Lunar gravity assists using patched-conics approximation, three and four body problems

Abstract The gravity assist is a maneuver greatly applied to space missions, with the main goal of giving or removing energy of a spacecraft through a passage near a celestial body. The patched-conics approximation is the first approximation that is usually considered in the mission planning. It gives a good accuracy in the majority of the situations. However, when using the Moon for the close approach, the results have a tendency to diverge from a more complete three body dynamics. This is due to the large mass of the Moon compared to the Earth. In that sense, the goal of the present paper is to study the errors given by the patched-conics approximation in a lunar gravity assist maneuver. To find those errors we compare the results coming from this approximation with the equivalent results obtained from the circular restricted three body problem and the bi-circular restricted four body problem for a same periselenium condition. This comparison is made in the orbital elements before the maneuver and the C 3 of the spacecraft after the maneuver under the three models considered. Different values for the initial conditions of the spacecraft are used to obtain general conclusions about the behavior of the errors involved. We conclude that there is a tendency to a better agreement between the patched-conics and the three body problem for retrograde transfer orbits. We also find that the effects of the Sun in the maneuver needs to be included only in more accurate steps of the mission.

[1]  S. Solomon,et al.  The MESSENGER mission to Mercury: Development history and early mission status , 2006 .

[2]  J. Dormand,et al.  High order embedded Runge-Kutta formulae , 1981 .

[3]  Yanping Guo,et al.  New Horizons Mission Design , 2008 .

[4]  Equivalent Delta-V per Orbit of Gravitational Perturbations , 2016 .

[5]  Victor Szebehely,et al.  Theory of Orbits. , 1967 .

[6]  Elbert E. N. Macau,et al.  The Aster project: Flight to a near-Earth asteroid , 2010 .

[7]  Giovanni B. Valsecchi,et al.  Outcomes of planetary close encounters: A systematic comparison of methodologies , 1988 .

[8]  Antonio G. V. de Brum,et al.  The aster mission: Exploring for the first time a triple system asteroid , 2011 .

[9]  G. Valsecchi,et al.  Conservation of the Tisserand parameter at close encounters of interplanetary objects with Jupiter , 1995 .

[10]  S. Solomon,et al.  An international program for Mercury exploration: synergy of MESSENGER and BepiColombo , 2004 .

[11]  F. Topputo.  On optimal two-impulse Earth–Moon transfers in a four-body model , 2013 .

[12]  Ryan P. Russell,et al.  Endgame Problem Part 2: Multibody Technique and the Tisserand-Poincare Graph , 2010 .

[13]  Kazuyuki Yagasaki,et al.  Sun-perturbed earth-to-moon transfers with low energy and moderate flight time , 2004 .

[14]  P. A. Penzo,et al.  Voyager mission description , 1977 .

[15]  Jean-Pierre Lebreton,et al.  The Cassini–Huygens flyby of Jupiter , 2004 .

[16]  A. Prado.  Numerical and analytical study of the gravitational capture in the bicircular problem , 2005 .

[17]  Antonio F. B. A. Prado,et al.  Studying the errors in the estimation of the variation of energy by the “patched-conics” model in the three-dimensional swing-by , 2017 .

[18]  R. Broucke.  The celestial mechanics of gravity assist , 1988 .

[19]  A. Prado,et al.  Sphere of influence and gravitational capture radius: a dynamical approach , 2008 .

[20]  Andrea Carusi,et al.  Planetary close encounters: geometry of approach and post-encounter orbital parameters , 1990 .

[21]  A. F. Silva,et al.  Powered Swing-By Maneuvers around the Moon , 2013 .

[22]  Tadashi Yokoyama,et al.  On the effects of each term of the geopotential perturbation along the time I: Quasi-circular orbits , 2014 .

[23]  K. Nock,et al.  Galileo Jupiter encounter and satellite tour trajectory design , 1979 .

[24]  F. Topputo,et al.  Transfers to distant periodic orbits around the Moon via their invariant manifolds , 2012 .

[25]  K. Howell,et al.  Mode Analysis for Long-Term Behavior in a Resonant Earth–Moon Trajectory , 2017 .

[26]  M. Hechler,et al.  ROSETTA mission design , 1997 .

[27]  R. Carlson,et al.  Pioneer 10 ultraviolet photometer observations at Jupiter encounter , 1974 .

[28]  F. Topputo,et al.  Ways to the Moon : A survey , 2011 .

[29]  A. Prado.  Searching for Orbits with Minimum Fuel Consumption for Station-Keeping Maneuvers: An Application to Lunisolar Perturbations , 2013 .

[30]  Ryan P. Russell,et al.  Optimization of low-energy resonant hopping transfers between planetary moons , 2009 .

[31]  Shane D. Ross,et al.  Multiple Gravity Assists, Capture, and Escape in the Restricted Three-Body Problem , 2007, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst..

[32]  A. Prado.  A comparison of the "patched-conics approach" and the restricted problem for swing-bys , 2006 .

[33]  Ryan P. Russell,et al.  Flybys in the planar, circular, restricted, three-body problem , 2012 .