lecture on optimal control, 2008): nd the thrust direction which minimizes the mass consumption = the transfer time H GM = v 3 r r H = r v H T = v 2 m m 3GM T r v r5

r v m

= = =

H = Hamiltonian of the system: H = T v + T r v GM T T r + m r3 m g0 Isp

T , T , m = Lagrange multipliers (or costates) associated with position r, r v velocity v and mass m.

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Optimal control
Optimal thrust vector is obtained by setting H/ = 0 with the normalization constraint T = 1. the optimal control is: = v v

Nonlinear constrained optimization problem (solved with SNOPT). The optimization parameters are the initial values (t = 0) of the costates and the time of ight. The performance index is the time of ight. A set of constraints act on the nal value of the states, i.e., rf and vf .

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Two examples
L1 , TOF = 1 y 201 days L2 , TOF = 1 y 264 days

m/m0 = 0.29

m/m0 = 0.32

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Thrust direction history


Angles between the thrust direction and the velocity vector (cont. line) the vector perpendicular to the radius vector (dashed line)

L1

L2

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Integration in RTBP
The ICs found for the two cases have been integrated in the Sun-Earth CR3BP

L1

L2

Renement is necessary if the Earths gravity is taken into account

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Conclusions
Comparison in terms of V budget versus TOF can easily be made among the three techniques that use impulsive maneuvers: multi-revolution transfer: 2.2 km/s in 4.5 years patched conics with multiple swingbys are more expensive: only the standard EEL3 case is cheap and fast but requires further verication. IM transfers are cheap (0.5 - 1.7 km/s) but longer (> 6 years) A dierent concept, based on electrical engines, allows direct transfers from either L1 or L2 to L3 in 1.5 years with 30% mass consumption.

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Acknowledgments

E. Fantino, Y. Ren and P. Pergola have been supported by the Marie Curie Actions Research and Training Network AstroNet MCRTN-CT-2006-035151.

G. Gmez and J.J. Masdemont have been partially supported by the o MCyT grants MTM2006-05849/Consolider and MTM2006-00478, respectively.

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Publication

Presented at the Fifth International Celestial Mechanics Meeting (CELMEC V), San Martino al Cimino (Viterbo, Italy), 6 - 12 September 2009

Recently submitted to Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

References (1/2)
Barrabs, E., Oll, M., Invariant Manifolds of L3 and horseshoe e e motion in the restricted three-body problem, Nonlinearity, 9, 2065-2090, 2006 Brison, A.E., Ho, Y.-C., Applied optimal control, Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham (Massachusetts), 1969 Font, J., The role of homoclinic and heteroclinic orbits in two-degrees of freedom Hamiltonian systems, Ph.D. dissertation, Departament de Matematica Aplicada i Analisi, Universitat de Barcelona, 1990 Gill, P.E., Murray, W., Saunders, M.A., Snopt: an sqp algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization, SIAM J. Optim., 12, 979-1006, 2002

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

References (2/2)
Hechler, M., Yanez, A., Herschel/Planck Consolidated Report on Mission Analysis FP-MA-RP-0010-TOS/GMA Issue 3.1, 2006 Lo, M.W., Williams, B.G., Bollman, W.E., et al., Genesis Mission Design, AIAA Space Flight Mechanics, Paper No. AIAA 984468, 1998. Vallado, D.A., Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications, Microcosm Press, Hawthorne (California), 2007 Senent, J., Ocampo, C., Capella, A., Low-thrust variable-specic-impulse transfers and guidance to unstable periodic orbits, J. Guid. Contr. Dyn. 28, 280-290, 2005 Szebehely, V., Theory of orbits, Academic Press, New York (Massachusetts), 1967

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Merci !!

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Earth-Venus-L3 :

EF nio-C .a t n MWS - 8N v 0 1 o. 9

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen