Abstract:Open AccessEngineering NotesFormation Flying Along Low-Energy Lunar Transfer Trajectory Using Hamiltonian-Structure-Preserving ControlXiaoyu Fu and Ming XuXiaoyu FuBeihang University, 100191 Beijing, People’s Republic of China*Master Candidate, School of Astronautics; .Search for more papers by this author and Ming XuBeihang University, 100191 Beijing, People’s Republic of China†Associate Professor, School of Astronautics; (Corresponding Author).Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003673SectionsRead Now ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutI. IntroductionCharacterized by cost-effectiveness, high system robustness, and imaging sharpness, spacecraft formation flying has offered significant advantages in various missions over the past years. Different aspects of formation flying have been widely studied, including the configuration method of formation [1–3], trajectory-keeping method [4,5], and formation control strategy [6–8]. However, in consideration of the spatial domain, previous studies focused mainly on formation flying on the orbits around a primary or formation flying in the vicinity of libration points. Theoretically, formation-flying technology can be employed in a mission with considerable space coverage, that is, the formation domain can be expanded vastly from the region around a primary body or a libration point. In addition, formation flying along a trajectory that passes different primary bodies did not raise enough concentration in previous works. However, the twin spacecraft in NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission [9], which executed spacecraft-to-spacecraft tracking observations over the lunar surface after their four-month low-energy lunar transfer, are theoretically capable of performing formation flying during the lunar transfer period. With the equipment on board, a feasible exploration of the stellar environment between Earth and the moon is able to be carried out by this double-spacecraft formation. In addition, considering the fact that a low-energy lunar transfer will pass through the neighborhood of the collinear libration points in both the sun–Earth system and Earth–moon system [10,11], such a huge spatial coverage is also suitable to test formation flying in a larger spatial domain.Apart from the spatial domain of formation, scholars have explored other aspects of formation flying, which include formation control approaches. Among the previous researches, Scheeres et al. [12] presented a continuous controller to achieve a bounded relative motion about a halo orbit. Named as a Hamiltonian-structure-preserving (HSP) controller, the controller was creatively designed by using the eigenstructure of linearized dynamics and was able to preserve the system’s mathematical structure. Thereafter, the applicability of HSP control was widely studied in more trajectory-keeping issues [13–15] and formation-flying subjects [16–18]. However, in the previous works, the HSP control has only been employed in time-independent and time-periodic/quasi-periodic dynamics. The stability analysis based on Floquet theory for periodic systems is no longer applicable in the general time-dependent relative dynamics of the sun–Earth–moon–spacecraft model. In addition, the boundedness of the relative motion generated by an HSP controller in time-dependent relative dynamics also deserves a further study.Inspired by the GRAIL mission, formation flying along a low-energy lunar transfer trajectory is studied in this paper. Furthermore, HSP control is used in this formation flying to investigate its performance in the time-dependent relative dynamics of the sun–Earth–moon–spacecraft model. The stability criterion for the linearized time-dependent system is analyzed, and the boundedness of relative motion in both linearized and nonlinearized systems is studied. In addition, a selection strategy for time-dependent control gains is proposed in the time-dependent dynamics.II. Relative Dynamics of the Planar Bicircular Model in a Restricted Four-Body ProblemA. Planar Bicircular Model of Restricted Sun–Earth–Moon–Spacecraft SystemThe planar bicircular model (PBCM) of the restricted sun–Earth–moon–spacecraft system is a simplified model for a restricted four-body problem (RFBP). In this study, two synodic coordinate frames are employed to further describe the PBCM. Initially, an Earth–moon synodic coordinate frame is defined, the origin of which is taken at the Earth–moon barycenter (EMB). The X axis is given by the line that goes from the Earth to the moon, the Z axis goes through the EMB and is perpendicular to the moon’s orbit plane, and the Y axis is chosen to make the system orthogonal and positively oriented. A planar illustration of this synodic frame used in the PBCM is shown in Fig. 1. In this rotating frame, Earth and the moon are immovable. The sun is rotating clockwise around the origin at a constant distance of AS. By denoting the time-varying sun’s phase as θS, the sun’s position vector is defined as AS=AS⋅[cos(θS)sin(θS)]T. The position and velocity vectors of spacecraft are defined as R=[XY]T and R˙=[X˙Y˙]T, respectively.Fig. 1 Bicircular model in the Earth–moon synodic coordinate frame.To improve the numerical stability in related numerical computations, normalized units are chosen to simplify equations of motion in the PBCM. The units of length, mass, and time are selected, such that the Earth–moon distance (i.e., LE-M) and the mass of the Earth–moon system are equal to one, and the orbital period of the Earth–moon system is 2π. Using normalized units, the equation of motion of the PBCM in the Earth–moon rotating frame [19] is R¨+2JR˙=∂V∂R(1)in which J is a symplectic operator, and the pseudopotential V can be written as V=12(X2+Y2)+μE‖RE‖+μM‖RM‖+μS‖RS‖−μS‖AS‖3AS⋅R(2)in which μi(i=E,M,S) denotes the mass of the corresponding celestial body, and Ri(i=E,M,S) denotes the position vector from the spacecraft to the corresponding celestial body.Apart from the aforementioned rotating coordinates with respect to the Earth–moon system, the PCBM can be described in a sun–Earth rotating frame as well. In this case, a different normalized unit system is selected as follows: length is scaled by the average sun–Earth distance (i.e., astronomical unit), mass is scaled by the mass of the sun–Earth system, and time is scaled by the period of the sun–Earth binary star system. To make a difference between the values of parameters in the two rotating frames, the mass of the corresponding celestial body is denoted as μi′(i=E,M,S). In this rotating frame, the origin is located at the sun–Earth barycenter, and the sun and Earth are fixed at (−μE′,0) and (1−μE′,0), respectively. The moon is revolving on a circular orbit around Earth, at an angular velocity of ωM′. Position and velocity vectors of spacecraft are defined as r=[xy]T and r˙=[x˙y˙]T. Based on the aforementioned nondimensional units, the equation of motion in the sun–Earth rotating frame has the same form with Eq. (1), whereas a different pseudopotential U is given as U=12(x2+y2)+μE′‖rE‖+μS′‖rS‖+μM′‖rM‖(3)in which ri(i=E,M,S) denotes the position vector from the spacecraft to the corresponding celestial body. The algorithm for coordinate transformations between the Earth–moon rotating frame and the sun–Earth rotating frame is described in the work of Koon et al. [19]. In this algorithm, the inertial coordinates being used are centered on Earth.B. Low-Energy Transfer with Lunar Ballistic CaptureTo achieve larger space coverage beyond the cislunar space during a formation-flying mission, a low-energy transfer trajectory with lunar ballistic capture was chosen as the reference trajectory for formation flying studied in this paper. This type of lunar transfer was originally advanced by Belbruno with the concept of weak stability boundary in 1987 for the rescue of the Hiten spacecraft and the design of fuel-efficient space missions [20,21]. As shown by Koon et al. [10,11], to finally reach the moon, such transfer trajectories have to pass through the neighborhood of the collinear libration point of EL1 or EL2 in the sun–Earth system, and the vicinity of LL2 in the Earth–moon system. The study of this type of lunar transfer can also be found in the work of Topputo [22], in which the global set of optimal two-impulse lunar transfers is presented. Apparently, formation flying along such trajectories can achieve larger space coverage than the existing formation flying on Earth/moon orbits or near a libration point.A systematic approach that can be used to demonstrate the dynamics of this low-energy transfer trajectory and achieve a preliminary design was introduced by Koon et al. [11]. A detailed algorithm to design a low-energy lunar transfer trajectory in a four-body model can be found in the authors’ previous work [23], in which the Lagrangian coherent structures of the sun–Earth–moon–spacecraft model are employed to replace Poincaré sections. By eliminating the hyperbolic excess velocity at lunar periapsis upon arrival, the necessary amount of onboard fuel can be lowered by about 20% in comparison with a traditional Hohmann transfer [11]. Moreover, on the basis of invariant manifolds in the restricted three-body problem and Lagrangian coherent structures in the RFBP, the design of the low-energy transfer trajectories shows more rationality and a deeper insight of the dynamics than methods solely based on numerical optimization.Figure 2 shows a low-energy transfer trajectory in two different coordinates separately. This trajectory is designed as a reference one for a chief spacecraft in the formation flying studied in this paper. Considering that a strong nonlinearity exists during the transfer period in RFBP, this trajectory is acquired by using the Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg method with a maximum step size of 10−3 and the relative and absolute tolerances in the order of 10−12 and 10−16, respectively. The ballistic capture portion in this trajectory starts with a capture eccentricity of 0.95 at an altitude of 200 km above the lunar surface. Along this trajectory, it takes a spacecraft 153.77 days to depart from a 500 km altitude Earth orbit and finally be captured ballistically by the moon.Fig. 2 a) Low-energy transfer trajectory in the sun–Earth rotating frame, and b) same trajectory in the geocentric inertial frame.C. Relative Dynamics of Planar Bicircular ModelThe relative motion of spacecraft specifically depends on their relative dynamics. In the relative dynamics of the PBCM, position vectors of chief spacecraft and deputy spacecraft are denoted by rC=[xCyC]T and rD=[xDyD]T, respectively. Thus, the relative position vector Δr=[ΔxΔy]T from a chief to its deputy satisfies Δr=rd−rc. As |Δr|≪|rC|, the relative dynamics in PBCM is derived as Δr¨+2JΔr˙=Urr|r=r0Δr+o(Δr)(4)in which r0 denotes the position vector of each point on the reference trajectory of the chief spacecraft, and Urr|r=r0 denotes the second derivative matrix of pseudopotential U with respect to r0. The linearized form of Eq. (4) can be written in a state-space representation: [Δr˙Δr¨]=[0IUrr|r=r0−2J][ΔrΔr˙]=Df(t)[ΔrΔr˙](5)in which I denotes an identity matrix, and Df(t) denotes the time-variant Jacobian matrix of this linearized system. Employing the reference trajectory shown in Fig. 2, the time history of the four eigenvalues of Df(t) is examined in both the Earth–moon rotating coordinates and the sun–Earth rotating coordinates, as shown, respectively, in Figs. 3 and 4.Fig. 3 Four eigenvalues of the time-dependent Jacobian matrix in the Earth–moon rotating coordinates: a) real part of the four eigenvalues over the full transfer period, b) real part of the four eigenvalues from day 1 to day 153, c) imaginary part of the four eigenvalues over the full transfer period, and d) imaginary part of the four eigenvalues from day 1 to day 153.Fig. 4 Four eigenvalues of the time-dependent Jacobian matrix in the sun–Earth rotating coordinates: a) real part of the four eigenvalues over the full transfer period, b) real part of the four eigenvalues from day 1 to day 153, c) imaginary part of the four eigenvalues over the full transfer period, and d) imaginary part of the four eigenvalues from day 1 to day 153.Based on the different combinations of the four eigenvalues in the Earth–moon rotating coordinates, the selected reference trajectory is separated into different sections. In Fig. 5, eigenvalues on the two short arcs starting respectively from Earth and the moon are couples of real and pure imaginary numbers (i.e., saddle×center). Eigenvalues on the longest arc of the transfer trajectory are couples of complex numbers and conjugate pairs (i.e., stable focus×unstable focus). Two shortest arcs can be identified near the starting point and ending point of the longest arc. Eigenvalues on these two arcs are two couples of pure imaginary numbers (i.e., center×center). In contrast, however, only one type of combination of eigenvalues (saddle×center, as shown in Fig. 4) is detected through the eigenvalue decomposition in the sun–Earth rotating coordinates. Although the differences in equilibrium combination type and numerical scope do exist, a same variation tendency is apparently shown in both Figs. 3 and 4: eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix change more rapidly on the periphery of Earth and the moon. Especially at the beginning phase, the eigenvalues experience a tremendous variation. The numerical variation of these eigenvalues is slight when the trajectory is away from the aforementioned celestial bodies. What has to be remarked is that the preceding discussion should not obscure the fact that the dynamics is the same in the two coordinate frames. The ostensibly different eigenvalue results calculated from two coordinate systems are based on the same relative dynamics of PBCM.Fig. 5 Separation of the low-energy transfer trajectory based on different eigenvalue combinations of Jacobian matrix.III. Application of HSP Control in Formation Flying Along Low-Energy Lunar TransferA. Design of HSP ControllerEnlightened by the works of Scheeres et al. [12] and Xu et al. [13], in this study, relative position feedback was used as the only input of an HSP controller to stabilize the relative motion in formation flying along a low-energy lunar transfer trajectory. The structure of the HSP controller is built with the eigenstructure of the linearized relative dynamics. The time-varying eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors in the linearized relative dynamics are denoted by λj(t)=σj(t)+i⋅γj(t)(j=1,2,3,4) and uj(t)=urj(t)+i⋅uij(t)(j=1,2,3,4), respectively, in which σ denotes the real part of an eigenvalue, γ denotes the imaginary part of an eigenvalue, ur denotes the real part of an eigenvector, ui denotes the imaginary part of an eigenvector, and j denotes the number of eigenvalue/eigenvector of the Jacobian matrix. In this case, the relatively simple eigenstructure of the linearized relative dynamics in the sun–Earth rotating coordinate system is taken into account. As shown in Fig. 5, the one and only type of equilibrium combination, whose eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors can be denoted by {σ1(t),ur1(t)}, {−σ1(t),ur2(t)}, {i⋅γ3(t),i⋅ui3(t)}, and {−i⋅γ3(t),i⋅ui4(t)}, can further simplify the structure of an HSP controller. Based on the specific eigenstructure mentioned previously, an HSP controller is constructed as TC=Π(t)⋅Δr(6)in which Δr denotes the relative position from a chief to its deputy, and the 2×2 matrix Π(t) is Π(t)=−G1(t)⋅σ12(t)⋅(ur1(t)ur1(t)H+ur2(t)ur2(t)H)−G2(t)⋅γ32(t)⋅(ui3(t)ui3(t)H+ui4(t)ui4(t)H)in which Gj(t)(j=1,2) is defined as the time-dependent control gain in the HSP controller. The linearized relative dynamics, including the HSP controller in Eq. (6), can be written as follows: Δr¨+2JΔr˙=(Urr|r=r0+Π(t))⋅Δr(7)The structure of the HSP controller designed in this section is similar with the one designed by Scheeres et al. [12]. Nevertheless, as an HSP controller mainly depends on 1) the eigenstructure of the relative dynamics, which is employed to design it; and 2) its control gains, two distinctive characters of the HSP controller designed in this paper should be clarified.Firstly, the HSP controller used in this study was designed based on the general time-dependent relative dynamics of PBCM. The eigenstructure in this relative dynamics is no longer periodic or quasi-periodic. Moreover, as shown in Sec. II.C, a tremendous variation of eigenvalues can be found in this time-dependent system. In comparison, the eigenvalues in periodic/quasi-periodic systems are restricted in a relatively small range [12,15,16]. Moreover, the stability analysis based on Floquet theory, which is applicable in periodic system, is no longer feasible in general time-dependent dynamics. Thus, a further investigation on stability and boundedness should be carried out in this case and take the variation of eigenstructure into account. Secondly, constant control gains are commonly researched and employed in the previous works for time-independent/periodic/quasi-periodic systems. However, considering the time-dependent nature in this relative dynamics, it is also reasonable to explore the feasibility of time-dependent control gains in the HSP controller. Apart from constant control gains, time-dependent control gains are also studied based on the stability of the controller and the boundedness of the relative motion in this case. A detailed discussion about stability analysis and the selection of time-dependent control gains is brought up in the following sections.B. Transient Stability of State Transition Matrix in Linearized Relative DynamicsIn the classical sense, a linear time-periodic Hamiltonian system is stable if all eigenvalues of the system’s state transition matrix (STM) ϕ return to the unit circle |λ|=1 after an entire period T. As demonstrated by Hsiao and Scheeres [24], for a classically stable periodic Hamiltonian system, transient bifurcations of eigenvalues may occur over some time spans for 0

Abstract:No AccessEngineering NoteFormation Flying on Elliptic Orbits by Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving ControlMing Xu and Yuying LiangMing XuBeihang University, 100191 Beijing, People's Republic of China and Yuying LiangBeihang University, 100191 Beijing, People's Republic of ChinaPublished Online:26 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002141SectionsRead Now ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail About References [1] Kirschner M., Montenbruck O. and Bettadpur S., "Flight Dynamics Aspects of the Grace Formation Flying," International Symposium on Spaceflight Dynamics, 2001. Google Scholar[2] D'Amico S. and Montenbruck O., "Proximity Operations of Formation Flying Spacecraft Using an Eccentricity/Inclination Vector Separation," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006, pp. 554–563. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.15114 LinkGoogle Scholar[3] Aida S., Patzelt T., Leushacke L., Kirschner M. and Kiehling R., "Monitoring and Mitigation of Close Proximities in Low Earth Orbit," 21st International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, 2009. Google Scholar[4] Melton R. G., "Relative Motion of Satellites in Elliptical Orbits," Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 2, 1997, pp. 2075–2094. Google Scholar[5] Lawden D., "Fundamentals of Space Navigation," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1954, pp. 87–101. Google Scholar[6] Tschauner J. and Hempel P., "Optimale Beschleunigeungsprogramme fur das Rendezvous-Manover," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 10, Nos. 5–6, 1964, pp. 296–307. AASTCF 0094-5765 Google Scholar[7] Han C. and Yin J. F., "Formation Design in Elliptical Orbit Using Relative Orbit Elements," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 77, Aug.–Sept. 2012, pp. 34–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.02.026 AASTCF 0094-5765 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[8] Alfriend K. T., Vadali S. R., Gurfil P., How J. P. and Breger L. S., Spacecraft Formation Flying Dynamics, Control and Navigation, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2010, pp. 143–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar[9] Sinclair A. J., Sherrill R. E. and Lovell T. A., "Geometric Interpretation of the Tschauner–Hempel Solutions for Satellite Relative Motion," Advances in Space Research, Vol. 55, No. 9, 2015, pp. 2268–2279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.01.032 ASRSDW 0273-1177 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[10] Yin J. and Han C., "Elliptical Formation Control based on Relative Orbit Elements," Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2013, pp. 1554–1567. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2013.07.014 CJAEEZ 1000-9361 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[11] Gurfil P., "Relative Motion Between Elliptic Orbits: Generalized Boundedness Conditions and Optimal Formationkeeping," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005, pp. 761–767. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.9439 JGCODS 0731-5090 LinkGoogle Scholar[12] Zanon D. J. and Campbell M. E., "Optimal Planner for Spacecraft Formations in Elliptical Orbits," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2006, pp. 161–171. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.7236 JGCODS 0731-5090 LinkGoogle Scholar[13] Liu H., Li J. and Hexi B., "Sliding Mode Control for Low-Thrust Earth-Orbiting Spacecraft Formation Maneuvering," Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2006, pp. 636–643. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2006.04.008 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[14] Cho H., Park S., Yoo S. and Choi K., "Analytical Solution to Optimal Relocation of Satellite Formation Flying in Arbitrary Elliptic Orbits," Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2013, pp. 161–176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.01.005 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[15] Polk J., Kakuda R., Anderson J. and Brophy J., "Performance of the NSTAR Ion Propulsion System on the Deep Space One Mission," 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Jan. 2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-965 Google Scholar[16] Brophy J., Garner C., Nakazono B., Marcucci M., Henry M. and Noon D., "The Ion Propulsion System for Dawn," 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2003-4542, July 2003. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-4542 LinkGoogle Scholar[17] Drinkwater M. R., Floberghagen R., Haagmans R., Muzi D. and Popescu A., "VII: CLOSING SESSION: GOCE: ESA's First Earth Explorer Core Mission," Space Science Reviews, Vol. 108, Nos. 1–2, 2003, pp. 419–432. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026104216284 SPSRA4 0038-6308 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[18] Milligan D., Camino O. and Gestal D., "SMART-1 Electric Propulsion: An Operational Perspective," 9th International Conference on Space Operations, AIAA Paper 2006-5767, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-5767 Google Scholar[19] Nishiyama K., Hosoda S., Tsukizaki R. and Kuninaka H., "In-Flight Operation of the Hayabusa2 Ion Engine System in the EDVEGA Phase," 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Paper 2015-3718, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-3718 Google Scholar[20] Lee K. W. and Singh S. N., "Variable-Structure Model Reference Adaptive Formation Control of Spacecraft," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2012, pp. 104–115. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.53904 LinkGoogle Scholar[21] Wei C., Park S. Y. and Park C., "Optimal H∞, Robust Output Feedback Control for Satellite Formation in Arbitrary Elliptical Reference Orbits," Advances in Space Research, Vol. 54, No. 6, 2014, pp. 969–989. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2014.05.017 ASRSDW 0273-1177 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[22] Chen Z., Lv X., Liu X., Cong B. and Li Y., "A New Sliding Mode Control for Satellite Formation Flying in Elliptical Orbits Based on a Model in the True Anomaly Region," Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Vol. 57, No. 5, 2014, pp. 289–298. doi:https://doi.org/10.2322/tjsass.57.289 TJASAM 0549-3811 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[23] Guerman A., Ovchinnikov M., Smirnov G. and Trofimov S., "High-Precision Single-Input Control of Relative Motion in Spacecraft Formation," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2014, pp. 375–382. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.02.014 AASTCF 0094-5765 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[24] Meyer K. R., Hall G. R. and Offin D., Introduction to Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems and the N-Body Problem, 2nd ed., Springer–Verlag, New York, 2009, p. 330, Chap. 5. Google Scholar[25] Wertz J. R., Orbit and Constellation Design and Management, Springer–Verlag, New York, 2001, pp. 417–498, Chap. 9. Google Scholar[26] Dunham D. W. and Farquhar R. W., Libration Point Missions, 1978–2002, Proceedings of the Conference of Libration Point Orbits and Applications, Word Scientific, Singapore, 2003, pp. 45–67. Google Scholar[27] Scheeres D. J., Hsiao F. Y. and Vinh N. X., "Stabilizing Motion Relative to an Unstable Orbit: Applications to Spacecraft Formation Flight," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2003, pp. 62–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5015 LinkGoogle Scholar[28] Xu M. and Xu S., "Structure-Preserving Stabilization for Hamiltonian System and Its Applications in Solar Sail," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009, pp. 997–1004. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.34757 LinkGoogle Scholar[29] Vaddi S. S. and Vadali S. R., "Linear and Nonlinear Control Laws for Formation Flying," Advances in Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 114, No. 1, 2003, pp. 171–187. ADASA9 0065-3438 Google Scholar[30] Colombo C., Xu M. and McInnes C., "Stabilization of the Hyperbolic Equilibrium of High Area-to-Mass Spacecraft," 63rd International Astronautical Congress, IAC-12-C1.1.13, Oct. 2012. Google Scholar[31] Soldini S., Colombo C. and Walker S., "Comparison of Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving and Floquet Mode Station-Keeping for Libration-Point Orbits," AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, AIAA Paper 2014-4118, Aug. 2014. LinkGoogle Scholar[32] Xu M., Zhu J., Tan T. and Xu S., "Application of Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving Control to Formation Flying on a J2-Perturbed Mean Circular Orbit," Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 113, No. 4, 2012, pp. 403–433. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-012-9430-2 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[33] Xu M., Liang Y., Tan T. and Wei L., "Cluster Fight Control for Fractionated Spacecraft on an Elliptic Orbit," Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 125, No. 4, 2016, pp. 383–412. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-016-9685-0 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[34] Szebehely V. and Giacaglia G. E. O., "On the Elliptic Restricted Problem of Three Bodies," Astronomical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 3, 1964, pp. 230–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/109261 ANJOAA 0004-6256 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[35] Alfriend K., Vadali S. R., Gurfil P., How J. and Breger L., Spacecraft Formation Flying, Elsevier, New York, 2010, pp. 143–183, Chap. 7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar[36] Inalhan G., Tillerson M. and How J. P., "Relative Dynamics and Control of Spacecraft Formations in Eccentric Orbits," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2002, pp. 48–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4874 JGCODS 0731-5090 LinkGoogle Scholar[37] Alfriend K., Vadali S. R., Gurfil P., How J. and Breger L., Spacecraft Formation Flying, Elsevier, New York, 2010, pp. 59–82, 123–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar[38] Bajorska B., "On Jordan-Chevalley Decomposition," Tectonics, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2011, pp. 686–702. TCTNDM 0278-7407 Google Scholar[39] Yakubovich V. A. and Starzhinskii V. M., Linear Differential Equations with Periodic Coefficients, Wiley, New York, 1975, pp. 48–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620100430 Google Scholar[40] Gurfil P., "Relative Motion Between Elliptic Orbits: Generalized Boundedness Conditions and Optimal Formationkeeping," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2005, pp. 761–767. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/1.9439 LinkGoogle Scholar[41] Alfriend K. T., Vadali S. R. and Schaub H., "Formation Flying Satellites: Control by an Astrodynamicist," Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2001, pp. 57–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013307103630 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[42] Sengupta P. and Vadali S. R., "Analytical Solution for Power-Limited Optimal Rendezvous near an Elliptic Orbit," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 138, No. 1, 2008, pp. 115–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-008-9369-3 JOTABN 0022-3239 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[43] Faller N. and Weber M., "TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X: Revolution in Spaceborne Radar," Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IGARSS 2007, 2007, pp. 4924–4928. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2007.4423966 Google Scholar[44] Ho K. C. and Xu W., "An Accurate Algebraic Solution for Moving Source Location Using TDOA and FDOA Measurements," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 52, No. 9, 2004, pp. 2453–2463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2004.831921 ITPRED 1053-587X CrossrefGoogle Scholar[45] Duchemin O. B., Zurbach S., Marchandise F. and Cornu N., "Qualification of the PPS-1350 Hall Plasma Thruster at 2.5 kW," 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Paper 2013-4113, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4113 LinkGoogle Scholar Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHigh order dynamical systems approaches for low-thrust station-keeping of libration point orbitsActa Astronautica, Vol. 19Hamiltonian Structure-Based Formation Flight Control Along Low-Energy Transfer TrajectoryYu Cheng, Christian Circi and Yijun Lian21 December 2020 | Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 44, No. 3Angle formation of double integrator with bearing and velocity informationIFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 54, No. 19Bounded relative motions near Keplerian orbits in spherical coordinatesAdvances in Space Research, Vol. 66, No. 11Entry Trajectory Optimization With Virtual Motion Camouflage PrincipleIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 56, No. 4Quaternion-based adaptive attitude control of asteroid-orbiting spacecraft via immersion and invarianceActa Astronautica, Vol. 167Hamiltonian Structure-Based Robust Station-Keeping for Unstable Libration Point OrbitsSeungyun Jung and Youdan Kim28 May 2019 | Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 42, No. 9Formation flying along unstable Libration Point Orbits using switching Hamiltonian structure-preserving controlActa Astronautica, Vol. 158Error constrained control of a pseudo-satellite with disturbanceAdvances in Space Research, Vol. 63, No. 1 What's Popular Volume 41, Number 1January 2018Special Section on Space Domain Awareness CrossmarkInformationCopyright © 2017 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 0731-5090 (print) or 1533-3884 (online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp. TopicsAircraft OperationsAircraft Operations and TechnologyAstronomyCelestial MechanicsKepler's Laws of Planetary MotionPlanetary Science and ExplorationPlanetsSatellite Design, Integration, and TestSatellite TechnologySpace AgenciesSpace Science and Technology KeywordsFormation FlyingFuel ConsumptionOrbital ElementsSatellite Formation FlyingOrbital EccentricityEarth Centered InertialEarthFeedback Control SystemSpacecraft Formation FlyingLow Thrust PropulsionAcknowledgmentsThe research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11772024 and 11432001) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors thank George Knox, Ramily Santos, and the reviewers for their suggestions to improve this Note.PDF Received4 April 2016Accepted18 September 2017Published online26 October 2017

Formation Flying on Quasi-Halo Orbits in Restricted Sun–Earth/Moon System

Application of Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving Control to Formation Flying on a J 2 -Perturbed Mean Circular Orbit

Robust Adaptive Strategy For Stationkeeping Of Halo Orbit

Application of Floquet Theory to Formation Flying in Elliptic Orbits Via a Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving Control

Formation Flying along Low-Energy Lunar Transfer Trajectory Using Hamiltonian-Structure-Preserving Control

A Comparison of Long-Term Keeping and Control for Satellite Formation Flying

Study On Stationkeeping For Halo Orbits At El1: Dynamics Modeling And Controller Designing

Optimal Periodic Controller for Formation Flying on Libration Point Orbits

Natural Formation Flying on Quasi-Halo Orbits in the Photogravitational Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem

An Improved Nonlinear Control Strategy for Deep Space Formation Flying Spacecraft

ADRC-Based Orbit Maintaining Control of Spacecraft Formation Flying Around Halo Orbits About the Sun-Earth Libration Points

Simulation and Keeping Control Method for Halo Orbits Formation

Nonlinear Control Of Rotating Multi-Tethered Formations In Halo Orbits

Low-thrust Displaced Orbits by Weak Hamiltonian-Structure-Preserving Control

Formation Configuration Design Based on Halo Orbit

Nonlinear Geometry Control of Spacecraft for Halo Orbit Maintenance

Impulsive control strategy for formation flight in the vicinity of the libration points

The Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving Control and Some Applications to Nonlinear Astrodynamics

Robust Control for a Quasi-Linear Parameter Varying Sun-Earth L2 Formation Flying

Quasi-periodic J2 Invariant Relative Orbits for Formation Flying

Formation Flying on Elliptic Orbits by Hamiltonian Structure-Preserving Control