Point and Burn

The thing I love about having diverse customers for Gravity Engine is that the questions they raise force me to extend my knowledge of orbital mechanics beyond the “simple” treatments presented in the textbooks. Recently, the developer of the very impressive ReEntry game highlighted the fact that the Hohmann and Lambert rendezvous code in Gravity Engine was cool, but it did not match the method used by NASA for Gemini and Apollo rendezvous. NASA used a maneuver called trigger angle targeting that used a burn in the line of sight direction from the ship to the target. Ok, I thought, time to dig through my 12 orbital mechanics books and see what’s up with this. Only two of the books mentioned this mode of rendezvous. Walter’s Astrodynamics mentions this in an informational box on NASA rendezvous techniques and provides some references. Practical Astrodynamics by de laco Veris presents an iterative solution.

Trigger angle maneuver (Figure from Woffinden, Rose and Geller, link below)

First a bit of background on this technique in the context of Apollo lunar rendezvous. This rendezvous mode is used in the final phase of rendezvous when the LM and CM are already in circular coplanar orbits with a modest difference in radius (e.g. 28 km). The LM catches up from below and behind and when the CSM is at a specific angle above the horizon (about 27 degrees) it burns directly towards the CSM. This has the advantage of allowing a manual orientation and burn in the event of computer issues or loss of communication. Point the ship at the target and burn. The burn magnitude is based on a calculation that factors in the desired time to rendezvous. In the Apollo case the time to rendezvous was chosen such that the CSM moved through about 130 degrees of it’s orbit.

I first considered the usual rendezvous approaches to see how they compared. A Hohmann transfer requires the CSM to move through 180 degrees and has a burn direction parallel to the local horizon. It is the most efficient transfer but the ship needs to be pointed towards the horizon. A Lambert transfer to the desired rendezvous point could be done but the velocity vector is unconstrained and in general will not be in the direction of the CSM. Quantitatively how do these compare to the actual Apollo 11 burn?

TypeAngle from Horizon (deg)Burn Magnitude (m/s)
Hohmann06.62
Lambert20.977.83
Trigger Angle25.548.24

Note that the trigger angle is a more expensive option in terms of dV. The fault tolerant procedure comes at a cost. Neither the Hohmann or Lambert transfer is providing the trigger angle burn needed for Apollo 11. Gravity Engine clearly needs some new code.

The trail starts with a paper from 2007 by Woffinden, Rose and Geller that demonstrates how to solve for a trigger angle given that the burn must be in the direction of the target. I found it a bit surprising that this analytic result was published 45 years after trigger angle targeting was used in Gemini! This paper also references the very readable Navigating the Road to Autonomous Orbit Rendezvous by Woffinden and Geller.

The approach taken in the trigger angle paper is to use a local co-rotating co-ordinate system with the rendezvous target at the origin. This system assumes the target is in a circular orbit and the ship is “relatively close” to the target. This system is often referred to an Local Vertical Local Horizontal or LVLH. The rendezvous equations can be mapped into this co-ordinate system with a few simplifying assumptions and the result is the Hill-Clohessy-Wiltshire equations that describe the relative motion of the ship with respect to the fixed target.

The new code added to Gravity Engine provides a RelativeMotion class that provides the Hill-Clohessy-Wiltshire rendezvous equations and an additional module to perform the trigger angle targeting. The result of this code for the Apollo 11 case produces the trigger angle and burn shown in the table above. When used “as is” the resulting rendezvous in the fixed target frame is:

By itself this burn does not result in a perfect rendezvous. After braking the LM is 3.55 km away from the CSM with a residual velocity of 2.9 m/s. Further nuance is needed.

The Apollo 11 terminal phase included two course correction burns and a series of braking maneuvers at fixed distances from the CSM (LM burn schedule). To include this a TPIBurn class has been added to Gravity Engine to handle the sequencing of these events in addition to the initial TPI burn. By adding these elements to the scene the rendezvous now concludes with the LM 21 meters away from the CSM with a negligible residual velocity.

This code will be available in Gravity Engine release 5.0.

2 thoughts on “Point and Burn

  1. Mark

    Hi Peter,
    I ran across your site looking for an n-body simulator and saw this cool article. I thought you might be interested in my thesis subject where I generalize the Hohmann transfer. Introductory textbooks teach that Hohmann transfers apply only between circular orbits or co-axial elliptical orbits. This is simply not true.

    I taught myself orbital mechanics from Orbital Mechanics by Curtis Howard — see section 6.7. In fact, I used fig. 6.17 in my thesis, where the author states a Hohmann transfer is clearly impossible.

    What is cool about this method is that the rendezvous is always tangent. This means no maneuver
    ing — so more reliable. And you never cross the orbit of the target — so safer. Just pull up to the target and apply the brakes, so to speak. I see by the article that they first circularized the orbits. This would not be necessary with this method.

    I thought with the upcoming space tourism, people would jump all over this technique, but nada. If you would like to check it out, I can send you the paper and code (python). You can be the first one on your block to use it — for free — if you want. There is more cool things about this method, if interested.

    If you could help me, I am looking for an n-body simulator similar to Rebound. Rebound is too slow. N = one million ideally, but I will take what I can get.

    Mark

    Reply
    1. nbodyphysics Post author

      Hi Mark,

      I would be interested in reading your thesis. Sounds like a cool topic. Can you post a link or send me details at nbodyphysics@gmail.com?

      I have not looked at big N codes in awhile. I did look at NBody6 (Aarseth) and some of the solar system codes. The scholarpedia article is still useful http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/N-body_simulations_(gravitational).

      Are you looking for a real-time code? None of the scientific codes will be that. My understanding is that even today a million is non-trivial (see Heggie and Hut’s book “The Gravitational Million Body Problem”). In many cases e.g. galaxy modeling, the approach is the treat stars as a non-interacting gas in a global potential that models their distribution (Binny & Tremaine, “Galactic Dynamics”). Something I’ve been meaning to explore in Unity sometime.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *