TWO-CRITERIA OPTIMIZATION OF SEQUENTIAL ROUTES OF MULTI-TARGET LOW-ORBIT SERVICE AND SPACE DEBRIS REMOVAL MISSIONS

Анотація

In order to ensure the sustainability of the space ecosystem, new types of missions are being developed, such as on-orbit servicing missions (OOS) and active debris removal (ADR) missions. The use of OOS and ADR in low-Earth orbits has a great potential. However, their implementation faces significant problems.  Only a few successful OOS missions have been launched and operated in recent decades, while ADR missions have not yet been implemented in orbit. Therefore, the study of the problems associated with the justification and preplanning of OOS and ADR missions is important to improving our understanding of these operations and their effectiveness. The implementation of OOS and ADR is closely related to the efficiency of performing a sequence of orbital maneuvering tasks under conditions of limited energy capabilities of the servicer. The values of the efficiency indices for different OOS and ABC routes may differ significantly. Methods for optimizing the routes of multi-purpose OOS and ADR missions have already been developed and are being developed. The existing literature is mainly focused on finding solutions aimed at minimizing the energy consumption of OOS and ADR missions and reducing their total duration because these factors are considered the most significant in mission planning.  Much less attention is paid to optimizing OOS and ADR routes based on the flight safety criterion, which significantly affects the cost of mission insurance. This calls for the development of prompt methods for the multicriteria optimization of OOS and ADR routes taking into account the flight safety criterion.

The goal of this work is to develop a prompt method for the two-criteria optimization of sequential routes for multi-purpose OOS and ADR missions performed by a servicer with propulsion units of low constant thrust. The problem is formulated as a two-criteria orbital traveling salesman problem. The methods of solving the problem are multicriteria genetic Pareto optimization, averaging of differential equations, and analytical simulation of servicer orbit transfers. The use of a genetic Pareto optimization algorithm made it possible to avoid local optimal solutions and determined the adopted computational costs. A significant reduction in computational costs was also achieved by using analytical simulation of orbit transfers of a servicer with propulsion units of low constant thrust. The novelty of the obtained results lies in the development of a prompt method for the two-criteria optimization of sequential routes of multi-purpose OOS and ADR missions. The method is easily extendable to a larger number of  estimation criteria. The results of this work may be used in the justification and preplanning of OOS and ADR missions in low-Earth orbits.

REFERENCES

1. Ceif M. Multiple space debris collecting mission-debris selection and trajectory optimization. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. 2013. V. 156. No. 3. Pp. 761-796.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0130-6

2. Murakami J., Hokamoto S. Approach for optimal multi-rendezvous trajectory design for active debris removal. 61st International Astronautical Congress IAC. 2010. Pp. 6013-6018.

3. Federici L., Zavoli A., Colasurdo G. et al. Impulsive multi-rendezvous trajectory design an optimization. 8th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EUCASS). 2019. Pp. 1 -4.

4. Jorgensen M. K., Sharf I. Optimal planning for a multiple space debris removal mission using high-accuracy low-thrust transfers. Acta Astronautica. 2020. V. 172. Pp. 56-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.03.031

5. Shen H.-X., Zhang T.-J. Casalino L., Pastrone D. Optimization of active debris removal missions with multiple targets. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 2018. V. 55. No. 1, Pp 181-189.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33883

6. Di Carlo M., Romero Martin J. M., Vasile M. Automatic trajectory planning for low-thrust active removal mission in low-earth orbit. Advances in Space Research. 2017. V. 59. A maximal-reward preliminary plan-ning for multi-debris active removal mission in LEO with a greedy heuristic method. Acta Astronautica. 2018. V. 149. Pp. 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.05.040

8. Barea A., Urrutxua H., Cadarso L. Large-scale object selection and tra¬jectory planning for multi-target space debris removal missions. Acta Astronautica. 2020. V. 170. Pp. 289-301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.032

9. Rossi A., Valsecchi G., Alessi E. The criticality of spacecraft index. Advances in Space Research. 2015. V. 56. No. 3. Pp. 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.02.027

10. Kechichian J. A. Reformulation of Edelbaum's low-thrust transfer problem using optimal control theory. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 1997. V. 20. No. 5. Pp. 988-994.
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4145

11. Zhang S., Han C., Sun X. New solution for rendezvous between geosynchronous satellites using low thrust. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 2018. V. 41. No. 3. Pp. 1397-1406.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003270

12. Han C., Zhang S., Wang X. On-orbit servicing of geosynchronous satellites based on low-thrust transfers considering perturbations. Acta Astronautica. 2019. V.159. Pp. 658-675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.041

13. Holdshtein Yu. M. On the choice of a parking orbit for a service spacecraft. The. Meh. 2020. No. 3. Pp. 30 - 38. (in Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.15407/itm2020.03.030

14. Edelbaum T. N. Propulsion requirements for controllable satellites. ARS Journal. 1961. V. 31. Pp. 1079-1089. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.5723

15. Korbut А. А., Finkelshtein Yu. Yu. Discrete Programming. Nauka, 1969. 368 pp. (In Russian).

16. Popovici N. Pareto reducible multicriteria optimization problems. A Journal of Mathematical Programming and Operations Research. 2005. V. 54. Iss. 3. Pp. 253-263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02331930500096213

17. Kim I. Y., de Weck O. L. Adaptive weighted-sum method for bi-objective optimization: Pareto front generation. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization. 2005. V. 29. Pp. 149-158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0465-1