Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:58:03.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rendezvous design in a cislunar near rectilinear Halo orbit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2019

E. Blazquez*
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace (ISAE-SUPAERO), Department of Aerospace Vehicles Design and Control, Toulouse, France
L. Beauregard
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace (ISAE-SUPAERO), Department of Aerospace Vehicles Design and Control, Toulouse, France
S. Lizy-Destrez
Affiliation:
Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace (ISAE-SUPAERO), Department of Aerospace Vehicles Design and Control, Toulouse, France
F. Ankersen
Affiliation:
European Space Research and Technology Center, Guidance, Navigation and Control Systems, Noordwijk, Netherlands
F. Capolupo
Affiliation:
Airbus Defence and Space, Advanced Flight Dynamics, GNC and AOCS Studies, Toulouse, France

Abstract

In the context of future human spaceflight exploration missions, Rendezvous and Docking (RVD) activities are critical for the assembly and maintenance of cislunar structures. The scope of this research is to investigate the specifics of orbits of interest for RVD in the cislunar realm and to propose novel strategies to safely perform these kinds of operations. This paper focuses on far rendezvous approaches and passively safe drift trajectories in the Ephemeris model. The goal is to exhibit phasing orbit requirements to ensure a safe far approach. Ephemeris representations of Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits (NRHOs) were derived using multiple-shooting and adaptive receding-horizon targeting algorithms. Simulations showed significant drift and overlapping properties for phasing and target orbits of interest, motivating the search for safe natural drift trajectories and using impact prediction strategies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A version of this paper was first presented at the 18th Australian International Aerospace Congress in February 2019.

References

REFERENCES

Gates, M., Barrett, M., Caram, J., Crable, V., Irimies, D., Ludban, D., Manzell, D. and Ticker, R. Gateway power and propulsion element development status, 69th International Astronautical Congress, October 2018.Google Scholar
Lizy-Destrez, S. Rendezvous optimization with an inhabited space station at EML2, 25th International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, ISSFD, October 2015.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Lee, D.E., Whitley, R.J., Bokelmann, K.A., Davis, D.C. and Berry, C.F. Targeting cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits for human space exploration, 27th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, February 2017.Google Scholar
Davis, D., Sagar, B., Howell, K., Jiang, J.W., Whitley, R., Clark, F., Guzetti, D., Zimovan, E. and Barton, G. Orbit maintenance and navigation of human spacecraft at cislunar Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits, 27th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, February 2017.Google Scholar
Ueda, S., Murakami, N. and Ikenaga, T. A study on rendezvous trajectory design utilizing invariant manifolds of cislunar periodic orbits, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, January 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucci, L., Colagrossi, A. and Lavagna, M.Rendezvous in lunar near rectilinear Halo orbits, Advances in Astronautics Science and Technology, September 2018, 1, (1), pp 3943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizy-Destrez, S., Beauregard, L., Blazquez, E., Campolo, A., Manglaviti, S. and Quet, V.Rendezvous strategies in the vicinity of the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Science, January 2019, 5, (45), pp 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koon, W.S., Lo, M.W., Marsden, J.E. and Ross, S.D.Dynamical systems, the three-body problem and space mission design, 2017, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 2634.Google Scholar
Pavlak, T.A. Trajectory design and orbit maintenance strategies in multi-body dynamical regimes, PhD Thesis, Purdue University, May 2013.Google Scholar
Folkner, W.M., Williams, J.G. and Boggs, D.H. The planetary and lunar Ephemeris DE421, Interplanetary Network Progress Report, August 2009, Tech. Report. Vol. 178.Google Scholar
Howell, K.C. and Breakwell, J.V.Almost rectilinear Halo orbits, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, January 1984, 32, (1), pp 2952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, K.C. and Breakwell, J.V.Three-dimensional, periodic, ’Halo’ orbits, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, January 1984, 32, (1), pp 5371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D.L.Analytic construction of periodic orbits about the collinear points, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, October 1980, 22, (3), pp 241253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J.S. and Anderson, R.L. Low-energy lunar trajectory design, 2011, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (New Jersey), pp 6774.Google Scholar
Alessi, E.M., Gomez, G. and Masdemont, J.J.A methodology for the computation of constrained orbits and its application to the design of Solar System trajectories, Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 2012, 59, pp 477501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, F.K. Spacecraft collision probability, 2008, The Aerospace Press, El Segundo (California).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfano, S. and Oltrogge, D.Probability of collision: valuation, variability, visualization and validity, Acta Astronautica, 2018, 148, pp 301316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topputo, F., Vasile, M. and Bernelli-Zazzera, F.Earth-to-Moon low energy transfers targeting L 1 hyperbolic transit orbits, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2005, 1065, (1), pp 5576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed