17. The Launching of a Satellite Satellites are launched from the Earth’s surface by means of multi-stage rockets. After ignition of the first-stage rocket engine(s), these launch vehicles first ascend vertically. A few seconds after lift-off, the rocket is tilted and it flies a curved trajectory until at cut-off the final stage and the satellite have a predetermined velocity and position. The determination of the optimum ascent trajectory of a particular launch vehicle for a prescribed satellite orbit is very complex, and is closely related to the theory of optimum spaceflight maneuvers and to the operational constraints of that launch vehicle. Because these topics are beyond the scope of this book, we will discuss only some general aspects of ascent trajectories. Launch vehicle performance data for orbitai missions are presented in graphical form. A more detailed discussion will be given on the relations between the orbital parameters of a satellite and its position and velocity at the moment it enters its orbit. 17.1 Launch vehicle ascent trajectories Two basic types of ascent trajectories can be distinguished for satellite launch vehicles (Fig. 17.1): Direct Ascent (D.A.) and Hohmann Transfer Ascent (H.T.A.). The D.A. trajectory is selected such that its summit point lies in the Tequired satellite orbit. When the satellite, which in most cases is still attached to the final rocket stage, approaches this summit altitude, the final- stage motor is ignited and the satellite is accelerated to the required (local) orbital velocity. In some cases, the rocket motor required for this accelera- tion is not the motor of the last stage, but is an integral part of the satellite itself (apogee motor). In the H.T.A., the satellite and the last stage first attain a low-altitude circular parking orbit, just outside the densest part of the atmosphere. Usually, the altitude of this parking orbit is about 200 km. For preliminary mission and performance analyses, mostly a parking orbit is assumed at an altitude of 185 km (100 n.mi.). Either shortly after parking orbit injection (P.0.1.), or after a coasting period in this parking orbit, the vehicle is injected into an elliptic transfer trajectory. At perigee, this transfer ellipse is (about) tangential to the parking orbit and at apogee (about) tangential to the required satellite orbit. This type of transfer trajectory has been prop- osed in 1925 by W. Hohmann [1], and therefore is called a HohmannRocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics Direct Fig. 17.1 Direct Ascent and Hohmann Transfer Ascent to a satellite orbit transfer trajectory. We will discuss these transfer trajectories in more detail in Section 19.2.1. When the satellite is at apogee of the transfer trajectory, the last-stage rocket motor, or the satellite’s apogee motor, is fired to accelerate the satellite into its final orbit. Comparing these two types of ascent trajectories, it can be shown [2] that, generally, the H.T.A. requires less propellant for ascent into a specified orbit. The main reason for this is that the ascent trajectory for a D.A. mostly is steeper than for a H.T.A., yielding larger gravity losses. The H.T.A. would even be the absolute minimum-energy transfer trajectory if the altitude of the parking orbit were zero, and if all energy required to reach the final orbit were transferred to the satellite in the most efficient way, i.e. as a velocity increment about normal to the radius vector. Owing to the Presence of the atmosphere, however, this optimum transfer cannot be realized and a low-altitude parking orbit has to be used. Only for satellite orbits below 300 km altitude, does a D.A. sometimes require less propel- lant. It should be realized that apart from propellant consumption, many other operational aspects exist which must be taken into account in the selection of an ascent trajectory. Obviously, the shorter coasting periods in a D.A. may be advantageous for stages with cryogenic propellants. Problems of attitude control and other aspects of vehicle engineering are mostly reduced too when using a D.A. In addition, due to the comparatively steeper D.A. the launch vehicle can be tracked longer from the launch site. For the H.T.A., a world-wide net of tracking stations usually is a necessity. From the viewpoint of booster recovery, the shorter horizontal distance travelled by the booster during a D.A. is advantageous. Finally, it will be clear, that, in general, the H.T.A. requires at least one propulsion phase more than the D.A. Usually, this implies the application of restartable rocket engines. For launch vehicles using only solid propellants, this restart capability is difficult to provide. 17.2 The i jection of a satellite Whatever ascent trajectory is flown, the satellite, and often the last stage too, ultimately will reach a position and velocity required to follow 4 The Launching of a Satellite 391 prescribed orbit about the Earth. Usually, the satellite then is separated from the last stage by releasing a compressed-spring mechanism, and small rocket motors on the last stage are fired to move the stage away from the satellite. For liquid-propellant stages, usually the propellant residuals are also exhausted, without combustion, through the main engine(s), in order to increase the relative velocity between stage and satellite. . The time of separation is called the injection epoch; the position and velocity of the satellite at this epoch constitute the injection parameters. Injection epoch and injection parameters together completely determine the orbit in which the satellite will encircle the Earth. 17.2.1. General aspects of satellite injection We will now assume that at the injection epoch, #, the position and velocity of the satellite relative to a non-rotating geocentric equatorial reference frame (Section 2.3.4) are known in terms of radial distance, r,, declination, 4, right ascension, a, velocity, V;, flight path angle, y, and flight path azimuth, f;. We then can determine the Keplerian elements of the orbit, and other useful orbital parameters, by using the expressions given in Section 16.6.2 and 16.6.3. From these relations, we conclude: 1. The orbital elements a and e, the time difference t,—7 and the true anomaly at injection, @, are only a function of the in-plane injection Parameters 1, Vi, Yi ae 2. The orbital elements i and Q, and the argument of latitude at injection, 14 =@+6, only depend on the out-of-plane injection: parameters a, 5, i 3. The orbital element w is both a function of the in-plane and the out- of-plane injection parameters. In particular from Eq. (16.6-24), a number of important conclusions can be drawn. Because -1 0:sin E,>0, and if <0: sin E,<0.394 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics ‘The dependence of ¢, ~7, 8, r, and r, on k, and , is depicted in Fig. _ 17.2. The perigee and apogee distances were non-dimensionalized by divi. | sion by 1; the time difference 4—r by division by the orbital period, T. | From this figure, we see that: 1. For specified values of r and V, e reaches a minimum at +, 2. For small-eccentricity orbits (k,~1, y,~0), a small variation in y, yields _| large variations in e. 3. For all values of k,>1: 6, k,<1: 0 = 180° and r, =r at 7, =0. Varying k, from 0 to 2 at ,=0, yields at k= 1 a discontinuous change in the position of the perigee, For a circular orbit, k,=1 and y=0, the position of the perigee is undetermined. 4. Small variations in y, about y,=0 yield for near-circular orbits large variations in the position of the perigee. 5. For specified values of r, and Vj, the apogee distance is a maximum and the perigee distance a minimum at y,=0. Excluding high-altitude and highly-eccentric satellite orbits which are 1 = ’ ~ Cc Hj =028, 175: T eS eg ES > Eo © 075 | = 075 & oso oso 075125, 028 YN, 1 ~- F ozs. 100-f —] 125- | 150 5 po 2520S a Injection Flight Pan Angle des) Injection Fight Pot Angle p; (Gea) 100 + 5 - fy-050- 078 ES 1 ‘ t Ferg an Soon Ole fpf \ / = ‘True Anomaly ot Injection 6; (dea) 1 ° er) 30S Injection Fight Poth Angle y Ideg) Injection Flight Path Angle poo) Fig. 17.2 Orbital parameters versus the in-plane injection parameters =0 and r,=7, at y=0. For all values of | The Launching of a Satellite 395 strongly affected by luni-solar attractions [7], it is evident that the perigee altitude mainly determines the orbital lifetime of a satellite. For the atmos- pheric density increases about exponentially with decreasing altitude. The altitude of the injection point will be chosen as low as possible for maximiz- ing the rocket payload capability. To obtain a perigee altitude as high as possible, we therefore prefer to inject a satellite at +, To illustrate the sensitivity of the orbit altitude to the values of y,, V; and r, consider a nominal satellite orbit with perigee and apogee altitude at 500 km and 600 km, respectively, and