skip to main content
10.1145/2576768.2598246acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evolved spacecraft trajectories for low earth orbit

Published:12 July 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we use Differential Evolution (DE), with best evolved results refined using a Nelder-Mead optimization, to solve complex problems in orbital mechanics relevant to low Earth orbits (LEO). A class of so-called 'Lambert Problems' is examined. We evolve impulsive initial velocity vectors giving rise to intercept trajectories that take a spacecraft from given initial positions to specified target positions. We seek to minimize final positional error subject to time-of-flight and/or energy (fuel) constraints. We first validate that the method can recover known analytical solutions obtainable with the assumption of Keplerian motion. We then apply the method to more complex and realistic non-Keplerian problems incorporating trajectory perturbations arising in LEO due to the Earth's oblateness and rarefied atmospheric drag. The viable trajectories obtained for these difficult problems suggest the robustness of our computational approach for real-world orbital trajectory design in LEO situations where no analytical solution exists.

References

  1. C. Bessette and D. Spencer. Optimal space trajectory design: a heuristic-based approach. Adv. Astronaut. Sci, 124:1611--1628, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. F. Cacciatore and C. Toglia. Optimization of orbital trajectories using genetic algorithms. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Sciences and Applications, 1(1):58--69, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. K. J. Chichakly and M. J. Eppstein. Improving uniformity of solution spacing in biobjective evolution. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pages 87--88, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. H. Curtis. Orbital mechanics for engineering students. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Englander. Automated trajectory planning for multiple-flyby interplanetary missions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. A. Englander, B. A. Conway, and T. Williams. Automated mission planning via evolutionary algorithms. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 35(6):1878--1887, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. W. Farquhar, D. P. Muhonen, C. R. Newman, and H. S. Heubergerg. Trajectories and orbital maneuvers for the first libration-point satellite. Journal Of Guidance Control And Dynamics, 3(6):549--554, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. N. Hansen, S. D. Müller, and P. Koumoutsakos. Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation. Evolutionary Computation, 11(1):1--18, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H. Helvajian and S. W. Janson. Small satellites: past, present, and future. Aerospace Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. K. Howell, B. Barden, and M. Lo. Application of Dynamical Systems Theory to Trajectory Design for a Libration Point Mission. Journal of Astronautical Sciences, 45(2):161--178, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. D. Izzo, L. F. Simoes, M. Martens, G. C. de Croon, A. Heritier, and C. H. Yam. Search for a grand tour of the jupiter galilean moons. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), 1(1):1301--1308, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. Johnson, S. Munoz, and J. Lehman. Copernicus: A generalized trajectory design and optimization system. UT Austin Engineering Communication ASE 333T, available online, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Lee, P. von Ailmen, W. Fink, A. Petropoulos, and R. J. Terrile. Design and optimization of low-thrust orbit transfers. In Aerospace Conference, 2005 IEEE, pages 855--869. IEEE, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Lo, B. Williams, W. Bollman, D. Han, r. Corwin, P. Hong, K. Howell, B. Barden, and R. Wilson. Genesis Mission Design. AIAA Paper 98--4468, pages 1--13, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. E. Prussing, B. A. Conway, and J. E. Prussing. Orbital mechanics, volume 57. Oxford University Press New York, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. H. Schaub and J. L. Junkins. Analytical mechanics of space systems.uppercaseAIAA, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. R. Sentinella and L. Casalino. Cooperative evolutionary algorithm for space trajectory optimization. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 105(1--3):211--227, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Storn and K. Price. Differential evolution--a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of global optimization, 11(4):341--359, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Wong, H. Reed, and A. Ketsdever. University micro-/nanosatellite as a micropropulsion testbed. Micropropulsion for Small Spacecraft, 187:25, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evolved spacecraft trajectories for low earth orbit

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GECCO '14: Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
          July 2014
          1478 pages
          ISBN:9781450326629
          DOI:10.1145/2576768

          Copyright © 2014 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 July 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          GECCO '14 Paper Acceptance Rate180of544submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

          Upcoming Conference

          GECCO '24
          Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
          July 14 - 18, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader