Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: Matthew M. Peet

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
Matthew M. Peet
Arizona State University
Lecture 9: Bi-elliptics and Out-of-Plane Maneuvers

Introduction
In this Lecture, you will learn:
Bi-elliptic Maneuvers
• 3-burn Maneuvers
• Comparison with Hohmann
• Numerical Example
I Elliptic
I Circular
Out-of-Plane Maneuvers
• Inclination Change
• Right Ascension Change
Numerical Problem: Suppose we are in a circular parking orbit at altitude

191km. We desire a final altitude of 376, 310km. Design the energy optimal
orbital maneuvers necessary to reach our desired orbit.
M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 2 / 29

Introduction
Lecture 9 In this Lecture, you will learn:
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics Bi-elliptic Maneuvers

I Elliptic
I Circular
Introduction Out-of-Plane Maneuvers

Numerical Problem: Suppose we are in a circular parking orbit at altitude

191km. We desire a final altitude of 376, 310km. Design the energy optimal
orbital maneuvers necessary to reach our desired orbit.
• For low earth orbit, RA has a linear progression due to earth’s equatorial
bulge. This effect is less significant at outer orbits and can be ignored or
corrected.
The Oberth Effect
Generally it is better to make the initial burn at perigee.
For a burn at velocity v, the change in kinetic energy is

1 2 1 1
∆T = (v + ∆v) − v 2 = ∆v 2 + v · ∆v
2 2 2
For a fixed ∆v, the second term v · ∆v is much greater when v is large.
• For an elliptic orbit, maximum velocity is at perigee
• Lower orbits move faster
• It is much easier to achieve escape velocity when in low earth orbit
The Oberth Effect
Lecture 9 Generally it is better to make the initial burn at perigee.
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics
The Oberth Effect For a burn at velocity v, the change in kinetic energy is
1 2 1 1
∆T = (v + ∆v) − v 2 = ∆v 2 + v · ∆v
2 2 2
For a fixed ∆v, the second term v · ∆v is much greater when v is large.
• For an elliptic orbit, maximum velocity is at perigee
• Lower orbits move faster
• It is much easier to achieve escape velocity when in low earth orbit
• Of course, potential energy (normalized by mass) is the same before and

after the burn!
The Oberth Effect: Energy Explanation
Propulsive force results from expulsion of particles at high velocity.
Kinetic Energy of Propellant
• Suppose craft moving at velocity vs .
• Particles are ejected with relative velocity ∆vp > vs
• Absolute velocity of particles is vs − ∆vp .
• Kinetic Energy of particles is
Tp ∼
2
= (vs − ∆vp )
• The closer vs is to ∆v, the lower the kinetic energy.
Potential Energy of Propellant
• The potential energy of the propellant is
r
µ
V =−
r
• the lower the propellant is ejected, the lower the potential energy
Conclusion: Propellant used at perigee has much less energy.
The energy not spent on propellant is retained by the spacecraft.
The Oberth Effect: Energy Explanation
Lecture 9 Propulsive force results from expulsion of particles at high velocity.
Kinetic Energy of Propellant
• Suppose craft moving at velocity vs .
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • Particles are ejected with relative velocity ∆vp > vs
• Absolute velocity of particles is vs − ∆vp .
• Kinetic Energy of particles is
Tp ∼
2
= (vs − ∆vp )
• The closer vs is to ∆v, the lower the kinetic energy.
The Oberth Effect: Energy Explanation Potential Energy of Propellant

• The potential energy of the propellant is
r
µ
V =−
r
• the lower the propellant is ejected, the lower the potential energy
Conclusion: Propellant used at perigee has much less energy.
The energy not spent on propellant is retained by the spacecraft.
• For this reason, all significant ∆v maneuvers in interplanetary missions are

done as close to the gravity well of a planet as possible.
• This is entirely separate from the slingshot effect, but in both cases, a low
periapse radius is desirable.
• Note this strategy is only effective when you are trying to increase the
energy of the orbit.
• Doesn’t apply to plane-change maneuvers.
• For apogee lowering, we want to dump as much energy as possible.
The Bi-Elliptic Transfer
The Hohmann transfer is the energy-optimal 2-impulse transfer.
• Addition Energy savings can be bought at the expense of additional time.
• a 3-impulse trajectory
The bi-elliptic transfer uses the Oberth effect

1. initial impulse close to escape velocity.
2. perigee-raising maneuver at apogee.
3. apogee-lowering maneuver at perigee.
Lecture 9 The Hohmann transfer is the energy-optimal 2-impulse transfer.
• Addition Energy savings can be bought at the expense of additional time.
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • a 3-impulse trajectory

The bi-elliptic transfer uses the Oberth effect
1. initial impulse close to escape velocity.
2. perigee-raising maneuver at apogee.
3. apogee-lowering maneuver at perigee.
• Perigee raising gets easier the farther out you are.

• less ∆v required.
• Less wasted propellant energy
Suppose we want to raise a circular orbit of radius r1 to radius r2 .
3 burns are required. Given r1 and r2 , choose transfer radius r∗ >> rf .

1. Convert circular initial orbit at radius r1 to elliptic transfer orbit 1 with
perigee rp = r1 and apogee ra = r∗ .
2. At apogee, raise perigee of elliptic transfer orbit 2 to r2 .
3. At Perigee, circularize the final orbit by lowering perigee to r2 .

Suppose we want to raise a circular initial orbit of radius ri to final circular orbit
of radius rf .
There are 2 transfer ellipses (both with apogee at r∗ )(perigees at ri and rf )

Ellipse 1: Ellipse 2:
ri + r∗ rf + r∗
a1 = a2 =
2 2
r∗ − ri r∗ − rf
e1 = e2 =
r∗ + ri r∗ + rf

of radius rf .
We can calculate the 3 burns as:

Burn 1: r
r∗
r
µ
∆v1 = v1,p − vi = 2µ −
ri (ri + r∗ ) ri
Burn 2: r
rf ri
r
∆v2 = v2,a − v1,a = 2µ − 2µ
r∗ (rf + r∗ ) r∗ (ri + r∗ )
Burn 3: r
µ
r
r∗
∆v3 = vf − v2,p = − 2µ
rf rf (rf + r∗ )
Notes on the Bi-Elliptic Transfer
of radius rf .
Note that the third burn is retrograde.

• ∆v3 is clearly wasted energy.
• For this reason, bielliptics only work when rf >> ri (R := rf ∼
= 11.94).
ri
I vf << vi
Note that r∗ is a free parameter.
• As r∗ → ∞, the bielliptic gets more efficient.
I Escape and reinsertion.
• As r∗ → ∞, ∆t → ∞.
I A tradeoff between time and efficiency.
Notes on the Bi-Elliptic Transfer
Lecture 9 Suppose we want to raise a circular initial orbit of radius ri to final circular orbit
of radius rf .

Note that the third burn is retrograde.
Notes on the Bi-Elliptic Transfer • ∆v3 is clearly wasted energy.
• For this reason, bielliptics only work when rf >> ri (R :=
I vf << vi
rf
ri
∼
= 11.94).
Note that r∗ is a free parameter.

• As r∗ → ∞, the bielliptic gets more efficient.
I Escape and reinsertion.
• As r∗ → ∞, ∆t → ∞.
I A tradeoff between time and efficiency.
pµ
• Recall the energy of an orbit is E = − 2a .
• The difference in energy between target and initial orbit is partly a
product of the kinetic energy change.
• The Oberth effect only becomes important when the energy difference
between the orbits is large.
rf
Notes on the Bi-Elliptic Transfer (R = ri )

Numerical Example
Problem: Suppose we are in a circular parking orbit at altitude 191km. We
desire a final altitude of 376, 310km. Design the energy optimal orbital
maneuvers necessary to reach our desired orbit.
Solution: First we choose between Hohmann and bi-elliptic. Note
ri = 191km + 1ER = 1.03ER and rf = 376, 310km + 1ER = 60ER
Thus our ratio R ∼
= 60. In this case, it is clear that the bi-elliptic is better.
We choose a transfer radius of r∗ = 80ER.
ri +R∗
Ellipse 1: Our first transfer ellipse will have a1 = 2 = 40.5ER. We have
the following data
vi = .985ER/T U
v1,p = 1.385ER/T U
v1,a = .0178ER/T U
Thus our initial velocity change is
∆v1 = v1,p − vi = 1.385 − .985 = .4ER/T U
Numerical Example
rf +R∗
Ellipse 2: Our second transfer ellipse will have a2 = 2 = 70ER. We have
the following data
vf = .129ER/T U
v2,p = .138ER/T U
v2,a = .103ER/T U
Our change from ellipse 1 to ellipse 2 requires
∆v2 = v2,a − v1,a = .103 − .0178 = .0857ER/T U
Our final circularization requires
∆v3 = vf − v2,p = .129 − .138 = −.009ER/T U
Conclusion:
• Our total ∆v budget is .4938ER/T U = 3.9km/s.
• Budget for Hohmann is 4.0km/s.
• The total duration of transit is 2650 TU = 593.9hr = 24.75 days.
Launch Geometry
Most satellites are launched from the surface of the earth.

