Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

A ground track-based approach to design satellite constellations

Emiliano Ortore ∗ , Marco Cinelli, Christian Circi
Department of Astronautical, Electrical and Energy Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Salaria, 851, 00138, Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Following an approach based on ground track analysis, original and compact relationships which permit
Received 5 October 2015 the construction of ground track patterns and the determination of satellite arrangements able to
Received in revised form 27 June 2017 generate appropriate track distance and revisit frequency over a given area are presented. These equations
Accepted 5 July 2017
are valid in the general case of elliptical orbit and can easily be implemented in computer codes devoted
Available online 13 July 2017
to the design of single and multi-plane satellite constellations.
Keywords: © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Satellite constellations
Ground track
Periodic orbit

1. Introduction
Satellite constellations represent a very wide field of research
which involves telecommunication, navigation, Earth observation
and science missions. On these topics, a big quantity of studies
and projects have been developed and numerous papers have been
written. As far as the orbit design is concerned, from the beginning
several researches have focused on the determination of the most
suitable configurations to guarantee appropriate performances of
coverage by a minimum number of satellites [1–3], as in the case
of the Walker constellations [4], which are based on the consider-
ation of regular distributions of satellites and orbital planes. About
coverage, many other studies have been conducted, as those which
have considered the possibility of obtaining continuous multiple
coverage (e.g. [5–9]), or those which have approached the prob-
lem through an analysis based on the ground tracks performed by
satellites in repeating ground track orbits (e.g. [10–17]). Moreover,
starting from such studies, a great number of applications, involv-
ing telecommunication, navigation, Earth observation and science
missions have been carried out [18]. In particular, concerning re-
peating ground track orbits (also called periodic orbits), [10,11]
describe the general concept of repeating ground track orbit and
the related distribution of ascending and descending nodes; [12]
applies such concepts to a real mission design; [13] presents use-
ful relationships to retrieve the longitudes of ascending and de-
scending node crossings and analyses the ground track spacing as
a function of the latitude; [14] reconsiders the relationships pre-
sented in [13] to provide the inter-orbit and inter-plane angular
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: emiliano.ortore@uniroma1.it (E. Ortore),
marco.cinelli@uniroma1.it (M. Cinelli), christian.circi@uniroma1.it (C. Circi).
shifts between, respectively, satellites and orbital planes; [15] and
[16] use equations able to determine, respectively, circular and el-
liptical periodic orbits under the influence of planetary oblateness;
[17] takes into account the case of uniformly phased satellites in
mean anomaly to apply useful relationships concerning the ar-
rangement of satellites over periodic orbits belonging to one or
more orbital planes.
In this paper, a further investigation of such a topic has been
carried out, extending the matter discussed in [17] to the general
case in which the satellites can be arranged without constraints
of uniformity. Thus, following a ground track-based approach, new
relationships for designing single and multi-plane satellite con-
stellations in periodic orbits have been determined. The proposed
equations, which are valid in the general case of elliptical orbit
and for both prograde and retrograde orbits, allow, in an original
and compact way, the construction of ground track patterns and
the determination of satellite arrangements able to generate ap-
propriate track distance and revisit frequency over a given area.
Thanks to their simplicity, these new relationships can easily be
implemented in computer codes devoted to the design of satellite
constellations. The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 de-
scribes the proposed relationships for the case of a single satellite,
Section 3 extends the concepts to the case of single plane con-
stellations and Section 4 presents the general case of multi-plane
constellations.
2. The case of a single satellite
Repeating ground track orbits allow a satellite to observe the
same region of the Earth from the same position at regular time
intervals, taking into account the variations of the orbit elements
due to the effects of orbital perturbations [19–23]. In fact, if D n is
the nodal day of the Earth, given by D n = 2π /(ω E − Ω̇) with ω E

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.07.006
1270-9638/© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464
Fig. 1. Ascending node crossings for a circular orbit with a = 7045.687 km and i = 99 deg (λ0 = 0).
angular velocity of the Earth around its polar axis and Ω̇ temporal
variation of Right Ascension of the Ascending Node (RAAN), the
ground track pattern completes itself in an integer number (m) of
nodal days and, after this time (mD n ), the satellite returns to the
same location with respect to a given point on the Earth. Indicating
with T n the nodal period of satellite (T n = 2π /ξ̇ , where ξ is the
argument of latitude, given by the sum of argument of pericentre
and true anomaly of satellite) and with R the number of nodal
revolutions (of period T n ) accomplished by the satellite in m nodal
days, the ground track periodicity condition can be expressed as
mD n = R T n , where m and R are prime numbers one to the other.
The description of the ground track distribution in the time
mD n is expressed here by means of an original and compact way,
which allows the simple retrieval of the longitudes related to the
satellite equatorial crossings (separated by a time interval equal
to T n ). In fact, indicating with λ0 the initial geographical longi-
tude of the satellite ascending node (measured from the Greenwich
meridian at time t 0 ), the longitudes related to the ascending node
crossings (λt ), in the interval [180 deg West, 180 deg East], are
given by:
 
λt = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − q int(t )
where:
• t is the time normalised with respect to the nodal day
(time/ D n );
• S t = 2π /q is the longitudinal distance between temporarily
subsequent ascending node crossings;
• q = R /m = D n / T n = N i + N f ;
• N i is the integer number of nodal revolutions accomplished by
the satellite in 1 nodal day;
• N f = k/m is the fractional part of q;
• k is an integer number that is prime with m and ≤ m − 1;
• x = qt;
• ceil(x) is a function which provides the smallest integer num-
ber greater than (or equal to) x;
• int(t) is a function which provides the integer part of t.
More in detail, Eq. (1) is structured in such a way that, for t =
t 0 , t 0 + 1/q, t 0 + 2/q, . . . (instants in which the satellite crosses
an ascending node) it provides the ascending node longitude at
time t, while introducing a generic time t it gives the longitude of
the subsequent (temporarily) ascending node crossing. The ground
track displacement is taken as positive if it occurs eastwards. Thus,
given that λt is westwards shifted with respect to λ0 , in Eq. (1) it
appears the sign – out of the square brackets.
As an example, the lower part of Fig. 1 shows the ascending
node crossings for a repeating ground track orbit with q = 14 +
2/3 (m = 3), a = 7045.687 km, e = 0 and i = 99 deg. Including
the perturbative effect due to the Earth’s oblateness, the minimum
ground track longitudinal distance (after m = 3 nodal days) is S m =
S t /m = 24.55/3 deg.
459
Given that the ground tracks repeat themselves at a regular
time interval of m nodal days, after this time the ground track pat-
tern is completely defined and Eq. (1) describes the related ground
track succession. In particular, considering only integer values of
t (t = d is multiple of the nodal day), a simpler equation can be
gained from Eq. (1):
 
λd = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − x , d = 0, . . . , m (2)
where:
• λd is the longitude at time d;
• x = qd.
While Eq. (1) provides the longitudes related to all crossings,
Eq. (2) allows, in a simple way, the retrieval of only the longi-
tudes falling in the interval [λ0 , λ0 − S t ], which refer to crossings
of different nodal days: from the first crossing related to the first
nodal day to the first crossing related to the (m − 1)-th nodal day
(the first crossing related to the m-th nodal day will occur again in
λ0 ). In fact, once defined the N i (integer part of q) ground tracks
of the first nodal day, separated by an interval S t (lower part of
Fig. 1), m − 1 tracks will fall inside each interval S t in the m − 1
(1)
successive days, thus leading to the achievement of the minimum
spacing S m (upper part of Fig. 1). The distribution of these tracks
in the generic interval S t will follow an order depending on the
value of k (fractional part of q) [10,11,13,17]. For a given value of
m, when k increases then q also increases (lower orbit altitude)
and therefore S t = 2π /q decreases.
3. Satellites over the same orbit
Extending the discussion to the case of N satellites lying on the
same orbit (with different values of mean anomaly), the ascending
node longitude of the i-th satellite (λi ,t ) can be found by using the
following compact equation:
 
λi ,t = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − q int(t ) − y , i = 1, . . . , N (3)
where:
• λ0 is the initial longitude of satellite 1 (reference satellite);
• x = qt + y;
M
• y = 2π i ;
•  M i is the mean anomaly phasing between the i-th satellite
and satellite 1.
Similar to Eq. (1), for a generic value of t Eq. (3) provides the
longitude related to the next ascending node crossing of the i-th
satellite. Then, considering for t only the integer multiples (d) of
the nodal day, Eq. (3) becomes:
 
λi ,d = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − x
(4)
i = 1, . . . , N , d = 0, . . . , m
where:
460 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464
Table 1
Mean anomaly phasing with respect to a reference satellite.
Satellite 2
 M 1 = 210 deg (I = 1, L = 1)
 M 1 = 90 deg (I = 1, L = 2)
 M 1 = 330 deg (I = 1, L = 3)
• λi ,d is the longitude of the i-th satellite at time d;
• x = qd + y.
This last relationship allows the retrieval of only the longitudes
which fall in the interval [λ0 , λ0 − S t ]. Note that, assuming y = 0
in Eqs. (3) and (4), the single satellite case is re-obtained.
With respect to the single satellite, the consideration of more
satellites permits both a reduction of the ground track distance,
making the satellite perform different ground track patterns, and
an increase in the number of observations of the same area, mak-
ing the satellite perform the same ground track pattern.
3.1. Reduction of ground track distance
With N satellites lying on the same orbit and performing uni-
formly distributed (equally spaced in longitude one to the other)
ground track patterns, the equatorial track spacing is reduced to
the value S m / N (S m = single satellite case). To achieve this con-
dition a simple relationship has been found here, which provides
the mean anomaly phasing of satellites:
 
I L
 M i = 2π 1 − − formed in a different chronological order. As a matter of fact,
mN m (5)
I = 0, . . . , N − 1, L = 1 , . . . , m
In Eq. (5), I and L are two integer numbers. In particular, while
each satellite must be characterised by a value of I different from
the one of all the other satellites (N satellites, N different values
of I ), the value of L can be arbitrarily chosen (even the same value
for all the satellites). This is because, while the parameter I deter-
mines, in the generic interval S t , the locations of the ground tracks,
the parameter L is associated only with the order in which these
tracks are performed. Thus, for assigned values of m and N, Eq. (5)
provides, in a compact way, the description of all the configura-
tions associated with the same (uniform) ground track pattern.
Once fixed the longitude of satellite 1 at time t = 0 (λ1,0 = λ0 ),
for this satellite it is I = 0 and L = m ( M i = 0) and the mean
anomaly phasing of the other satellites is counted from this ref-
erence longitude. Then, considering all the combinations of the
possible values of I and L, the number of satellite configurations
(N C ) producing uniformly spaced ground tracks (and therefore sat-
isfying Eq. (5)) can be found as N C = m N −1 .
To obtain Eq. (5), it is possible to consider the first ascend-
ing node crossing related to a generic satellite, phased by  M i
with respect to the reference satellite. This crossing, which will be
westwards shifted with respect to the initial longitude (λ0 ) of the
satellite reference, will occur at the following longitude:
 
M i
λi = S t 1 −
2π
But, in order to gain uniformly distributed ground track pat-
terns, this crossing will have to be located in one of the following
positions:
Sm
λi = I + L Sm
N (7)
I = 0, . . . , N − 1, L = 1 , . . . , m
Thus, equalling Eqs. (6) and (7), Eq. (5) is retrieved.
Satellite 3 Satellite 4
 M 2 = 180 deg (I = 2, L = 1)  M 3 = 150 deg (I = 3, L = 1)
 M 2 = 60 deg (I = 2, L = 2)  M 3 = 30 deg (I = 3, L = 2)
 M 2 = 300 deg (I = 2, L = 3)  M 3 = 270 deg (I = 3, L = 3)
Fig. 2. Ascending node crossings for a four-satellite constellation.
As an example, taking into account the orbit related to Fig. 1
and considering a constellation of N = 4 satellites, there are N C =
34−1 = 27 configurations able to offer a uniform ground track dis-
tance and equal to S m / N = 2.0455 deg. Such configurations corre-
spond to all the combinations which come out freely choosing one
value for each column of Table 1, where, according to Eq. (5), the
values of  M i assignable to every satellite are reported (there are
m = 3 possible values for each satellite). In particular, the choice
of the values 90, 180, 270 deg leads to a configuration of four uni-
formly phased satellites over the same orbit.
All these configurations will produce, at the end of m nodal
days, the same overall ground track pattern. Fig. 2 shows the cor-
responding ascending node crossings in the interval [λ0 , λ0 − S t ].
However, the ground tracks of these configurations will be per-
Figs. 3 and 4 show the ground track patterns described by the
two four-satellite constellations reported in Table 2, after one nodal
day. Although the two configurations produce, at the end of m
nodal days, the same ground track pattern (whose minimum lon-
gitudinal ground track spacing is S m / N = 2.0455 deg), the consid-
eration of different values for the parameter L leads to different
patterns in the first nodal day.
3.2. Reduction of revisit time
On the other hand, if the goal of a satellite constellation is to
increase the revisit frequency of a given area, it is necessary to
impose that the satellites should describe coincident ground track
patterns (λi ,t = λ0 in Eq. (3)). To express this condition, the follow-
ing simple equation has been found:
 
L
 M i = 2π 1 − , L = 1, . . . , m (8)
m
Thus, if Eq. (8) is satisfied the i-th satellite describes the same
ground track as the reference satellite (identified by L = m, which
leads to  M i = 0). According to this equation, there are m values
of mean anomaly which allow the fulfilment of this goal (in this
case each satellite must be characterised by a value of L different
from that of all the other satellites). By using all these values, and
therefore N = m satellites satisfying Eq. (8), all the satellites will
(6)
perform the same ground tracks at a regular time interval of one
nodal day. In this case the satellites will be uniformly phased in
mean anomaly by 2π / N = 2π /m.
More in general, if a constant time interval between two obser-
vations of the same area is desired, the general expression for this
time interval is given by lcm( N , m)/ N, where lcm( N , m) represents
the least common multiple between N and m. To obtain this result
the satellites have to be uniformly phased in mean anomaly one to
the other (by 2π / N) and the minimum time interval is obtained
(as mentioned above) when N and m are equal.
 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464 461

Fig. 3. Ground track pattern of Configuration 1 after one nodal day.

Fig. 4. Ground track pattern of Configuration 2 after one nodal day.

Table 2
Four-satellite single plane constellations.

M1 M2 M3 M4

Configuration 1 0◦ (I = 0, L = m) 90◦ (I = 1, L = 2) 180◦ (I = 2, L = 1) 270◦ (I = 3, L = 3)
Configuration 2 0◦ (I = 0, L = m) 90◦ (I = 1, L = 2) 60◦ (I = 2, L = 2) 30◦ (I = 3, L = 2)

M
4. Satellites over orbits phased in Right Ascension of the • x = qt + 2πi, p ;
Ascending Node • N p is the number of satellites of the p-th plane;
•  M i , p is the mean anomaly phasing between the i-th satellite
The relationships found for the single plane case can be gener- of the p-th plane and satellite 1 of plane 1;
M Ω
alised taking into consideration several orbital planes. In this case, • y = 2πi, p + S t p ;
the satellites will have to be arranged over orbits presenting the • Ω p is the longitudinal separation between the p-th plane
same values of semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination and argu- and plane 1 (Ω = RAAN).
ment of perigee, while different values of RAAN and mean anomaly
can be selected. Thus, considering a constellation of N satellites Similar to Eqs. (1) and (3), for a generic value of t Eq. (9) pro-
distributed on P planes, the ascending node longitude of the i-th vides the longitude related to the next ascending node crossing of
satellite of the p-th plane (λ p ,i ,t ) can be retrieved by: the i-th satellite of the of the p-th plane. Besides, considering for
  t only the integer multiples (d) of the nodal day, Eq. (9) becomes:
λ p ,i ,t = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − q int(t ) − y  
(9) Ω p
p = 1, . . . , P , i = 1, . . . , N p λ p ,i ,d = λ0 − S t ceil(x) − x −
St (10)
where: p = 1, . . . , P , i = 1, . . . , N p , d = 0, . . . , m
462 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464

where: Table 3
Multi-plane configurations reducing the ground track spacing.
• λ p ,i ,d is the longitude of the i-th satellite at time d; Satellite p i Ω M Ω M
M i, p
• x = qd + 2π
. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 1 2 0 110 0 230
3 1 3 0 220 0 220
4.1. Reduction of ground track distance
4 1 4 0 90 0 90
5 2 1 120 120 120 120
As in the single plane case, N satellites lying on P planes and 6 2 2 120 350 120 230
performing uniformly distributed ground track patterns lead to a 7 2 3 120 100 120 100
8 2 4 120 90 120 210
ground track spacing equal to S m / N. Also in this case, a simple
9 3 1 240 120 240 240
equation to achieve this condition has been found: 10 3 2 240 110 240 110
  11 3 3 240 100 240 340
I L
 M i , p − qΩ p = 2π 1 − − − J 12 3 4 240 330 240 330
mN m (11)
I = 0, . . . , N − 1 , L = 1 , . . . , m , J = 0, . . . , R − 1 satellites must coincide (λ p ,i ,t = λ0 in Eq. (9)). This occurs if, at
Such a relationship allows the obtaining of the pair of values time t 0 , λ p ,i ,0 = H S m + λ0 , where H is an integer number from 1
 M i , p and Ω p (mean anomaly phasing between satellites and to R (H = R + 1 is equivalent to H = 1 and so on). Such a condition
RAAN phasing between orbital planes) that have to be assigned to translates into the fact that the term in parenthesis in Eq. (9) must
gain the aforesaid condition (once fixed the value of Ω p Eq. (11) be equal to an integer number (H ) and this leads to the following
allows the determination of the value of  M i , p , and vice versa). In expression:
particular, while each satellite must be characterised by a value of H
I different from that of all the other satellites, the values of L and  M i , p + qΩ p = 2π , H = 1, . . . , R (14)
m
J (associated with the order in which the tracks are described) can
be arbitrarily chosen. Once fixed the value of  M i , p , R different values of Ω p are
Once fixed, at time t = 0, the longitude of the satellite cor- obtained in correspondence to the R possible values of H , whereas
responding to p = 1 and i = 1 (λ1,1,0 = λ0 ), for this satellite it once fixed the value of Ω p , only m values of  M i , p , phased by
is I = 0, L = m, J = 0. Thus, once assigned the Ω p for every 2π /m, can be gained for H ranging from 1 to R.
plane, the number of possible values for  M i , p is still equal to With more orbital planes, unlike the single plane case (Sec-
m and the number of configurations producing uniformly spaced tion 3), it is possible to gain a constant revisit time, between two
ground tracks (and therefore satisfying Eq. (11)) is still given by observations of the same area, less than one nodal day. If the same
N C = m N −1 . number of satellites is considered for each plane (N p = N S ), the
Similar to Eq. (5), to obtain Eq. (11) it is possible to consider the general expression for this time interval is given (in nodal days,
first ascending node crossing related to a generic satellite, phased similar to the single plane case), by lcm( N S , m)/( P N S ), whose
by  M i , p and Ω p with respect to the reference satellite: minimum value is m/ N. To obtain this value, by assigning an index
j to each satellite to indicate the chronological order in which the
 
M i, p satellites cross the equator at the ascending node λ0 ( j = 1 means
λi , p = S t 1 − + Ω p (12) that satellite 1 is the first satellite to cross λ0 ), the following con-
2π
dition has to be fulfilled:
Given that, to gain uniformly distributed ground track patterns,   
this crossing will have to be located in one of the following posi- R
 M j , j −1 = 2π 1 + int − qΩ j , j −1
tions: N (15)
Sm j = 2, . . . , N
λi , p = I + L Sm + J St
N (13) where  M j , j −1 is the mean anomaly phasing between satellite j
I = 0, . . . , N − 1 , L = 1 , . . . , m , J = 0, . . . , R − 1 and satellite j − 1 and Ω j , j −1 is the RAAN phasing between the
plane containing satellite j and the plane containing satellite j − 1.
Eq. (11) is then retrieved by equalling Eqs. (12) and (13) (q =
By assuming 0 ≤  M j , j −1 ≤ 2π , the values of Ω j , j −1 consider-
2π / S t ).
able in Eq. (15) will have to be confined to one interval S t given
Considering, for instance, the same orbit as in the previous ex-
by:
amples, with a constellation of N = 12 satellites equally distributed     
over P = 3 planes (N p = 4 for each plane), identified by Ω1 = 0, R R
Ω2 = 120 deg, Ω3 = 240 deg (values of Ω p ), and assuming S t · int ≤ Ω j , j −1 ≤ S t 1 + int
N N (16)
λ0 = 0 for the satellite with p = 1 and i = 1 at the initial time, the
j = 2, . . . , N
number of configurations able to make the ground track distance
equal to S m / N is 311 = 177147. Examples of possible configura- Thus, once fixed an admissible value for Ω j , j −1 according to
tions are reported in Table 3. Eq. (16), it will be possible to find the corresponding value of
All these configurations provide, at the end of the cycle (m  M j , j−1 by Eq. (15).
nodal days), the same overall ground track pattern. An analogous In particular, considering N S = m satellites over each orbital
pattern is obtained also choosing a higher number of planes (even plane, the revisit time reaches the minimum value m/ N = 1/ P
P = N = 12) and not necessarily considering the same number of (nodal days). To obtain this result, it is necessary to consider satel-
satellites for each plane. lite constellations in which all the following conditions have to be
satisfied:
4.2. Reduction of revisit time
• the satellites are uniformly phased in mean anomaly (by
Alternatively, to gain a reduction of the time elapsing between 2π / N S ) over each plane;
two observations of the same area, the ground track patterns of • the planes are uniformly shifted in RAAN (by 2π / P );
 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464 463

