Studying the errors in the estimation of the variation of energy by the “patched-conics” model in the three-dimensional swing-by

The swing-by maneuver is a technique used to change the energy of a spacecraft by using a close approach in a celestial body. This procedure was used many times in real missions. Usually, the first approach to design this type of mission is based on the “patched-conics” model, which splits the maneuver into three “two-body dynamics.” This approach causes an error in the estimation of the energy variations, which depends on the geometry of the maneuver and the system of primaries considered. Therefore, the goal of the present paper is to study the errors caused by this approximation. The comparison of the results are made with the trajectories obtained using the more realistic restricted three-body problem, assumed here to be the “real values” for the maneuver. The results shown here describe the effects of each parameter involved in the swing-by. Some examples using bodies in the solar system are used in this part of the paper. The study is then generalized to cover different mass parameters, and its influence is analyzed to give an idea of the amount of the error expected for a given system of primaries. The results presented here may help in estimating errors in the preliminary mission analysis using the “patched-conics” approach.

[1]  Robert W. Farquhar,et al.  A new trajectory concept for exploring the earth's geomagnetic tail , 1981 .

[2]  R. Grard.  Mercury: The Messenger and BepiColombo missions A concerted approach to the exploration of the planet , 2006 .

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

[4]  D. G. Yárnoz,et al.  Navigating BepiColombo during the weak-stability capture at Mercury , 2008 .

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

[6]  Alan Stern.  The Pluto reconnaissance flyby mission , 1993 .

[7]  V. M. Gomes,et al.  Swing-By Maneuvers for a Cloud of Particles with Planets of the Solar System , 2008 .

[8]  Giovanni B. Valsecchi,et al.  Basic targeting strategies for rendezvous and flyby missions to the near-Earth asteroids , 2001 .

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

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

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

[12]  Antonio F. B. A. Prado,et al.  A study of trajectories to the Neptune system using gravity assists , 2007 .

[13]  R. L. Sohn,et al.  Venus swingby mode for manned mars missions , 1964 .

[14]  R. L. Sohn.  Manned Mars trips using Venus flyby modes. , 1966 .

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

[16]  J. Kawaguchi,et al.  Frequent access to Mercury in the early 21st century: Multiple Mercury flyby mission via electric propulsion , 1996 .

[17]  S. S. Weinstein,et al.  Pluto flyby mission design concepts for very small and moderate spacecraft , 1992 .

[18]  C. L. Yen,et al.  Ballistic Mercury orbiter mission via Venus and Mercury gravity assists , 1986 .

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

[20]  A Uranus—Neptune—Pluto opportunity , 1995 .

[21]  D. Byrnes,et al.  A combined Halley flyby/Galileo mission , 1982 .