AAS 04-252

A PRACTICAL GUIDANCE METHODOLOGY FOR RELATIVE

MOTION OF LEO SPACECRAFT BASED ON THE CLOHESSY-
WILTSHIRE EQUATIONS

T. Alan Lovell1, Steven G. Tragesser 2, and Mark V. Tollefson3

In this paper a multiple-impulse maneuver algorithm for relative motion

trajectory reconfiguration based on the Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill’s equations
is reviewed from previous work. This algorithm is further developed to
allow complete generality in terms of the number and direction of the burns
and their location on the trajectory. Several special cases of the algorithm
are then investigated, including those that are most practical and
operationally expedient. The general algorithm is shown to provide several
advantages over the nominal, including more operational flexibility and
more amenability to time and/or fuel optimization.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in space missions where the relative motion of one or
more satellites with respect to another satellite or space object is of interest. One concept that lends
itself to relative motion modeling is formation flying. Mission planners hope to reduce size and
complexity of monolithic spacecraft missions in favor of flying several smaller, less complicated
satellites. Flying multiple satellites in formation offers flexibility to mission designers since the
individual satellites can reposition themselves with respect to each other to perform different tasks.
The multi-satellite option adds flexibility since the formation is adjustable on-orbit.

Another class of satellite missions that is of current interest involves rendezvous and close
maneuvering. This would typically involve a microsatellite circumnavigating a larger satellite. In this
case it is likely that there would be no active communication link between the satellites, as opposed to
most formation flying missions in which case there would likely be frequent communication between
and among the multiple satellites involved. Nonetheless, these two very different types of missions
would incorporate the same relative motion technology in order to achieve the configurations necessary
to accomplish their respective tasks.

With the impetus provided by missions such as those described above, there has been a large amount of
effort over the past few years in developing accurate dynamic models of the relative motion between
multiple satellites,1-2 as well as guidance and/or control techniques for transitioning a spacecraft from
one relative motion trajectory to another.3 Previous work4-7 has detailed fundamental aspects of
relative satellite motion and the utilization of a specific guidance scheme. While Refs. 4-5 are geared
toward formation flying applications, Refs. 6-7 addresses rendezvous applications as well. While there
has recently been much work increasing the fidelity of relative motion models, Refs. 4-7 are based on
the familiar Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill's (CWH) equations8,9 for their operational efficacy. While Refs. 4,
5, and 7 assume two-body relative motion, the guidance algorithm developed in Ref. 6 is based on an
extension of the CWH equations to include J2 gravity effects10 and relative drag. In this paper, a more
general algorithm for relative motion guidance will be explored. First, a form of the CWH equations is

1
Research Aerospace Engineer, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland AFB, NM.
2
Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
3
Senior Scientific Software Analyst, Dynacs Military & Defense, Inc., Albuquerque, NM.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air
Force, Department of Defense, of the U.S. Government.

1
introduced to characterize the relative motion of one satellite with respect to another satellite or space
object. The CWH coordinates are then transformed to a set of parameters that give a clear
representation of the geometry of the relative motion. These parameters are also defined in terms of the
orbital elements of the satellite and space object. The guidance algorithm, which governs the satellite’s
relative motion in all three directions, is then detailed. This algorithm consists of one or more
impulsive burns of any direction made at any point in the satellite’s orbit that will effect a desired
change in the relative motion parameters. The algorithm yields an analytical formula for the required
burn magnitude, direction, and time/location of the burn. Example cases are investigated and the
nature of the solution is explored. In cases where fewer than the maximum number of relative motion
parameters are specified, multiple solutions may exist. An example of this is given, and the solution
corresponding to minimum fuel expenditure is found.

RELATIVE MOTION DYNAMICS

Consider two satellites orbiting in close proximity to each other. For this analysis, one will be referred
to as the reference satellite, or “chief,” and the other as the “deputy.” The linearized equations of
relative motion of the two objects to be utilized in this work are the Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill’s (CWH)
equations. Three major assumptions inherent in the simplest form of the CWH equations are that the
only force modeled is that of a point mass gravitational field (hence Keplerian motion by each satellite
is assumed); the reference satellite is in a circular orbit; and the distance between the satellites is small
in comparison to their orbital radius. Because many formation missions of interest will likely involve a
near-circular reference orbit (eccentricity less than 0.001) and formation dimensions of no more than a
few kilometers, these assumptions are taken to be valid. Vallado11 provides a detailed derivation of the
CWH equations, which take the following form for unforced motion:

x 2n y 3n 2 x 0
y 2n x 0 (1)
2
z n z 0
The equations are written in the local-vertical, local-horizontal (LVLH) coordinate frame, whose origin
is at the chief satellite. In these equations, x is the position component in the radial direction positive
away from the Earth; y is the along-track component positive along the velocity vector of the chief; z is
the cross-track component perpendicular to the orbital plane of the chief; and n is the mean motion of
the chief.

The unperturbed version of the CWH equations can be solved analytically. The solution is

x0 2 y0 2 y0
x sin( nt ) (3 x0 ) cos(nt ) (4 x0 )
n n n
2 x0 4 y0 2 x0
y cos(nt ) (6 x0 ) sin( nt ) (6n x0 3 y 0 )t y0
n n n
z0 (2)
z sin( nt ) z 0 cos(nt )
n
x x0 cos(nt ) (3nx 0 2 y 0 ) sin( nt )
y 2 x0 sin( nt ) (6nx0 4 y 0 ) cos(nt ) (6nx 0 3 y0 )
z z 0 cos(nt ) nz 0 sin( nt )

where xo, yo, etc, are conditions at some epoch time to, and t is the time since to. Let us define the
following parameters:

2
 2 2
x y
ae 2 3x 2
n n
y
xd 4x 2
n
x
yd y 2 (3)
n
atan2 x,3nx 2 y
2
z
z max z2
n
atan2 nz , z

Here atan2(a,b) is defined as tan-1(a/b) where 0 < tan-1(a/b) < 2 based on which quadrant of an xy-
plane contains the point (x = b, y = a). Evaluating these parameters at t0 and using basic trigonometric
properties yields the following re-parameterization of Eqs. (2):
ae 0 ae 0
x cos( 0 nt ) xd 0 x n sin( 0 nt )
2 2
3 3
y ae 0 sin( 0 nt ) yd 0 nxd 0t y ae 0 n cos( 0 nt ) nxd 0 (4)
2 2
z z max 0 sin( 0 nt ) z z max 0 n cos( 0 nt )

It is instructive to insert Eqs. (4) into Eqs. (3), which yields expressions for ae, xd, etc, at time t in terms
of their values at t0:

ae ae0
xd xd 0
3 3
yd yd 0 nx d 0 t yd 0 nx d t
2 2 (5)
0 nt
z max z max 0
0 nt

Thus, in the absence of forced motion, the parameters ae, xd, and zmax are constant with time, while the
other three parameters vary linearly with time. For this reason, ae, xd, and zmax require no “0” subscript.
Eqns (4) can then be rewritten as

ae ae
x cos xd x n sin
2 2
3
y ae sin yd y ae n cos nxd (6)
2
z z max sin z z max n cos

Eqs. (3) can be used to express the values of ae, xd, etc, at any time in terms of the relative position and
velocity components at that time, while Eqs. (6) provide the inverse transformation. Also, Eqs. (5)

3
show how ae, xd, etc, evolve with time, analogous to Eqns (2) for x, y, etc. The six parameters defined
in Eqns (3) are similar to parameters defined in Ref. 11.

The parameterization of Eqns (7) illustrates that the relative motion of the deputy with respect to the
chief at any instant in time is generally described by an elliptical path in 3-D space centered at (xd, yd,
3
0). The ellipse, however, is drifting in the y-direction at a rate of nx d . Its projection onto the
2
chief’s orbit plane is an ellipse with semimajor axis of length ae in the along-track direction and
semiminor axis of length ae/2 in the radial direction. is a parametric angle (i.e. phase angle)
indicating the location of the deputy satellite in its trajectory as projected onto the chief’s orbit plane,
with = 0 corresponding to the perigee location (the “bottom” of the ellipse). The xy-motion, if the
elliptical path were frozen at a point in time, is depicted in Figure 1. (Note that the figure indicates the
deputy’s location with , which is the physical interpretation of in the x-y plane.) The z-component
of the relative motion (which is independent of the xy-motion) is a simple harmonic oscillator of
magnitude zmax, and phase angle . The deputy intersects the chief’s orbit plane at = and and
reaches zmax and -zmax at = and 3 , respectively. Superposing the elliptical motion in the
chief’s orbit plane (i.e. radial/along-track direction) with the oscillatory motion in the cross-track
direction yields a family of drifting ellipses that comprise all formation designs according to the CWH
equations.

It is useful to introduce the following parameter

(7)

which is a parametric angle indicating the location of perigee of the deputy’s orbit ( = 0) relative to
the point where it intersects the chief’s orbit plane( = 0). Note that is constant; thus if + is
chosen to replace in characterizing the deputy’s cross-track motion, is then the only angle in the
parameter set that varies with time. Thus, Eqns (6) can be rewritten as

ae ae
x cos xd x n sin
2 2
3
y a e sin yd y a e n cos nx d (8)
2
z z max sin z z max n cos

Figure 2 depicts the z motion of the deputy, with zmax and (physical interpretation of in the x-y
plane) indicated. To fully specify a deputy’s relative state, six initial (epoch) conditions must be given.
In Eqns (2) above, these conditions are expressed as Cartesian position/velocity component differences
between the two satellites in the LVLH frame. They can be expressed in other ways, such as

Keplerian orbital element differences between the two satellites ( a, e, i, etc.)

Cartesian position/velocity component differences between the two satellites in the ECI frame
( X, Y, Z, etc.)
Values of ae, xd, yd, , zmax, and

The latter formulation is the only one that intuitively describes the size, location, and orientation of the
deputy’s trajectory relative to that of the chief, as well as the location of the deputy along its relative
trajectory. Also this formulation is the only method of providing a “snapshot” of the relative trajectory
without having to know the state values of the chief.

Of the two parameters yd and that vary linearly with time, is a phase angle that represents the
periodic variation of the xy-motion, while yd is a distance that changes secularly, with rate proportional
to xd. This secular change represents the drift of the ellipse alluded to above. For xd > 0 the deputy

4
will drift in the negative y direction. The xy-projection of the deputy’s motion will then take on one of
four different shapes. These shapes are seen in Figure 3 to be either a straight line (circular deputy
orbit), a quasi-sinusoidal curve, a cycloid-like curve that cusps at the extrema, or a cycloid-like curve
that curls at the extrema. Obviously ae = 0 for the straight-line case. For the other three cases,
regardless of the drift rate, the minimum x value of the curve is the perigee point of the deputy orbit (
= 0), and the maximum x value is the apogee point ( = ). For the cusped curve, y must equal 0 at
3
each of the cusp locations. From the y equation in (8), a e x d if the cusp is to occur at perigee
2
3
and a e x d if it is to occur at apogee. Since ae only takes on positive values, cusping at perigee
2
can only occur for ellipses centered above the y axis and cusping at apogee for ellipses below the y
axis. This is illustrated by Figure 3, whose legend indicates the ranges of ae that yield each of the four
types of drifting motion for xd > 0. For xd < 0 the motion is analogous but the drift is in the positive y
direction.

A limiting case of relative motion that is often studied is a trajectory that contains no drift, which will
here be referred to as stationary. In this case xd = 0, resulting in a constant value for yd. This implies
that the semimajor axes of the chief and deputy orbits are the same. It is common (Ref. 1) to label
several types of stationary formations based on their appearance in either the orbital plane, a projected
plane, or in 3-D space, with each formation type entailing certain constraints on the initial conditions.
Whereas in Ref. 1 these constraints are represented in terms of x, y, z, etc., there are equivalent
constraints on ae, xd, yd, , zmax, and for each type.

A loose analogy can be drawn between the above parameters describing the motion of a deputy satellite
relative to a chief satellite and Keplerian orbital elements describing the motion of a satellite relative to
the center of an attracting body. The orbital element set to be used here consists of semimajor axis a,
eccentricity e, inclination angle i, argument of perigee , right ascension of ascending node , and
mean anomaly M. With orbital elements, as with the formation parameters, a set of specific values for
the six quantities describes completely the size and orientation of the path, as well as the location of the
object along the path. The analogous formation parameters developed above will be referred to herein
as relative orbit elements. (These are not to be confused with orbital element differences a, e, i, etc,
alluded to above.) Whereas one of the orbital elements (M) varies periodically and the others are
constant, one of the relative orbit elements ( ) varies periodically and one varies secularly (yd), while
the other four are constant. The analogy is a bit closer in the case of a stationary formation. In this
case, a set of values for ae, xd, yd, zmax, and at an epoch time completely determines the size, location,
and orientation of the formation, which are constant, with the location of the object in its formation ( )
varying periodically. In keeping with the similarity to orbital elements, the two locations in the
deputy’s trajectory where it intersects the chief’s orbit plane ( ?= 0 and ) will be referred to as the
relative ascending and descending nodes. The relative ascending node ( ?= 0 or - ) is the point
where the deputy passes from the –z to +z direction. If there is no cross-track motion, zmax?= 0and
(and therefore is undefined.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELATIVE ORBIT ELEMENTS AND CHIEF/DEPUTY

ORBITAL ELEMENTS

Consider a chief satellite in a circular orbit with orbital elements ac ec ic c c. (Because the orbit is
circular, ec=0 and the argument of perigee is undefined. The argument of latitude c is defined as the
angle measured in the orbital plane from the ascending node to the satellite location.) Consider also a
deputy satellite with orbital elements ad ed id d d Md. Here the relative orbit elements (ae, xd, yd, ?
zmax, and ) will be expressed in terms of these quantities. Recall that the relative motion trajectory
looks like the ellipse in Figure 1. Because the top of the ellipse represents apogee of the deputy orbit
and the bottom represents perigee, we have

ae = ra – rp = ad(1+ed) - ad(1-ed) = 2aded (9)

5
Also, the y-axis is a distance ac from Earth’s center, thus

xd = ra – ae/2 – ac = ra – (ra - rp)/2 – ac = (ra + rp)/2 – ac = ad – ac (10)

Also note that? , the phase angle of the relative trajectory, and M, the mean anomaly of the deputy
orbit, are both zero at perigee and both vary linearly with time at rate n (i.e., = 0 + nt and M = M0 +
nt). Thus they are equivalent:

= Md (11)

To express yd in terms of orbital elements requires the geometry of Figure 4a. (The following
observations assume small relative distances between chief and deputy. Both the eccentricity of the
deputy orbit and the angles have been greatly exaggerated in Figures 4a, 4b, and 6 for the sake of
illustration.) Here the chief lies on a circular equatorial orbit while the deputy is on an elliptical orbit
with the same value of a, i, and as the chief. From right to left, the first angle is the argument of
latitude of the chief. The second angle is from the chief to the perigee point of the deputy orbit (which
when added to c gives the deputy’s argument of perigee). The third angle, d, is the true anomaly of
the deputy. Let us denote tp as the time since perigee passage of the deputy (thus the deputy’s current
mean anomaly is Md = n tp). If we propagate both satellites backward by tp as shown in Figure 4b,
the deputy lies at perigee and the chief has traversed backwards through an angle Md. The angle that
the chief now makes with the ascending node is c – Md, while the deputy’s angle with the ascending
node is d. Thus the total angle between chief and deputy is d + Md – c. Now consider the “pseudo-
chief” satellite lying on the chief orbit above the deputy. If an LVLH frame were constructed and
centered on the pseudo-chief as shown in Figure 5a, the deputy would be at the perigee point of the
familiar 2x1 ellipse around the pseudo-chief, with the original chief satellite displaced in the negative
velocity direction a distance of ac( d + Md – c) from the pseudo-chief. If the LVLH frame were
instead centered on the original chief as shown in Figure 5b, the deputy’s elliptical path would again be
centered a distance ac( d + Md – c) from the chief. This distance is defined to be yd, thus

yd = ac( d + Md – c) (12)

where the angles must be defined over rather than 0 to 2 . (In actuality, the angles will vary over
, where is small.)

For the out-of-plane elements zmax and , Figure 6 shows the spherical triangle formed by the chief
orbit, deputy orbit, and the equator (all scaled to the same semimajor axis). The corners of the triangle
are formed by the ascending nodes of the two orbits and the intersection point of the two orbits (z = 0
in the LVLH frame). The interior angles are labeled A, B, and C while the side “lengths” (angles
emanating from Earth’s center) are labeled a, b, and c. We see that A = ic and B = – id, while c = d
– c. The angle C between the chief and deputy orbit planes can be solved using the law of cosines for
angles of a spherical triangle:

cos C = sin A sin B cos c – cos A cos B

= sin ic sin ( – id) cos ( d – c) - cos ic cos ( – id)
= cos ic cos id + sin ic sin id cos ( d – c) (13)

Then

2
z max a c sinC 1 cos ic cos id sin ic sin id cos d c (14)

The parametric angle is measured from the relative ascending node to perigee of the deputy’s orbit.
The angle, measured along the deputy’s orbit, from the (absolute) ascending node to the relative
ascending node is the angle a in Figure 6. The law of sines for angles of a spherical triangle then gives

(sin a)/(sin A) = (sin c)/(sin C) (sin a) = (sin c)(sin A)/(sin C) (15)

6
Because d is measured from ascending node to perigee along the deputy’s orbit and a is measured
from ascending node to relative ascending node, the angle * = d – a is the physical angle from
relative ascending node to perigee. Because the deputy orbit is assumed near-circular (ed << 1), the
difference between and * is negligible. Thus, using Eqn (15), can be expressed as

sin ic sin
d sin -1 d c
(16)
2
1 cos ic cos i d sin ic sin i d cos d c

Eqns (11)-(17) will be useful in the sections that follow.

RELATIVE MOTION GUIDANCE MANEUVERS

This section investigates guidance algorithms for the deputy satellite relative to the chief. This
involves computing the effect of one or more impulsive burns on the deputy’s relative motion (namely
its relative orbit elements). The guidance scheme detailed here can encompass maneuvers that effect
significant changes in one or more relative orbit elements as well as smaller maneuvers required for
stationkeeping.

Single-Burn Strategy
The effect of a single burn will first be explored. Given the deputy’s state at some epoch time (ae0, xd0,
yd0, 0, zmax0, 0), consider an impulsive burn with components generally in all three directions ( Vx,
Vy, Vz ) made at some later time. Eqns (6) yield the relative position and velocity components just
after the burn as functions of Vx, Vy, Vz and the relative orbit elements just before the burn:

ae ae
x x cos xd x x Vx n sin Vx
2 2
3
y y a e sin yd y y Vy a e n cos nx d V y (18)
2
z z z max sin z z Vz z max n cos Vz

where the “+” subscript refers to quantities just after the burn and the “-” subscript to quantities just
before the burn. The values of the relative orbit elements just before the burn can be related to their
epoch values by Eqns (5):

ae ae0
xd xd 0
3
yd yd 0 nx d 0 t b
2 (19)

0 nt b
z max z max 0
0 nt b 0

where tb is the time between epoch and the burn time. Evaluating Eqns (3) just after the burn and
inserting Eqns (18) and (19) (and using Eqn (7)) yields

7
 2 2 2 2
x y 2 4
ae 2 3x 2 ae 0 sin 0 ntb Vx ae 0 cos 0 ntb Vy
n n n n
y 2
xd 4x 2 xd 0 Vy
n n
x 3 2
yd y 2 yd 0 nxd 0tb Vx
n 2 n
2 4
atan2 x ,3nx 2y atan2 ae 0 sin 0 ntb Vx , ae 0 cos 0 ntb Vy
n n
2 2
z 2 Vz 2
z max z zmax 0 cos 0 0 ntb z max 0 sin 0 0 ntb
n n
atan2 nz , z - atan2 x ,3nx 2y
2 4
atan2 nzmax 0 sin 0 0 ntb , nzmax 0 cos 0 0 ntb Vz atan2 ae 0 sin 0 ntb Vx , ae 0 cos 0 ntb Vy
n n
(20)

Given an initial relative orbit ae0, xd0, yd0, 0, zmax0, 0, there are ten unknowns above (ae+, xd+, yd+, +,
zmax+, +, Vx, Vy, Vz, tb) and only six equations. Thus, any four of the unknowns can be specified
and Eqns (20) can be used to determine the values of the other six, provided a solution exists. Consider
for example the case where ae+, xd+, yd+, and zmax+ are specified, and +, +, Vx, Vy, Vz, and tb are to
be determined. From the second and third of Eqns (20) we have

n
Vy xd xd 0
2
(21)
n 3 n 3 2
Vx yd 0 nx d 0 t b yd yd yd n xd 0 t b
2 2 2 0 4

Inserting these into the first of Eqns (20) gives

2
3 2
ae ae 0 sin 0 ntb yd yd 0 nxd 0 t b ae 0 cos 0 ntb 2 xd xd 0 (22)
2

Using a root solver, the value of tb can be found that satisfies Eqn (22) (if one exists). Inserting this
value of tb into the second of Eqns (21) yields Vx. Inserting tb and Eqns (21) into the fourth of Eqns
(20) yields +. Vz is then solved via the fifth of Eqns (20)

2 2
Vz n zmax zmax0 sin 0 0 ntb nzmax0 cos 0 0 ntb (23)

and the sixth of Eqns (19) yields +. Operationally, this means that with a single impulsive burn one
can achieve desired values for up to four of the six relative orbit elements. As an example, let the
epoch conditions and desired post-burn conditions be as follows: ae0 = 80 m, xd0 = 5 m, yd0 = 10 m, 0 =
20 , zmax0= 60 m, 0 = 30 , ae+ = 200, xd+ = 0, yd+ = 0, zmax+ = 50 m. Also let the radius of the chief orbit
be 700 km (n = 0.0011 rad/sec). Using the equations above, this yields + = 245 , + = 0.11 , tb =
20,724 sec ( - = 199 ), Vx = -0.0821 m/sec, Vy = -0.0027 m/sec, and Vz = .0192 m/sec as one
solution. The deputy’s trajectory, including both the pre-burn and post-burn relative orbits, is depicted
in Figures 7 and 8.

Note that for cases involving changes to the motion in the chief’s orbit plane only (x and y directions),
there are four governing equations (first four equations of (20)) and seven unknowns (ae+, xd+, yd+, +,
Vx, Vy, tb). Thus with a single impulsive burn in the chief’s orbit plane one can achieve desired
values for up to three of the four planar relative orbit elements. The above example illustrates this. If

8
zmax0, 0, zmax+, +, and Vz are eliminated from the problem, the remaining quantities will take on the
same values as they do above. For cases with changes to the cross-track (z) motion only, assuming
Vx = Vy = 0, there are two equations (last two equations of (20)) and four unknowns (zmax+, +, Vz,
tb). Thus one can achieve desired values of both out-of-plane relative orbit elements with a single
cross-track burn.

There are often multiple solutions that will satisfy Eqns (20) for a given set of four specified
parameters. In the case where ae+, xd+, yd+, and zmax+ are specified, there may be several values of tb that
satisfy Eqn (22), and Vz will have two solutions due to the sign in Eqn (23). Likewise a solution
may not exist that will achieve the specified parameter values: there may not be a value of tb that will
satisfy Eqn (22), and Vz cannot take on a real value if the quantity under the radical in Eqn (23) is
negative.

If less than four post-burn quantities are specified, there are likely an infinite number of values of the
remaining parameters that will achieve the desired conditions. This type of problem lends itself well to
optimization. That is, there would be a solution space over which one could search to determine, say,
the minimum-time or minimum-fuel trajectory.

Multiple-Burn Strategy
The effect of a second burn on the relative trajectory can be computed fairly easily by changing the
subscripts and/or superscripts on variables in Eqns (18)-(20). Here Eqns (18) become

ae 2 ae 2
x2 x2 cos 2 xd 2 x2 x2 Vx2 n sin 2 Vx2
2 2
3 (24)
y2 y2 a e 2 sin 2 yd 2 y2 y2 Vy2 a e 2 n cos 2 nx d 2 Vy2
2
z2 z2 z max 2 sin 2 2 z2 z2 Vz2 z max 2 n cos 2 2 Vz2

where the superscript/subscript notation indicates quantities just before and after the second burn. Eqns
(19) then relate the values of the relative orbit elements just before the second burn to their values after
the first burn:

ae 2 a e1
xd 2 xd 1
3
yd 2 yd 1 nx d 1 t b 2
2 (25)

2 1 nt b 2
z max 2 z max 1
2 1

where tb2 is the time between the first and second burns. Eqns (20) become

9
 2 2 2 2
x2 y2 2 4
ae 2 2 3 x2 2 ae1 sin 1 ntb 2 Vx 2 ae1 cos 1 ntb 2 Vy 2
n n n n
y2 2
xd 2 4 x2 2 xd 1 Vy 2
n n
x2 3 2
yd 2 y2 2 yd 1 nxd 1 tb 2 Vx 2
n 2 n
2 4
2 atan2 x2 ,3nx2 2 y2 atan2 ae1 sin 1 ntb 2 Vx 2 , ae1 cos 1 ntb 2 Vy 2
n n
2 2
z2 2 Vz 2 2
z max 2 z2 z max1 cos 1 1 ntb 2 z max1 sin 1 1 ntb 2
n n

2 2 2 atan2 nz 2 , z 2 - atan2 x2 ,3nx2 2 y2

2 4
atan2 nz max1 sin 1 1 ntb 2 , nz max1 cos 1 1 ntb 2 Vz 2 atan2 ae1 sin 1 ntb 2 Vx 2 , ae1 cos 1 ntb 2 Vy 2
n n
(26)

If we represent ae in Eqns (20) as ae1 , tb as tb1, Vx as Vx1, etc., inserting these into Eqns (26) yields
expressions for ae2+, xd2+, yd2+, 2+, zmax2+, 2+ in terms of ae0, xd0, yd0, 0, zmax0, 0, Vx1, Vy1, Vz1,
tb1, Vx2, Vy2, Vz2, and tb2. Assuming one is not concerned with the intermediate values of the
relative orbit elements but rather only their final values, we once again have six equations but with
fourteen unknowns: ae2+, xd2+, yd2+, 2+, zmax2+, 2+, Vx1, Vy1, Vz1, tb1, Vx2, Vy2, Vz2, and tb2.
Thus, any eight of the unknowns can be specified and Eqns (26) can be used to determine the values of
the other six, provided a solution exists. Although the full expressions of Eqns (26) with Eqns (20)
inserted become quite unwieldy, each set of equations can be programmed separately into a package
such as MATLAB to solve for the desired unknowns.