• Launch Geometry restricts the initial orbital plane.
The two geometric features/constraints of launch are:

• latitude of the launch site, φgc (fixed).
• launch azimuth (direction), β (range of values).
Launch Geometry
Site Restrictions
• The set of launch sites is restricted

• The range of launch azimuth is restricted
Launch Geometry
Geometric Constraints
Launch geometry determines the inclination of the orbital plane of the parking
orbit.
cos i = cos φgc sin β

Launch Geometry
Lecture 9 Geometric Constraints
Launch geometry determines the inclination of the orbital plane of the parking
orbit.
Launch Geometry
cos i = cos φgc sin β
• Right ascension is also restricted, but can be modified by time-of-launch.

To be discussed shortly.
• To minimize i, maximize β.
• If β = ±90◦ , then the minimum i is restricted by i ≥ φgc .
• Equation is derived from Napier’s rules for spherical right triangles
(C = 90◦ )
(R1) cos c = cos a cos b, (R6) tan a = cos B tan c,

(R2) sin b = sin B sin c, (R7) tan b = cos A tan c,
(R3) sin a = sin A sin c, (R8) cos B= sin A cos b,
(R4) tan b = tan B sin a, (R9) cos A = sin B cos a,
(R5) tan a = tan A sin b, (R10) cos c = cot B cot A.
Launch Geometry
Site Restrictions
Typically, different sites are used for different purposes.

Launch Geometry
Site Restrictions
Example: Vandenburg has

φgc = 34.6 deg and β + 180◦ ∈ [147 deg, 201 deg]
Therefore
−.295 < cos i < .4483
So the inclination is restricted as
63.36 deg < i < 107.16 deg

Launch Geometry
Lecture 9 Site Restrictions
Launch Geometry Example: Vandenburg has

φgc = 34.6 deg and β + 180◦ ∈ [147 deg, 201 deg]
Therefore
−.295 < cos i < .4483
So the inclination is restricted as
63.36 deg < i < 107.16 deg
Azimuth in these tables is measured clockwise from due north (β + 180◦ )

Launch Window
RAAN
Unlike inclination, the Right Ascension of the orbital plane can be chosen by
Launch Window.
Referring to the triangle, our desired launch time (in Local Sidereal Time) is
given by
θLST = Ω + λu
where λu can be found from β and i as
cos β
cos λu =
sin i
Launch Window
Lecture 9 RAAN
Unlike inclination, the Right Ascension of the orbital plane can be chosen by
Launch Window.
Launch Window Referring to the triangle, our desired launch time (in Local Sidereal Time) is
given by
θLST = Ω + λu
where λu can be found from β and i as
cos β
cos λu =
sin i
Law of Cosines:
cos a = cos b cos c + sin b sin c cos A
Law of Sines:
sin A sin B sin C
= =
sin a sin b sin c
Here a = λu , A = β, C = 90◦ , B = i.
Formula actually comes from (R9): cos A = sin B cos a
Example: Launching into the Ecliptic Plane
For interplanetary missions, it is often desirable to establish an initial parking
orbit aligned with the ecliptic plane.
• Desired RAAN: Ω = 0
• Desired inclination: i = 23.5◦
• Launch Site: Kourou (φgc = 5.2◦ , θK = −52.8◦ , β ∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ])
Challenge: Find θLST and β! Is it in the range of launch azimuths?
First, we note that since Ω = 0, θLST = λu
cos β
cos i = cos φgc sin β, cos θLST =
sin i
Solving the first equation for β, we have
cos 23.5◦

−1
β = sin = 67.05◦ , 112.95◦
cos 5.2◦
cos 67.05◦

cos β
θLST = cos−1 = cos−1 = 12.074◦ , 167.92◦
sin i sin 23.5◦
We typically look for a posigrade orbit, so β 0 = 180◦ + β. Choosing β = 67.05◦ ,
we have 180◦ + β 0 = β = 247.05◦ ∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ]
Note that 112◦ + 180◦ = 292◦ 6∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ], so this is not a viable launch
window! M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 19 / 29
Example: Launching into the Ecliptic Plane
Lecture 9 For interplanetary missions, it is often desirable to establish an initial parking
orbit aligned with the ecliptic plane.
• Desired RAAN: Ω = 0
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • Desired inclination: i = 23.5◦

• Launch Site: Kourou (φgc = 5.2◦ , θK = −52.8◦ , β ∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ])
Challenge: Find θLST and β! Is it in the range of launch azimuths?
First, we note that since Ω = 0, θLST = λu
cos β
cos i = cos φgc sin β, cos θLST =
sin i
Solving the first equation for β, we have
Example: Launching into the Ecliptic Plane β = sin−1

cos 23.5◦
cos 5.2◦

= 67.05◦ , 112.95◦
cos 67.05◦

cos β
θLST = cos−1 = cos−1 = 12.074◦ , 167.92◦
sin i sin 23.5◦
We typically look for a posigrade orbit, so β 0 = 180◦ + β. Choosing β = 67.05◦ ,
we have 180◦ + β 0 = β = 247.05◦ ∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ]
Note that 112◦ + 180◦ = 292◦ 6∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ], so this is not a viable launch
window!
• We have adjusted the table data from β 0 ∈ [−20◦ , 100◦ ] to

β ∈ [160◦ , 280◦ ]
Changes in Orbital Plane
Inclination-Only Plane Changes
To change the inclination of an orbit requires ∆v

• Suppose we want to change inclination without changing any other orbital
element.
Inclination-only orbit changes mean:

• Cannot change magnitude of v (Since a is constant)
• Cannot change in-plane flight path angle (Since e, f , ω are constant)
• Must occur at ascending node (Since Ω is constant)
Lecture 9 Inclination-Only Plane Changes
To change the inclination of an orbit requires ∆v

• Suppose we want to change inclination without changing any other orbital
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics element.

Inclination-only orbit changes mean:
• Cannot change magnitude of v (Since a is constant)
• Cannot change in-plane flight path angle (Since e, f , ω are constant)
• Must occur at ascending node (Since Ω is constant)
• Of course, we usually combine inclination changes with other orbit

changes. We will address this in a later slide.
• Unlike changes in a, it is always better to change inclination when the
velocity is smallest.
– Oberth effect is not relevant because we are not adding energy to
the orbit.
Inclination Only Plane Changes
The ∆v required can be calculated as

θ
∆v = 2v sin
2
If θ = ∆i, the direction of thrust is
θ
90◦ +
2
Inclination Only Plane Changes
Lecture 9
Inclination Only Plane Changes The ∆v required can be calculated as

θ
∆v = 2v sin
2
If θ = ∆i, the direction of thrust is
θ
90◦ +
2
• For direction of thrust: Initial velocity is along the vector v − . The

direction of thrust is then measured by a 90◦ + ∆i 2
counterclockwise
rotation from the current velocity vector.
• The formula is derived by bisecting the triangle along the θ angle and
calculating ∆v/2.
General Rotations
Plane changes can be made anywhere in the orbit. However, this affects both i
and Ω.
Given an initial orbit with i1 and Ω1 , a plane change by amount θ at

u1 = ω1 + f1 yields the spherical geometry:
cos i2 = cos i1 cos θ − sin i1 sin θ cos u
cos θ − cos i1 cos i2
cos(Ω2 − Ω1 ) =
sin i1 sin i2
Lecture 9 General Rotations
Plane changes can be made anywhere in the orbit. However, this affects both i
and Ω.

Given an initial orbit with i1 and Ω1 , a plane change by amount θ at
u1 = ω1 + f1 yields the spherical geometry:
cos i2 = cos i1 cos θ − sin i1 sin θ cos u
cos θ − cos i1 cos i2
cos(Ω2 − Ω1 ) =
sin i1 sin i2
• u1 = ω1 + f1 is the arc measured from the ascending node (in the orbital
plane). ω1 is the argument of perigee of the initial orbit. f1 is the true
anomaly of the initial orbit at the time of the ∆v.
• We are given Ω1 , ω1 , i1 along with desired Ω2 , i2
• We want to determine f1 and θ. That is, when in the orbit to burn (f1 )
and how big to make the angle change (θ).
Law of Cosines:
cos a = cos b cos c + sin b sin c cos A
Dual Purpose Plane Changes
Changing both Ω and i simultaneously is always more efficient than changing

them separately.
If we are given an initial orbit with i1 and Ω1 , along with desired elements i2
and Ω2 , then required plane change (θ) and position (f1 ) are given by:
cos θ = cos i1 cos i2 + sin i1 sin i2 cos(Ω2 − Ω1 )
cos i1 cos θ − cos i2
cos(u1 ) = cos(ω1 + f1 ) =
sin i1 sin θ
Lecture 9 Dual Purpose Plane Changes
Changing both Ω and i simultaneously is always more efficient than changing

them separately.

If we are given an initial orbit with i1 and Ω1 , along with desired elements i2
and Ω2 , then required plane change (θ) and position (f1 ) are given by:
cos θ = cos i1 cos i2 + sin i1 sin i2 cos(Ω2 − Ω1 )
cos i1 cos θ − cos i2
cos(u1 ) = cos(ω1 + f1 ) =
sin i1 sin θ
• First, we solve for θ (amount of plane change), then we solve for

u1 = ω1 + f1 . Then burn occurs at f1 = u1 − ω1
• Finding the new argument of periapse (ω2 ) is a little complicated.
Combined Maneuvers
Inclination changes are by definition inefficient
θ
∆v = 2v sin
2
• Up to 200% of total energy.

• Changes become more efficient as
lim v → 0.
I v → 0 as r → ∞.
It is often worth boosting the orbit to improve the efficiency of a plane change
(See Homework.)
A typical strategy is to combine a plane change with a bi-elliptic transfer

Numerical Example: Combined Change
Problem: Suppose we are in an orbit with inclination i = 55◦ , Ω = 0◦ and
a = 1.8ER. Determine the timing and ∆v required to change the inclination to
i = 40◦ and RAAN to Ω = 45◦ .
Solution: First find the plane change required
Using our formula,
cos θ = cos 55◦ cos 40◦

+ sin 55◦ sin 40◦ cos 45◦
= .8117
Thus θ = 35.74◦ . The timing for the

∆v can be calculated from u = ω + f as
cos 55◦ cos 35.74◦ − cos 40◦
cos u =
sin 35.74◦ sin 55◦
= −.628

Lecture 9 Problem: Suppose we are in an orbit with inclination i = 55◦ , Ω = 0◦ and
a = 1.8ER. Determine the timing and ∆v required to change the inclination to
i = 40◦ and RAAN to Ω = 45◦ .
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics Solution: First find the plane change required
Using our formula,
cos θ = cos 55◦ cos 40◦

+ sin 55◦ sin 40◦ cos 45◦
= .8117
Numerical Example: Combined Change Thus θ = 35.74◦ . The timing for the
∆v can be calculated from u = ω + f as
cos 55◦ cos 35.74◦ − cos 40◦
cos u =
sin 35.74◦ sin 55◦
= −.628
• In the image, a calligraphic form of θ is being used.

Since cos u = −.628, we have that
u = 128.9◦ .
Since the orbit is circular, ω = 0 (or
neglected). Thus the burn occurs at
f = 128.9◦ .
To calculate the ∆v, we must first find

the v at the desired point in the orbit.
Since the orbit is circular, this is not
difficult.
r
µ
v= = .745ER/T U
r
Then the required ∆v can be calculated as

θ
∆v = 2 ∗ v ∗ sin = .457ER/T U
2
Combined Maneuvers
Change in Both Velocity and Plane
Suppose we want to combine a plane change ∆θ, with a velocity change

• For a perigee or apogee raising maneuver
• Initial velocity v(t−
k)
qfp
I Determined from initial or transfer orbit
Dq
• Final velocity v(t+
k)
I Determined from target or 2nd transfer orbit
• θf p is the direction of burn w/r to the current velocity
vector.
Applies to both Hohmann and bi-elliptic transfers.
Law of Cosines: (To find magnitude of ∆v)

∆v 2 = v(t− 2 + 2 − +
k ) + v(tk ) − 2v(tk )v(tk ) cos ∆θ
Law of Sines: (To find direction of burn - θf p ) AMBIGUITY!!!

v(t+
+
k) ∆v ◦ −1 v(tk ) sin(∆θ)
= ⇒ θf p = 180 − sin
sin(180◦ − θf p ) sin(∆θ) ∆v
Combined Maneuvers
Lecture 9 Change in Both Velocity and Plane
Suppose we want to combine a plane change ∆θ, with a velocity change

• For a perigee or apogee raising maneuver
2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • Initial velocity v(t−

k)
I Determined from initial or transfer orbit qfp
Dq
• Final velocity v(t+
k)
I Determined from target or 2nd transfer orbit
• θf p is the direction of burn w/r to the current velocity
vector.
Combined Maneuvers Applies to both Hohmann and bi-elliptic transfers.
Law of Cosines: (To find magnitude of ∆v)

∆v 2 = v(t− 2 + 2 − +
k ) + v(tk ) − 2v(tk )v(tk ) cos ∆θ
Law of Sines: (To find direction of burn - θf p ) AMBIGUITY!!!

v(t+
+
k) ∆v v(tk ) sin(∆θ)
= ⇒ θf p = 180◦ − sin−1
sin(180◦ − θf p ) sin(∆θ) ∆v
• This logic leads to the common scenario where we boost the

apogee/perigee while also performing an inclination change.
• In this case, the ∆v magnitude and direction geometry is more
complicated.
• Referring to the triangle, v − is the initial magnitude of velocity. v + is the
magnitude of the desired new orbit with altered ra , rp , etc.
• The angle between the two vectors is still θ = ∆i.
• Now, because the magnitudes of v − and v + are different, we have to use
the law of cosines to calculate the size of the ∆v.
• Law of sines can then be used to compute the direction of burn.
• Note the law of sines has ambiguity which often affects the calculation of
θf p . Probably better to use law of cosines for both parts!
Combined Maneuvers
Combining Plane Change with Bi-Elliptic

Summary
This Lecture you have learned:

Bi-elliptic Maneuvers
I Elliptic
I Circular
Next Lecture: Lambert’s Problem.

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: Matthew M. Peet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: Matthew M. Peet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: Matthew M. Peet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control

Lecture 9: Bi-elliptics and Out-of-Plane Maneuvers

In this Lecture, you will learn:

Numerical Problem: Suppose we are in a circular parking orbit at altitude

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 2 / 29

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics Bi-elliptic Maneuvers

Introduction Out-of-Plane Maneuvers

Numerical Problem: Suppose we are in a circular parking orbit at altitude

For a burn at velocity v, the change in kinetic energy is

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

• Of course, potential energy (normalized by mass) is the same before and

The Oberth Effect: Energy Explanation Potential Energy of Propellant

• For this reason, all significant ∆v maneuvers in interplanetary missions are

The bi-elliptic transfer uses the Oberth effect

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • a 3-impulse trajectory

The Bi-Elliptic Transfer

• Perigee raising gets easier the farther out you are.

Suppose we want to raise a circular orbit of radius r1 to radius r2 .

3 burns are required. Given r1 and r2 , choose transfer radius r∗ >> rf .

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 6 / 29

There are 2 transfer ellipses (both with apogee at r∗ )(perigees at ri and rf )

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 7 / 29

We can calculate the 3 burns as:

Note that the third burn is retrograde.

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

Note that r∗ is a free parameter.

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 10 / 29

Most satellites are launched from the surface of the earth.

The two geometric features/constraints of launch are:

• The set of launch sites is restricted

cos i = cos φgc sin β

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 15 / 29

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

• Right ascension is also restricted, but can be modified by time-of-launch.

(R1) cos c = cos a cos b, (R6) tan a = cos B tan c,

Typically, different sites are used for different purposes.

Example: Vandenburg has

M. Peet Lecture 9: Spacecraft Dynamics 17 / 29

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

Launch Geometry Example: Vandenburg has

Azimuth in these tables is measured clockwise from due north (β + 180◦ )

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics • Desired inclination: i = 23.5◦

• We have adjusted the table data from β 0 ∈ [−20◦ , 100◦ ] to

To change the inclination of an orbit requires ∆v

Inclination-only orbit changes mean:

To change the inclination of an orbit requires ∆v

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics element.

Changes in Orbital Plane

• Of course, we usually combine inclination changes with other orbit

The ∆v required can be calculated as

Inclination Only Plane Changes The ∆v required can be calculated as

• For direction of thrust: Initial velocity is along the vector v − . The

Given an initial orbit with i1 and Ω1 , a plane change by amount θ at

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics

Changes in Orbital Plane

Changing both Ω and i simultaneously is always more efficient than changing

Changing both Ω and i simultaneously is always more efficient than changing

2020-03-03 Spacecraft Dynamics