y, = 0. The nominal injection velocity then is V;=7.642 km/s. Figure 17.3 shows the allowable departures of 7, Vi and y, from their nominal values in order to yield an orbit with h, > 425 km and h, <675 km, and an orbit with h, >350km and h, <750 km. We note, that even for these large altitude deviations, departures in r,, V; and y, which can be tolerated are very small. It is therefore that satellite launch vehicles have to be capable of injecting satellites with very high precision. Path Anglo 497 (ce = 8. | Deviation in Injection Flight Path Angle Ay ea) Deviation in injection 5 Deviation in Injection Distance 417 (km) Devan in Injection Velocity AV) — m/s) Fig. 17.3 Acceptable deviations in in-plane injection parameters for specified maximum departures in perigee and apogee altitude. Nominal orbit: y;=0, hy = 500 km, h, = 600 km 17.3 Launch vehicle performances For satellite mission analyses, we have to know the performances of the available launch vehicles. For preliminary studies, we mostly make use of performance diagrams in which the payload capability of a launch vehicle is Plotted versus the so-called launch vehicle characteristic velocity, Veran (Fig. 17.5). To explain how to use these diagrams, we first recall that all existing Tocket stages are high-thrust chemical systems. Once in a parking orbit, we can assume for orbit transfer maneuvers that the thrust acts for so short a396 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics time that during motor operation only the vehicle’s velocity vector is altered, | but not its position vector. We thus use the concept of an impulsive shot (Section 11.2.3) and consider an orbit transfer maneuver as a sequence of] instantaneous velocity changes. The mass of propellant required for each velocity change can be computed from Tsiolkovsky’s equation, Eq. (11.2-4). | We define a mission characteristic velocity, V%,.,, as the arithmetic sum of all velocity changes required to perform a specified mission, starting from a 185-km circular parking orbit, plus the velocity in this parking orbit relative to a non-rotating geocentric reference frame (V, = 7.797 km/s). This mission characteristic velocity thus is a measure of the energy required to fly a given mission. With the theory of orbital maneuvers, we can compute this mission characteristic velocity for each final orbit and each transfer trajectory. As this subject is not treated in this book, we will only discuss some results on the basis of Fig. 17.4. For a full treatment be referred to the standard work of Ehricke [2], and to Gobetz and Doll [8]. The dashed line in Fig. 17.4 shows the initial incremental velocity AV,, required at the parking orbit altitude to perform a coplanar Hohmann transfer to an apogee altitude corresponding to a desired final orbit altitude. Also indicated is the transfer time to execute this Hohmann transfer. To circularize the orbit at the apogee of the transfer trajectory, an incremental velocity AV, has to be applied. The sum of AV; and AY, is also shown in Fig. 17.4. We note that for increasing final orbit altitudes, V%,,, first increases, until from an altitude of about 96,000 km upwards it decreases again. One can prove that V3,q, for this type of transfer trajectories takes a maximum value at r/r,=15.58, where 1, is the radius of the circular parking orbit and r, is the radius of the final circular orbit. For r,/r, > 3.31, we find that V3,., is larger than the escape velocity in the parking orbit. For ‘.c00.000 , | seo _ | it Groular Orbits 3 = || Fohmann Trnster | gy = ft je g uA eosynch a 3 Elliptic Orbits 7 asynchronous | 5g z with 185 ken “itude z 2 Perigos z = 1000 = : é | of 1 Z 3 | 7 1 1 & L I 1000 L = |_| i\ 4] 1 o> Inclination Change I 30 use| | o7s hescape Velocity 100 [in Parking Orbit 7 6 3 7° a 2 % Mission Characteristic Valoiy Vohar (km/s) Fig. 17.4 Mission characteristic velocity for various final orbits The Launching of a Satellite 397 nlf, > 11.94, energy can be saved by first ascending elliptically beyond the target orbit to a greater altitude, and then returning from this high apogee elliptically into the target orbit. In such a bi-elliptic transfer, two velocity increments and one velocity decrement are applied. The energy savings, however, are rather small, while the transfer time becomes very large. Therefore, these bi-elliptic transfers are of little practical value. In Fig. 17.4, the mission characteristic velocity for