This paper investigates the dynamics of on-track rendezvous and docking of two spacecraft, and stabilization using hybrid Coulomb control. Modeling electrostatic forces and torques for control of complex spacecraft geometries like cylinders is challenging. Point mass assumption of the spacecraft that disregards the chaser dynamics will lead to errors in force estimation during the terminal docking phase, resulting in a mission failure. This paper uses the effective sphere method to model Coulomb interactions between the chaser and the target. The method is coupled with the chaser’s tumbling motion about its body axes to develop a relationship between electrostatic force and attitude. The relative attitude dynamics of the chaser is then derived and incorporated into the system dynamics. Differential gravity and hybrid thrusters are used to stabilize the relative attitude of the two bodies. The charge-voltage relations are used to compute potential variations for the Coulomb control. An optimal linear quadratic tracking control is proposed for tracking a reference trajectory generated using solutions of Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill’s equations. Numerical simulations are carried out for both non-linear and linear models of the Coulomb spacecraft to validate the proposed concept. Results have also been compared with an existing voltage feedback controller to demonstrate the merits and challenges of electrostatic actuation for rendezvous and docking.
KingLBParkerGGDeshmukhS, et al.Spacecraft formation-flying using inter-vehicle Coulomb forces. In: NASA/NASA Institute for advanced concept phase I final report, 2002.
2.
MullenEGGussenhovenMSHardyDA. SCATHA survey of high-voltage spacecraft charging in sunlight. J Geophys Sci1986; 91(A2): 1474–1490. DOI: 10.1029/ja091ia02p01474
3.
Whipple EC and Olsen RC. Importance of differential charging for controlling both natural and induced vehicle potentials on ATS-5 and ATS-6. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, NASA CP 2182,NASA Lewis Research Center, 1980, pp. 887.
4.
TorkarKRiedlerWFehringerM, et al.Spacecraft potential control aboard equator-S as a test for cluster-II. Ann Geophysicae1999; 17(12): 1582–1591. DOI: 10.1007/s00585-999-1582-3
5.
SchmidtRArendsHPedersenA, et al.Results from active spacecraft potential control on the geotail spacecraft. J Geophys Res1995; 100(A9): 253–259. DOI: 10.1029/95ja01552
6.
TorkarKRiedlerWEscoubetCP, et al.Active spacecraft potential control for cluster-implementation and first results. Annales Geophysicae2001; 19(10–12): 1289–1302. DOI: 10.5194/angeo-19-1289-2001
7.
NovikovLSMakletsovAASinolitsVV. Comparison of Coulomb-2, NASCAP-2K, MUSCAT and SPIS codes for geosynchronous spacecraft charging. Adv Space Res2016; 57(2): 671–680. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2015.11.003
8.
MandellMJCookeDLDavisVA, et al.Modeling the charging of geosynchronous and interplanetary spacecraft using Nascap-2k. Adv Space Res2005; 36(12): 2511–2515, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2004.04.014
9.
KingLBParkerGGDeshmukhS, et al.Study of interspacecraft Coulomb forces and implications for formation flying. J Propulsion Power2003; 19(3): 497–505. DOI: 10.2514/2.6133
10.
GombosiTI. Physics of the space environment. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511529474
11.
WangZDongYFengW, et al.Optimization for far-distance and fuel-limited cooperative rendezvous between two coplanar spacecraft based on Lambert method. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 234(7): 1301–1310. DOI: 10.1177/0954410019900447
12.
HuangALuoYLiH, et al.Optimization of low-thrust multi-debris removal mission via an efficient approximation model of orbit rendezvous. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2022; 236(14): 1301–1310. DOI: 10.1177/09544100221074746
13.
NamdariHAllahverdizadehFSharifiA. Robust composite nonlinear feedback control for spacecraft rendezvous systems under parameter uncertainty, external disturbance, and input saturation. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 234(2): 143–155. DOI: 10.1177/0954410018790368
14.
XieXShengTHeL, et al.Distributed attitude consensus tracking control for spacecraft formation flying via adaptive nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2023; 236(8): 1603–1616. DOI: 10.1177/09544100211042243
15.
HuangJMaGLiuG. Nonlinear dynamics and reconfiguration control of two-satellite Coulomb tether formation at libration points. Aerospace Sci Technol2014; 39: 501–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2014.06.001
16.
MaxwellJHarrisASchaubH. Balancing differential drag with Coulomb repulsion in low earth orbit plasma wakes. Acta Astronautica; 194(2022): 323–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.08.021
17.
ZhaoLYuanCLiX, et al.Multiple spacecraft formation flying control around artificial equilibrium point using propellantless approach. Int J Aerospace Eng2022; 2022: 1–26. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8719645
18.
ZhaoLYuanCHaoQ, et al.Hybrid propulsion spacecraft formation control around the planetary displaced orbit. Adv Mech Eng2021; 13(10): 1–10. DOI: 10.1177/16878140211051454
19.
SchaubHKimM. Differential orbit element constraints for Coulomb satellite formations. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, 16- 19 August 2004, 2004. doi: 10.2514/6.2004-5213
20.
JoeHSchaubHParkerG. Formation dynamics of Coulomb satellites. 6th International Conference on Dynamics and Control of Systems and Structures in Space. Liguria, Italy: Cinque Terre, 2004, pp. 79–90.
21.
QiRShiAMisraA, et al.Coulomb tether double-pyramid formation, a potential configuration for geostationary satellite collocation. Aerospace Sci Technol2019; 84: 1131–1140. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.11.036
22.
HuangXYanYZhouY. Dynamics and control of underactuated spacecraft formation reconfiguration in elliptic orbits. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 232(12): 2214–2230. DOI: 10.1177/0954410017711722
23.
FelicettiLPalmeriniGB. Three spacecraft formation control by means of electrostatic forces. Aerospace Sci Technol2016; 48: 261–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.11.022
24.
HuangX-LZhangCLuH-Q, et al.Fast trajectory tracking of electromagnetic satellite formation with actuator saturation. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2016; 230(13): 2463–2472. DOI: 10.1177/0954410015626733
25.
KimMSchaubH. Coulomb formation conservation laws using differential orbit elements. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng220(5): 463–474. DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO39
26.
HuangCWangYChenX. Finite-time attitude tracking control of air bearing table for spacecraft rendezvous and docking. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 232(1): 96–110. DOI: 10.1177/0954410016671539
27.
StevensonDSchaubH. Terrestrial testbed for remote Coulomb spacecraft rotation control. Int J Space Sci Eng2014; 2(1): 96–112. DOI: 10.1504/IJSPACESE.2014.060111
28.
HusseinISchaubH. Stability and control of relative equilibria for the three-spacecraft Coulomb tether problem. Acta Astronautica2009; 65: 738–754. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.035
29.
NatarajanASchaubH. Linear dynamics and stability analysis of a Coulomb tether formation. J Guidance Control Dyn2006; 29(4): 831–839. DOI: 10.2514/1.16480
30.
NatarajanASchaubH. Reconfiguration of a Nadir-pointing 2-craft Coulomb tether. J Br Interplane Society2007; 60: 209–218.
NatarajanASchaubH. Hybrid conrol of orbit normal and along-track 2-craft Coulomb tethers. Aerospace Sci Technol2009; 13(4–5): 183–191. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2008.10.002
33.
HoganESchaubH. Relative motion control for two-spacecraft electrostatic orbit corrections. J Guidance Control Dyn2013; 36(1): 240–249. DOI: 10.2514/1.56118
34.
JasperLEZSchaubH. Effective sphere modeling for electrostatic forces on a three-dimensional spacecraft shape. AAS/AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics MeetingPaper AAS 11- 465, 2011, Girdwood Alaska, 31 July–4 August, 2011.
35.
SmytheWR. Static and dynamic electricity. In: International series in pure and applied physics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
36.
SliškoJBrito-OrtaRA. On approximate formulas for the electrostatic force between two conducting spheres. Am J Phys1998; 66(4): 352–355. DOI: 10.1119/1.18864
37.
SoulesJA. Precise calculation of the electrostatic force between charged spheres including induction effects. Am J Phys1990; 58(12): 1195–1199. DOI: 10.1119/1.16251
38.
StevensonDSchaubH. Multi-sphere method for modeling spacecraft electrostatic forces and torques. Adv Space Res2013; 51(1): 10–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.08.014
39.
HughesJASchaubH. Heterogeneous surface multisphere models using method of moments foundations. J Spacecraft Rockets2019; 56(4): 1259–1266. DOI: 10.2514/1.A34434
40.
InampudiRSchaubH. Optimal reconfigurations of two-craft Coulomb formation in circular orbits. J Guidance Control Dyn2012; 35(6): 1805–1815. DOI: 10.2514/1.56551
41.
JonesDRSchaubH. Optimal reconfigurations of two-craft Coulomb formations along manifolds. Acta Astronautica2013; 83: 108–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.10.028
42.
SuPFengWKunY, et al.Optimal control of rapid cooperative spacecraft rendezvous with multiple specific-direction thrusts. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2020; 234(16): 2296–2322. DOI: 10.1177/0954410020926768
43.
ClohessyWHWiltshireRS. Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. J Aerospace Sci1960; 27(9): 653–658. DOI: 10.2514/8.8704
44.
HillGW. Researches in the lunar theory. Am J Mathematics1878; 1(1): 5–26. DOI: 10.2307/2369430
45.
SchaubHJunkinsJL. Analytical mechanics of space systems. In: AIAA education series. Reston, VA: AIAA, 2003, pp. 160–171.
46.
OlivaresAKumarAJainT. Linear quadratic optimal control design: a novel approach based on krotov conditions. Mathematical Problems Eng2019; 2019: 1–17. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9490512
47.
HariBHMyronTBashianD. Guidance algorithm for autonomous rendezvous of spacecraft with target vehicle in circular orbit. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, number: AIAA-2001-4393, Montreal, Canada, August 2001. DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-4393