The above scheme is easily extended to more than two burns. For n number of burns, the “2+” notation
in the above equations is replaced with “n+”, “2-” is replaced with “n-”, “1+” becomes “n-1+”, tb2 becomes
tbn, Vx2 becomes Vxn, etc. One can then use Eqns (24)-(26) recursively to obtain expressions for
conditions after the nth burn in terms of initial (epoch) conditions, the components of each burn, and
the burn times. Such a scenario involves six governing equations and 6 + 4n unknowns (i.e., each burn
introduces four additional unknowns). For cases of planar (x-y) motion only, there are four equations
and 4 + 3n unknowns, while cases of cross-track motion only involve two equations and 2 + 2n
unknowns. Multiple burns allow not only for a larger solution space (which in turn lends itself to
optimization) but also for a variety of limiting cases, whereby the times and/or directions of the burns
are specified based on mission desires or constraints. Some of the simpler limiting cases are discussed
below.

LIMITING CASES

Single Cross-Track Burn

As mentioned above, for a single burn and cross-track motion changes only, there are two equations
and four unknowns. Given ae0, 0, zmax0, and 0 and assuming Vx = Vy = 0, Vz and tb can be found
that will yield specified zmax+ and +. For example, let ae0 = 200 m, 0 = 50 , zmax0 = 20 m, and 0 = 10 ,
and suppose zmax+ = 50 m and + = 80 are specified. (Assume a 700 km chief orbit radius as before.)
Inserting Eqn (23) into the last equation of (20) yields tb = 435 sec ( - = 76 ) and Vz = -0.05 m/sec as
one solution. Note from the last equation of (20) that the only way to leave unchanged across the
burn is to burn at the point where 0 + ntb = - 0, i.e., = 0, the relative ascending node.

Planar Motion Only, Tangential Burns At Apogee/Perigee

Consider the case of planar motion with multiple burns at made at perigee and apogee. In this case
there are four equations and 4 + 3n unknowns with the constraints Vxi = 0 for each ith burn and also
each tbi is such that i-1+ + ntbi = 0 or . Thus for the ith burn at perigee,

10
 4
ae i ae i 1
V yi
n
2
xd i xd i 1 V yi
n (27)
3
yd i yd i 1 nx d i 1t bi
2
4
i atan2 0, a e i 1 V yi 0 OR
n

and for the ith burn at apogee,

4
ae i ae i 1
V yi
n
2
xd i xd i 1 V yi (28)
n
3
yd i yd i 1 nx d i 1t bi
2
4
i atan2 0, a e i 1 V yi 0 OR
n

nae i 1
nae i 1
Note that these equations are linear in Vyi and that for Vyi (or at apogee), is
4 4
constant across the burn. Because Vxi and tbi are specified, this leaves 4 + n unknowns. A very useful
result is obtained if we let n = 3, let each tbi be half an orbital period (from perigee to apogee crossing
or vice-versa), and specify ae3+, xd3+, and yd3+. If the maneuver is begun at perigee, it will end at the
next perigee crossing, thus 3+ will be 0. The burns are computed by using Eqns (24)-(26) recursively
as described above:

1 1 1 1
V1 n a n y n x nx d 0
16 6 8 2
1 1
V2 n a n x (29)
8 4
1 1 3 1
V3 n a n y n x nx d 0
16 6 8 2
where a = ae3+ – ae0, x = xd3+ – xd0, and y = yd3+ – yd1 = yd3+ – yd0 + 1.5nxd0tb1. Thus a, x, and y
are all in terms of given initial conditions or quantities that are specified. This particular special case is
developed at length in Refs. 4-6.

SUMMARY

The relative motion between two satellites has been characterized using a re-parameterized version of
the Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill's solution. The new parameters, termed relative orbit elements, clearly
describe the geometry of the maneuvering satellite’s trajectory with respect to the reference satellite.
These parameters are easily defined in terms of the two satellites’ orbital elements. Also, a general
impulsive burn algorithm has been designed that allows for transfer between any two relative motion
states. Given a starting relative trajectory, the algorithm allows the user to choose the number of burns,
their direction and location along the trajectory, that will achieve the desired relative trajectory. In
many cases this yields a situation where there are more unknowns than equations. This allows the user
to either pick additional mission constraints (i.e. specified quantities) and/or to let one or more
unknowns serve as search variables in order to optimize the maneuver. Due to the significant degree of

11
autonomy and robustness of this strategy, it would be ideal as on-board flight software for a formation
flying or rendezvous mission. It should be noted that, although only the two-body Clohessy-Wiltshire-
Hill's equations have been used to develop the guidance algorithm, the development of this strategy
would proceed in largely the same manner with perturbations included, as long as the differential
equations remain linear time-invariant. Among the future tasks to be performed beyond this analysis
are:

1. Discuss in detail some additional “interesting” limiting cases: radial burns at = 90/270 ;
cross-track burns combined with planar burns for general 3D guidance; etc.
2. Investigate the effect of continuous thrusting as opposed to impulsive.

REFERENCES

1. C. Sabol, R. Burns, and C. Mclaughlin, “Satellite Formation Flying Design and Evolution”,
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001, pp. 270-278.

