Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Delft. Formation Flying in The Sun-EarthMoon Perturbed Restricted Three Body Problem
Delft. Formation Flying in The Sun-EarthMoon Perturbed Restricted Three Body Problem
M ASTER’ S THESIS
M ASTER OF S CIENCE
IN A EROSPACE E NGINEERING
Committee:
Author: Prof. Dr. Ir. P.N.A.M V ISSER
Ingvar O UT Dr. Ir. J.A.A. van den IJ SSEL
Ir. B.T.C. Z ANDBERGEN
Note that all simulations performed for the investigation of formation flying in the restricted three-body
problem, are written entirely by the current author, with the exception of the Dormand-Prince numerical
integrator, for which the TU Delft Astrodynamics Toolbox (TUDat) is used, comprising a set of C++ libraries
written for a variety of astrodynamics applications. TUDat is developed and maintained by the astrodynamics
and space missions research group at the faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology.
This Master’s thesis has been performed in collaboration with Dr. Ir. J. van den IJssel, whose guidance
throughout the process of my thesis was key in shaping my research, and whom my sincerest gratitude goes
out to for her feedback and support.
iii
Contents
Preface iii
Summary vii
1 Introduction 1
v
CONTENTS
Bibliography 71
B Unit Conversions 75
B.1 CRTBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
B.2 ERTBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
C Constants 79
vi
Summary
Formation flying in an orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 point has a number of potential benefits as compared
to Earth-orbiting formations, among which are the thermally stable environment for eclipse-free halo orbits,
as well as the low force gradients associated with such orbits, allowing for very high relative accuracies
to be maintained within a formation. These properties are particularly useful for deep-space observations,
for which a formation can be used to create a virtual aperture much larger than is possible with a single
conventional satellite. A mission that was planned to employ a two-spacecraft formation in a halo orbit
about the Sun-Earth L2 point is the X-ray Evolving Universe Spectroscopy mission (XEUS), consisting of a
mirror spacecraft and a detector spacecraft, with a nominal separation of 35 m being equal the focal length.
As follows from Marchand and Howell (2005), relative gravitational accelerations associated with small
formation separations as for XEUS, might allow for high relative accuracies, on the order of 1 cm, to be
maintained using impulsive control every few days.
In this study, the relative dynamics for a formation in a halo orbit about the the Sun-Earth L2 point have
been investigated , considering the Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (CRTBP) as well as perturbations
due to the Earth’s eccentricity, the presence of the Moon, and Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP). The impact
of the formation’s orientation, separation, and required relative accuracy on the time in between corrective
maneuvers, or segment time, as well as the ∆V’s required, is investigated for an impulsive relative station
keeping strategy. Also, the impact of using an inertially fixed formation, as opposed to a rotating formation
is considered, given its relevance to deep-space observation missions such as XEUS.
Firstly, using an integration of the full non-linear system of equations of motion in the unperturbed CRTBP,
it was shown that for a XEUS-like mission, with a nominal formation separation of 50 m and occupying a
relatively small halo orbit, a relative position accuracy of 1 cm can be achieved with impulsive control for
segment times of 0.6-1.7 days and ∆V’s of 0.6-1.4 µm/s, depending on the formation’s position, orientation
and type, begin either inertial or rotating. Given the very slowly changing relative acceleration for formations
in a halo orbit, the maximum relative position error is approximately proportional to the formation separation
distance, as well as the square of the segment time. The ∆V’s are also nearly proportional to the formation
separation distance, as well as the segment time. Furthermore, it has been shown that using an inertial
formation as opposed to a rotating formation helps to increase the segment time for formations along the
Sun-Earth line, by up to a maximum of nearly 8%, and decreases the ∆V by a maximum of 7%. A formation
perpendicular to the Sun-Earth line, in the Sun-Earth orbital plane, suffers a decrease in segment time for
inertial formations, by up to 18%, and an increase in ∆V by a maximum of 23%.
The effects of perturbations to the CRTBP on formation flying have been investigated for the Sun-
Earth/Moon system, where the main gravitational perturbation is caused by the elliptical orbit of the Earth
about the Sun, described by the Elliptical Restricted Three-Body Problem (ERTBP). It was shown that the
differences in relative station keeping between the CRTBP and ERTBP are mainly driven by the Earth’s true
anomaly, showing differences ranging from approximately -2.6 % to 2.6 % in terms of segment time and
∆V, where the maximum increase in segment time occurs when the Earth is in apohelion and the maximum
decrease when the Earth is in perihelion. Note that an increase in segment time corresponds to a decrease
in ∆V, by approximately the same amount. The gravitational perturbation of the Moon has also been in-
vestigated, showing a maximum decrease in segment time of up to 0.6 %. The last perturbation covered, is
the Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP), which depending on the formation separation and spacecraft properties,
can dominate the relative dynamics for a formation near the Sun-Earth L2 point. It was found that for a
difference in area-to-mass ratio of 1/100 m2 /kg, the relative acceleration due to SRP is already 1000 times
larger than the relative gravitational acceleration for a 100 m rotating formation along the Sun-Earth line
for a relatively small halo orbit. Even for spacecraft of equal dimensions and identical surface properties,
a 1 degree difference in orientation of the surface normal with respect to the incident solar radiation can
already cause a relative acceleration of 1µm/s for an area-to-mass ratio of 1/100 m2 /kg. Hence, if one aims
to achieve high relative accuracies of 1 cm for a 100 m formation, using impulsive control in the presence of
vii
CONTENTS
SRP, segment times on the order of a day are only possible if the spacecraft attitudes are actively controlled,
such as to cancel the relative accelerations due to SRP.
Linear approximations for the maximum relative position error, segment times, and ∆V’s have been de-
rived for formations in the CRTBP, ERTBP, as well as under the influence of the Moon’s perturbation and
SRP, allowing for a quick and easy way to determine the aforementioned quantities for any point in the Sun-
Earth/Moon system. Accuracies better than 1% can be achieved by the linear approximations for formations
separations of up to 10,000 km, and segment times of up to 2 days, for the relatively small halo orbit in the
Sun-Earth/Moon system considered. Even thought the focus of this study was on impulsive control, one can
extend many of the results to the case of continuous control, by treating it as impulsive control in the limit of
infinite maneuvers, which applies to the linear approximations in particular, for they become more accurate
as the segment time decreases.
viii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Most missions flown to date achieve their science objectives by employing (a) spacecraft near one primary
celestial body. In these cases, the dynamics can be modeled by considering one main gravitational attractor,
where any other influences can be considered small perturbations to the problem. As space missions become
more ambitious, science objectives may impose the need of an orbit in a region where multiple celestial
bodies exercise equally significant gravitational forces on a spacecraft. The most interesting kind of orbit
of the aforementioned type involves flying about a so-called ’libration point’, which is a point where the
placement of a spacecraft results in a fixed configuration with respect to two main attracting bodies, or
primaries, whose movement is defined by the two-body problem. The first flown mission to utilize such
an orbit was the International Sun-Earth Explorer-3 (ISEE-3), which was launched in 1978 and arrived in
a region near the libration point located in between the Sun and the Earth approximately three months
later. Here, it spent more than three and a half years in a three-dimensional, so-called ’halo’ orbit about
the libration point, under the nearly equal influence of the Sun and the Earth’s gravitation. The nearly
constant geometry of this orbit with respect to the Sun and the Earth allowed ISEE-3 to continuously observe
interactions between solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
The potential benefits of libration point orbits are not limited to missions requiring constant observation
of one of the primaries. One other potential benefit of such an orbit comes from the nearly constant ori-
entation with respect to the primaries, allowing for relatively easy shielding strategies, which is especially
beneficial to missions with stringent thermal stability requirements. This applies to the second libration point
in particular, which sees the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon in approximately the same direction at all time
(see Section 2.3). Another attractive feature of libration point orbits is the gravitational stability1 , given the
low force gradients associated with regions near libration points. One mission that takes advantage of these
conditions is the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) pathfinder, a mission by the European Space
Agency (ESA) that was launched in December 2015 and serves to demonstrate technologies needed to de-
velop future spaceborne gravitational wave detectors (Rudolph et al., 2016). LISA pathfinder’s very stringent
gravitational stability requirements make a libration point orbit a very suitable choice.
Formation flying about the second Sun-Earth L2 libration point will be the main focus of the current study.
Orbits about libration points are ideal for maintaining very high relative accuracies within a formation, given
the low force gradients in this region, which can be beneficial for deep-space observations. Using an accu-
rately controlled formation, it is possible to achieve far higher focal lengths, and a larger ’virtual’ aperture
radius, than can be achieved using a single conventional spacecraft. An example of a mission concept em-
ploying such a formation near the Sun-Earth L2 point is the Stellar Imager Vision Mission (SI), a mission
concept by the Goddard Space Flight Center which is aimed to be realized in the late 2020s. SI is to image
stars by employing a formation of 20-30 mirror spacecraft, positioned along a virtual parabolic surface of
100-1000 m in diameter (depending on the angular size of the target to be observed), with a detector space-
craft located at a focal lenght’s distance of 1-10 km (Carpenter et al., 2005). Another example of a formation
flying mission about the Sun-Earth L2 libration point is the X-ray Evolving Universe Spectroscopy mission
(XEUS), which was planned to employ a two-spacecraft formation, a detector and a mirror spacecraft, at a
35 m nominal separation, whose goal was to perform deep space x-ray observations in order to investigate
black-hole formation and galaxy evolution on cosmic timescales.
As follows from Howell and Marchand (2005), the difference in formation separation distance for the two
aforementioned missions could result in very different formation control strategy requirements. Namely, it is
1 The term gravitational stability is used here to indicate a nearly constant gravitational potential, and should not be confused with
orbital stability, which collinear libration point orbits generally do not possess.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
shown by Howell and Marchand (2005) that for small formation separations of 10-100 m, the relative posi-
tion could be controlled to within 1 cm accuracy with only one impulsive maneuver every day or two, whereas
larger formation sizes on the order of 1000 km and above, will likely require continuous control to achieve
the same relative accuracy. Apart from accuracy requirements, the control strategy for formation flying about
the Sun-Earth L2 point could be dictated by minimum thrust requirements. Namely, continuous control for
closely separated formations near the Sun-Earth L2 point is associated with potentially prohibitively small
thrust requirements. This follows from Marchand and Howell (2005), where it is mentioned that for a for-
mation separation distance of 10 m, and a spacecraft mass of 700 kg, continuous control requires thrust
levels on the order of 1 nN, which likely eliminates it as an option, with current minimum thrust levels
demonstrated in-flight being on the order of 1µN, as is the case for the Gaia mission (Milligan et al., 2016)
as well as LISA pathfinder (Rudolph et al., 2016). Using impulsive control, hence allowing the formation to
drift in between maneuvers, will lead to less stringent minimum thrust requirements, as might be necessary
according to the previous example. In this case, the minimum deliverable impulse bit will impose a limit on
the achievable accuracy in terms of relative position for a given formation in orbit about the Sun-Earth L2
point.
This study will mainly focus on relatively small separation distances comparable to that of XEUS, in the
range of 10-100 m. It should be mentioned that XEUS is currently not planned to be flown. However, given
the potential of this type of mission for deep-space observations, it is an interesting study case that might
benefit any similar future missions to be flown, and is hence considered a suitable reference mission. Given
the small separation distance for XEUS, and based on the previous discussion, this study investigates the use
of impulsive control for formations in orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 point, mainly in terms of ∆V requirements
and time in between corrections, depending on the formation configuration. Note that a lot of research in the
area of formation flying dynamics and control near the Sun-Earth libration points has already been performed
by, among others, K.C. Howell, B. Marchand, A.M. Segerman, M.F. Zedd and H.J. Pernicka. This study aims to
contribute to the existing body of knowledge, firstly by ”performing an extensive investigation of the formation
control’s dependency on different formation configurations in orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 point”, and secondly
by ”investigating the effect of perturbations on the formation dynamics, hence control requirements”. This sec-
ond objective in particular, could yield useful insights, given that most research on formation flying about
the Sun-Earth L2 point was performed using either the Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (CRTBP), or
a full ephemerides model, without distinguishing the contributions due to the Earth’s eccentricity, the Moon,
and Solar Radiation Pressure (SRP).
This report will be structured as follows. Firstly, Chapter 2 will present a discussion on the CRTBP, forming
the basis of dynamics about libration points. Next, Chapter 3 presents modifications to the CRTBP to account
for perturbations caused by the eccentricity of the Earth, the Moon’s orbit about the Earth, and SRP, the
former two of which are described by the Elliptic Restricted Three-Body Problem (ERTBP) and the Restricted
Four-Body Problem (RFBP) respectively. Then, Chapter 4 presents a method for obtaining so-called ’halo’
orbits, being three-dimensional orbits of fixed dimensions about a libration point, which is the preferred
nominal orbit for reasons mentioned later on. Chapter 5 presents the implementation of impulsive control
strategies and investigates the results for formation flying in the CRTBP in terms of ∆V requirements and time
in between maneuvers. Similar investigations for formation flying in the ERTBP and RFBP are presented
in Chapters 6 and 7 repectively. Finally, the effect of SRP on the formation dynamics is investigated and
presented in Chapter 8, after which Chapter 9 presents the conclusions and recommendations resulting from
this study.
2
Chapter 2
d2 r m1 m2
= −G 3 r 1 − G 3 r 2 (2.1)
dt r1 r2
A more useful expression is obtained by transforming the equations of motion to a rotating, normalized
reference frame, such as the xyz-frame shown in Figure 2.1. Here, the origin coincides with the barycenter
of the system, the x-axis is aligned with the line connecting the primaries P1 and P2 , the xy-plane lies in the
orbital plane, and the right-hand rule completes the coordinate system. In order to normalize the equations
of motion, new units for mass, distance, and time are introduced. (m1 + m2 ) is taken as a unit of mass, such
that the masses can be expressed as m1 = 1 − µ and m2 = µ, where µ is a mass parameter that satisfies
0 < µ ≤ 1/2, such that m1 corresponds to the mass of the larger primary. Note that literature is inconsistent
in placement of the larger primary either to the left or the right of the origin, though this study follows the
former approach, placing it on the left.
Furthermore, a unit of length is taken to be equal to the distance between the primaries. Consequently,
the position vectors with respect to the primaries can be written as r 1 = (x + µ, y, z) and r 2 = (x − 1 + µ, y, z)
where x, y, and z are the coordinates of the third body.
Finally, a unit of time is taken as (df /dt)−1 , where df /dt is the orbital angular velocity of the primaries.
3
CHAPTER 2. THE CIRCULAR RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
P3
y
r2
r1
r
x
P1 P2
z
Figure 2.1: Rotating reference frame for the CRTBP with its origin at the barycenter. P1 , P2 , and P3 corre-
spond to the larger primary, the smaller primary, and the third body respectively.
The resulting equations of motion in the rotating, normalized reference frame become:
1−µ µ
ẍ − 2ẏ =x − 3 (x + µ) − 3 (x + µ − 1)
r1 r2
1−µ µ
ÿ + 2ẋ =y − y − 3y (2.2)
r13 r2
1−µ µ
z̈ = − z − 3z
r13 r2
∂U
ẍ − 2ẏ =
∂x
∂U
ÿ + 2ẋ = (2.4)
∂y
∂U
z̈ =
∂z
U is not an explicit function of time. Hence, it represents a conservative force field, that accounts for the
gravitational and centrifugal force.
The full derivation to the equations obtained in this section is presented in Wakker (2010). Also, a
derivation of the equations of motion for the ERTBP is presented in Section 3.1. Naturally, the results for the
ERTBP reduce to the CRTBP in the case of zero eccentricity.
4
2.3. LAGRANGE LIBRATION POINTS
L4
y
60°
P1 P2
L3 60°
L1 L2 x
60°
γ3 γ1 γ2
60°
L5
Since U is only a function of spatial coordinates, the right-hand side of Equation 2.5 can simply be written as
dU/dt. Now, integrating Equation 2.5 yields:
ẋ2 + ẏ 2 + ż 2 = 2U − C (2.6)
or,
V 2 = 2U − C (2.7)
Equation 2.7 is known as Jacobi’s integral, and it provides a relation between a body’s velocity and its position
in the CRTBP. The integration constant C is known as Jacobi’s constant, which is determined by the position
and velocity of the third body at a certain time. One possible application of Jacobi’s constant, which is also
used in the current study, is to use it as a means of checking the accuracy of a numerical orbit propagator in
the CRTBP.
A first-order stability analysis as presented in, for instance, Szebehely (1967, Chap. 5), shows that the
collinear libration points are generally unstable, such that a massless body placed in the vicinity of one of
these points will move unboundedly far over time. However, the initial conditions can be chosen such that
the motion about the collinear libration points in the xy-plane becomes a pure oscillation. Doing so poses
the following constraints on the initial conditions:
s
ẋ0 = y0
v (2.8)
ẏ0 = − svx0
5
CHAPTER 2. THE CIRCULAR RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
where s and v are constants characteristic of the system considered. For the Sun-Earth/Moon1 system, the
corresponding values are s = 2.087 and v = 3.229 (Wakker, 2010).
The aforementioned analysis also shows that the motion in the z-direction is a pure oscillation that is
completely decoupled from the motion in the xy-plane. In general, the periods in the xy-plane and the z-
direction are not equal, resulting in a three-dimensional orbit about the collinear libration point, called a
Lissajous orbit. For the collinear libration points in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, the difference in periods is
quite small, such that the orbit can be viewed as a slowly changing elliptical path.
Note that the aforementioned results are based on linearized theory, thus one can only speak of infinitesi-
mal stability. In reality, second-order effects, as well as perturbations to the CRTBP, will influence the stability
and motion about the collinear libration points. In fact, it can be shown that for sufficiently large amplitudes,
second-order effects may induce coupling between the motion in the xy-plane and the z-direction, giving rise
to a three-dimensional orbit of fixed geometry and size about one of the collinear libration points, a so-called
halo orbit. Halo orbits come in two classes: Class 1 halo orbits have their apogee above the ecliptic, and Class
2 halo orbits have their apogee below the ecliptic. In the Sun-Earth/Moon system, halo orbits are found to be
possible for minimum amplitudes of approximately 215,000 km, and 680,000 km in the x- and y-directions
respectively (see Section 4.3). Note that Chapter 4 is dedicated to finding such halo orbits.
1 In the CRTBP, the Sun-Earth/Moon system refers to an approximation of the three-body system, where the Earth-Moon system is
modelled as a point mass, accounting for the second primary in the CRTBP.
6
Chapter 3
7
CHAPTER 3. THE PERTURBED RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
Combining Equations 2.1 and 3.1 through 3.3, yields the acceleration in the rotating reference frame:
δ2 r d2 f
m1 m2 df δr df df
= −G r 1 + r 2 − 2 × − × × r − ×r (3.4)
δt2 r13 r23 dt δt dt dt dt2
The second, third, and fourth term on the right-hand side of Equation 3.4 represent the Coriolis acceleration,
the centrifugal acceleration, and the acceleration due to the non-uniform rotating of the reference frame
respectively. Note that the remainder of this report will only be concerned with time derivatives in the
rotating reference frame, which will be denoted simply by d/dt from this point on.
8
3.1. ELLIPTIC RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
where again, µ is the mass parameter of the primaries, and ez is the unit vector normal to the orbital plane.
Substituting Equation 3.8 into Equation 3.4 and collecting some terms, yields:
2 2 ∗ 2
dr̂ df dr ∗ dr ∗
2 2
d f d f dr̂ df ∗ df d r df
r̂ 2 + 2 + r̂ + 2 e z × r + r̂ + 2r̂ ez × =
dt dt dt dt∗ dt2 dt dt dt dt∗2 dt dt∗
2 (3.9)
d2 r̂ ∗
m1 + m2 1 − µ ∗ µ ∗ df
= −G 2 ∗3 r 1 + ∗3 r 2 − 2
r − r̂ ez × ez × r ∗
r̂ r1 r2 dt dt
Now, Equation 3.9 can be rewritten by using the following properties of the two-body problem:
i) Conservation of angular momentum:
d df
r̂2 =0 (3.10)
dt dt
or,
d2 f dr̂ df
r̂ 2
+2 =0 (3.11)
dt dt dt
ii) The equation of motion:
2
d2 r̂
df G(m1 + m2 )
− r̂ =− (3.12)
dt2 dt r̂2
Substituting Equations 3.5, and 3.11 - 3.13 into Equation 3.9, and noting the x1 = x + µ and x2 = x − 1 + µ,
the equations of motion for the ERTBP can be written as:
−1 1−µ µ
ẍ − 2ẏ =(1 + e cos f ) x− (µ + x) − 3 (x − 1 + µ)
r13 r
2
1−µ µ
ÿ + 2ẋ =(1 + e cos f )−1 y − y − 3y (3.14)
r13 r2
1−µ µ
z̈ + z =(1 + e cos f )−1 z − z − 3z
r13 r2
where x, y and z are the normalized coordinates. Note that for the asterisk notation is dropped for simplicity,
since the remainder of this report will present equations in normalized form, unless mentioned otherwise. A
more concise notation can be obtained by defining the pseudo-potential function:
1 1−µ µ
ω = (1 + e cos f )−1 (x2 + y 2 + z 2 ) + + (3.15)
2 r1 r2
such that,
∂ω
ẍ − 2ẏ =
∂x
∂ω
ÿ + 2ẋ = (3.16)
∂y
∂ω
z̈ + z =
∂z
9
CHAPTER 3. THE PERTURBED RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
P3
y
r1 rM
r rE r2 Moon
Sun
ΔrM x
P2
ΔrE
P1 Earth
z
Note that in some references an alternative notation is used, such as to obtain a formally identical notation
for the ERTBP as the CRTBP, given by:
∂ω 0
ẍ − 2ẏ =
∂x
∂ω 0
ÿ + 2ẋ = (3.17)
∂y
∂ω 0
z̈ =
∂z
with
1 2 1−µ µ
ω 0 = (1 + e cos f )−1 (x + y 2 − e cos f z 2 ) + + (3.18)
2 r1 r2
Comparing Equations 2.2 and 3.14, the most pronounced difference between the normalized equations of
motion in the CRTBP and ERTBP is the term (1 + e cos f )−1 , which counterintuitively decreases the non-
dimensional accelerations when the primaries are in pericenter. Note however, that this is a result of the
normalization, whereas the dimensional accelerations are actually larger for the ERTBP when the primaries
are in pericenter, as is shown in Section 6.3.3. This increase in dimensional acceleration is a consequence of
the smaller unit of distance in the ERTBP as compared to the CRTBP when the primaries are in pericenter,
hence closer proximity to the primaries for the same non-dimensional position, yielding larger gravitational
accelerations. Furthermore, we find an extra z-term for the acceleration in z-direction, which is there only to
account for the pulsating axes as introduced in the ERTBP.
In the case of zero eccentricity, Equations 3.15 and 3.16 naturally reduce to equations 2.3 and 2.4,
representing the CRTBP. It can readily be deduced that the collinear libration points have the same non-
dimensional coordinates in the CRTBP and ERTBP. Note however, that their dimensional coordinates are
not the same, given the difference in a unit of distance, yielding pulsating dimensional coordinates for the
libration points in the ERTBP. Conversions from dimensional to non-dimensional units, and vice versa, are
presented in Appendix B for both the CRTBP and ERTBP, where the latter generally requires slightly more
effort, given the true-anomaly dependence of the normalized units.
10
3.2. RESTRICTED FOUR-BODY PROBLEM
where xE and xM are the Earth and the Moon’s position along the x-axis, rE and rM are position vectors
with respect to the Earth and the Moon, and µ̄ is the Moon-Earth mass parameter, defined by:
mM
µ̄ = (3.20)
mE + mM
where mE and mM are the mass of the Earth and the Moon. Note that in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, the
mass parameter µ is given by:
mE + mM
µ= (3.21)
mS + mE + mM
To keep our notation consistent with the formulation of the ERTBP, one could introduce a pseudo-potential
function for the RFBP, given by:
1 1 − µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄
F = (1 + e cos f )−1 (x2 + y 2 + z 2 ) + + + (3.22)
2 r1 rE rM
such that,
∂F
ẍ − 2ẏ =
∂x
∂F
ÿ + 2ẋ = (3.23)
∂y
∂F
z̈ + z =
∂z
The implementation of the RFBP presented in this section, is based on the assumption of a bi-elliptical model,
where the Earth and the Moon are assumed to follow elliptical orbits about each other, and their barycenter
moves in an elliptical orbit about the Sun. As such, the conditions associated with the ERTBP, Equations 3.10
through 3.13 in particular, are assumed to be valid still. In reality, the Sun (and other planets) will disrupt
the ellipticity of the Earth and the Moon’s orbits about each other. As such, Equations 3.10 through 3.13
are no longer exactly satisfied. However, a bi-elliptical model has been implemented for the Earth-Moon L1
libration point by Ghorbani and Assadian (2013), and verified against a full ephemerides model, showing no
significant differences. Although the current study does not provide a similar verification for the Sun-Earth
L2 libration point, it is assumed to work equally well for this purpose. The validity of this assumption is
strengthened by the fact that the eccentricity of the Moon is subject to large changes because of solar per-
turbations3 , whereas the eccentricity of the Sun-Earth orbit is far more constant. As follows from Ghorbani
and Assadian (2013) and Segerman and Zedd (2006), the eccentricity of the primaries is the largest grav-
itational perturbation to the CRTBP for both the Earth-Moon and Sun-Earth libration points. Therefore, if
the bi-elliptical model gives good results for the Earth-Moon libration points, it can be expected to give good
results for the Sun-Earth libration points.
3 Whereas the Moon’s mean eccentricity is equal to 0.0549, the instantaneous eccentricity can vary by up to approximately 0.04 over
the course of a synodic month. The Moon’s instantaneous eccentricity is shown to range from 0.0266 to 0.0762 from 2008 through 2010
in Espenak and Meeus (2009)
11
CHAPTER 3. THE PERTURBED RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
P3
y
r2
r1 r
r5
x
r51 r52 P2+P4
P1
r2
z P5
where m5 is the mass of the fifth body. The first term on the right-hand side is the direct effect of the fifth body
acting on the satellite, and the second and third term account for the indirect effect, being an acceleration
of the primaries’ barycenter due to the fifth body. Although the indirect effect will not instantly affect the
relative dynamics of a formation, it will do so over time, as it influences the orbits of the primaries. Note
that this fifth body interaction with the primaries causes the bi-elliptical assumption for the Sun-Earth/Moon
system to becomes less valid, however, to a much lesser extent than the effect of the Sun’s gravity gradients
near the Earth-Moon system.
Given the presumably small effect of fifth body perturbations due to major planets in the solar system,
this study will not consider them. This is shown by Campagnola et al. (2008) for the Sun-Mercury system,
where orbits obtained in the ERTBP very closely corresponds to orbits obtained in a full ephemerides model,
indicating the insignificance of fifth body perturbations. This study assumes a similar result to apply to the
Sun-Earth/Moon system, which can be justified by performing a quick check of the relative acceleration
caused by Venus, presumably the biggest perturber on relative dynamics for a formation near the Sun-Earth
L2 point. From Equation 2.2 (and Appendix B), it follows that a displacement of 10 m along the x-axis in the
Sun-Earth L2 libration point causes a relative acceleration of approximately 3.5 × 10−12 m/s2 in the CRTBP.
In comparison, the relative acceleration caused by Venus when it is at its closest position to the Earth, as-
suming it is aligned with the x-axis, is approximately 1.2 × 10−16 m/s2 , nearly a factor 30, 000 smaller, hence
considered negligible.
Note that a full ephemerides model would allow for a more accurate simulation of formation dynamics in the
RFBP as well as the restricted-five body problem, given that it uses the actual positions of all relevant massive
bodies, rather than depending on imperfect assumptions such as the bi-elliptical assumption. However, this
would not allow for a means of distinguishing individual contributions from different perturbations, which is
one of the main objectives of the current study, hence we will not employ such a full ephemerides model.
12
3.3. SOLAR RADIATION PRESSURE
where k is a reflectance factor, being equal to 1 for a perfect absorber and equal to 2 for a perfect reflector,
S0 is the solar energy flux at the mean Sun-Earth distance AU , c is the speed of light in a vacuum, A is the
spacecraft’s effective cross-sectional area, ms is the spacecraft mass, γ is the angle of incidence of incoming
solar radiation, and η̂ is the surface normal, directed away from the Sun.
Note that a more complete SRP model is presented by McInnes (1999, Equation 2.57a-b), where the de-
viation of the SRP force’s orientation from the surface normal due to absorption is accounted for. This model
shows that for a non-perfectly reflecting solar sail, small angles of incident solar radiation of up to 20 degrees
keep the SRP force’s orientation within 2 degrees of the surface normal (Figure 2.10 McInnes, 1999). A deep
space observation mission will likely require shielding from the Sun, presumably with a surface normal that
is close to the incoming solar radiation. For example, thermal stability requirements for XEUS constrain the
maximum deviation of the sunshields to within approximately 15 degrees of the incident solar radiation, as
follows from Bavdaz et al. (2005). Do note that the model by McInnes (1999) applies to a solar sail with a
relatively high reflectivity coefficient, where 88% of the incoming solar radiation is reflected. Other types of
surfaces, solar panels in particular, might have far lower reflectivity coefficients, which could cause the SRP
force’s orientation to deviate from the surface normal by more than the aforementioned 2 degrees, in which
case a more complex SRP might be necessary.
In order to obtain the perturbing SRP acceleration in the normalized reference frame defined in Section 3.1,
it follows from Equation 3.5 that one has to divide through r̂(df /dt)2 . Furthermore, using r1 = r̂r1∗ , where
the asterisk again denotes non-dimensional units, one obtains:
2 ∗
kS0 A AU 2
d r 1
= 3 cos2 γ η̂ (3.26)
dt∗2 srp r̂ (df /dt)2 ms c r1∗2
Now, substituting Equations 3.5 and 3.13 into Equation 3.26, the SRP perturbation can be written as:
2 ∗
kS0 A AU 2
d r 1
= cos2 γ η̂ (3.27)
dt∗2 srp (1 + e cos f )G(m1 + m2 ) ms c r1∗2
13
Chapter 4
15
CHAPTER 4. THE NOMINAL HALO ORBIT
or,
Φ21 δx0 + Φ23 δz0 + Φ25 δ ẏ0
δ(T /2) = − (4.5)
ẏT /2
Using Equations 4.3 and 4.5, the required correction to the initial state, that yields a perpendicular crossing
at T /2, can be found by keeping one of the non-zero initial conditions in Equation 4.1 fixed. For the case
that x0 is held fixed, Equations 4.3 and 4.5 yield corrections to δz0 and δ ẏ0 for a desired change in δ ẋT /2 and
δ żT /2 , following from:
δ ẋT /2 Φ43 Φ45 1 ẍT /2 δz0
= − (Φ23 Φ25 ) (4.6)
δ żT /2 Φ63 Φ65 ẏT /2 z̈T /2 δ ẏ0
or,
−1
δz0 Φ43 Φ45 1 ẍT /2 δ ẋT /2
= − (Φ23 Φ25 ) (4.7)
δ ẏ0 Φ63 Φ65 ẏT /2 z̈T /2 δ żT /2
Note that Equation 4.7 is only exact for a perfectly linear system, or infinitesimally small corrections. For the
case of the CRTBP, one has to perform multiple iterations, or differential corrections, until a solution is found
that satisfies Equations 4.1 and 4.2, to within a certain tolerance, where δ ẋT /2 and δ żT /2 are close enough to
zero.
Note that the STM for one full orbit can be used to investigate the orbital stability, where the periodicity
requirement for the eigenvalues of the STM is to have a modulus of 1. Such a stability analysis is performed by
Howell (1984). For the current study, such a stability analysis will not be performed, since the perturbations
to the CRTBP that are to be included will throw off this stability.
16
4.2. VERIFICATION
Table 4.1: Comparison of initial conditions for halo orbits about L2 with a mass parameter of 0.04, as found
by Howell (1984) and the current author.
Howell
x0 1.057222 1.092791 1.140216 1.173414 1.220839 1.258203
z0 0.300720 0.309254 0.298898 0.272900 0.200987 0.050000
ẏ0 -0.238026 -0.281140 -0.316028 -0.324710 -0.310434 -0.250410
Current author
x0 1.057222 1.092791 1.140216 1.173414 1.220839 1.258203
z0 0.300721 0.309253 0.298897 0.272900 0.200986 0.050000
ẏ0 -0.238026 -0.281140 -0.316028 -0.324710 -0.310434 -0.250409
Note that Howell (1984) used a Runge-Kutta Merson RK4(3)-5 integration procedure1 , whereas the current
author uses a Dormand-Prince (DOPRI)-method, being an RK8(7)-13 method, whose table of coefficients
can be found in Montenbruck and Gill (2005). Furthermore, the absolute and relative integration tolerances
were set to 10−14 , yielding dimensional tolerances on the order of millimeters for the satellite’s position.
4.2 Verification
In order to verify the current author’s implementation of the differential correction algorithm presented in
Section 4.1, it is used to reproduce halo orbits as found by Howell (1984). Table 4.1 presents a comparison
of the initial conditions for halo orbits about the L2 point for a mass parameter of 0.04, as found by Howell
(1984) and the current author. As can be seen, the initial conditions are very similar. Only in a few cases, the
last digit is found to be off by one, which can be attributed to the different integration algorithms used.
17
CHAPTER 4. THE NOMINAL HALO ORBIT
Table 4.2: Initial conditions, as well as half the orbital period T /2, corresponding to the halo orbits presented
in Figure 4.1, for a mass parameter of 3.040328 × 10−6 .
x0 1.005221 1.006300 1.007300 1.008300 1.009300 1.010300
z0 0.012392 0.012342 0.012075 0.011394 0.010000 0.007563
ẏ0 -0.011857 -0.013458 -0.014567 -0.015163 -0.014987 -0.013646
T /2 1.008808 1.125642 1.241498 1.354847 1.448933 1.511700
x0 1.011000 1.011240 1.011272
z0 0.004485 0.001831 0.000634
ẏ0 -0.011270 -0.009434 -0.009011
T /2 1.540533 1.549662 1.551111
Furthermore, Table 4.2 presents the initial conditions corresponding to the halo orbits presented in Figure
4.1. Note that these orbits extend all the way up to the second primary, which in this case is located at
approximately x = 1. Table 4.2 shows that the period increases for halo orbits located further away from
the second primary. Each halo orbit about the L2 point in the CRTBP is uniquely defined by its maximum
x- and z-position. Hence, the entire family of halo orbits found in the Sun-Earth/Moon system can be
represented by a single graph of xmax and zmax values, as given by Figure 4.2. Halo orbits have been found
with maximum z-values ranging from nearly 0 to approximately 12.4×10−3 , or 1,860,000 km in dimensional
units. The minimum amplitudes in x- and y-direction for which halo orbits start to exist are found to be
equal to approximately 0.001430 and 0.004532 respectively, or 215,000 km and 680,000 km in dimensional
units. At this amplitude, second-order effects become large enough to induce coupling between the in- and
out-of-plane motion, causing their periods to become equal.
with,
RC = d tan f (4.14)
RE
d = sx + (4.15)
sin f
and,
RS + RE
sin f = (4.16)
rSE
where y and z are coordinates in the rotating reference frame, as specified for the CRTBP in Section 2.1,
RC is the radius of the Earth’s shadow cone at a distance sx , where sx is the x-coordinate of the satellite
with respect to Earth, RS and RE are the Sun and the Earth radii respectively, and rSE is the distance
between the Sun and the Earth. Note that the Earth’s atmosphere and oblateness are neglected here and
all relevant constants used are presented in Appendix C. As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the minimum x-
and z-position correspond to the point along the halo orbit that is closest to the x-axis, which is found to
18
4.4. ECLIPSE AVOIDANCE
(b) xy-projection
(a) 3D-view
10
15
z [-]× 10-3 5
10
5
y[-]× 10-3
0 L2 0 ⊕ L2
-5
⊕
10
5 -5
0 1.015
y [-]× 10-3 1.01
-5 1.005
1 x [-] -10
0.995 0.995 1 1.005 1.01 1.015
x[-]
10 10
5
10-3
5
z[-]× 10-3
z[-]×
0 ⊕ L2
0 ⊕ L2
-5
-5
-10
-10 -10 -5 0 5 10
0.995 1 1.005 1.01 1.015
y[-]× 10-3
x[-]
Figure 4.1: Halo orbits about the Sun-Earth L2 point for a mass parameter of 3.040328 × 10−6 .
19
CHAPTER 4. THE NOMINAL HALO ORBIT
14
12
10
zmax [-] × 10-3
0
1.005 1.006 1.007 1.008 1.009 1.01 1.011 1.012
xmax [-]
Figure 4.2: xmax -zmax profile for the family of halo orbits about the Sun-Earth L2 point.
Penumbra
P3
RS s
x Sun f RE Umbra
Umbra
Earth
RS
RC
Penumbra
rSE
d
sx
20
4.5. HALO ORBITS IN THE SUN-EARTH/MOON ERTBP
drive the minimum-size requirement for a halo orbit not to enter the Earth’s penumbra2 . The smallest halo
orbits have their minimum x-value at approximately 1.0084, at which points the Earth’s penumbra extends
up to approximately 8.21 × 10−5 normal to the x-axis, or 12, 280 km in dimensional units, which is relatively
small compared to the dimensions of a halo orbit in the Sun-Earth/Moon system. As halo orbits are located
further to the left, their minimum z-value becomes greater in the absolute sense, and occur closer to the
Earth, where the Earth’s penumbra becomes smaller in radius. Hence, selecting a halo orbit whose minimum
z has an absolute value greater than 8.21 × 10−5 ensures no eclipse is ever entered.
Note that choosing a larger halo orbit than is strictly required for avoiding the Earth’s shadow cone does
not yield any benefits in terms of the thermal stability of the environment. In fact, the larger Sun-Earth angles
associated with larger halo orbits will be detrimental to shielding strategies, and will also lead to larger
variations in relative formation dynamics, as shown in Section 5.3.2, which might be undesirable. Figure
4.1 shows that the most leftward-located halo orbit found, is associated with a Sun-Earth viewing angle of
approximately 90 degrees at perigee. Nonetheless, a slightly higher amplitude than is strictly required from
an eclipse-avoidance standpoint would actually be beneficial for communications, by avoiding the line of
sight to come too close to the Sun-Earth line, hence avoiding excessive background noise. This is reflected
by the fact that a commonly chosen out-of-plane amplitude for a halo-orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 point is
approximately equal to 250, 000 km, which is also the orbit suggested for XEUS by Chabot and Udrea (2006).
This corresponds approximately to a halo orbit with x0 = 1.01124, which is the second smallest halo orbit in
Figure 4.1, represented in red. This halo orbit has a minimum z-position of approximately −0.0014, hence
stays well outside of the Earth’s shadow cone. For the remainder of this report we will mostly consider the
same reference orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124. Note that in the simulations to be performed, the halo
orbit is always initialized in apogee, hence in the xz-plane with a positive x0 and z0 , in which case ẏ0 is
negative.
In order to enforce the non-natural motion that constitutes a halo orbit in the ERTBP, a multiple-shooting
method is used, where a number of impulsive maneuvers along the orbit ensures an intersection with the
2 The radius of the Earth’s shadow cone is slightly larger at the halo orbit’s apogee position. However, the absolute difference between
the minimum and maximum z-values is bigger than the increase in the Earth’s shadow cone radius between the perigee and apogee
position, such that the minimum z-value drives the minimum-size requirement for a halo orbit not to enter the Earth’s shadow cone.
21
CHAPTER 4. THE NOMINAL HALO ORBIT
6
nominal
actual
4
y[-] × 10-3
0
-2
-4
-6
1 1.002 1.004 1.006 1.008 1.01 1.012
x[-]
Figure 4.4: The nominal orbit compared to the actual uncontrolled orbit for a satellite in the ERTBP, with
initial conditions corresponding to x0 = 1.01124 as given in Table 4.2, and f0 = 0.
nominal orbit at some later point in time. To demonstrate this method, first the uncontrolled motion that
follows from placing a satellite in the ERTBP is considered, for the nominal orbit corresponding to x0 =
1.01124 as given in Table 4.2. A comparison of the nominal and the actual orbit over approximately 180 days
is shown in Figure 4.4, where the Earth’s initial true anomaly, f0 , is equal to zero. It can be seen that after
approximately a quarter halo orbit, the actual orbit starts to rapidly drift away from the nominal orbit.
Much like the differential correction method used for finding halo orbits in the CRTBP, one can the
differential correction method to find the impulsive maneuver, or shoot, required to enforce a certain position
at some later point in time in the ERTBP. The required change in initial velocity is related to the desired
change in final position through:
−1
∆ẋ0 Φ1,4 Φ1,5 Φ1,6 ∆xf
∆ẏ0 ≈ Φ2,4 Φ2,5 Φ2,6 ∆yf (4.17)
∆ż0 Φ3,4 Φ3,5 Φ3,6 ∆zf
Note that the STM can be obtained, using the method presented in Section 4.1.1, where the matrix A(t)
follows from the linearized equations of motion in the ERTBP:
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
A(t) = ωxx ωxy
(4.18)
ωxz 0 2 0
ωyx ωyy ωyz −2 0 0
ωzx ωyz ωzz − 1 0 0 0
The second derivatives of ω are given in Appendix A for reference. Again, one has to apply a number of
differential corrections until a final state is found to within a certain tolerance.
Figure 4.5 shows the result of applying the multiple-shooting method in the Sun-Earth/Moon system for
the same nominal orbit as considered before, corresponding to x0 = 1.01124, where four shoots are used,
evenly spaced in terms of non-dimensional time, and indicated by a cross mark. Note that the differential
correction method is applied until an intersection with the nominal orbit is found within a tolerance of 10−11 ,
22
4.5. HALO ORBITS IN THE SUN-EARTH/MOON ERTBP
6
nominal
actual
4
y [-] × 10-3
0
-2
-4
-6
1.004 1.006 1.008 1.01 1.012 1.014 1.016
x [-]
Figure 4.5: Multiple-shooting method applied to a satellite in the ERTBP, performing four shoots along the
orbit represented by crosses, showing the nominal an actual orbit, with initial conditions corresponding to
x0 = 1.01124 as given in Table 4.2, and f0 = 0.
Table 4.3: Total ∆V and maximum deviation from the nominal orbit against the number of shoots used for
absolute station keeping, for a halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124 and f0 = 0.
shoots 2 3 4 5 10 50
∆V per orbit [m/s] 18.71 9.48 9.12 9.39 10.76 12.16
max ∆s [km] 18,435.47 4,016.46 1,997.40 1,238.33 321.05 13.46
corresponding to an accuracy of approximately 1.5 m in dimensional units. The nominal and actual orbit as
presented in Figure 4.5 are found to nearly overlap. Table 4.3 shows the effect of the number of shoots per
orbit on the ∆V budget over an entire halo orbit, as well as the maximum deviation from the nominal orbit,
where the number of shoots are spread evenly over the halo orbit in terms of non-dimensional time. It can
be seen that an optimum ∆V budget of approximately 9.12 m/s is obtained for four shoots per orbit. In
the limit of continuous control, the ∆V budget becomes approximately 12.4 m/s, which isn’t a significant
increase compared to the 9.12 m/s as required for a four-shoot strategy. However, the added complexity of
performing continuous control should also be taken into consideration. Since this study is not particularly
focused on the absolute station keeping required, but rather the relative station keeping in a formation, a
four-shoot strategy will be used for simplicity. Note that the maximum deviation of approximately 1,997
km from the nominal orbit is assumed to be of insignificant influence on the relative dynamics within the
formation, given it’s relatively small value compared to the halo orbit’s dimensions. A quick check to justify
this assumption is performed in Section 6.1.
Note that the required absolute station keeping depends on the initial true anomaly of the Earth, showing
differences of up to approximately 1 m/s from the values presented in Table 4.3 depending on the initial true
anomaly. However, the general conclusions will not change, and since absolute station keeping is not the
primary focus of this study, we will not further consider this.
Finally, a quick check is performed to investigate the effect of the chosen nominal halo orbit on the multiple-
shooting method. The results of the multiple-shooting method for a larger nominal halo orbit, corresponding
to x0 = 1.011, hence slightly to the left of the halo orbit for x0 = 1.01124, are presented in Table 4.4. It can
23
CHAPTER 4. THE NOMINAL HALO ORBIT
Table 4.4: Total ∆V and maximum deviation from the nominal orbit against the number of shoots used for
absolute station keeping, for a halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.011 and f0 = 0.
shoots 2 3 4 5 10 50
∆V per orbit [m/s] 18.45 11.63 11.32 11.92 13.79 15.61
max ∆s [km] 17,901.85 4,825.55 2,599.52 1,669.64 440.82 18.34
be seen that the absolute station keeping cost increases compared to the orbit for x0 = 1.01124. The orbit
corresponding to x0 = 1.011 reaches an absolute station keeping ∆V budget of approximately 15.9 m/s in
the limit of continuous control. The absolute station keeping cost can be found to continue to increase as
halo orbits are located further to the left, hence closer to the second primary. Looking at Equations 2.2 and
3.14, this can be explained by the increasing differences in acceleration between the CRTBP and ERTBP as
the distance from the equilibrium point L2 increases, caused by the (1 + e cos f )−1 term in the xy-plane, and
an additional z-term in the z-direction.
24
Chapter 5
25
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
z' β
z Deputy
s
Chief
y'
x' α
Sun
y
x Earth
For inertial formations, the positive rotation of the primaries about the z-axis causes α to decrease at the rate
of the angular velocity of the primaries. Hence, for an inertial formation, the deputy’s position with respect
to the chief’s position at some point in time in the RTBP can be calculated from:
where ∆f represents the true anomaly traversed by the primaries since initialization.
Note that for deep space observations, as were to be performed by XEUS, inertial formations are required,
given the inertial observation target. However, an investigation of rotating formations allows one to gain
more insight into formation dynamics in the CRTBP, so we will consider both types of formations in the anal-
yses to follow. In the following discussions we will offen refer to semi-inertial formations, which are inertial
formations whose orientation is often reinitialized throughout the orbit, such as to allow for a reasonable
comparison with rotating formations. A more detailed discussion on this is presented in Section 5.2.2.
5.2.1 Approach
The ETM method, which uses impulsive maneuvers at constant time intervals in order to keep the relative
position in a spacecraft formation within a certain tolerance, is illustrated by Figure 5.2. Here, the nominal
deputy orbit is defined by a constant offset s from the natural chief orbit, such that the deputy orbit is
generally unnatural. In order to enforce the deputy to follow the unnatural orbit, the orbit is split up into
equal time segments, at the start of which the deputy performs an impulsive maneuver, ∆Vi , such as to
enforce an intersection with the nominal orbit at the end of the segment. In figure 5.2, the subscripts indicate
the corresponding segment, and the relative velocities of the deputy are given by δVi , where the superscripts
26
5.2. EQUITIME TARGETING METHOD
ΔV2 + δV3-
δV2
s
chief orbit
δV2-
ΔV1 δV+
1
s
δV1-
Figure 5.2: Illustration of a simple linear targeting method for formation control.
− and + indicate the state before and after the impulsive maneuver is performed, respectively. Note that, in
order to find the required ∆V, again a differential correction algorithm according to Equation 4.17 is used.
27
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
(a) (b)
60 30
50 25
position error [cm]
30 15
20 10
10 5
rotating rotating
inertial semi-inertial
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.3: Relative position error throughout approximately one halo orbit using the ETM method, applied
to a (a) rotating and inertial formation at a nominal separation of 50 m, initially oriented along the y-axis
performing an impulsive maneuver every 5 days, and similarly for (b) a rotating and semi-inertial formation.
inertial formation, each re-initialization of the formation orientation requires performing the ETM method
for one segment backwards in time, so as to obtain a relative velocity that is uniquely defined by a previous
maneuver and not dependent on an arbitrary re-initialization. Note that this also applies to the initial state
of a rotating formation, where such a backwards step is only required once at initialization. Figure 5.4 shows
how the initial ∆V is an obvious outlier for the case that such a backwards differential correction step is
not performed for a rotating formation. In literature such as Qi and Xu (2011) and Howell and Marchand
(2005), such a backwards differential correction step is not performed, leading to an arbitrary initialization
of the relative velocity in the formation, and consequently a jump in the required ∆V after the first correc-
tive maneuver is performed, much like the one displayed for the non-corrected approach in Figure 5.4. For
rotating formations, this will not have a significant impact on most of the results, since it only affects one
∆V value out of many. However, given the re-initialization of a semi-inertial formation at the beginning of
every segment, it is strictly necessary to perform this backwards step in order to get any sensible data on
∆V’s at all. In this study, all arbitrary initialization dependencies are removed by applying such a backwards
differential correction step whenever it is needed.
5.2.3 Results
Results of the ETM method in terms of ∆V’s and the relative position error are presented here for rotating
and semi-inertial formations, discussing their dependence on time in between maneuvers, or segment time,
the formation separation distance, and the formation orientation.
Segment time
Figure 5.5 shows the maximum relative position error and the required ∆V’s for formation control of rotating
and semi-inertial formations at a nominal separation of 50m along the y-axis, using the ETM method, for
segment times of every 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days. Note that every error arc in Figure 5.5 (a) and (b) corresponds
to one segment, at the beginning of which an impulsive maneuver is performed, with the maximum error
occurring approximately halfway along the segment.
28
5.2. EQUITIME TARGETING METHOD
4.5
3.5
3
Δ V [µm/s]
2.5
1.5
1
with correction
without correction
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days]
Figure 5.4: ∆V’s for a 50 m rotating formation using the ETM method for 5 days in between maneuvers, with
and without a backwards differential correction step performed, which removes the dependency on arbitrary
initialization conditions.
It can be seen that the maximum error in between maneuvers is approximately equal to the square of the
segment time, for both rotating and semi-inertial formations. An expression is derived by Qi and Xu (2011)
that indeed shows that in the limit of the segment time approaching zero, this is exactly the case for the
CRTBP. This relation can more intuitively be deduced by realizing that for the segment time approaching
zero, the relative acceleration approaches a constant, hence yielding a parabolic error curve. The reason
that this relation still holds fairly well for the finite segment times considered, is that they cover relatively
short time spans with respect to the orbital period of roughly 180 days, such that relatively small distances
are covered, hence variations in force gradients are small. Furthermore, the maximum position error of the
deputy is relatively small compared to the formation distance, also yielding relatively small changes in the
relative acceleration. As a result, the relative acceleration can be approximated to be of constant magnitude
throughout one segment, yielding a quadratic relationship between segment time and maximum position
error.
Another observation that can be made from Figure 5.5 is that the ∆V’s required are approximately pro-
portional to the segment times. This again makes sense, because sustaining a nearly constant acceleration
for a longer period of time, requires a proportional ∆V increase to dump the built up velocity.
Furthermore, Figure 5.5 shows that the maximum relative position errors, as well as the ∆V’s required,
have a peak at around 90 days, roughly corresponding to the halo orbit’s perigee position3 . The larger
maximum error, and larger required ∆V here, can be attributed to the closer proximity to the Earth, leading
to larger gravity gradients, hence more rapidly varying dynamics along any direction.
Finally, it can be seen that semi-inertial formations require more control and yield higher relative errors
than a rotating formation for the case considered. This however, is not generally applicable but rather
depends on the nominal formation orientation. This is more elaborately discussed and explained in Section
5.4.
3 Recall that the halo orbit is initialized in apogee position for all simulations performed.
29
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
5
5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Δ V [µm/s]
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.5: Relative position error for a 50 m (a) rotating formation and a (b) semi-inertial formation,
oriented along the y-axis, using the ETM method for different segment times. The corresponding ∆V’s are
presented in (c) and (d) respectively.
30
5.2. EQUITIME TARGETING METHOD
Formation separation
Figure 5.6 shows the maximum relative position error and the required ∆V’s for formation control of rotating
and semi-inertial formations at nominal separations of 10, 50, and 100 m along the y-axis, for a segment
time of 2 days. It can be seen that the maximum relative position error is approximately proportional to
the formation separation distance. The same proportional relation can be found for the case of a semi-
inertial formation, as well as the ∆V’s required for both types of formations. The proportionality of the
maximum position error with the formation separation distance can be explained by the nearly constant force
gradient over the relatively small formation separation distances as compared to the distance from either
of the primaries. As a result, the relative acceleration approximately scales with the formation separation
distance, hence also the maximum relative position error and ∆V.
Formation orientation
Figure 5.7 shows the maximum relative position error and the required ∆V’s for 50 m rotating and semi-
inertial formations along the x-, y-, and z-axes, for a segment time of 2 days. It can be seen that the least
favorable orientation is along the x-axis, which yields the largest maximum position errors, as well as the
largest ∆V’s. This is to be expected, since the x-axis is most closely aligned with the line of sight to either
primary, in which direction the gravity gradient is most significant. It should be noted that for much larger
halo orbits, such as the largest halo orbit presented in Figure 4.1, the most favorable formation orientation
will vary much more significantly throughout the orbit, mostly according to the different orientation with
respect to the Earth. Furthermore, such a large halo orbit will have it’s perigee at an x-value nearly similar to
that of the Earth itself, resulting in a Sun-Earth view angle of nearly 90 degrees, negating the usual benefits
of easy shielding strategies for smaller halo orbits. The worst formation orientation in terms of relative
acceleration for the nominal halo orbit is calculated in Section 5.4 for a couple of points along the halo orbit
considered, which shows it to be closely aligned with the x-axis for each point.
Finally, it can be seen that a translation of the results from rotating formations to semi-inertial formations
is not straightforward, but rather depends on the formation’s orientation. A formation along the x-axis
seems to benefit from the semi-inertial formation’s rotation with respect to the RTBP frame, showing smaller
position errors and ∆V’s, whereas a formation along the y-axis shows larger maximum position errors for
semi-inertial formations, and a formation along the rotating z-axis naturally remains unaffected, since such
a formation is parallel to the axis of rotation. The position errors for semi-inertial formations along the y-
and z-axes actually become very similar, which is most easily explained by considering an inertial reference
frame where the Sun-Earth line coincides with the x-axis for the point in time considered. In this case, the
relative accelerations for inertial formations in y- and z-direction are affected only by gravity gradients from
the Sun and the Earth, which have a similar effect in either of these direction for small values of y and z and
become even identical if the formation is located on the x-axis (for infinitesimally small separation distances,
though still nearly identical for the relatively small separation distances considered in this study). A more
analytical explanation to the relation between rotating and semi-inertial formation is given in Section 5.4.2,
where linear expressions are derived for, among other, the maximum relative position error as a function of
absolute position and formation configuration.
Minimum ∆V
Looking at the results presented by Figures 5.5 through 5.7, something that stands out which has not been
mentioned before, is how small the required ∆V’s are, even falling well below 1 µm/s for formation sizes of 10
m. One should keep in mind that very small thrust levels are generally associated with higher implementation
inaccuracies, the effect of which is not investigated in the current study. Furthermore, for small satellites at
small separations, the ∆V requirements might impose prohibitively small thrust requirements. In order to
check the feasibility of implementing ∆V’s on the order of 1 µm/s and below, one can look at similar missions
that also have strict thrust requirements. One such mission, currently occupying a Lissajous orbits about the
Sun-Earth L2 point, is Gaia. Gaia uses cold gas thrusters for fine attitude adjustments, complying with strict
accuracy requirements, yielding thrust levels in the range of 1 µN - 500 µN, a thrust resolution smaller than a
31
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
3 4
3
2
2
1 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
3
Δ V [µm/s]
Δ V [µm/s]
2
2
1
1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.6: Relative position error for (a) rotating formations and (b) semi-inertial formations at different
separation distances, oriented along the y-axis, using the ETM method for a segment time of 2 days. The
corresponding ∆V’s are presented in (c) and (d) respectively.
32
5.2. EQUITIME TARGETING METHOD
7 7
position error [cm]
4
3
Δ V [µm/s]
Δ V [µm/s]
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.7: Relative position error for (a) rotating and (b) semi-inertial formations at a separation of 50 m,
oriented along the x-, y-, and z-axes, using the ETM method for a segment time of 2 days. The corresponding
∆V’s are presented in (c) and (d) respectively.
33
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
µN, and response times lower than 300 msec, as defined in Noci et al. (2009). Note that the LISA pathfinder
uses identical cold gas thrusters, currently following a Lissajous orbit about the Sun-Earth L1 point, also using
thrust levels on the order of µN’s (Rudolph et al., 2016). Based on these missions, it follows that low ∆V’s
on the order of 1 µm/s are quite feasible if one considers spacecraft with masses on the order of 1000 kg or
more, as was the case for the concept design of XEUS (Bavdaz et al., 2004). This would lead to minimum
required specific impulses on the order of 10−3 Ns. The problem would become more challenging if smaller
spacecraft were considered, for instance, with a mass of 1 kg, in which case the minimum impulse bit that
Gaia’s cold gas thrusters are capable of would become too large to deliver the ∆V’s presented in Figures 5.5
through 5.7.
Although we will no longer consider any practical issues with the implementation of resulting ∆V’s, it is
important to keep these possible limitations in mind. Given the state of propulsion technology at some future
point in time, the linear approximations to be derived in this report, can be useful for determining a limit on
the possibilities of formation control for a given spacecraft mass. Namely, the resulting minimum ∆V could
be used to approximate the minimum formation size for which a certain upper bound on the relative position
error can be achieved (see Equation 5.10 through 5.12).
It should be realized that the above discussion applies to the unperturbed CRTBP, whereas in reality,
perturbations, solar radiation in particular, can cause the relative accelerations to be much higher. Conse-
quently, the required ∆V’s will be higher, alleviating the minimum thrust requirements, as further discussed
in Chapter 8.
5.3.1 Approach
In order to implement a TTM algorithm, one can use the apparent quadratic relation between segment time
and maximum error as observed in Figure 5.5. Note that the validity of this relation is backed up by the
linear approximation presented in Section 5.4. An iterative method can be used that corrects the segment
time according to: r
εallowed
∆t+ = ∆t− (5.3)
ε−
where ∆t+ and ∆t− are the segment times corresponding to the new and previous iteration, and εallowed and
ε− are the maximum relative position error allowed and the error found for the previous iteration respectively.
Equation 5.3 can be used until the maximum relative position error along the segment is within acceptable
limits, which in this work is specified to be within a 0.1% range of the desired maximum relative position
error.
Slightly different approaches to the TTM method are taken by Pernicka et al. (2006) and Qi and Xu
(2011), where the latter presents a more sophisticated expression to correct for the segment time. However,
all simulations performed in this study for formation separations up to 1000 m, have shown to need no more
than a few iterations using Equation 5.3, where most of the time even just a single iteration is enough to
correct the segment time.
34
5.3. TANGENT TARGETING METHOD
(a) (b)
1 14
ETM ETM
TTM TTM
12
0.8
position error [m]
10
Δ V [µm/s]
0.6
8
0.4
6
0.2
4
0 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.8: comparison between the ETM and TTM method, for a 100 m rotating formation along y, for a 1
m error corridor.
To illustrate the benefits of using the TTM method as opposed to the ETM method, Figure 5.8 presents a
comparison between the ETM and TTM methods for a rotating formation, separated 100 m along the y-axis,
and an error corridor of 1 m. It can be seen that the benefit of using the TTM method as opposed to the ETM
is twofold: firstly, the maximum segment time increases, allowing for longer observation times without any
thruster disturbances, and secondly, the minimum required ∆V increases, which can be beneficial, given the
possibly prohibitively small thrust requirements.
The formation configuration considered in Figure 5.8 is chosen because it provides a means of verifying
the results to Qi and Xu (2011), where numerical data for a formation in a similar halo orbit is presented,
approximately corresponding to x0 = 1.01124. The results obtained by Qi and Xu (2011) and the current
author are compared and presented in Table 5.1. Firstly, it can be seen that data with respect to the segment
time and number of maneuvers is found to be quite similar, with small differences occuring most likely due
to the non-identical halo orbits considered. Secondly, it can be seen that some significant differences do
occur in the ∆V’s. This can be explained by the non-inclusion of a backwards integration step to remove
the initial ∆V’s dependency on the arbitrary formation initialization used in Qi and Xu (2011). As such,
the minimum ∆V found by Qi and Xu (2011) actually correspond to the first corrective maneuver, which
completely depends on the arbitraty initiliazation of the formation’s relative position and velocity, hence is not
a very representative result. Also note that the accuracy of the results obtained in the current study are backed
up by the linear approximations presented in Section 5.4. For completeness, Table 5.2 presents the benefits
of the TTM method over the ETM method for a semi-inertial formation. Similar to rotating formations, Table
5.2 shows an increase in minimum ∆V and maximum segment time for semi-inertial formations using the
TTM as compared to the ETM, and a decrease in number of maneuvers, while the total ∆V does not change
significantly, especially considering how small the total ∆V budget is. It should be noted that for inertial
formations, as opposed to semi-inertial formation, the benefits of using the TTM method could become
even more pronounced, depending on the formation orientation and the amount of time during which the
formation is to maintain its inertially fixed orientation. This follows from Figure 5.3, showing more strongly
varying dynamics throughout the orbit, which the TTM method is optimized for.
35
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
Table 5.1: Comparison of the ETM and TTM method for a 100 m, rotating formation along the y-axis and
an error corridor of 1 m, as obtained by Qi and Xu (2011) as well as the current author. The results are
representative of one full halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124.
minimum total min segment maximum number of ma-
∆V[µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] time [days] segment time neuvers
[days]
Current author
ETM 4.98 219.83 7.16 7.16 26
TTM 8.00 221.36 7.16 11.42 21
Qi and Xu (2011)
ETM 5.08 208 7.19 7.19 25
TTM 6.14 218 7.19 11.39 21
Table 5.2: Comparison of the ETM and TTM method for a 100 m, semi-inertial formation along the y-axis
and an error corridor of 1 m, over one full halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124.
minimum total min segment maximum number of ma-
∆V[µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] time [days] segment time neuvers
[days]
ETM 6.77 259.07 6.53 6.53 28
TTM 9.78 263.09 6.53 9.47 23
5.3.2 Results
For the remainder of this report, we will mostly consider the TTM method, given its benefits as compared
to the ETM method, and hence will likely be the preferred method of choice for any practical applications.
Given this shift, from this point onwards, most results will be given in terms of the segment time as a function
of the position in orbit, as opposed to the relative position error throughout the orbit. Note that for the
relatively small formation separations considered in this study, hence slowly varying relative accelerations,
the qualitative results for maximum relative position error observed in Section 5.2.3 can be extended to the
variation of the segment time along a halo orbit, where an increase in maximum position error between two
positions along the halo orbit now implies a decrease in segment time by approximately the square root of
that factor. Other than this, the conclusions presented in Section 5.2.3 remain the same, hence we will not
reproduce Figures 5.5 through 5.7 for the TTM method. Numeric results are presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4,
where results for the ∆V’s and segment times are presented for different formation sizes and orientations,
using the TTM method with an error corridor of 1 cm, over one full halo orbit, for rotating and semi-inertial
formations. Note that the error corridor is chosen based on benchmark missions for formation flying about
the Sun-Earth L2 point, suggested by Bristow et al. (2000) and Carpenter et al. (2003).
Although we have already decided on a specific halo orbit, corresponding to x0 = 1.01124, and do not gain
any practical benefits from using a larger halo orbit for purposes considered in this study, we will still perform
one quick check on the effect of increasing the size of the halo orbit to satisfy our curiosity. Figure 5.9 shows
the segment times and ∆V’s for a 50 m rotating formation along y, for the relatively small reference halo orbit
considered, and a much larger halo orbit, corresponding to x0 = 1.01124 and x0 = 1.0083 respectively4 . Note
that the larger halo orbit has a smaller period, so that it traverses more than one orbit during the timespan
presented in Figure 5.9. As expected, figure 5.9 shows larger variations in both segment time and ∆V for
the larger halo orbit, due to the larger variation in position with respect to the primaries, which also causes
the worst orientation in terms of segment time to change more prominantly throughout the orbit. Hence,
formation keeping becomes more dependent on the position along the orbit. Furthermore, for comparison,
4 Recall that moving the initial position x0 to the left, initially increases the size of the halo orbit, as can be seen from Figure 4.1
36
5.3. TANGENT TARGETING METHOD
Table 5.3: Numerical results for rotating formations of different separations and orientations using the TTM
method with an error corridor of 1 cm, over one full halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124.
orien- minimum average ∆V total minimum maximum average seg-
tation ∆V [µm/s] [µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] segment segment ment time
time [days] time [days] [days]
10 m formation
x 0.465 0.524 52.898 1.424 1.989 1.794
y 0.253 0.338 21.947 2.266 3.650 2.820
z 0.310 0.362 25.375 2.056 2.988 2.600
50 m formation
x 1.041 1.172 263.696 0.637 0.890 0.802
y 0.566 0.757 109.060 1.013 1.634 1.258
z 0.693 0.811 126.497 0.920 1.336 1.162
100 m formation
x 1.472 1.658 527.106 0.450 0.629 0.567
y 0.801 1.072 217.622 0.717 1.156 0.889
z 0.980 1.147 252.385 0.650 0.945 0.822
Table 5.4: Numerical results for semi-inertial formations of different separations and orientations using the
TTM method with an error corridor of 1 cm, over one full halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124.
orien- minimum average ∆V total minimum maximum average seg-
tation ∆V [µm/s] [µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] segment segment ment time
time [days] time [days] [days]
10 m formation
x 0.432 0.495 47.064 1.480 2.146 1.904
y 0.310 0.367 26.056 2.076 2.991 2.566
z 0.310 0.362 25.375 2.056 2.988 2.600
50 m formation
x 0.966 1.109 235.016 0.662 0.959 0.851
y 0.692 0.822 129.886 0.929 1.337 1.147
z 0.693 0.811 126.497 0.920 1.336 1.162
100 m formation
x 1.367 1.568 470.327 0.468 0.678 0.602
y 0.979 1.163 259.367 0.657 0.946 0.811
z 0.980 1.147 252.385 0.650 0.945 0.822
37
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
(a) (b)
2.4 3
x large x large
2.2 x small
y large
x small
y large
2
y small 2.5 y small
z large z large
z small z small
1.8
segment time[days]
2
1.6
Δ V [µm/s]
1.4
1.5
1.2
1
1
0.8
0.6 0.5
0.4
0.2 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 5.9: (a) Segment times and (b) ∆V’s for the TTM method for a small and large halo orbit, corre-
sponding to x0 = 1.01124 and x0 = 1.008300 respectively (see Table 4.2 for more initial conditions). A 50 m,
rotating formation with an error corridor of 1 cm is considered.
