Orbital structure optimization technique of the low-orbit complex on-orbit service

1Goldshtein, Yu.M
1Institute of Technical Mechanics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the State Space Agency of Ukraine, Dnipro, Ukraine
Space Sci. & Technol. 2023, 29 ;(4):003-011
Publication Language: English
Most of the currently planned on-orbit servicing (OOS) missions involve the use of disposable OOS spacecraft. The use of disposable OOS spacecraft may be profitable in the near future. But it is not a reliable solution for OOS in the long term. As an alternative, a more useful concept is the use of reusable OOS complexes, which allow responding to scheduled and random requests from OOS clients. This concept can ensure the timeliness and efficiency of OOS implementation during planned services and random requests of OOS clients. However, despite the potential advantage of a reusable OOS, the design of its orbital structure and operational maintenance is much more complicated in comparison with the traditional concept of the organization of OOS. This is because when planning the response of reusable OOS complexes to requests, it is necessary to distribute OOS client service operations between space vehicles of the reusable OOS complex.
          Now the space industry is switching its attention to the area of low Earth orbits. This causes an increase in deployed and planned low-orbit satellite groups, the number of satellites in them, the difference in structural schemes of satellite groups, and the significant influence of the environment on orbital parameters. As you know, the orbital parameters of low orbits of space vehicles can differ significantly, and the difference between them can reach tens or even hundreds of degrees in the longitude of the ascending node. This leads to unacceptably high energy costs for modern OOS spacecraft for active rotation of the planes of their original orbits to the planes of the destination orbits. In some works, the possibility of reducing these energy costs due to the use of the difference in the speed of the nodal precession of the parking and destination orbits of the OOS spacecraft due to the non-centrality of the Earth’s gravitational field is considered. However, due to the long wait of the OOS spacecraft in the parking orbit, the flight time with the wait between the parking and destination orbits increases significantly. Its reduction can be achieved by increasing the number and rational selection of the semi-major axis and inclination of the parking orbits of the OOS spacecraft.
         The purpose of the article is to develop a technique for the optimal synthesis of the orbital structure and optimal operational planning of the low-orbit OOS complex in near-Earth orbits with a small eccentricity. Methods for solving the problem are the averaging method, the branch-and-bound method, and the multi-objective optimization method. The novelty of the obtained results lies in the development of a technique for optimal synthesis of the orbital structure and optimal operational planning of the low-orbit space OOS complex in near-Earth orbits with low eccentricity. The developed technique can be used in the previous planning and design of space OOS complexes in low near-Earth orbits with a small eccentricity.
Keywords: averaging method, low thrust, multi-objective optimization, on-orbit service, Pareto front, parking orbit

1. Alpatov A. P., Khoroshylov S. V., Maslova A. I. (2019). Contactless de-orbiting of space debris by the ion beam. Dynamics and control. Kyiv: Akademperiodyka, 170 p.

2. Аlpatov A. P., Goldshtein Yu.M. (2021). Assessment perspectives for the orbital utilization. 3. Barea A., Urrutxua H., Cadarso L.( 2020) Large-scale object selection and trajectory planning for multi-target space debris removal missions. Acta Astronautica, Vol. 170, 289-301.

4. Chen H., Ho K. (2018). Integrated space logistics mission planning and spacecraft design with Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, №. 2, 365-381.

5. Dutta A., Arora N., Russell R. (2012) Peer-to-peer refueling strategy using low-thrust propulsion. J. Spacecr. Rockets, Vol. 49, 944-954.

6. Han C., Zhang S., Wang X. (2019). On-orbit servicing of geosynchronous satellites based on low-thrust transfers considering perturbations. Acta Astronautica, № 159, 658-675.

7. Ho K., Wang H., DeTrempe P. A., Jonchay T. S., and Toniita K. (2020). Semi-Analytical Model for Design and Analysis of On-Orbit Servicing Architecture. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.57, №:6, 1129-1138.

8. Holdshtein Yu. M. (2020). On the choice of a parking orbit for a service spacecraft. Technical Mechanics, № 3, 30 - 38 [in Ukrainian].

9. Kim I. Y., de Weck O., L. (2005). Adaptive weighted-sum method for bi-objective optimization: Pareto front generation. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Vol. 29, 149-158.

10. Popovici N. (2005). Pareto reducible multicriteria optimization problems. A Journal of Mathematical Programming and Operations Research, Vol. 54, Issue 3, 253-263.

11. Razoumny Yu. N., Razoumny V. Yu., Spencer D. B., et al. (2017) The concept of on-orbit-servicing for next generation space system development and its key technologies. Proceedings of the 68th International Astronautical Congress IAC, Vol. 16, 10486-10499.

12. Rousso P., Samsam S.; Chhabra R. (2021). A mission architecture for on-orbit servicing industrialization. IEEE Aerospace Conference (06-13 March, 2021). 1-14.

13. Shan M., Guo J., Gill E. (2016). Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 80, 18-32.

14. Zhang Q., Sun F., Xu B., et al. (2012). Multiple spacecrafts on-orbit service task allocation based on DPSO. Chin. Sp. Sci. Techno., Vol.32, 68-76.

15. Zhang S., Han C., Sun X. (2018). New solution for rendezvous between geosynchronous satellites using low thrust. J. Guid. Contr. Dynam., Vol. 41, №3, 1397-1406.

16. Zhao Z., Hang J., Li H., Zhou J. (2017). LEO cooperative multi-spacecraft refueling mission optimization considering J 2 perturbation and target's surplus propellant constraint. Advances in Space Research, Vol. 59, 252-262.