Table 4
Example of constellations with the same revisit time.

j-th satellite Non-homogeneous constellation Homogeneous constellation

Ω M Ω j , j −1  M j , j −1 Ω M Ω j , j −1  M j , j −1
1 0.00 0.00 – – 0.00 0.00 – –
2 97.46 10.64 97.46 10.64 90.00 120.00 90.00 120.00
3 194.58 26.12 97.13 15.48 180.00 240.00 90.00 120.00
4 280.13 211.44 85.55 185.32 270.00 0.00 90.00 120.00
5 13.41 283.39 93.28 71.95 360.00 120.00 90.00 120.00
6 90.52 232.35 77.12 308.96 90.00 240.00 90.00 120.00
7 174.51 80.55 83.99 208.20 180.00 0.00 90.00 120.00
8 270.62 110.84 96.12 30.29 270.00 120.00 90.00 120.00
9 3.70 185.72 93.08 74.88 360.00 240.00 90.00 120.00
10 100.89 200.32 97.19 14.60 90.00 0.00 90.00 120.00
11 190.61 324.33 89.73 124.01 180.00 120.00 90.00 120.00
12 265.12 311.57 74.51 347.24 270.00 240.00 90.00 120.00

Table 5
Ground track distance and related conditions.

Minimum value Conditions

Single satellite Sm –
Sm I L
Single plane constellations N
 M i = 2π (1 − mN
− m
)
Sm I L
Multi-plane constellations N
 M i , p − qΩ p = 2π (1 − mN
− m
− J)

Table 6
Revisit time and related conditions.

Minimum value Conditions

Single satellite
Single plane constellations
Multi-plane constellations
m –
1 N =m
 M i = (i − 1) 2mπ , i = 1, . . . , m
m
N
 M j , j −1 = 2π [1 + int( NR )] − qΩ j , j −1
S t · int( NR ) ≤ Ω j , j −1 ≤ S t [1 + int( NR )]
j = 2, . . . , N

• the i-th satellite of the p-th plane and the i-th satellite of the
(p − 1)-th plane present a constant mean anomaly phasing,
given by:
  
q 4.3. Summary of the results and ground track reconstruction
 M R =  M i , p −  M i , p −1 = 2π 1 − frac
P
q q
where frac( P ) is the fractional part of P .
As an example, Table 4 shows two constellations, where one
satisfies the conditions mentioned above Eq. (17) (homogeneous
constellation) while the other does not fulfil such conditions (non-
homogeneous constellation). These constellations are associated
with the same (constant) revisit time, equal to m/ N nodal days
(which, for the homogeneous case is also equal to 1/ P ). The exam-
ple is based on the already considered orbit, having q = 14 + 2/3,
while the RAAN and the mean anomaly of the reference satel-
lite ( j = 1) have been set at 0 for both constellations. Given that
N = 12, the revisit time is t = m/ N = 3/12 = 0.25 nodal days
(in the homogeneous case, it is P = 12/3 = 4). In particular, in the
non-homogeneous constellation, the RAAN phasing between two
consecutive satellites ( j, j − 1) has to be set according to Eq. (16),
thus obtaining 73.6364 ≤ Ω j , j −1 ≤ 98.1818. Then, once chosen
a RAAN phasing in this interval, the corresponding mean anomaly
phasing between two consecutive satellites ( j, j − 1) has to be
computed by Eq. (15).
As evidence shows, in the case of homogeneous constellation, in
which the RAAN phasing is equal to 2π / P , the values of  M j , j −1
are all constant and equal to the one provided by Eq. (17) for
 M R . This consideration is valid, in general, for any homogeneous
constellation.
Moreover, by replacing the values of Ω j , j −1 and  M j , j −1 of
Table 4 in place of the values of, respectively, Ω p and  M i , p
of Eq. (14), Eq. (14) itself provides, for all satellites (excluding the
reference one), the same value H = 12 for both constellations.
(17)
Tables 5 and 6 summarise the obtained results for, respectively,
the ground track distance and the revisit time (both constant),
showing the conditions that have to be fulfilled.
To determine the sensor swath (S S ) needed to gain com-
plete longitudinal coverage, it is necessary to consider, besides
the ground track distance (in general S m / N), the value of the so-
called apparent inclination i  , defined as the angle that the ground
track forms with the equator. In fact, the sensor swath must be
greater than (or at least equal to) the ground track distance (which
decreases as the latitude increases), measured in cross-track direc-
tion: S S ≥ ( S m / N ) sin i  for prograde orbits, S S ≥ ( S m / N ) sin(π − i  )
for retrograde orbits.
In the case of circular orbit, the apparent inclination can
be computed by the following relationship (i  ≥ i) [24]: t gi  =
sin i /(cos i − 1/q).
As is well-known, to reconstruct the ground track as a func-
tion of time, it is necessary to determine the temporal variation of
both longitude (λ) and latitude (φ ) of the sub-satellite point (ra-
dial projection of the instantaneous satellite position on the Earth’s
surface). To this end, the following formulae can be used:
φ = sin−1 (sin i sin ξ ) (18)
−1
λ = λ0 + tan (cos i tan ξ ) − 2π t (19)
464 E. Ortore et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 69 (2017) 458–464
λ = λ0 − π + tan−1 (cos i tan ξ ) − 2π t
where, as said in Section 1, t is the time normalised with respect
to the nodal day, so that 2π t = (ω E − Ω̇) D n t. In particular, Eq. (19)
has to be considered in the ascending phase of the orbit, while
Eq. (20) has to be taken into account in the descending one.
In the particular case of periodic circular orbit, for which the
argument of latitude ξ can be expressed as:
2π
ξ = ξ̇ t D n = t D n = 2π qt
Tn
Eqs. (18)–(20) become:
−1
 
φ(t ) = sin sin i sin(2π qt )
 
λ(t ) = λ0 + tan−1 cos i tan(2π qt ) − 2π t
 
λ(t ) = λ0 − π + tan−1 cos i tan(2π qt ) − 2π t
Thus, to retrieve the latitude of a satellite phased by  M i , p
with respect to a reference satellite, whose latitude is identified by
Eq. (22), the following relationship can be considered:
 
φ(t ) = sin−1 sin i sin(2π qt +  M i , p )
On the other hand, the RAAN phasing (Ω p ) does not influ-
ence the latitude, for which the multi-plane case coincides with
the single plane one. Similarly, to determine the ground track lon-
gitude of a satellite phased by  M i , p and Ω p with respect to
the satellite reference, whose ground track longitude is identified
by Eqs. (23)–(24), the following formulae can be used:
 
λ(t ) = λ0 + Ω p + tan−1 cos i tan(2π qt +  M i , p ) − 2π t
−1
 
λ(t ) = λ0 − π + Ω p + tan cos i tan(2π qt +  M i , p ) − 2π t
where Eq. (26) has to be considered in the ascending phase of
the orbit, for which (4K + 1) π2 < t +  M i , p < (4K + 3) π2 with K
natural number, while Eq. (27) in the descending one. Thus, in con-
clusion, Eqs. (25)–(27) allow the reconstruction of the ground track
of a constellation of satellites arranged over periodic circular orbits
lying on different planes.
5. Conclusions
With reference to repeating ground track orbits, original and
compact relationships involving ascending node longitude, mean
anomaly and Right Ascension of the Ascending Node are proposed
to describe the ground track patterns and to arrange the satellites
of a constellation so as to gain appropriate ground track distance
and revisit frequency over a given area.
The problem has been faced first considering a single satellite,
then extending the matter to the case in which several satellites
are moving over the same orbit and finally taking into account
constellations composed of satellites lying over different orbital
planes. While in the case of satellites distributed over the same
orbit a constant revisit time over a given area, whose minimum
value is equal to one nodal day, can be obtained only consider-
ing satellites uniformly phased in mean anomaly, in the case of
several orbital planes a constant revisit time, even less than one
nodal day, can be gained taking into account both uniformly and
(20) non-uniformly phased satellites. On the other hand, a constant
ground track distance can be obtained by both uniformly and non-
uniformly phased satellites and by both single and multi-plane
constellations.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
(21)
References
[1] R.D. Luders, Satellite networks for continuous zonal coverage, J. Am. Rocket Soc.
31 (2) (1961) 179–184.
(22) [2] R.D. Luders, L.J. Ginsberg, Continuous Zonal Coverage: A Generalized Analysis,
NASA STI/Recon Technical Report, N 75, 1974, 30218.
(23) [3] D.C. Beste, Design of satellite constellations for optimal continuous coverage,
(24)
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. AES-14 (3) (1978) 466–473.
[4] J.G. Walker, Some circular orbit patterns providing continuous whole Earth cov-
erage, J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 24 (1971) 369–384.
[5] J.E. Draim, Three- and four-satellite continuous-coverage constellations, J. Guid.
Control Dyn. 8 (6) (1985) 725–730.
[6] J.E. Draim, A common-period four-satellite continuous global coverage constel-
lation, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 10 (5) (1987) 492–499.
(25) [7] W.S. Adams, L. Rider, Circular polar constellations providing continuous single
or multiple coverage above a specified latitude, J. Astronaut. Sci. 35 (2) (1987)
155–192.
[8] T.J. Lang, Symmetric circular orbit satellite constellations for continuous global
coverage, in: Astrodynamics 1987, Proceedings of the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics
Conference, Part 2 (A89-12626 02-12), Kalispell, MT, Aug. 10–13, 1987, Uni-
velt Inc., San Diego, CA, 1988, pp. 1111–1132.
[9] Y. Ulybyshev, Near-polar satellite constellations for continuous global coverage,
J. Spacecr. Rockets 36 (1) (1999) 92–99.
[10] R.D. Luders, The Satellite Trace Repetition Parameter Q, Aerospace Corp. TOR-
1001(2307)-3, 17 August, 1966.
[11] J.C. King, Quantization and symmetry in periodic coverage patterns with appli-
(26) cations to Earth observation, J. Astronaut. Sci. 24 (4) (1976) 347–363.
[12] D.L. Farless, The application of periodic orbits to TOPEX mission design, in:
Astrodynamics 1985, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Proceedings of
the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Conference, Part I, Vail, Colorado, August 12–15,
(27) 1986, pp. 13–36, 58.
[13] R.G. Hopkins, Long-term revisit coverage using multi-satellite constellations,
AIAA paper N. 88-4276-CP in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference, Minneapo-
lis, USA, 1988.
[14] J.M. Hanson, M.J. Evans, R.E. Turner, Designing good partial coverage satel-
lite constellations, in: Proceedings of the AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference,
Portland, OR, Aug, 1990, pp. 214–231.
[15] E. Ortore, C. Circi, F. Bunkheila, C. Ulivieri, Earth and Mars observation using
periodic orbits, Adv. Space Res. 49 (1) (2012) 185–195.
[16] C. Circi, E. Ortore, F. Bunkheila, C. Ulivieri, Elliptical multi-sun-synchronous or-
bits for Mars exploration, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 114 (3) (2012) 215–227.
[17] C. Circi, E. Ortore, F. Bunkheila, Satellite constellations in sliding ground track
orbits, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 39 (2014) 395–402.
[18] J.R. Wertz, W.J. Larson (Eds.), Space Mission Analysis and Design (SMAD), 3rd
ed., Space Technology Library, vol. 8, 1999, Published jointly by Microcosm
Press (El Segundo, California), Kluwer Academic Publishers (Dordrecht/Boston/
London).
[19] M. Lara, Searching for repeating ground track orbits: a systematic approach, J.
Astronaut. Sci. 47 (3–4) (1999) 177–188.
[20] M. Lara, Repeat ground track orbits of the Earth tesseral problem as bifur-
cations of the equatorial family of periodic orbits, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.
86 (2) (2003) 143–162.
[21] M. Lara, R. Russell, Fast design of repeat ground track orbits in high-fidelity
geopotentials, J. Astronaut. Sci. 56 (3) (2008) 311–324.
[22] X. Fu, M. Wu, Y. Tang, Design and maintenance of low-Earth repeat-ground-
track successive-coverage orbits, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 35 (2) (2012) 686–691.
[23] M. Aorpimai, P.L. Palmer, Repeat-ground track orbit acquisition and main-
tenance for Earth-observation satellites, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 30 (3) (2007)
654–659.
[24] M. Capderou, Satellites – Orbits and Missions, Springer-Verlag, 2005,
pp. 182–186.