Table 5.5: Numerical results for 50 m rotating formations of different orientations using the TTM method
with an error corridor of 1 cm, for a large halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.0083 over one full orbit.
orien- minimum average ∆V total minimum maximum average seg-
tation ∆V [µm/s] [µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] segment segment ment time
time [days] time [days] [days]
x 0.730 1.150 190.872 0.422 1.267 0.955
y 0.410 1.357 227.959 0.416 2.257 0.945
z 0.501 1.389 230.649 0.317 1.848 0.955
Table 5.5 shows numeric results in similar format to Table 5.3, for the larger halo orbit considered, which
shows an increase in average ∆V for any orientation, as well as larger variation in both ∆V and segment
times. A formation along x does, however, show a smaller ∆V budget for the larger orbit, because its
orientation no longer aligns closely with the worst orientation throughout the entire orbit. This can deduced
from Figure 4.1, by realizing that the worst formation orientation in terms of relative accelerations is close
to the line of sight to the Earth. Do note that the ∆V budget is given for one halo orbit, the period of which
is smaller for the larger halo orbit considered, as shown in Table 4.2.
38
5.4. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
δ Ẋ = A(t)δX (5.4)
where δ denotes a differences from the nominal state, in our case that of the deputy with respect to the
chief. Note that for rotating formations, hence fixed in the RTBP reference frame, the relative velocity can be
assumed to be equal to zero, especially for small formation sizes, such that Equation 5.4 reduces to:
Uxx Uxy Uxz
δr̈ = Uyx Uyy Uyz δr (5.5)
Uzx Uzy Uzz
where δr̈ and δr are the relative acceleration and relative position of the deputy with respect to the chief
respectively. Note that expressions for the second partial derivatives are given in Appendix A for reference.
Now, assuming the relative acceleration to be nearly constant throughout the duration of one segment, thus
creating a parabolic error arc in time, the relative position error along a segment can be approximated by:
1
ε ≈ V̄0 t − āt2 (5.6)
2
where V̄0 indicates the initial velocity and ā the constant acceleration. Given that the position error is zero at
the beginning and the end of a segment:
1
V̄0 ≈ ā∆t (5.7)
2
thus,
1 1
ε ≈ āt∆t − āt2 (5.8)
2 2
where ∆t is the segment time. Now, the maximum relative position error along the segment, occuring at
∆t/2 is given by:
1
εmax ≈ ā∆t2 (5.9)
8
Substituting Equation 5.5 into Equation 5.9, the maximum error can be approximated for any point along
the orbit, using:
Uxx Uxy Uxz
1
Uyx Uyy Uyz δr
∆t2
εmax ≈
(5.10)
8
Uzx Uzy Uzz
Furthermore, from Equation 5.7 the required ∆V ’s can be approximated by:
∆V ≈ 2 ∗ V0
Uxx Uxy Uxz (5.11)
≈
Uyx
Uyy Uyz δr
∆t
Uzx Uzy Uzz
and finally, rewriting Equation 5.10 for ∆t gives an approximation of the maximum segment time for a given
error corridor: v
u
−1
u
Uxx Uxy Uxz
u
∆t ≈ 8
Uyx Uyy Uyz δr
t
εmax (5.12)
Uzx Uzy Uzz
Note that the results of Equations 5.10 and 5.12 are non-dimensional, though are readily converted to dimen-
sional units using Appendix B. Furthermore, these equations are exact only for infitesimally small formation
39
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
Table 5.6: Percentage differences between the linear approximations given by Equations 5.10 and 5.11, and
the integration of the full non-linear system, using the ETM, for different formation separations and segment
times ∆t. A rotating formation oriented along the x-axis is considered, approximately at perigee position.
Accuracies for the maximum relative position error and ∆V are shown as ”ε; ∆V”.
XXX
separation
XX XX 100 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
∆t XXX
1 day 0.04; 0.05 0.05; 0.05 0.14; 0.14 0.96; 0.96
2 days 0.18; 0.17 0.18; 0.17 0.27; 0.26 1.10; 1.09
5 days 1.12; 1.00 1.12; 1.00 1.21; 1.09 2.03; 1.91
10 days 4.40; 3.83 4.40; 3.83 4.48; 3.94 5.26; 4.71
separations and segment times, though the constant nature of the relative dynamics suggest that these ap-
proximations are quite accurate for relatively small formation separations and segment times. In order to
get some indication of the accuracy of Equations 5.10 and 5.11, they are compared to results obtained from
integration of the full non-linear system. This is done and presented in Table 5.6, where the differences are
presented in percentages for a formation along the x-axis, using the ETM method, at the point along the halo
orbit where the maximum relative position occurs (near perigee), so as to represent a near-to-worst case
scenario where the dynamics most rapidly change, hence the assumptions for the linear approximations most
easily break up. It can be seen from Table 5.6 that the linear approximation formulas are very accurate for
relatively small formation sizes and small segment times. Moreover, the accuracy is not very sensitive to the
formation size, where accuracies of around 1% can still be obtained for a formation size as large as 10,000
km at a segment time of 1 or 2 days, and naturally an even better result will be obtained for more favorable
orientations. The results are more sensitive to a change in the segment time. This because large segment
times will lead to much larger changes in absolute position than the deputy’s separation from the chief, hence
more significantly deteriorating the assumption of constant acceleration than an increase in formation size.
Finally, we will quickly discuss the worst orientation in terms of relative acceleration, which in the accuracy
analysis before, was assumed to be along the x-axis. In order to find the actual orientation along which the
relative acceleration increases most rapidly, we can take the eigenvector of the mapping matrix in Equation
5.5 corresponding to the largest eigenvalue, for a specific point along the orbit. This will give the exact
orientation yielding the worst relative acceleration for infinitesimally small formation separations, and still
an accurate approximation for small finite formation separations, considering the small impact of formation
size on the relative acceleration as follows from Table 5.6. The worst orientations in terms of relative accel-
eration are checked for four positions along the halo orbit, corresponding to the apogee position, minimum
y-position, perigee position, and maximum y-position, given by:
−0.995 −0.935 −0.990 −0.935
v apo = 0.000 ; v ymin = 0.352 ; v per = 0.000 ; v ymax = −0.351 (5.13)
−0.100 −0.019 0.139 −0.019
The worst orientation is indeed closest to the x-axis for any position along the halo orbit. As expected, there
is a small tilt away from the x-axis towards the primaries for any point along the halo orbit as well. At the
perigee position, for which the accuracy analysis in Table 5.6 is performed, there is a small tilt in positive
z-direction, due to the positive relative z-position of the Earth with respect to the formation, as can be seen
in Figure 4.1. Therefore, the percentage differences presented in Table 5.6 could become slightly larger still.
However, the difference in relative accelerations between the x-direction and the worst orientation found,
would be small5 . Hence, Table 5.6 still gives a good indication of the obtainable accuracy using the linear
approximations presented.
5 The worst orientation at perigee position, as given by Equation 5.13, is tilted approximately 0.14 rad from the x-axis. Hence, the
relative acceleration for a formation in the x-direction is no more than 1% smaller than the relative acceleration for a formation oriented
along the worst orientation, having a negligible effect on the percentage differences obtained in Table 5.6.
40
5.4. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
This can be simplified by realizing that a non-dimensional unit of time is equal to the inverse of the rotation
rate of the primaries. Given that the required rotation rate of an inertial formation is equal to the rotation
rate of the primaries, and opposite in direction, the necessary rotation rate of an inertial formation in non-
dimensional units is equal to unity, and in clockwise direction, so that:
δ ẋ δy
= (5.15)
δ ẏ −δx
A similar comparison between the linear approximations and results obtained from the simulation has been
performed for an inertial formation, as presented in Table 5.7. Table 5.7 shows that the accuracy of a linear
approximation for inertial formations is slightly lower than for rotating formation, which is to be expected,
41
CHAPTER 5. FORMATION FLYING IN THE CRTBP
Table 5.7: Percentage differences between the linear approximations given by Equations 5.19 and 5.20, and
the integration of the full non-linear system, using the ETM method, for different formation separations and
segment times ∆t. An inertial formation oriented along the x-axis is considered, approximately at perigee
position. Accuracies for the maximum relative position error and ∆V are shown as ”ε; ∆V”.
XXX
separation
XX XX 100 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
∆t XXX
1 day 0.06; 0.06 0.06; 0.06 0.16; 0.16 1.05; 1.05
2 days 0.18; 0.55 0.18; 0.55 0.28; 0.65 1.17; 1.55
5 days 1.13; 3.34 1.13; 3.34 1.23; 3.44 2.11; 4.32
10 days 4.42; 12.41 4.42; 12.42 4.52; 12.51 5.37; 13.37
given the change in orientation during a time segment, causing a change in relative acceleration. The differ-
ence in accuracy is more pronounced for the ∆V approximation, which can be explained by the fact that the
required ∆V depends on the acceleration built up over both the previous and the following segment, whereas
the maximum error depends only on the acceleration profile over the segment to follow. The dependency
of ∆V’s on the acceleration profile over a longer time interval, causes the larger inaccuracies, given the in-
creased change in orientation for an inertial formation.
In order to explain the differences between rotating and semi-inertial formations, as shown in Figure 5.7, we
can look at the mapping matrix presented in Equation 5.4, for different positions along the halo orbit. Taking
the same four point along the halo orbit as used in determining the worst orientation, we obtain:
6.887 0 0.986 6.571 −3.285 0.195
Aapo = 0 −2.024 0 ; Aymin = −3.285 −0.938 −0.101
0.986 0 −2.864 0.195 −0.101 −3.633
(5.22)
13.060 0 −2.707 6.571 3.285 0.195
Aper = 0 −5.267 0 ; Aymax = 3.285 −0.938 0.101
−2.707 0 −5.793 0.195 0.101 −3.633
Note that the mapping matrices’ first, second and third columns represent the resulting acceleration due to a
displacement along the x-, y-, and z-axes respectively. Now, given that inertial formations have a correcting
term -1 in the top left entry, we find that for any position along the halo orbit, the norm of the first column
will be smaller, hence the perturbing acceleration due to a displacement along the x-axis is smaller for inertial
formations than for rotating formation. Similarly, due to the correcting -1 term in the middle entry, we see
that the norm of the second column becomes larger. Hence, the perturbing acceleration due to a displace-
ment along the y-axis becomes larger for inertial formations. These finding are in agreement with Figure 5.7.
42
5.5. PRECISION AND INTEGRATION ACCURACY
accuracy requirement requires at least the 15th significant digit to be defined, which is on the edge of what
one can achieve using double precision. Note that another solution would be to use a higher precision format,
which was not desirable for the current study, given the program’s dependencies on software packages that
necessarily require double precision variables, and hence, would have to be rewritten if one opts for using a
higher precision format, being a time consuming process.
43
Chapter 6
Table 6.1: Results for segment times and ∆V’s of the TTM method for a rotating, 100 m formation along the
x-axis in the ERTBP, initialized at a true anomaly of 3π/2 of the Earth, for 4- and 50-shoot absolute station
keeping strategies.
number of minimum average total minimum maximum average
shoots ∆V[µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] ∆V[µm/s] segment segment segment
time[days] time[days] time[days]
4 1.486 1.690 535.583 0.439 0.623 0.557
50 1.487 1.688 535.249 0.439 0.623 0.557
45
CHAPTER 6. FORMATION FLYING IN THE ERTBP
6.2 Results
This section presents results obtained from integration of the full system of non-linear equations of motion in
the ERTBP. Results for formation flying in the ERTBP will be graphically presented for different orientations
and different initial true anomalies of the Earth, whereas results for different formation separations and time
in between maneuvers are omitted, given that, following similar reasoning as for the CRTBP, they obey the
same relationships where the maximum error is proportional to formation separation and the square of the
segment time; or rather, the segment time is proportional to the square root of the error corridor, as well as
the square root of the formation separation.
Different orientations
Figure 6.1 presents the segment times and ∆V’s for a 50 m formation at different orientations, for both
rotating and semi-inertial formations, in the CRTBP and the ERTBP for an initial Earth true anomaly f0 =
0. Note that we have defined the segment time at a certain point along the orbit as the segment time
corresponding to the segment whose maximum error occurs at the point considered, rather than a segment
that starts at the point considered. Also recall that halo orbits are initialized in apogee position for all
simulations. A first observation that follows from inspection of Figure 6.1, is that the segment time for
formation flying in the ERTBP, as compared to the CRTBP, is slightly smaller at the start of the orbit and
slightly larger after one full halo orbit. This can be explained by the fact that the Earth is initially in perihelion,
whereas after one halo orbit the Earth will be near apohelion, corresponding to smaller and larger units of
length in the ERTBP respectively. Consequently the formation will be slightly closer or further away from
the Earth in dimensional units1 , leading to larger gravity gradients, hence larger relative accelerations, when
the Earth is in perihelion, and vice versa when the Earth is in apohelion. The differences in segment times
between the CRTBP and ERTBP are more quantifiably shown in Section 6.3.3.
Figure 6.1 also shows that the global maximum of the segment time for a formation in the ERTBP for f0 =
0 occurs slightly sooner than for a formation in the CRTBP. This can be explained by the faster progression of
non-dimensional time in the ERTBP compared to the CRTBP when the Earth is near perihelion, such that the
formation reaches it’s apogee position slightly sooner in Figure 6.1.
Furthermore, the ∆V’s required, show predictable behavior, where formation keeping requires slightly
larger ∆V’s near perihelion and slightly smaller ∆V’s near apohelion, where differences between the CRTBP
and ERTBP are approximately equal to the inverse of the factor by which the segment time increases.
Note that using the ERTBP normalized reference frame has more implications on the formation dynamics.
Namely, the differences in segment times and ∆V’s do not only depend on the Earth’s true anomaly, but also
on the formation’s orientation and position along the halo orbit. The exact dependencies for infinitesimally
small segment times and formation separations are given by linear approximations presented in Section 6.3.
46
6.2. RESULTS
segment time[days]
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
x ERTBP x ERTBP
x CRTBP x CRTBP
1.4 y ERTBP 1.4 y ERTBP
y CRTBP y CRTBP
z ERTBP z ERTBP
z CRTBP z CRTBP
1.2 1.2
Δ V [µm/s]
Δ V [µm/s]
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 6.1: Segment times for (a) rotating and (b) semi-inertial 50 m formations in the CRTBP and ERTBP,
oriented along the x-, y-, and z-axes, with an error corridor of 1 cm and f0 = 0. The corresponding ∆V’s in
the rotating and semi-inertial frame are presented in (c) and (d) respectively.
47
CHAPTER 6. FORMATION FLYING IN THE ERTBP
segment time[days]
1.4 1.2
1.3 1.15
1.2 1.1
1.05
1.1
1
1 0.95
0.9 0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
0.8 0.9
Δ V [µm/s]
Δ V [µm/s]
0.75 0.85
0.7 0.8
0.65 0.75
0.6 0.7
0.55 0.65
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 6.2: Segment times for (a) rotating and (b) semi-inertial 50 m formations along the y axis in the
CRTBP and ERTBP, at initial true anomalies of 0, π/2, π, and 3π/2, for an error corridor of 1 cm. The
corresponding ∆V’s in the rotating and semi-inertial frame are presented in (c) and (d) respectively.
48
6.2. RESULTS
Table 6.2: Segment times and ∆V’s for a 100 m formation along the z-axis, with a 1 cm error corridor, over
one full halo orbit for different initial true anomalies of the Earth.
initial true minimum average ∆V total ∆V minimum maximum average seg-
anomaly ∆V [µm/s] [µm/s] [µm/s] segment segment ment time
[rad] time [days] time [days] [days]
CRTBP
- 0.980 1.147 252.385 0.650 0.945 0.822
ERTBP
0 0.956 1.148 252.581 0.650 0.968 0.821
π/2 0.977 1.127 249.085 0.667 0.947 0.835
π 0.956 1.147 252.376 0.650 0.968 0.822
3π/2 0.981 1.168 255.876 0.634 0.945 0.808
terms of minimum segment time do not occur simultaneously. Rather, the formation will reach perigee when
the Earth is at a true anomaly of approximately π/2, 3π/2 and so on, in which case differences between the
ERTBP and CRTBP are small, as is also quantifiably shown in Section 6.3.3. This initialization also results
in a global maximum segment time, occuring once a year when the apogee position of the formation and
apohelion position of the Earth occur simultaneously.
