INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
IE
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
EV

the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
PR

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 ” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.

UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Graouna M m ta n •
(ta n iB T /W ) PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis prepared

By Jon Andrew Sims___________________________________________

Entitled

Delta-V Gravity-Assist Trajectory Design: Theory and Practice

Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for
originality and qualty

For the degree of

W
Doctor of Philosophy_______________________________
IE
Signed by the final examining committee:

chair
EV
PR

Approved by:

This thesis E3 is not to be regarded as confidential.

Format Approved by:

or
Thesis Format AdviMf

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 DELTA-V GRAVITY-ASSIST TRAJECTORY DESIGN:

THEORY AND PRACTICE

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

W
Purdue University
IE
by
EV

Jon Andrew Sims

PR

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 1996

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 9725624

I EW
EV
PR

UMI Microform 9725624

Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
Dedicated to my wife
for her support and love
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Professor James M. Longuski, for his expert
guidance and staunch support. I am grateful to Professors Dominick Andrisani II,
Winthrop A. Gustafson, and Kathleen C. Howell for serving on my doctoral committee. I
would also like to thank Professor Howell for her inspirational teaching of orbital
mechanics.
I am grateful to Moonish R. Patel and Steven N. Williams for the software they

EW
developed which was extremely valuable to my research. I also thank Andrew J. Staugler
for his assistance in the broad searches for trajectories to asteroids and Pluto.
Support for this research was provided by National Astronautics and Space
Administration Grant NGT-51129. I again thank Steven N. Williams, in this case for his
assistance and guidance as JPL Technical Advisor of the grant. Several other people at
I
EV

JPL have my appreciation for providing support and encouragement and for sharing their
expertise, including Dennis V. Bymes, Sylvia L. Miller, Steven E. Matousek, and Larry
E. Bright. I am indebted to the mission designers, at JPL and elsewhere, whose work
paved the way and provided a foundation for this research.
PR

In addition to those already mentioned, I want to express my appreciation to many

other people at Purdue University: my friends for their enriching influence, the faculty
for their enlightening instruction, and the staff for their dedicated service. I also
gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Purdue University.
Finally, I thank my family for their abounding love and support.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... viii

NOMENCLATURE.......................................................................................................... x

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1

W
1.1 General Method of Approach.............................................................................. 3
1.2 Overview.............................................................................................................. 4
IE
2. GRAVITY ASSIST.....................................................................................................6
2.1 Patched-Conic Method......................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Gravity-Assist Representation................................................................. 8
EV

2.1.2 Launch A V ............................................................................................. 12

2.1.3 Maneuver Types..................................................................................... 14
2.2 Software Tools....................................................................................................15
2.2.1 STOUR................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Optimization Software........................................................................... 18
PR

3. AEROGRAVITY ASSIST....................................................................................... 19
3.1 Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories Using Venus and M ars.................................. 22
3.2 Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories Using Mars Alone...........................................26
3.3 Analytic Investigation - No Drag...................................................................... 30
3.4 Analytic Investigation - Drag............................................................................ 32

4. Voo LEVERAGING...................................................................................................41
4.1 Exterior AV-EGA...............................................................................................42
4.1.1 Multiple-Revolution AV-EGA...............................................................43
4. 1 .2 Determination of Characteristics...........................................................44
4.1.3 Explanation of Performance...................................................................52
4.1.4 AV Earth Aerogravity Assist (AV-EAGA)............................................55
4.1.5 Closed-Form, Approximate Solution.....................................................57
4.1. 6 Applications...........................................................................................63

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4.2 Interior AV-EGA................................................................................................ 71
4.2. 1 Determination of Characteristics.......................................................... 72
4.2.2 Applications...........................................................................................76
4.3 Exterior AV-VGA.............................................................................................. 79
4.3.1 Determination of Characteristics.......................................................... 7 9
4.3.2 Applications........................................................................................... 81
5. MISSIONS TO PLUTO............................................................................................. 85
5.1 Mission Concept and Requirements..................................................................85
5.2 Approach............................................................................................................ 87
5.2.1 Analytic Techniques............................................................................. 87
5.2.2 Methods for Discovering Trajectories.................................................. 89
5.3 Results................................................................................................................ 93
5.3.1 Trajectories to Pluto.............................................................................. 93
5.3.2 Injection Margin.....................................................................................96
5.3.3 Flight Time Analysis..............................................................................98
5.3.4 Launch Window Analysis......................................................................99
5.3.5 Earlier Launch Dates............................................................................ 100