2. D. W. Gim and K. T. Alfriend, "The State Transition Matrix of Relative Motion for the
Perturbed Non-Circular Reference Orbit," AAS Paper 01-222, presented at the AAS/AIAA
Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Santa Barbara, CA, Feb 11-16, 2001.

3. F. Bauer et al, “Satellite Formation Flying Using an Innovative Autonomous Control System
(AUTOCON) Environment,” AIAA Paper 97-3821, presented at the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, Aug. 1997.

4. C. A. Mclaughlin, K. T. Alfriend, and T. A. Lovell, “Analysis of Reconfiguration Algorithms

for Formation Flying Experiments,” presented at the CNES 1st Annual Formation Flying
Missions and Technologies International Symposium, Toulouse, France, Oct 29-31, 2002.

5. T. A. Lovell and S. G. Tragesser, “Analysis of the Reconfiguration and Maintenance of Close

Spacecraft Formations,” AAS Paper 03-139, presented at the AAS/AIAA Space Flight
Mechanics Meeting, Ponce, PR, Feb 9-13, 2003.

6. Lovell, Horneman, Tragesser, and Tollefson, “A Guidance Algorithm for Formation

Reconfiguration and Maintenance Based on the Perturbed Clohessy-Wiltshire Equations,”
AAS Paper 03-649, presented at the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Big
Sky, MT, Aug 3-7, 2003.

7. Howard, Lovell, and Horneman, “Collision Avoidance During Rendezvous Via Relative
Motion Approximation,” AAS Paper 03-650, presented at the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics
Specialist Conference, Big Sky, MT, Aug 3-7, 2003.

8. W. H. Clohessy and R. S. Wiltshire, “Terminal Guidance System for Satellite Rendezvous”,

Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1960, pp. 653-658.

9. G. W. Hill, “Researches in the Lunar Theory,” American Journal of Mathematics, Volume 1,

1878, pp. 5-26.

10. S. A. Schweigart and R. J. Sedwick, “High Fidelity Linearized J2 Model for Satellite
Formation Flight”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2002, pp.
1073-1080.

11. D. A. Vallado, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications, The McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc., New York, 1997, pp. 343-354.

12
 (xd,yd) apogee
x

deputy
o
ae

ae
perigee orbital
velocity
chief direction
o
y

Earth

Figure 1. Planar Projection of Relative Motion Trajectory with Relative Orbit Elements Labeled.

X
projected ellipse orbital
velocity
direction

true path Zmax

relative
ascending perigee
node

Figure 2. Depiction of Out-of-Plane Relative Motion with Relative Orbit Elements Labeled.

13
 12

10
drift direction

a_e = 0
x (m )

6 0 < a_e < 1.5*x_d

a_e = 1.5*x_d

4 a_e > 1.5*x_d

orbit direction
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
y (m )

Figure 3. Four Types of Drifting Relative Motion Trajectories (For All Curves xd = 5, yd = 30, 0 = ).

Deputy P osition
?d
P erigee of Deputy Orbit
P seudo-Chief
? d - ?c Deputy
Chief P osition ? d - ?c+Md
Earth Earth Chief P osition
?c
?c-Md
Ascending Node Ascending Node

Equator Equator

Figure 4. (a) Angle Relationships in Orbital Plane. (b) Situation of Figure b1a at an Earlier Time.

x x
orbital velocity direction

orbital velocity direction

a c( d + Md – c)
yd = ac ( d + Md – c)

o o o o y
chief pseudo- chief y chief pseudo- chief
o deputy o deputy

Figure 5. LVLH View of Figure b1b as Viewed From Pseudo-Chief (a) and Chief (b).

14
 Z=0
in LVLH
frame

chief orbit b
C
a

deputy orbit

A B A B
equator
Chief’s c Deputy’s
ascending ascending
node node

Figure 6. Spherical Triangle Formed by Intersection of Chief Orbit Plane, Deputy Orbit Plane, and
Equatorial Plane.

150

100

50

t = tb
x (m)

0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

-50

-100

t = t0
-150
y (m )

Figure 7. Planar Motion for Single-Burn Maneuver Example (ae0 = 80 m, xd0 = 5 m, yd0 = 10 m, 0=
20 , ae+ = 200, xd+ = 0, yd+ = 0, + = 245 ).

80

60

40

20
z (m)

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
-20

-40

-60

-80
t = tb
t (s e c)

Figure 8. Out-of-Plane Motion for Single-Burn Maneuver Example (zmax0= 60 m, 0+ 0= 50 , zmax+ =

50 m, + + + = 245 ).

15