Following the previously mentioned strategy of leaving the minimum segment time relatively unaffected,
inevitably causes the minimum ∆V to decrease, occuring when the formation is in apogee and the Earth is
in apohelion. Since this could be undesirable due to possible minimum thrust constraints as discussed in
Section 5.2.3, one might instead wish to aim for the minimum ∆V to be relatively unaffected. This can be
achieved by initializing the formation in apogee when the Earth is at a true anomaly of either π/2 or 3π/2.
Note that the influence of the Sun-Earth eccentricity on a formation near L2 is small, on the order of
only a few percent, rendering the choice for any specific strategy to benefit from the eccentricity somewhat
irrelevant. Moreover, the difference between the halo orbital period and half the orbital period of the pri-
maries will cause an initial alignment of the halo orbit and the primaries’ orbit to drift, further diminishing
the potential benefits from any specific initialization strategy. For instance, the small difference between the
halo orbital period and half the primaries’ orbital period will cause an initial alignment of the halo orbit’s
perigee position with the Earth’s perihelion, to drift to an alignment of the halo orbit reaching perigee when
the Earth is at a true anomaly of π/2 over the course of approximately 9 years. For systems with larger
eccentricities, as well as a resonance period for the halo orbit and primaries’ orbit, the benefits from a proper
initialization of the problem using one of the strategies mentioned before, could become more significant,
though in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, the benefits of any specific initialization can be considered irrelevant
due to the aforementioned reasons.
Numerical results
To conclude the section on simulation results, Table 6.2 shows the ∆V’s and segment times for a 100 m
formation along z, at different initial true anomalies in the ERTBP. Other orientations will not be considered
for now, though Section 6.3 shows that similar results would apply to formations along x or y.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table 6.2 as from Figure 6.2, showing a decrease in minimum
∆V by approximately 2.5% for an initial true anomaly of 0 or π, whereas it does not change significantly for
initial true anomalies of π/2 or 3π/2. Similarly, an increase and decrease of about 2.5% in minimum segment
time is observed for initial true anomalies of π/2 ans 3π/2 respectively, whereas initial true anomalies of
0 or π leave the minimum segment time relatively unaffected. Do again keep in mind that the halo orbit
considered has an orbital period of approximately half a year, such that a halo orbit starting when the Earth
is in perigee will be followed by a halo orbit that starts when the Earth is near apogee.
49
CHAPTER 6. FORMATION FLYING IN THE ERTBP
δ ż
or from Appendix A:
δ ẍ Uxx Uxy Uxz δx 0 2 0 δ ẋ
−1 δy + −2
δ ÿ = (1 + e cos f ) Uyx Uyy Uyz 0 0 δ ẏ (6.2)
δz̈ Uzx Uzy Uzz − e cos f δz 0 0 0 δ ż
Note that, for a nominally fixed dimensional separation, the non-dimensional separation in the ERTBP is
pulsating, given the pulsating unit of distance in the normalized reference frame. The resulting apparent
relative velocity in non-dimensional space is given by:
∗ d 1 d 1 + e cos f −e sin f −e sin f ∗
δ ṙ = δr = 2
δr = 2
r̂δr ∗ = r (6.3)
df r̂ df a(1 − e ) a(1 − e ) 1 + e cos f
where the asterisk denotes the non-dimensional separation. Moreover, a nominally fixed dimensional sepa-
ration imposes the need for an apparent relative acceleration in non-dimensional space, given by:
d2 1 d2 1 + e cos f )
∗ −e cos f −e cos f ∗
δr̈ = 2 δr = 2 δr = r̂δr ∗ = r (6.4)
df r̂ df a(1 − e2 ) a(1 − e2 ) 1 + e cos f
Substituting Equation 6.3 into Equation 6.1 and subtracting Equation 6.4 yields the perturbing acceleration
in non-dimensional space, given by Equation 6.5 or 6.6.
e cos f 2e sin f
δ ẍ ωxx + 1+e cos f ωxy − 1+e cos f ωxz δx
2e sin f e cos f
ωyx + 1+e cos f ωyy + 1+e cos f
δ ÿ = ωyz δy (6.5)
δz̈ e cos f δz
ωzx ωzy ωzz − 1 + 1+e cos f
δ ẍ Uxx + e cos f Uxy − 2e sin f Uxz δx
δ ÿ = (1 + e cos f )−1 Uyx + 2e sin f Uyy + e cos f Uyz δy (6.6)
δz̈ Uzx Uzy Uzz δz
Similar to the linear approximations presented in Section 5.4, the non-dimensional maximum error and ∆V
for a formation in the ERTBP can now be approximated by:
Uxx + e cos f Uxy − 2e sin f Uxz
1
εmax ≈ (1 + e cos f )−1
Uyx + 2e sin f Uyy + e cos f Uyz δr
∆t2
(6.7)
8
Uzx Uzy Uzz
50
6.3. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
Table 6.3: Percentage differences between the linear approximations given by Equations 6.7 and 6.8, com-
pared to the integration of the full non-linear system, for different formation separations and segment times
∆t. A rotating formation oriented along the x-axis is considered, starting at a true anomaly of 3π/2. The
table shows the accuracy of ε; ∆V.
XXX
separation
XX XX 100 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
∆t XXX
1 day 0.05; 0.06 0.05; 0.06 0.14; 0.15 0.97; 0.98
2 days 0.19; 0.20 0.19; 0.20 0.28; 0.29 1.11; 1.12
5 days 1.17; 2.24 1.17; 2.24 1.26; 2.33 2.07; 3.12
10 days 4.50; 9.22 4.50; 9.22 4.58; 9.29 5.30; 9.95
Uxx + e cos f Uxy − 2e sin f Uxz
−1
∆V ≈ (1 + e cos f )
Uyx + 2e sin f Uyy + e cos f Uyz δr
∆t (6.8)
Uzx Uzy Uzz
v
−1
u
Uxx + e cos f Uxy − 2e sin f Uxz
u
u
∆t ≈ 8(1 + e cos f )
Uyx + 2e sin f Uyy + e cos f Uyz δr
t
εmax (6.9)
Uzx Uzy Uzz
Table 6.3 presents an accuracy analysis for Equations 6.7 and 6.8, for what can again be considered as the
approximate worst-case scenario, representing a formation along the x-axis near perigee position, which was
initialized at a true anomaly of 3π/2, such that the perigee position in the halo orbit occurs approximately
when the Earth is at perihelion. The inaccuracies of the linear approximations in the ERTBP are slightly higher
than for the CRTBP, due to the explicit time dependence of the pseudo-potential function. Furthermore, the
changing pseudo-potential function over time has a larger effect on the accuracy of the ∆V than the accuracy
of the segment time, for similar reasons as inertial formations, as mentioned in Section 5.4.2.
An accuracy analysis of the linear approximations given by Equations 6.10 and 6.11 is presented in Table 6.4,
showing slightly higher inaccuracies for inertial formations than for rotating formations.
51
CHAPTER 6. FORMATION FLYING IN THE ERTBP
Table 6.4: Percentage differences between the linear approximations given by Equations 6.10 and 6.11,
compared to the integration of the full non-linear system, for different formation separations and segment
times ∆t. An inertial formation oriented along the x-axis is considered, starting at a true anomaly of 3π/2.
The table shows the accuracy of ε/∆V.
XXX
separation
XX XX 100 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
∆t XXX
1 day 0.06; 0.07 0.06; 0.07 0.16; 0.17 1.06; 1.07
2 days 0.24; 0.26 0.24; 0.26 0.34; 0.36 1.23; 1.25
5 days 1.30; 2.66 1.30; 2.67 1.39; 2.75 2.26; 3.60
10 days 4.76; 10.70 4.77; 10.70 4.85; 11.77 5.63; 11.47
2π 3
-2.4 -2.4
-1.8 -1.8
-1.2 -1.2 2
-0.6 -0.6
0 0
0.6 0.6
1.2 1.2 1
1.8 1.8
2.4 2.4
f [rad]
1π 0
2.4 2.4
1.8 1.8
1.2 1.2 -1
0.6 0.6
0 0
-0.6 -0.6
-1.2 -1.2 -2
-1.8 -1.8
-2.4 -2.4
0 -3
0 0.5T 1.0T 1.5T 2.0T
θ [T]
Figure 6.3: Percentage differences in segment time between the CRTBP and ERTBP as a function of the true
anomaly of the primaries and the position along the halo orbit, for a formation along the z-axis.
depends on the true anomaly as well as the formation’s orientation and position. The difference is most
straightforward for a formation along the z-direction, for which the true anomaly does not appear in the
mapping matrix, such that the difference in segment time between a formation in the CRTBP and ERTBP is
uniquely determined by the true anomaly of the primaries. For this orientation,
√ the linear approximations
show that the non-dimensional segment time differs only by the term 1 + e cos f . Taking the different
normalizations of the CRTBP and ERTBP into account2 , one can obtain the difference in dimensional segment
time (using Appendix B), yielding:
s
(1 − e2 )3
∆tERT BP,dimensional = ∆tCRT BP,dimensional (6.13)
(1 + e cos f )3
It follows from Equation 6.13 that the largest influence on differences in segment times between the CRTBP
and ERTBP, for a formation in z-direction, is the difference in progression of non-dimensional time. Figure
6.3 shows the percentage differences in segment time between the CRTBP and ERTBP as a function of the
true anomaly of the primaries and the position along the halo orbit, for a formation along the z-axis. Here,
2 Note that the different normalizations of the CRTBP and ERTBP also explain the counterintuitive results presented in Section 3.1,
showing the non-dimensional accelerations to be smaller when the primaries are in pericenter.
52
6.3. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
the position along the halo orbit is represented by a phase angle θ, where T is the halo orbital period. Note
that diagonal, dashed lines represent orbital paths of the formation. Although a contour plot is not very
relevant for the case of a formation along the z-axis, given its independence on the position in orbit, this
is not the case for formations in any other direction, for which differences in formation keeping do depend
on the formation’s orientation and position along the halo orbit, due to the true anomaly appearing in the
mapping matrices for Equations 6.9 and 6.12. Figure 6.4 shows the percentage differences in segment time
between the CRTBP and ERTBP as a function of the true anomaly of the primaries and the position along the
halo orbit, for rotating and inertial formations along the x- and y-axes. It can be seen from Figure 6.4 that
formations along x and y show similar differences in segment time to a formation along z, hence are still
mostly influenced by the different rates of time progression, which is given by Equation 6.13. However, small
deviations from Equation 6.13 are caused by the appearance of the true anomaly in the mapping matrices for
Equations 6.9 and 6.12. In fact, Figure 6.4 shows pockets of maximum increase or decrease at points where a
certain true anomaly and a certain position along the halo orbit occur simultaneously. Somewhat interesting
to note is that these pockets of increased difference could be avoided by proper initialization of the formation.
However, the difference between the halo orbital period and half the period of the primaries would cause
the initial intended alignment to drift over several orbits, negating any possible practical benefits of such an
approach in the Sun-Earth/Moon system. Note that these pockets of maximum increase and decrease occur
for all formations with an orientation component in the xy-plane, even though the number of contours used
in Figure 6.4 is too small for these pockets to be visible for other formations types than a rotating formation
along y.
Figures 6.3 and 6.4 can be produced for differences in ∆V as well. However, as follows from Equations
6.8 and 6.9, these differences would be the exact inverse of the differences in segment time. Therefore, such
figures are not presented here.
A more in-depth analysis of Figure 6.4 can be given by considering the true anomaly dependent terms in-
troduced in the mapping matrices for Equations 6.9 and 6.12 for the ERTBP, as well as the second partial
derivatives as given by Equation 5.22 for different points along the halo orbit. Firstly, the e cos f term intro-
duced in the ERTBP, representing a relative acceleration along the formation orientation due to the pulsating
axes, is positive when the Earth is near perihelion and negative when it is near apohelion. Given the negative
value for Uyy for any point along the halo orbit, the e cos f term decreases the magnitude of the relative
acceleration for a formation along y when the Earth is near perihelion and vice versa when the Earth is near
apohelion, hence increases and decreases the segment times respectively. The opposite result applies to a
formation along x, due to the positive values for Uxx along the halo orbit, causing a decrease in segment
time when the Earth is near perihelion, and an increase when the Earth is near apohelion. Hence the e cos f
term increases the differences in segment times between the CRTBP and ERTBP for a formation along x, and
vice versa for a formation along y. Furthermore, for a formation along y, the effect of the e cos f term is most
significant when the formation is in apogee, given the smallest norm of the second column given in Equation
5.22, clearly separating the pockets of maximum difference for rotating formation as seen in Figure 6.4 for
θ = 0, 1T, 2T , and to a lesser extent at θ = 0.5T, 1.5T , corresponding to the formation’s perigee position.
Note that for the halo orbit considered, the relative effect of the true anomaly dependent terms is smaller for
formations along x, as well as inertial formations, due to the generally larger relative accelerations associated
with such formations, causing Figure 6.4 (b), (c), and (d) to more closely resemble Figure 6.3.
A similar analysis can be performed for the 2e sin f term, or the apparent coriolis acceleration caused by
the apparent velocity due to the pulsating axes in the ERTBP. It can be found that, when the Earth is near
a true anomaly of π/2, the 2e sin f term causes an decrease in segment times for negative y-values (the first
half of the halo orbit), and an increase for positive y-values. The opposite is true for when the Earth is near a
true anomaly of 3π/2. This causes the observable wave for percentage differences in y-direction presented in
Figure 6.4. The effect of the 2e sin f term in x-direction is opposite to that in y-direction, causing a wave in
opposite direction in Figure 6.4, that is less pronounced than in y-direction due to aforementioned reasons.
53
CHAPTER 6. FORMATION FLYING IN THE ERTBP
f [rad]
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
1π 2.4 2.4 0 1π 0
2.4 2.4
1.8 2.4
1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8
1.8 -1 1.2 1.8 -1
0.6 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.2 1.2
0 0.6 0.6 0 0.6 0.6
-0.6 0 -0.6 0 0
-1.2 0 -0.6 -1.2 -0.6 -0.6
-0.6 -1.2 -2 -1.2 -1.2 -2
-1.8 -1.2 -1.8 -1.8
-1.8 -1.8 -1.8
-2.4 -2.4 -2.4
-2.4 -2.4
0 -3 0 -3
0 0.5T 1.0T 1.5T 2.0T 0 0.5T 1.0T 1.5T 2.0T
θ [T] θ [T]
f [rad]
Figure 6.4: Percentage differences in segment time between the CRTBP and ERTBP as a function of the true
anomaly of the primaries and the position along the halo orbit, for formations along the x- and y-axes.
54
6.3. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
Table 6.5: Maximum percentage differences in segment time between the ERTBP and CRTBP for rotating and
inertial formations along different orientations, as follows from the linearized equations of motion.
orientation rotating inertial
x 2.64 2.52
y 2.49 2.55
z 2.52 2.52
To conclude, the maximum differences in segment time between the CRTBP and ERTBP corresponding to
Figures 6.3 and 6.4 are given in Table 6.5. Note that the maximum difference of segment times in the ERTBP
with respect to the CRTBP is always positive. However, the maximum decrease is only slightly smaller in
magnitude (no more than 0.03%) than the maximum increase for the cases considered in Table 6.5.
55
Chapter 7
7.1 Results
Figure 7.1 presents the segment times and ∆V’s for rotating, 50 m formations at different orientations, in
the CRTBP as well as the RFBP, where the Moon is initialized at a true anomaly of zero. It can be seen
that gravitational perturbations due to the Moon are very small, and hardly noticeable in Figure 7.1. Upon
close inspection, one can distinguish an oscillation of results for the RFBP about the CRTBP for a formation
in y-direction as it is near perigee, where the effect of the Moon will become most pronounced. In order
to more clearly demonstrate the effect of a third massive body in the bi-elliptical model used, Figure 7.2
presents an exaggerated case, where the Moon is assumed to have a mass parameter µ̄ = 0.1, as opposed
to the actual µ̄ = 0.012150579. Figure 7.2 more clearly shows an oscillation of the RFBP segment times and
∆V’s about those in the CRTBP. We will refer to positive and negative differences between the RFBP and
the CRTBP as seen in Figure 7.2 as hills and troughs respectively. It can be seen that the hills and troughs
become more pronounced when the formation is near perigee, due to the closer proximity to the Moon’s
orbit. Considering the segment time, the troughs correspond to epochs when the Earth and Moon are close
to alignment with the x-axis, where a deeper trough corresponds to the Moon having a positive displacement
along x and a subsequent more shallow trough corresponds to the Earth having a positive displacement along
x, the former causing the largest change in relative acceleration. The hills, being less pronounced than the
troughs, correspond to epochs when the Earth and Moon are close to alignment with the y-axis, during which
the difference of the overall gravitation from the Earth-Moon system with respect to a coinciding Earth-Moon
system become negative. Troughs in the segment time correspond to a larger relative acceleration, and hence
become hills in the ∆V graph. Given the small effect of the Moon on formation flying in the Sun-Earth/Moon
system, it is not considered relevant to present more graphical or numerical data based on the simulations
performed, but rather the remainder of conclusions related to formation flying will be based on the linear
approximation presented in Section 7.2.
The absolute station keeping required to account for the Moon’s gravitational perturbation to the CRTBP
in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, using a 4-shoot strategy, is approximately 1.24 m/s over an entire halo
orbit, if the Moon is initialized at a true anomaly of zero 1 . Note that this ∆V budget is approximately 7
times smaller than the absolute station keeping required to account for the perturbation due to the Earth’s
eccentricity, being 9.12 m/s for the Earth’s initial true anomaly being equal to zero, as presented in Table
1 Similar to the station keeping required in the ERTBP, the absolute station keeping to account for the Moon’s gravitation is slightly
different for different initializations of the Earth-Moon system, showing differences of up to approximately 0.1 m/s.
57
CHAPTER 7. FORMATION FLYING IN THE RESTRICTED FOUR-BODY PROBLEM
(a) (b)
1.7 1.5
x CRTBP
1.6 x FBP
y CRTBP 1.4
y FBP
1.5 z CRTBP 1.3
z FBP
1.4
1.2
segment time[days]
1.3
1.1
Δ V [µm/s]
1.2
1
1.1
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
x CRTBP
0.8 0.7 x FBP
y CRTBP
y FBP
0.7 0.6 z CRTBP
z FBP
0.6 0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 7.1: (a) Segment times and (b) ∆V’s for 50 m rotating formations, oriented along the x-, y-, and
z-axes in the CRTBP as well as the RFBP, for an error corridor of 1 cm and the Moon’s initial true anomaly
equal to zero.
(a) (b)
1.8 1.5
x CRTBP
x FBP
y CRTBP 1.4
1.6 y FBP
z CRTBP 1.3
z FBP
1.2
segment time[days]
1.4
1.1
Δ V [µm/s]
1.2 1
0.9
1
0.8
x CRTBP
0.7 x FBP
0.8 y CRTBP
y FBP
0.6 z CRTBP
z FBP
0.6 0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days] time [days]
Figure 7.2: (a) Segment times and (b) ∆V’s for 50 m rotating formations, oriented along the x-, y-, and
z-axes in the CRTBP as well as the RFBP, for an error corridor of 1 cm and the Moon’s initial true anomaly
equal to zero. The Moon’s mass parameter is increased to 0.1.
58
7.2. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
4.3. Do note that superimposing the RFBP onto the ERTBP, hence accounting for the Moon’s orbit and
the Earth’s eccentricity simultaneously, can result in situations where the Moon’s gravitational perturbation
either adds to, or decreases the gravitational perturbation due to the Earth’s eccentricity. Hence, depending
on the initialization of the Sun-Earth/Moon system, the absolute station keeping ∆V budget for the RFBP
superimposed onto the ERTBP, can be either larger or smaller than the 9.12 m/s required for the ERTBP
alone. We will not further consider the absolute station keeping requirements, as it is not the focus of this
study.
The second partial derivatives of F are presented in Appendix A for reference. Note that linear approxima-
tions for inertial formations are again obtained by adding −1 to the top-left and middle entry of the mapping
matrix in Equations 7.1 through 7.3.
As for the CRTBP and ERTBP, an accuracy analysis can be performed for the linear approximations in the
RFBP. This is presented in Table 7.1, showing the percentage differences between the linear approximations
and the integration of the full non-linear system, for the same conditions as used for Table 6.3 in the ERTBP.
Note that the RFBP is superimposed onto the ERTBP to obtain a worst case scenario. Namely, the closer
proximity of the formation to the Earth-Moon system when the Earth is in perihelion will increase the Moon’s
perturbation. As expected, The accuracy of the linear approximations becomes slightly worse after adding
the RFBP to the ERTBP, due to more rapidly varying relative accelerations.
In order to map the effect of the Moon on a formation about the Sun-Earth L2 point, one could use the
linear approximation presented by Equations 7.3 for a simplified Moon model, assuming a circular Moon
orbit, that lies within the xy-plane. Under these assumptions, Figure 7.3 shows the percentage differences
in segment time between the RFBP and the CRTBP for rotating and inertial formations along the x-, y-, and
z-axes, depending on the position along the halo orbit and the Moon’s position, which is specified by its
angle α with the x-axis. Looking at Figure 7.3, the biggest differences naturally occur when the formation is
at closest proximity to the Moon, occurring when the formation is in perigee, and the Moon has a positive
displacement along the x-axis, with an α of 0 or 2π, causing a decrease in segment time. There is a smaller
decrease in segment time when the Moon is at an angle π, since the positive displacement of the Earth
along the x-axis still increases the relative acceleration at the formation’s position, but less so than when
the Moon has a positive displacement along x. Furthermore, the first half of the halo orbit corresponds to
negative y-values, whereas the Moon has positive y-values for 0 < α < π, hence the distance between the
Moon and the formation is larger than for the second half of the halo orbit, causing slightly smaller and
59
CHAPTER 7. FORMATION FLYING IN THE RESTRICTED FOUR-BODY PROBLEM
0.1 0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
α [rad]
α [rad]
1π 1π
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
0 -0.5 0π -0.5
0 0.5T 1.0T 0. 0.5T 1.0T
θ [T] θ [T]
α [rad]
1π -0.2 1π
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5 -0.4
-0.6 -0.5
0 -0.7 0 -0.6
0 0.5T 1.0T 0 0.5T 1.0T
θ [T] θ [T]
(e) z
2π 0.1
-0.1
-0.2
α [rad]
1π
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 -0.6
0 0.5T 1.0T
θ [T]
Figure 7.3: Percentage differences between the RFBP and the CRTBP for rotating and inertial formations
along the x-, y-, and z-axes, where the Moon is assumed to follow a circular orbit that lies in the ecliptic.
60
7.2. LINEAR APPROXIMATION OF THE RESULTS
Table 7.1: Percentage differences between the linear approximations given by Equations 7.1 and 7.2, com-
pared to the integration of the full non-linear system, for different formation separations and segment times
∆t. Rotating and inertial formations oriented along the x-axis are considered, with the Earth’s initial true
anomaly equal to 3π/2 and the Moon’s initial true anomaly equal to zero. The table shows the accuracy of ε;
∆V.
XXX
separation
XX XX 100 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
∆t XXX
Rotating
1 day 0.12; 0.16 0.13; 0.16 0.22;0.25 1.06; 1.09
2 days 0.26; 0.48 0.27; 0.48 0.36; 0.59 1.20; 1.41
5 days 1.26; 2.14 1.26; 2.14 1.36; 2.23 2.18; 3.07
10 days 4.80; 10.25 4.80; 10.25 4.89; 10.34 5.59; 11.15
Inertial
1 day 0.14; 0.19 0.14; 0.19 0.24; 0.29 1.15; 1.20
2 days 0.28; 0.56 0.28; 0.56 0.38; 0.66 1.29; 1.57
5 days 1.40; 2.57 1.40; 2.57 1.50; 2.67 2.40; 3.57
10 days 5.09;12.08 5.09;12.08 5.19;12.18 6.06; 13.06
Table 7.2: Maximum percentage differences between the RFBP and the CRTBP, as well as the ERTBP with
the Earth’s true anomaly equal to zero, for rotating and inertial formations along different orientations.
CRTBP ERTBP
orientation rotating inertial rotating inertial
x -0.46 -0.49 -0.48 -0.52
y -0.62 -0.52 -0.65 -0.55
z -0.53 -0.53 -0.56 -0.56
larger relative accelerations respectively, giving rise to the observable wave in Figure 7.3 for any formation.
A similar conclusion holds when the Moon is located at π < α < 2π, in which case the first half of the halo
orbit corresponds to slightly smaller segment times than the second half.
Finally, Table 7.2 presents the maximum differences in segment time for rotating and inertial formations
along different orientations, between the RFBP and the CRTBP, as well as between the RFBP and ERTBP for
an Earth true anomaly of zero, representing a worst case scenario. As mentioned before, we indeed observe
a slight increase in the maximum differences when the RFBP is superimposed onto the ERTBP compared to
the CRTBP. Note that the maximum effect of the Moon on formations near the Sun-Earth L2 point is about
four times smaller than the effect of the Sun-Earth ellipticity, as shown in Table 6.5.
61
Chapter 8
8.1 Approach
The analysis of SRP will be limited to a formation whose surfaces are normal to the incoming solar radiation,
where the same optical properties are assumed for the chief and deputy. Also note that no eclipses are
entered, so that the SRP acceleration becomes fairly constant, changing only with distance from the Sun,
which is a relatively small variation throughout the course of an orbit, let alone over the course of one
segment. Also neglecting the difference in absolute position between the chief and deputy, as well as the
angle between r 1 (the position vector with respect to the Sun) and the x-axis, being smaller than 0.3 deg
for any point along the halo orbit considered, allows for a simple implementation of the SRP that yields
an acceleration directed entirely along the x-axis and varies only with the chief and deputy’s difference in
area-to-mass ratio and the magnitude of r1 , where the latter causes a variation of no more than 1% in SRP
acceleration throughout the relatively small halo orbit considered. The relative acceleration due to SRP can
readily be added to the variational equation of motion. The linearized acceleration for a rotating formation
in the CRTBP under the influence of SRP becomes:
Uxx Uxy Uxz δr̈SRP
δr̈ = Uyx Uyy Uyz δr + 0 (8.1)
Uzx Uzy Uzz 0
Note that Equation 8.1 can replace the acceleration in Equations 5.10 through 5.12 to obtain linear approx-
imations of the maximum relative position error, ∆V, and segment time in the CRTBP under the influence
of SRP. Checking the magnitude of relative accelerations with and without SRP, it becomes apparent that
for non-identical satellites, the SRP quickly dominates the relative dynamics for small formation separations.
Table 8.1 shows a comparison of the relative accelerations due to gravitation in the CRTBP (as obtained from
Equation 5.5) and SRP for a rotating formation along x that is in perigee, for different formation separations
and area-to-mass ratio differences between the deputy and the chief. Looking at Table 8.1, it can be seen
that the solar radiation pressure has a significant impact on the relative acceleration for a formation of non-
identical satellites, showing that only a difference of 1 mm2 in spacecraft effective area per kg mass already
causes a relative acceleration larger than the gravitational acceleration for a 10 m formation in the CRTBP.
Also recall that the SRP model assumes a surface that is normal to the incoming solar radiation, whereas in
reality, small angles of the surface normal with respect to the incoming solar radiation could already cause
large relative accelerations. Namely, an area-to-mass ratio1 of 1/100 m2 /kg causes an acceleration compo-
nent on the order of 1µm/s2 normal to the x-axis for a 1 deg tilt from the x-axis, being near the same order of
1 Note that Wertz (2009) specifies 1/200 m2 kg−1 , 1/65 m2 kg−1 , and 1/20 m2 kg−1 to correspond to high, moderate, and low density
satellites respectively.
63
CHAPTER 8. FORMATION FLYING WITH SOLAR RADIATION PRESSURE
Table 8.1: Comparison of the relative acceleration magnitude due to gravitation, ag , and SRP, asrp , for a
rotating formation along x in the CRTBP while being in perigee for a halo orbit corresponding to x0 = 1.01124.
Differences in area-to-mass ratios, ∆A/m, and formation separation distances are considered.
separation 10 m 10 km 1,000 km 10,000 km
ag [m/s2 ] 5.29 ×10−12 5.29 ×10−9 5.29 ×10−7 5.29 ×10−6
∆A/m [m2 /kg] 1/100 1/103 1/104 1/106
−8 −9 −10
asrp [m/s ]2
7.13 ×10 7.13 ×10 7.13 ×10 7.13 ×10−12
magnitude as the relative gravitational acceleration for a 10 km formation, already decreasing the maximum
segment time to a little over 2 hours.
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that impulsive control for small formation separations
on the order of 100 m will yield small segment times in the presence of SRP for a formation of non-identical
spacecraft requiring high relative accuracies. If not because of a difference in area-to-mass ratio, a different
orientation of the surface normal with respect to the incoming solar radiation can cause the relative acceler-
ation due to SRP to dictate the formation dynamics. Using impulsive control to achieve relative accuracies of
1 cm, and segment times on the order of a day for a 100 m formation in the halo orbit considered, requires
active attitude control of individual spacecraft to cancel the relative acceleration due to SRP (or identical
spherical spacecraft with homogeneous surface properties).
Given the fact that the implementation of the SRP model considered in this chapter causes a very constant
relative acceleration throughout the halo orbit, the following section presents results based on the variational
equation of motion, given by Equation 8.1, rather than the full non-linear system of equations of motion.
8.2 Results
As was shown in the previous section, SRP can easily become the dominant source of relative accelerations
within a formation for the halo orbit considered. In order to show the effect of SRP on a formation where
the relative gravitational accelerations are of the same order as the relative accelerations due to SRP, Figure
8.1 presents the segment time for 1000 km formations along the x-, y-, and z-axes in the CRTBP under the
influence of SRP, with area-to-mass ratios of 1/50 and 1/100 m2 /kg for the deputy and chief respectively.
Looking at the effect of SRP for a formation along x, it can be seen that the SRP decreases the time in between
maneuvers, hence posing more strict requirements on relative formation keeping. This because the relative
gravitational acceleration increases in x-direction for a positive x-displacement as follows from the positive
sign of Uxx (see Equation 5.22). The higher area-to-mass ratio of the Deputy also causes a positive relative
acceleration along x, so the SRP is additive to the CRTBP in x-direction for the entire halo orbit in terms of
relative acceleration. Note that if the deputy has a lower area-to-mass ratio than the chief, the SRP cancels
part of the gravitational acceleration in x, yielding larger segment times, assuming the SRP acceleration is
smaller than the gravitational acceleration.
The effect of SRP on a formation along the y-axis can be explained by considering the effect of a displace-
ment along y on the relative gravitational acceleration in x, as contained in the Uxy partial derivative. Uxy is
negative for negative y-values, hence, for most of the first half of the halo orbit the solar radiation pressure
cancels part of the relative gravitational acceleration, yielding larger segment times, and vice versa for the
second half of the orbit.
Finally, considering the Uxz partial derivative, which is positive for positive z-values and vice verca, one
finds that the SRP increases the relative gravitational acceleration if the formation is above the xy-plane,
which it is for the largest part of the halo orbit, and cancels part of the relative acceleration when the forma-
tion is below the xy-plane.
In order to obtain a quick estimate on the absolute station keeping required due to the SRP for a formation
in the halo orbit considered, the SRP acceleration can be integrated over one halo orbit, amounting to
64
8.2. RESULTS
(a) rotating
22
x
x with SRP
20 y
y with SRP
16
14
12
10
6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time [days]
Figure 8.1: Comparison of segment times for rotating formations in the CRTBP along the x-, y-, and z-axes
with a 1000 km separation, and area-to-mass ratios of 1/50 and 1/100 m2 kg−1 for the Deputy and Chief
respectively, using the TTM method with a 1 cm error corridor.
approximately 1.1 m/s for an area-to-mass ratio of 1/50 m2 /kg. Note that this is on the same order as the
station keeping required to counteract the Moon’s gravitation, and approximately 8 times smaller than that
required to account for the Earth’s eccentricity as given in Table 4.3.
65
Chapter 9
rotating formation along y that is near apogee when the Earth is near perihelion or apohelion, as explained in Section 6.3.3.
67
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
respect to the incident solar radiation can cause large relative accelerations, already on the order of 1 µm/s
for a 1 degree tilt from the incoming solar radiation. Hence, if one aims to achieve high relative accuracies
of 1 cm for a 100 m formation, using impulsive control in the presence of SRP, segment times on the order
of a day are only possible if the spacecraft attitudes are actively controlled, such as to cancel the relative
accelerations due to SRP.
Linear approximations were derived for the maximum relative position error, ∆V, and segment time in the
CRTBP, ERTBP, and RFBP. These linear approximations are useful for a quick and easy way to determine the
aforementioned quantities for any point in the Sun-Earth/Moon system. Given the nearly constant relative
acceleration for relatively small segment times compared to the halo orbital period, these approximations
have shown to be quite accurate for the halo orbit considered in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, still having
an accuracy of around 1% for formation separations as high as 10,000 km, and a segment time of 2 days.
Moreover, the linear approximations give insight into the relative dynamics, and helped us to understand
influences due to, for instance, different formations orientations, inertial versus rotating formations, and the
eccentricity of the primaries. Even though the focus of this study was on impulsive control, one can extend
many of the results to continuous control, by treating it as impulsive control in the limit of infinite maneuvers,
which applies to the linear approximations in particular, for they become more accurate as the segment time
decreases.
Based on certain obstacles, or ideas, encountered during the course of this study, of few recommendations
for future research are given here. Firstly, quite early on, the scope of this study was limited to a formation in
a halo orbit of certain dimensions in the CRTBP. This selected nominal orbit was extended to the perturbed
problem, with little attention payed to the absolute station keeping cost. Given that the absolute station
keeping yields a far higher ∆V budget than relative station keeping for formations in a halo orbit about the
Sun-Earth L2 point, further research would benefit from optimizing the nominal halo orbit in terms of the
required absolute station keeping.
Secondly, the ∆V’s required for relative station keeping were simulated without inaccuracies, whereas
in reality thrust is always associated with a certain implementation error. This is especially the case for the
small thrust levels required for formations near the Sun-Earth L2 point. Hence, future research would benefit
from adding a sensitivity analysis to such thrust implementation errors.
Furthermore, an impulsive control strategy was investigated. This choice was based on Howell and
Marchand (2005), mentioning that such a discrete targeting approach can be effective for small formations in
a halo orbit in the Sun-Earth/Moon system, for which continuous control could yield prohibitively small thrust
requirements. Whereas this study draws a similar conclusion when considering the relative gravitational
accelerations, it was shown that SRP can have a very significant impact on the relative acceleration for
a formation about the Sun-Earth L2 point, causing the segment time for an impulsive control strategy to
become very small, being less than half an hour for a difference in area-to-mass ratio of 1/50 m2 kg−1 , for
any kind of formation. The LISA pathfinder mission has already demonstrated that continuous control can
be used to constantly counteract the solar radiation pressure. Similarly, continuous control could be used for
a formation in a halo orbit about the Sun-Earth L2 point, to simultaneously perform absolute and relative
station keeping of a formation, which would be an interesting topic for future studies.
The SRP model used in the simulations performed, was greatly simplified by assuming a spacecraft surface
that is normal to the incoming solar radiation, and the formation distance from the x-axis was neglected,
such that the solar radiation force was directed entirely along the x-axis. Given that the SRP can easily be the
biggest contributor to relative accelerations within a formation, a more realistic SRP model would likely be
essential for accurate simulations corresponding to a well defined mission, taking into account the shape of
the spacecraft, its surface properties, and its absolute position. One could also consider using the SRP to ones
advantage, as a means of control to perform relative and/or absolute station keeping, the former of which
seems very feasible, given that a 1 cm2 effective area difference per kg already causes a relative acceleration
due to SRP whose magnitude is of the same order as the relative gravitational acceleration for formations
separations up to 100 km.
The simulations were performed, assuming a bi-elliptical model, whereas in reality the eccentricity of
the Earth about the Sun, and more significantly, the eccentricity of the Moon about the Earth, will show
68
variations over time. In order to simulate the dynamics within a formation about the Sun-Earth L2 point
most accurately, one should employ a full ephemerides model, taking into account the exact positions of
all major bodies in the solar system. This does however, do away with the possibility of distinguishing the
individual perturbations considered in this study, hence was not performed here.
Finally, the double precision limits should be taken into account, which becomes especially relevant for
simulations of a formation near the Sun-Earth L2 point, given the high contrast of relative and absolute
positions. These limits were not restrictive for the simulations performed in this study, though they will likely
become so if larger relative accuracies, smaller than 1 cm, are required, which might necessitate the use of a
higher precision format.
69
Bibliography
Bavdaz, M., Lumb, D., and Peacock, T. XEUS mission reference design. In Proceedings of SPIE - The Interna-
tional Society for Optical Engineering, volume 5488, pages 530–538, 2004.
Bavdaz, M., Lumb, D., Gerlach, L., Parmar, A., and Peacock, A. The status of the XEUS X-ray observatory
mission. In Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, volume 5898, pages 1–9,
2005.
Breakwell, J. V. and Brown, J. V. The ’halo’ family of 3-dimensional periodic orbits in the Earth-Moon
restricted 3-body problem. Celestial Mechanics, 20:389–404, 1979.
Bristow, J., Folta, D., and Hartman, K. A formation flying technology vision. In Space 2000 Conference and
Exposition, 2000.
Campagnola, S., Lot, M., and Newton, P. Subregions of motion and elliptic halo orbits in the elliptic restricted
three-body problem. volume 130 PART 2, pages 1541–1555, 2008.
Carpenter, K. G. et al. SI - the stellar imager, vision mission study report. 2005. URL http://hires.gsfc.
nasa.gov/~si/.
Carpenter, R. J., Leitner, J. A., Folta, D. C., and Burns, R. D. Benchmark problems for spacecraft formation
flying missions. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2003.
Chabot, T. and Udrea, B. XEUS mission guidance navigation and control. In Collection of Technical Papers -
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference 2006, volume 6, pages 4110–4128, 2006.
De Pater, I. and Lissauer, J. J. Planetary Sciences. Cambridge university press, 2001.
Espenak, F. and Meeus, J. Five millenium catalog of solar eclipses. (TP-2009-214714), 2009.
Farquhar, R. W. Station-keeping in the vicinity of collinear libration points with an application to a lunar
communications problem. AAS Science and Technology Series: Spaceflight Mechanics Specialist Symposium,
11:519–535, 1966.
Ghorbani, M. and Assadian, N. Optimal station-keeping near Earth-Moon collinear libration points using
continuous and impulsive maneuvers. Advances in Space Research, 52(12):2067–2079, 2013.
Howell, K. C. Three-dimensional, periodic, ’halo’ orbits. Celestial Mechanics, 32:53–71, 1984.
Howell, K. C. and Marchand, B. G. Natural and non-natural spacecraft formations near the L1 and L2 libration
points in the Sun-Earth/Moon ephemeris system. Dynamical Systems, 20:149–173, 2005.
Marchand, B. C. and Howell, K. C. Aspherical formations near the libration points in the Sun-Earth/Moon
ephemeris system. In Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, volume 119, pages 835–859, 2005.
McInnes, C. R. Solar Sailing: Technology, Dynamics, and Mission Applications. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidel-
berg, 1999.
Milligan, D., Rudolph, A., Whitehead, G., Loureiro, T., Serpell, E., di Marco, F., Marie, J., and Ecale, E. ESA’s
billion star surveyor flight operations experience from Gaia’s first 1.5 years. Acta Astronautica, 127:394 –
403, 2016. ISSN 0094-5765.
Montenbruck, O. and Gill, E. Satellite Orbits: Models, Methods, and Applications. Springer, 2005.
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Noci, G., Matticari, G., Siciliano, P., Fallerini, L., Boschini, L., and Vettorello, V. Cold gas micro propulsion
system for scientific satellites fine pointing: Review of development and qualification activities at Thales
Alenia Space Italia. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 2009.
Pernicka, H. J., A., C. B., and N., B. S. Spacecraft formation flight about libration points using impulsive
maneuvering. 29(5):1122–1130, 2006. doi: 10.2514/1.18813.
Qi, R. and Xu, S. Impulsive control strategy for formation flight in the vicinity of the libration points. In 62nd
International Astronautical Congress 2011, IAC 2011, volume 6, pages 4874–4884, 2011.
Rudolph, A., Harrison, I., Renk, F., Firre, D., Delhaise, F., Garcia Marirrodriga, C., McNamara, P., Johlander,
B., Caleno, M., Grzymisch, J., Cordero, F., Wealthy, D., and Olive, J. LISA pathfinder mission operations
concept and launch and early orbit phase in-orbit experience. 2016.
Segerman, A. M. and Zedd, M. F. Perturbed equations of motion for formation flight near the sun-earth L2
point. volume 123 II, pages 1381–1400, 2006.
Szebehely, V. Theory of orbits, the restricted problem of three bodies. Academic Press, inc., 1967.
Tapley, B. D., Schutz, B. E., and Born, G. H. Statistical Orbit Determination. Elsevier Academic Press, 2004.
Wakker, K. F. Astrodynamics-I reader AE4874, TU Delft, 2010.
Wertz, J. R. Space Missions Analysis and Design. Microcosm Press and Kluwer Academic Pubilshers, 2005.
Wertz, J. R. Orbit and Constellation, Mission and Design. Microcosm Press and Springer, 2009.
72
Appendix A
A.1 CRTBP
The second partial derivatives for the pseudo-potential function U , defined by Equation 2.3, are:
1−µ µ 1−µ 2 µ 2
Uxx =1 − − 3 +3 (x + µ) + 5 (x − 1 + µ)
r13 r2 r5 r
1 2
1−µ µ 1 − µ µ
Uyy =1 − − 3 + 3y 2 + 5
r13 r2 r15 r2
1−µ µ 2 1 − µ µ
Uzz = − − 3 + 3z + 5
r13 r r15 r2
2 (A.1)
1−µ µ
Uxy =Uyx = 3y (x + µ) + 5 (x − 1 + µ)
r5 r2
1
1−µ µ
Uxz =Uzx = 3z (x + µ) + 5 (x − 1 + µ)
r5 r
1 2
1−µ µ
Uyz =Uzy = 3yz + 5
r15 r2
A.2 ERTBP
The second partial derivatives for the pseudo-potential function ω, defined by Equation 3.15, are:
73
APPENDIX A. SECOND PARTIAL DERIVATIVES OF THE PSEUDO-POTENTIAL FUNCTION
A.3 RFBP
The second partial derivatives for the pseudo-potential function F , defined by Equation 3.22, are:
1 − µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄ 1−µ 2 µ(1 − µ̄) 2 µµ̄ 2
Fxx =1 − − − 3 +3 (x + µ) + (x − xE ) + 5 (x − xM )
r13 rE3 rM r5 5
rE rM
1
1 − µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄ 1 − µ 2 µ(1 − µ̄) 2 µµ̄ 2
Fyy =1 − − − 3 +3 y + (y − yE ) + 5 (y − yM )
r13 rE3 rM r15 5
rE rM
1 − µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄ 1 − µ 2 µ(1 − µ̄) 2 µµ̄ 2
Fzz = − − − 3 +3 z + (z − zE ) + 5 (z − zM )
r13 3
rE rM r15 5
rE rM
(A.3)
1−µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄
Fxy =Uyx = 3 (x + µ)y + (x − xE )(y − yE ) + 5 (x − xM )(y − yM )
r5 rE5 rM
1
1−µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄
Fxz =Uzx = 3 (x + µ)z + (x − xE )(z − zE ) + 5 (x − xM )(z − zM )
r5 5
rE rM
1
1−µ µ(1 − µ̄) µµ̄
Fyz =Uzy = 3 yz + (y − yE )(z − zE ) + 5 (y − yM )(z − zM )
r15 5
rE rM
74
Appendix B
Unit Conversions
Expressions for unit conversions from a dimensional to a non-dimensional system, and vice versa, are pre-
sented for the CRTBP and ERTBP in Sections B.1 and B.2 respectively. All conversions in the CRTBP are one-
to-one, whereas conversion in the ERTBP are not, so that conversions to dimensional and non-dimensional
units have to be treated separately.
B.1 CRTBP
Note that, from Section 2.1, the dimensional and non-dimensional quantities for position and time are related
through:
t =t̂t∗
(B.1)
r =r̂r∗
where the dimensionless quantities are denoted by an asterisk, and the normalized units for position and
time are given by:
−1
df
t̂ =
dt (B.2)
r̂ =a
Time
Given the uniform rotation of the primaries, the unit conversion for time in the CRTBP is given by:
−1 r
df ∗ a3 ∗
t= t = t (B.3)
dt GM
Position
Given the constant distance between the primaries, the unit conversion for position in the CRTBP is given by:
r = ar ∗ (B.4)
Velocity
Again, due to the constant distance between the primaries, the unit conversion for velocity in the CRTBP is
given by: r
dt∗ d(r ∗ r̂)
∗
dr df dr GM dr ∗
= ∗
=a ∗
= (B.5)
dt dt dt dt dt a dt∗
75
APPENDIX B. UNIT CONVERSIONS
Acceleration
From Equation 3.8, for a uniform rotation and constant distance between the primaries, one obtains the unit
conversion for acceleration in the CRTBP:
2 2 ∗
d2 r df d r GM d2 r ∗
= r̂ ∗2
= 2 (B.6)
dt 2 dt dt a dt∗2
B.2 ERTBP
Unit conversions in the ERTBP are slightly more involved, given the non-uniform rotation of the primaries,
as well as the pulsating distance between them. The normalized units for position and time are given by:
−1
df
t̂ =
dt
(B.7)
a(1 − e2 )
r̂ =
1 + e cos f
Note that conversions of accelerations in the ERTBP are never performed in this study, hence are not presented
here.
where t − tp is the time since last pericenter passage, and n is the mean motion. Note that Equation B.8
yields an eccentric anomaly in the range of 0 - 180 deg. Hence, for a true anomaly larger than 180 deg,
2(π − E) should be added to the eccentric anomaly. To obtain a certain timespan in dimensional units one
has to calculate the time since last pericenter for both epochs and subtract.
Note that for relatively small timespans, a conversion to dimensional units can be performed by assuming the
progression of time to be constant:
−1
df
∆t ≈ ∆t∗
dt
s (B.10)
a3 (1 − e2 )3 ∗
≈ ∆t
GM (1 + e cos f )4
Position
The unit conversion for position in the ERTBP is given by:
a(1 − e2 ) ∗
r= r (B.11)
1 + e cos f
76
B.2. ERTBP
Velocity
The unit conversion to a dimensional system for velocity in the ERTBP is given by:
d(r ∗ r̂) dr ∗
∗
dr dr̂ ∗ df dr dr̂
= = r̂ + r = r̂ + r∗ (B.12)
dt dt dt dt dt dt∗ dt
a(1 − e2 )
dr̂ df d df e sin f
= = r̂ (B.13)
dt dt df 1 + e cos f dt 1 + e cos f
df dr ∗
dr e sin f ∗
= r̂ + r (B.14)
dt dt dt∗ 1 + e cos f
Note that the angular momentum in the two-body problem is given by:
df p
H = r̂2 = GM a(1 − e2 ) (B.15)
dt
Hence, s
dr ∗
dr GM ∗
= (1 + e cos f ) + e sin f r (B.16)
dt a(1 − e2 ) dt∗
Note that the velocity conversion in the ERTBP is not a simple one-to-one relationship as is the case for the
CRTBP, but rather depends on both the true anomaly and the position at the time considered. The second
term on the right-hand side of Equation B.16 accounts for the pulsating axes of the non-dimensional system.
In the current study, we will mostly be concerned with impulsive ∆V ’s for station keeping, which will not
be affected by the pulsation of the axes, hence:
s
GM
∆V = (1 + e cos f ) ∆V ∗ (B.17)
a(1 − e2 )
For small timespans a conversion to dimensionless units can be performed by assuming the progression of
time to be constant:
∗ df
∆t ≈ ∆t
dt
s (B.21)
GM (1 + e cos f )4
≈ ∆t
a3 (1 − e2 )3
77
APPENDIX B. UNIT CONVERSIONS
Velocity
The unit conversion to a dimensionless system for velocity in the ERTBP is given by:
−1 −1
dr ∗
d(r/r̂) df d(r/r̂) df 1 dr d(1/r̂)
= = = + r (B.22)
dt∗ dt∗ dt dt dt r̂ dt dt
Now, using
d(1/r̂) df d 1 + e cos f df e sin f
= =− (B.23)
dt dt df a(1 − e2 ) dt a(1 − e2 )
and
df p
H = r̂2 = GM a(1 − e2 ) (B.24)
dt
one has r
dr ∗ a(1 − e2 ) dr e sin f
= (1 + e cos f )−1 − r (B.25)
dt∗ GM dt a(1 − e2 )
Again, calculating an instantaneous ∆V is not affected by the pulsation of the system, hence:
r
∗ −1 a(1 − e2 )
∆V = (1 + e cos f ) ∆V (B.26)
GM
78
Appendix C
Constants
Constants that are used for the simulations performed, are given by Table C.1.
79