6
EW
5.3.6 Asteroid Flybys.....................................................................................102

. MISSIONS TO ASTEROIDS................................................................................. 106

6.1 Mission Features...............................................................................................106
6.2 Direct Trajectories............................................................................................. 109
6.3 Mars Gravity Assist.......................................................................................... 1 1 1
I
6.4 Earth Gravity Assist.......................................................................................... 115
EV

6.5 Venus Gravity Assist........................................................................................119

6 .6 Venus and Earth Gravity Assist....................................................................... 122
6.7 Discussion..........................................................................................................125
6.7.1 Total AV................................................................................................125
PR

6.7.2 Flight Time............................................................................................126

6.7.3 Frequency of Launch Opportunities....................................................127
6.7.4 Multiple Asteroid Flybys..................................................................... 128

7. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................129
7.1 Discussion of Results........................................................................................129
7.2 Mission Design Paradoxes................................................................................132
7.3 Topics for Future Research.............................................................................. 134
7.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 137
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 138

APPENDIX: MISSION DESIGN DATA.................................................................... 145

VITA................................................................................................................................. 150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
2-1 Legend for Time of Flight versus Launch Date Plots...............................................17
3-1 Sample Venus-Mars Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories to Saturn............................... 24
3-2 Sample Venus-Mars Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories to Pluto................................. 25
3-3 Sample Mars Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories to Saturn.......................................... 28
3-4 Sample Mars Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories to Pluto............................................ 29
3-5 Shortest Times of Flight for Venus-Mars Aerogravity-Assist Trajectories

W
to the Outer Planets (STOUR/Analytic,years).................................................31
3-6 Direct Ballistic Transfer........................................................................................... 31
4-1 Comparison of Maximum V+ and ra....................................................................... 58
IE
4-2 3:2 AV-EGA Trajectories to Hygiea........................................................................ 64
4-3 Injected Payload Mass to Hygiea............................................................................. 6 6
4-4 3:4 AV-EGA Trajectories to Mercury...................................................................... 77
EV

4-5 3:4( 1,4)* AV-EGA Trajectory to Mercury................................................................ 78

4-6 Multiple Venus Flyby Trajectories to Saturn........................................................... 82
5-1 Trajectories to Pluto Using the Delta I I 7925(Flight Time: 12 years)....................93
PR

5-2 Trajectory IV Characteristics................................................................................... 94

5-3 Trajectory V Characteristics.................................................................................... 94
5-4 Trajectory IX Characteristics................................................................................... 95
5-5 Trajectory X Characteristics.................................................................................... 95
5-6 Examination of Flight Time to Pluto....................................................................... 98
5-7 Launch Window for Trajectory V............................................................................ 99
5-8 Baseline Trajectory Characteristics........................................................................100
5-9 Trajectory XI Characteristics..................................................................................101
5-10 Potential Asteroid Flybys on the Final Venus-Venus Leg of the
Baseline Trajectory.........................................................................................105
5-11 Potential Asteroid Flybys following the Final Venus Flyby of Trajectory V 105
6-1 Asteroid Physical Characteristics............................................................................107
6-2 Asteroid Orbit Characteristics................................................................................. 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6-3 Direct Trajectories to the Asteroids.......................................................................Ill
6-4 Mars Gravity-Assist Trajectories to the Asteroids................................................. 112
6-5 Minimum Launch V„, and AV...............................................................................125
A-1 Physical Characteristics of the Sun and the Planets............................................... 145
A-2 Orbital Characteristics of the Planets................................................................... 146
A-3 Synodic Period between Planets [days, years].......................................................147
A-4 Minimum Energy (V*) Planetary Transfers [km/s]
(assuming circular, coplanar planetary orbits)...............................................148
A-5 Heliocentric Orbit Achievable with Launch from Earth
(Earth parking orbit: circular, 185 km altitude)............................................149

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
2-1 Planetary Gravity Assist: a) Planet-centered View; b) Heliocentric View
(assuming circular planetary orbit).................................................................... 8
2-2 Relationship between Turn Angle and V *.................................................................9
2-3 Uranus-Neptune-Pluto Opportunities...................................................................... 16
2-4 Uranus-Neptune-Pluto Trajectory............................................................................ 16
3-1 Aerogravity Assist.....................................................................................................19
3-2
3-3
3-4
EW
Earth-Venus-Mars Opportunities.............................................................................22
E-V-M-Satum Opportunities...................................................................................24
E-V-M-Pluto Opportunities.....................................................................................25
3-5 Earth-Mars Opportunities........................................................................................27
3-6 E-M-Satum Opportunities........................................................................................28
I
3-7 E-M-Pluto Opportunities..........................................................................................29
EV

3-8 Reduction in V*. Due to Drag...................................................................................36

3-9 E-V-M-Outer Planet Trajectories Including D rag.................................................. 38
4- 1 Exterior AV-EGA Trajectory...................................................................................42
PR

4-2 Exterior AV-EGA Performance.............................................................................. 49

4-3 Launch V„ for Exterior AV-EGA Trajectories........................................................51
4-4 Aphelion AV for Exterior AV-EGA Trajectories.....................................................51
4-5 Effectiveness of V«, Leveraging for Exterior AV-EGA Trajectories...................... 52
4-6 2:1+ AV-EGA Earth Gravity Assist: a) Low Launch Energy (Maximum AVga);
b) High Launch Energy; and c) Medium Launch Energy (Maximum V+)..... 53
4-7 Locus of V+ for 2 :1+AV-EGA Trajectories.............................................................54
4-8 AV-EAGA (Aerogravity Assist) Performance Compared to Gravity Assist Only
(Figure 4-2)...................................................................................................... 56
4-9 AV-EAGA (Aerogravity Assist) Performance Including D rag.............................. 56
4-10 AV-EGA Approximate Solution Using Equation (4-37)........................................ 59
4-11 Comparison between Approximate and Exact Solutions of AV-EGA Trajectories 61
4-12 AV-EGA Approximate Solution Using Equation (4-41).........................................61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ix

4-13 Direct Trajectories from Earth to Hygiea (2000 - 2006).........................................64

4-14 3:2(2)' AV-EGA Trajectory to Hygiea..................................................................... 65
4-15 Earth Launch (A) - Ptah (C) - Earth (D) - Yoshkar-Ola (F) - Hygiea (H) -
Iphigenia (I) Trajectory...................................................................................67
4-16 V . Leveraging Using Mars...................................................................................... 6 8
4-17 Earth-Mars-Earth-Hygiea Trajectories (2000 - 2010).............................................69
4-18 Earth-Mars-Earth-Hygiea Trajectory [3:2(2)- AV-EGA Analog]............................69
4-19 Earth-Mars-Earth-Hygiea Trajectory [4:3(2)- AV-EGA Analog]............................70
4-20 Interior AV-EGA Trajectory....................................................................................71
4-21 Interior AV-EGA Performance................................................................................ 73
4-22 Comparison of Interior AV-EGAs: "+" versus and Revolution of Maneuver... 73
4-23 Launch V* for Interior AV-EGA Trajectories......................................................... 74
4-24 Perihelion AV for Interior AV-EGA Trajectories.................................................... 74
4-25 Effectiveness of V*, Leveraging for Interior AV-EGA Trajectories........................75

W
4-26 Direct Trajectories from Earth to Mercury (2000 - 2003).......................................76
4-27 3:4(4)+ AV-EGA Trajectory to Mercury.................................................................. 78
4-28 Exterior AV-VGA Performance............................................................................... 80
IE
4-29 Aphelion AV for Exterior AV-VGA Trajectories.................................................... 80
4-30 Multiple (4) Venus Flyby Trajectory to Saturn....................................................... 82
EV

5- 1 Venus Gravity Assist Potential (V,,, Turning).......................................................... 8 8

5-2 Earth-Venus Launch Opportunities......................................................................... 90
5-3 Venus-Jupiter-Pluto Trajectory Opportunities......................................................... 90
5-4 Baseline Trajectory to Pluto with Two Asteroid Flybys........................................ 104
PR

5-5 Inner Portion of Baseline Trajectory with Two Asteroid Flybys........................... 104
6-1 Distribution of Asteroid Orbits...............................................................................107
6-2 Trajectory Potential - Launch V*, (from Analytic Theory).................................. 110
6-3 Trajectory Potential - Total AV (from AnalyticTheory)...................................... 110
6-4 MGA Opportunities to Vesta.................................................................................113
6-5 MGA Opportunities to Ceres.................................................................................116
6 -6 AV-EMGA Trajectory to Ceres..............................................................................117
6-7 MEGA Trajectory to Ceres and Vesta.................................................................... 118
6 -8 V2GA Trajectory to C eres...................................................................................... 120
6-9 VMVGA Opportunities to Hygiea.......................................................................... 121
6-10 VEGA Opportunities to Ceres................................................................................ 122
6 - 11 Inner Solar System Grand Tour.............................................................................. 124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 NOMENCLATURE

a 2 semimajor axis
AGA = aerogravity assist
c3 = vi
D = drag
E = Earth or eccentric anomaly
e = eccentricity
GA
Saero
= gravity assist
= aerodynamic g-load (Aero-g-Load)
EW
i = inclination
J - Jupiter
I
K number of orbit revolutions of gravity-assist body for V* leveraging
trajectories
EV

L number of orbit revolutions of spacecraft for VMleveraging trajectories

or lift
L/D lift-to-drag ratio or launch date
=
PR

M = Mars
m — mass
MIDAS = Mission Design and Analysis Software
P = Pluto
r = radius
STOUR = Satellite Tour Design Program
TOF = time of flight
V = Venus
V = velocity vector
Vco = hyperbolic excess velocity vector
p = initial relative-velocity angle
Y = flight-path angle
AV - change in velocity

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 s = gravitational turn angle
6 = aerodynamic turn angle (Aero Turn)
0 * = true anomaly
= gravitational parameter
4> = total turn angle (gravitational plus aerodynamic)

Subscripts

a = apoapsis
aga = aerogravity assist
c = circular orbit
E -
Earth
e = encounter
ga
J
= gravity assist
- Jupiter
W
IE
I = initial orbit after launch
max = maximum
P - planet
EV

P — periapsis
pfb — periapsis of flyby
r - return orbit
V Venus
PR

Superscripts

= gravity assist: quantities before the flyby

Voo leveraging trajectory: encounter gravity-assist body before apsis
+ = gravity assist: quantities after the flyby
Voo leveraging trajectory: encounter gravity-assist body after apsis

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT

Sims, Jon Andrew. Ph.D., Purdue University, December 1996. Delta-V Gravity-Assist
Trajectory Design: Theory and Practice. Major Professor: Dr. James M. Longuski.
The thesis consists of theoretical developments and practical applications in
interplanetary trajectories for the purpose of minimizing launch energy and propellant
requirements. Analytic techniques are developed to predict potentially useful trajectories
and create innovative trajectories. Advanced software is used to find and optimize
trajectories to important scientific targets, thereby validating the techniques.
The principal theoretical work is the development of an analytic theory for V„

W
leveraging - the use of a relatively small deep-space maneuver to modify the V„ at a
body. This maneuver, in conjunction with a gravity assist at the body, reduces the launch
IE
energy requirements and the total AV for a mission. A typical example of V* leveraging
is the AV-EGA (AV-Earth Gravity Assist) trajectory. The general theory of VM
leveraging is extended from exterior, single-revolution AV-EGAs to include multiple-
EV

revolution AV-EGAs, interior AV-EGAs, and AV-VGAs (AV-Venus Gravity Assists).

The theory is applied to find many different types of trajectories to numerous celestial
bodies - particularly Pluto, asteroids, and Saturn. In some cases trajectories are found in
which the deep-space AV is replaced by a gravity assist.
PR

In an aerogravity assist, a lifting body flies through the atmosphere of a planet to

enhance the pure gravity assist. A thorough analysis of the trajectory space for low
launch energy trajectories to the outer planets with aerogravity assists at Venus and Mars
in succession, and at Mars alone, is performed. The results of this analysis demonstrate
the ability of aerogravity assists to significantly reduce the required launch energies and
flight times to the outer planets. An analytic approach for an initial assessment of the
effect of drag on aerogravity-assist trajectories is developed. The analyses of V„
leveraging and aerogravity assists are combined in an investigation of AV-EAGA (AV-
Earth AeroGravity Assist) trajectories.
A general methodology for mission design is established and proves to be a very
efficient and thorough means of finding many different types of trajectories for a wide
range of missions. By minimizing launch energy and propulsive requirements, smaller,
less costly launch vehicles and larger, more scientifically capable spacecraft can be used.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The trailblazing missions of the Mariner spacecraft targeted our nearest planetary
neighbors - Venus and Mars. The transfers from Earth were direct ballistic trajectories.
The primary technical challenge for these early interplanetary missions was not trajectory
design but launching and operating the spacecraft. As launch vehicles became more
reliable, the missions became more ambitious with destinations moving deeper into space
and science payloads growing larger. The launch vehicles were no longer able to launch
EW
some of the spacecraft on direct trajectories to their destinations. Hence, the trajectories
became more complex, often employing numerous gravity assists (described in Chapter 2)
to accomplish the mission objectives.
Because of the great demands placed on mission designers to quickly find a suitable
trajectory, little time was devoted to careful thought about the underlying theory governing
I
EV

trajectory design. Mission designers relied on their physical insight and intuition gained
from experience with a limited range of options that work. Oftentimes, once a good
candidate trajectory was discovered, attention was redirected to the many other concerns of
the mission, including spacecraft design, trajectory optimization, navigation, sequence
PR

planning, and evaluation of science return.

Recently, some significant changes have occurred in NASA's approach to space
exploration. Budgetary constraints have led to the "better, faster, cheaper" philosophy.
Searching for the most cost-effective mission, designers must be able to evaluate a wide
range of creative trajectory options, and they must continue to do this quickly. These
requirements, taken to the extreme, mean that mission design must be elevated to a science
rather than remain a practicing art.
One of the first steps in determining the trajectory to be used for a specific mission
is finding some potential trajectories based on a relatively simple model. Trade-offs are
made between such factors as possible scientific return, available launch vehicles and upper
stages, and flight time, with overall cost being a major limitation. Once the choices of
potential trajectories have been narrowed down and generally defined, they are optimized to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

minimize the propulsive requirements. One of the last steps is a numerical integration to
accurately determine the final trajectory. In current practice this entire process involves a
great deal of human interaction.
The ultimate goal of the ongoing research at Purdue University is to completely
automate the design process from initial mission concept to final integrated trajectory.
Previous researchers at Purdue University have developed sophisticated automated design
tools [Williams, 1990; Patel, 1993]. This thesis provides the analytical basis to extend the
capabilities of these tools by incorporating a wider range of potentially useful trajectories.
It also develops a predictive theory and methodology to support the eventual application of
an expert system to the entire design process.
A driving force for new interplanetary missions is to reduce total mission cost while
maintaining scientific objectives. The cost of the launch vehicle is often a significant
fraction of the total cost of a mission, so we seek trajectories that enable the use of smaller,
less costly launch vehicles. The size of the launch vehicle is driven by the total propulsive
EW
requirements, or total AV, for a mission. (The term AV represents a change in velocity.)
Typically, total AV is the cost function that is optimized in trajectory design. The total AV
is minimized by finding trajectory types with inherently low total AV and then minimizing
the AV for these types of trajectories. If we visualize the total AV as the height of a two-
dimensional surface in three-dimensional space, then our goals are to first find a deep
I
EV

valley (i.e., a trajectory type with low total AV) and to then find the lowest point in that
valley (i.e., the trajectory with the minimum total AV for that trajectory type).
Total AV is not the only characteristic of a trajectory that affects the cost and
potential scientific return of a mission. The distribution of total AV between launch AV
PR

provided by the launch vehicle and post-launch AV imparted by the spacecraft can affect the
scientific payload mass and the design (and hence, cost) of the spacecraft. In addition,
mission operations costs are a direct function of the flight time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

1.1 General Method of Approach

The general approach of this thesis combines analytic techniques and numeric
software tools to
1 ) analyze various types of trajectories (both previously known and newly created),
2 ) predict the existence and characteristics of potentially useful trajectories, and

3) find and optimize trajectories to important scientific targets.

The analysis begins with a simplified model - assuming the planetary orbits are
circular and coplanar. Orbital characteristics of the planets are given in Table A-2 in the
Appendix. This table shows that the eccentricity (e) is less than 0.05 and the inclination (i)
to the ecliptic is less than 2° for most of the planetary orbits. Hence, modeling the orbits as
circular and coplanar is a good approximation to use for the preliminary design of missions
involving these planets. The primary exceptions are the planets at the extremes of the solar
system - Mercury (e = 0.21, i = 7.01°) and Pluto (e = 0.25, i = 17.2°). Occasionally, the
EW
eccentricity of Mars (e = 0.09) is also considered in the preliminary analysis.
Other fundamental mission design parameters, which allow mission designers to
gain a "feel" for the numbers involved, are provided in the Appendix. The synodic period
in Table A-3 is the time for two planets to repeat their relative alignment. If a specific
I
relative alignment is required for a particular type of transfer between two planets, the
EV

synodic period indicates the frequency of opportunities for the transfer. The minimum
hyperbolic excess speed (V„) required at a planet to reach any other planet is given in Table
A-4. These values assume circular, coplanar planetary orbits and no maneuvers between
encounters. Table A-5 provides the maximum aphelion, minimum perihelion, and
PR

corresponding orbital periods for a range of V*. at Earth. The counterpart launch AV is also
furnished. Visualizing the positions of the outer planets can be extremely useful for
preliminary analysis of potential missions. Certain combinations of flybys for a given
mission time frame can often be eliminated by inspecting plots of the planetary positions.
Positions of the outer planets are shown by Williams [1990] and Patel [1993].
Once we have an idea of what it takes to launch from Earth and transfer from one
planet to another, we develop an analytic theory to describe various types of trajectories.
The analytic theory begins by modeling the planetary orbits as circular and coplanar. This
model greatly simplifies the dynamical equations and phasing requirements. We can
quickly gain insight into the physics of the problem, which leads to an understanding of the
potential, and limitations, of the trajectory types. This understanding forms a basis to
predict both the existence of a particular trajectory type for a given mission and also the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

characteristics of the trajectories of that type. The insight provided by the analytic theory
often stimulates the conception of innovative types of trajectories to enhance a mission.
To validate the theory, we use numeric software tools (which do not assume
circular, coplanar planetary orbits) to find the predicted trajectories for various missions.
The trajectories are then optimized to minimize total AV and compared to the predictions.
The new methodology proves to be a very efficient and thorough means of finding
trajectories for a wide range of missions. The research provides mission designers with an
expanded choice of effective trajectories, allowing them to increase scientific return while
decreasing the overall cost of missions.

1.2 Overview

W
Chapter 2 describes how a gravity assist uses the gravitational field of a celestial
body to effect a desired change in velocity of a spacecraft, thus reducing the propulsive
requirements of the launch vehicle and/or spacecraft to complete a given mission. We
IE
discuss a method of patching together segments of trajectories between gravity assists,
along with propulsive maneuvers, to form a complete trajectory. The primary automated
EV

design tools that we use are also described in Chapter 2.

The gravity-assist technique is limited by the size and mass of the celestial body
being used. One method of circumventing this limitation is to use aerogravity assist in
which a lifting body flies through the atmosphere of the celestial body to augment the
PR

gravitational effect. In Chapter 3, we examine aerogravity assist and demonstrate that it can
significantly reduce the required launch energy and flight time to the outer planets. A
valuable contribution in this chapter is the development of an analytic approach to assess
the effect of drag losses on the interplanetary trajectory.
Chapter 4 contains the principal theoretical achievement of this thesis - the
development of an analytic theory for V* leveraging. The term Vx leveraging refers to the
use of a relatively small deep-space maneuver to modify the V*, at a body. This maneuver,
in conjunction with a gravity assist at the body, reduces the launch energy requirements and
the total AV for a mission. The understanding gained through the analytic theory leads to
several important advancements, including

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1 ) an analytic approximation which converts the transcendental equations into an
explicit functional relationship - further increasing our understanding of the
concept of V* leveraging,
2) the creation of innovative trajectory types which have advantages over
traditional types of trajectories, and
3) the efficient and apropos application of V«, leveraging trajectories to missions to
important scientific targets.
Particular applications of V* leveraging trajectories in Chapter 4 are missions to Mercury,
asteroids, and Saturn.
We apply our analysis of V,*, leveraging trajectories in Chapter 5 to discover
trajectories to Pluto. Several trajectories are presented which satisfy extremely tight
constraints and can be used as alternative trajectories for the Pluto Express mission. We
also present numerous asteroid flyby opportunities for the baseline and backup trajectories.
In Chapter 6 we examine a wide variety of gravity-assist trajectories for low launch

W
energy missions to main-belt asteroids. The trajectories are evaluated and constructed
using our general methodology - a combination of analytic techniques and automated
design tools. Several opportunities with multiple asteroid flybys are presented, followed
IE
by a discussion of general characteristics of the various trajectory types.
The thesis concludes in Chapter 7 with a summary of the results of this research
EV

and a listing of promising areas of future research.

PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

2. GRAVITY ASSIST

The basic principles of the gravity-assist concept have been well known for at least
150 years. In the 19th century Leverrier and Tisserand worked with the concept to explain
how cometary orbits are altered [Broucke, 1988; Battin, 1987]. In the late 1950s Battin
[1959] considered the use of the gravitational attraction of a planet to place a spacecraft on
the return leg of its round-trip interplanetary journey. The former Soviet Union used lunar
gravitational attraction to obtain desirable return trajectories [Sedov, I960]. Many
EW
investigators in the early 1960s explored the enormous potential of the gravitational
swingby maneuver, including such pioneers as Deerwester [1965], Flandro [1966],
Gillespie [Gillespie et al., 1963], Hollister [1964], Minovitch [1963], Niehoff [1965],
Ross [1966], Sohn [1964], and Sturms and Cutting [1965].
I
Mission designers have been taking advantage of this enhanced performance on
EV

missions to both the inner and outer solar system since the early 1970s. The proper
alignment of several outer planets, namely Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, allowed
Voyager II to use gravity assists to successively encounter each planet. The flyby
conditions at each planet were designed so that Voyager II could reach the next planet. Due
PR

to the large energy requirements, a similar mission cannot be accomplished until the year
2153 without major advances in propulsive capabilities. The Galileo spacecraft was
originally designed to be launched on the Space Shuttle and use a high energy upper stage
to fly directly from Earth to Jupiter. After the Challenger accident, the decision was made
to use a less capable launch vehicle/upper stage combination. To avoid a major redesign of
the spacecraft (by making it significantly smaller and less scientifically capable), the
trajectory was redesigned to use Earth and Venus as gravity-assist bodies. The flight time
from Earth to Jupiter increased, but the scientific return has also increased with the flybys
of Earth, Venus, and two asteroids. Galileo used a satellite of Jupiter to help it attain orbit
around Jupiter. Now in orbit, Galileo is using many gravity assists with satellites to "tour"
the Jovian system.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7

The process of a spacecraft passing relatively close to a celestial body is called a

flyby or swingby. When a flyby is used to effect a desired change in the orbit of a
spacecraft, the event is called a gravity assist. The term slingshot effect has also been used.
Some authors make a distinction between a flyby and a swingby, using the term swingby
when the change in the orbit is "significant" and reserving the term flyby for use only when
the alteration of the orbit is minor. In this thesis, however, the term flyby will apply to any
pass by a celestial body.

2.1 Patched-Conic Method

The preliminary design of trajectories which include one or more gravity assists is
accomplished using the patched-conic method. In this method, the multi-body problem is
EW
broken down into a series of two-body problems. We will describe the method as it
applies to an interplanetary trajectory; however, the same method can be used for
trajectories in a satellite system around a planet.
After launch from Earth and during the time between planetary encounters, the
I
spacecraft is assumed to be in a two-body conic orbit around the Sun - the gravitational
EV

influences of all other celestial bodies are ignored. When the spacecraft is near a planet, the
orbit is essentially hyperbolic with respect to the planet and is modeled as a two-body orbit.
The conic transfers between planets, which are assumed to originate and terminate at the
centers of the planets, can then be patched together to form the complete trajectory. The
PR

terminal heliocentric velocity of one transfer is converted into the initial heliocentric velocity
of the following transfer by the intervening planetary gravity assist. The length of time in
which the gravitational effect of a planet is significant is short when compared to the total
mission duration and is ignored in the process of patching together the interplanetary
transfers. The resulting patched-conic trajectory is an excellent representation of the actual
motion of the spacecraft and requires only a small fraction of the computational time
required for a fully-integrated multi-body trajectory [Battin, 1987].

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.