a three-dimensional Hohmann transfer, ic. with a cotangential transfer ellipse between two inclined circular orbits, is shown too. For these missions, one has three possibilities: orbital plane change in conjunction with the perigee impulse, plane change in conjunction with the apogee impulse, or orbital plane change both at perigee and at apogee such that the sum of both changes equals the desired value. On first sight, it seems that a plane change most economically should be carried out at apogee, where the velocity of the vehicle is a minimum. It can be shown, however, that the energy minimum requires a small part of the total plane change to be accomplished at the departure from the parking orbit. The savings by carrying out such an optimum plane change maneuver are not spectacular. For example, the launch of a geostationary satellite from a 28.5°-inclination, 185-km parking orbit would require a 2.2° plane change at perigee and a 26.3° plane change at apogee, leading to a minimum characteristic velocity of 12.070 km/s [5]. If the total plane change is carried out at apogee, the mission characteristic velocity only slightly increases with about 25 m/s. In Fig. 17.4, it is assumed that when the vehicle in its 185-km parking orbit crosses the equatorial plane, it injects into a coplanar Hohmann transfer trajectory. At the apogee of this transfer trajectory, which also occurs at an equatorial crossing, the satellite is injected in such a way that the total plane change is effected and the orbit is circularized simultaneously. Curves are presented for three values of a change in orbit inclination. We note that in particular for low final orbits, the energy required for inclination changes is considerable. The launch vehicle characteristic velocity, Vesan Teferred to in Fig. 17.5, is defined as the actual total velocity deliverable for a given payload after a due east launch from Cape Canaveral and use of a 185-km parking orbit. The payload indicated is considered to include all elements normally as- sociated with the satellite that must be accelerated to the required final velocity. Only the payload adapter is not considered as part of the satellite. If the launch vehicle has sufficient coast and restart capabilities to allow this total velocity to be applied to the satellite in the same sequence of incre- ments as assumed when determining the mission characteristic velocity, then Venar Clearly is equivalent to V%,.,. For any launch that is not from Cape Canaveral and/or not in an eastward direction, the vehicle characteristic Velocity is equal to the mission characteristic velocity plus a launch site and launch azimuth velocity penalty. This approximate velocity penalty, AVihan is shown in Fig. 17.6, for launches from the Eastern Test Range and from the Western Test Range. tm: Be398 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics 100,000 1,000 Poyload Capability My (kg) 100 0 tt @ ar 76 Launch Vehicle Characteristic Velocity Yaar (km/s) Fig. 17.5 Launch vehicle payload capability as a function i characteristic velocity (Reference [9]). 1: Scout D(4-stage, ince baie 2: Delta 2310 (2-stage, 3 Castor Il strap-ons); 3: Delta 2910 (2-stage, 9 Castor Il strap-ons); 4: TAT (3C)/Agena (2-stage, 3 Castor {1 strap-ons); 5: Delta 2314 (3-stage, 3 Castor Il strap-ons, TE364-4 third stage); 6: Delta 2914 (3-stage, 9 Castor II strap-ons, TE364-4 third stage); 7: Atlas D/Centaur (2-stage); 8: ‘Atlas D/Centaur/TE364-4 (3-stage); strap-ons); 10: Titan IIIE/Centa 11: Titan IIE/Centaur/TE364-4 12: Titan iI7/Centaur (3-stage, 5: Titan IIIC (3-stage, 2 five-segment 120-inch ur (3-stage, 2 five-segment 121 (4-stage, 2 five-segment 120-inch strap-ons); , 2 seven-segment 720-inch strap-ons); 13: ‘inch strap-ons); Saturn IB (2-stage); 14: Saturn V (3-stage). S02 ; = 080 + E | aster tet Rong : Wester Test Renge +B ons | 3 | g ¥ 00 % 006 | 3 & é 2 > 00 ae 3 oo : ° L 020 20 % 80 700 10 Orbit Inctination 7 (deg) 20 “9 Orbit Inclination / (deg) Fig. 17.6 Launch site and launch azimuth velocity penalty (Ref. [9]). The Launching of a Satellite 399 To show how to use these diagrams, we will consider the launch of a satellite by an Atlas/Centaur [10] into a 2000-km circular orbit with an inclination of 110°. If the launch takes place from the Western Test Range, a coplanar Hohmann transfer is possible. From Fig. 17.4 we read that the mission characteristic velocity is Vi,..= 8.73 km/s. The velocity penalty is, according to Fig. 17.6, AV*,q,= 0.57 km/s. So, the launch vehicle charac- teristic velocity is V.,2. = 9.30 km/s. From Fig. 17.5 we find that the payload capability of the Atlas/Centaur for this mission is about M, = 2800 kg. Sometimes, constraints such as limitations on the allowable number of stage restarts, the duration of coast periods, or certain guidance system requirements, do not permit the vehicle to execute the sequence assumed in computing the mission characteristic velocity. To put it in other words: specific launch vehicle limitations may preclude a desired trajectory. For more accurate mission analyses we therefore use diagrams as shown in Fig. 17.7. Here, the payload capability of a launch vehicle is plotted versus perigee and apogee altitude for a specific launch site and orbit inclination. In these graphs all constraints imposed by the launch vehicle are included. The payload mass indicated includes the mass of the payload adapter. A com- parison of the payload capabilities of the four-stage solid-propellant Scout D [11] for a launch due east from Wallops Island (WI)-and for a launch into a polar orbit from the Western Test Range (WTR), clearly shows the payload increase, for the same orbit altitude, if the rocket is launched into an easterly direction and full benefit is taken of the rotation of the Earth. Also shown in Fig. 17.7 are the payload capabilities of some configurations of the Delta launch vehicle [12], the Atlas/Centaur and the Titan IIC launch vehicles. For the Atlas/Centaur and the Titan IC, the advantage of a Hohmann Transfer (H.T.A.) over a Direct Ascent (D.A.) is clear. Preliminary performance data for the reusable Space Shuttle [13] are Presented in Fig. 17.8 for delivery missions from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg. For these performance maps, it was assumed that the Orbiter always is injected into a 93 km by 185 km orbit. All subsequent maneuvers are performed by using the orbital maneuvering system (OMS). In addition to the Orbiter integral OMS tanks, up to three extra OMS kits, which are payload chargeable items, can be installed in the Orbiter’s cargo bay for increased operational flexibility. Using these extra propellants, circular orbits up to about 1100km altitude are possible. For missions requiring higher energies, additional propulsion stages are required. These stages are transported within the Shuttle cargo bay to a low parking orbit where they are deployed to complete the required mission. In the first period after the Shuttle becomes operational, an expendable Interim Upper Stage (TUS) will be used for this purpose. Ultimately, a reusable so-called Space Tug may be built, which after completion of its mission will return to the Shuttle. It then Will be retrieved into the cargo bay of the Shuttle and returned to Earth, where maintenance can be applied to prepare it for the next flight. Prelimi- nary performance analyses have shown [5] that with such a Shuttle-Tug400 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics og00 #0000 ; & Scout 0 = wir = & \ | TS50° p00 $ 10000 hh, i g 200 2 2 \ \ NYZa00 $ | e Gi) 000 = 0 | £ 1000|— 1000} —+ = co «on |__ Pec ni 100 L o 50 0015020050 my so 100150200 Povlood Mass My (ka) Poyload Mass My (ia) _, 109000 700000 : z z [beta so = } eTR 4000 & 2 £ woo hig = 5k, 4 8 73° 100 eh ° \ & = 1 a 2a fe 20900 \ arr aN | 100 10000 | Q soo 1600 to “oo 600 —~@00 1000 Payload Mass My (ka) Payload Mass Muy (kg) i = =, 100000 - “oo000 < ] Atlas Centaur 2 Titon at E & ETR Ss ETR 3 i=283° < 12283° 2 eniptc omits | Elite Orbits = 10900 }-— era000 p= 1854. a Dy é Py A ! 3 —_| 5 0 A | £ 000 RA 8 Circular Orbits + Gircuior Orbits zg S | 100 i 2 0 | o mam co0d eae oD wae ——~“Bo00 Poyload Moss My (ka) Poyload Mass My (kg) Fig. 17.7 Earth-orbital performance of satellite launch vehicles (Ref. [91). The Launching of a Satellite “0 £ ETR 3 WIR & F16eg) integral OMS 2 i (éea) 3° Re St ONS kit =” Integral OMS: a 2 1St OMS kit 3 20 3 a 2 oms kit q 3 é & ® ra 20 400600800000 1200 Gircular Orbit Altitude Ag. (km) 20 060080) t000, tat Creal Orit Altitude fg Ber Fig. 17.8 Estimated payload capability of the Space Shuttle for delivery mis- sions from the Eastern Test Range and the Western Test Range (Ref. [14]). combination geosynchronovs satellites up to a mass of about 2000 kg can be launched. Geosynchronous satellites with a mass up to 760 kg could also be retrieved by the Tug from their orbit down to Earth for repair. 17.4 Orbit deviations due to injection errors As a compromise between the preferred orbit, the payload capabilities of existing launch vehicles and many operational constraints, a nominal orbit can be selected for a specific mission. The actual satellite orbit will deviate from this nominal orbit due to unavoidable injection errors. Deviations from the nominal launch ascent trajectory and from the final injection procedure will cause the injection parameters to differ from their nominal values. Though for modern launch vehicles these injection errors are rather small, their effect on the orbit of a satellite can be appreciable. Therefore, in selecting a nominal orbit one should always be aware of possible orbit deviations due to injection errors. In the case that the payload weighs considerably less than the launch vehicle’s maximum payload for that orbit, the excess capability can be used to shape the ascent trajectory such that the sensitivity of the injection parameters to variations in launch vehicle and atmospheri¢ parameters is reduced [15]. To illustrate the effects of injection errors, we will consider the launch of the Astronomical Netherlands Satellite (ANS), which was launched on August 30, 1974 by a Scout D from the Western Test Range. Nominal perigee and apogee altitudes were 510 km and 560 km, respectively [16] The nominal values of the injection parameters and the orbital elements at injection are given in Table 17.1. The quantity A, in this table denotes the geographic longitude of the injection point; all other parameters have their usual meaning. We assume that at injection all parameters but V; and have their nominal values. With the equations given in Section 16.6.2 and402 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics Table 17.1 Nominal injection parameters and orbital elements of ANS = August 27, 1974; 14"9™41° U.T. 887.92 km 6913.078 km : 0.003640 97.801° 7.6211 km/s 167.329° %= —0.005° 241.618° w= 188.038" 94.975 min Actual launch took place on August 30, 1974; 14°7™40" UT. Section 16.6.3, we can compute the deviations in the orbital parameters due to errors in V; and y,, For the orbital parameters ¢, @, 1 hy and h, the results are shown in Fig. 17.9. In these graphs only errors in V; and +, well within the 10 limits for the nominal injection altitude are considered [11]. We note that even for a successful launch, rather large deviations from the nominal orbit can occur: the angular position of the perigee, for instance, can shift more than 90° with respect to its nominal location. It should be mentioned here that in practice all injection parameters will show errors simultaneously. By statistical means, all injection accuracy data can be translated into orbit deviation probabilities. As an example, Fig. 17.10 shows isoprobability curves for the orbital lifetime of ANS. One curve holds for a 99 percent probability and } year lifetime; the other for a 95- percent probability and 1 year lifetime. Also shown are lines representing the launch capability of the Scout D. Based on this information, and on operational requirements, a nominal 510-560 km orbit was selected for ANS. When the satellite was finally launched after a delay of three days, a malfunction Occurred in the guidance system of the Scout vehicle, and the satellite actually entered an orbit with initial perigee and apogee altitudes of 266 km and 1175 km, respectively. 17.4.1. Small injection errors If the injection errors are very small, we can obtain simple analytical expressions for the effects of these errors on the satellite orbit. In general, if 6 denotes any orbital parameter and x any injection parameter, we can apply a Taylor series expansion and write ‘ a= ¥ 28 ax, + higher-order terms, (17.4-1) ax, The Launching of a Satellite o.010 260 3 al =e 007s — ai; fromys 2m . F 0080 ; 180 2 I | owes | — ! 110 4 rH o n 60. a a ay; (deo) any (ee) = 100 | 60 = T = é 0 2 aly mys, 5 8 2 600 | + % é Fa { _| ao | a : x0 f— soo Le 1s Zz ° ‘0 a 7a ‘Ay (deo) Ay (aeg) Fig. 17.9 Effects of injection errors on the orbit of ANS. 600 =I Scout Payload \ 13 15K V Copabiity[N2%9 i, \ \ Nominal, \ or S yeor:'099 \ aft Apogee Altitude Ag. (kml 1 yeor 0.95 8 450 100 50 500 380 Porigee Altitude hyp (km) Fig. 17.10 Selection of nominal perigee and apogee altitude of ANS. (Ref. [17]).404 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics u if e becomes very small. Ti Ci orbits the following analysis cannot be applied, Geyine 13] ‘and Jenaen [19] present an alternative approach to handle these near-circular orbits, The partial derivatives in Eq. (17.4-1) can be obtained ty , the relevant equations given in Section 16.6.2 and 166 from Eq, (16.6-22), we obtain ~ | | y differentiating 3. For example, | “) . “+ ) sin 1, cos yy a) SiN % COs 4 (17.4-2) or, with Eq. (17.2-4), de_k(2-k) | ay Qe SN2% (17.4-3) Expressions for the other partial derivatives are derived by Fitzpatrick [20] If we assume the injection to ‘ake place at nominal perigee, as is fre- \jecti ti lace at nor inal perigee, as is fre 9 k>4, e=k-1. (17.4-4) In this case, Eq. (17.4-3) reduces:to ae —=0. on (17.4-5) The other partial derivatives for injecti i he oth or injection at nominal perigee ca - tained in an analogous way. Finally, this yields: penges can Oe ob 8a 20 _ _cos 6 sin 2, Qsin?i (17.4-6) 98, 2sin?i ? aa,” At=2)_ VR ky ay Qn(k=1y P sin? ? The Launching of a Satellite avi oT avi where T is the orbital period, and sin i= V1— c0s"6, sin? i. The remaining 36 partial derivatives all take the value zero. Of course, the orbital parameters on the right-hand side of the expressions for the partial derivatives denote the parameters of the nominal orbit. From Eqs. (17.4-5), a number of important conclusions can be drawn for an injection at nominal perigee: 1. The relative deviations in a and r, due to percentage errors in r; and V, (ic. a ete.) strongly increase with increasing values of k,. For highly- lt eccentric orbits (k, } 2), large deviations in a and r, may be expected. 2. The position of the perigee is only affected by errors in y, 8 and yj. 3. The time difference 7 is only affected by errors in y, 4. The perigee distance is only a function of the injection distance. With the theory presented in this chapter, the orbital elements at injection can be computed from the injection conditions. For a first-order analysis, we may consider these elements as characterizing the (Keplerian) orbit in which the satellite will encircle the Earth. In practice, however, the satellite will be subjected to various types of perturbing forces and its orbit will deviate from this Keplerian one. The next chapter will be devoted to the theory of perturbed satellite orbits. References 1 Hohmann, W. (1925), Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelskdrper, Olden- bourg, Berlin, p. 63-75, Also: NASA TT F-44, Washington, 1960. 2 Bhricke, K. A. (1962), Space Flight, Vol. 2: Dynamics, Van Nostrand, Princeton, p. 90-116, 289-433. 3 White, J. F. (ed.) (1963), Flight Performance Handbook for Powered Flight Operations, Wiley, New York, p. 3-6 to 3-28. 4 Miner, W. E. and Silber, R. (1963), A variational launch window study, AIAA J., 1, 1125-1129. 5S Cornelisse, J. W. and Wakker, K. F. (1972), Geosynchronous Space Tug Missions, Report VTH-171, Dept. Aerospace Eng., Delft University of Technology, Delft. ith daw Yon ty yh A406 Rocket Propulsion & Spaceflight Dynamics 6 7 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 El’yasberg, P. E. (1967), Introduction to the Theory of Flight of Artificial Earth Satellites, NASA TT F-391, Washington, p. 143-145. Van de Graaff, R. C. (1977), A Semi-Analytical Method for Computing Third-Body Effects on Earth’s and Lunar Satellue Orbits, Report LR 231, Dept. Acrospace Eng., Delft University of Technology, Delit. Gobetz, F. W. and Doll, J. R. (1969), A survey of impulsive trajectories, AIAA J., 7, 801-834. McGolrick, J. E. (1973), Launch Vehicle Estimating Factors for Ad- vance Mission Planning, NHB 7100.5B, NASA, Washington. Shramo, D. J. (1974), Centaur—A Major Element of the Current Space Transportation System, IAF Paper 74-075, Amsterdam. Anon. (1976), Scout User’s Manual, Vol. 5: Performance and Flight Planning, Vought Corp., Dallas. Bonnett, E. W. (1971), Delta Spacecraft Design Restraints, DAC- 61687, revision October 1971, McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach. Anon. (1975), Space Shuttle, NASA, Houston (paper issued at 26th IAF Congress in Lisbon, 1975). Anon. (1976), Space Shuttle System Payload Accommodations, JSC 07700, Vol. 14, Rev. D, Change 15, NASA. Rosenbaum, R. (1970), The Reduction of Launch Vehicle Injection Errors by Trajectory Shaping, ALAA Paper 70-1078, New York. Wakker, K. F. (i977), Orbit Prediction for the Astronomical Nether- lands Satellite, paper presented at the B.I.S. conference on Computer Techniques for Satellite Control and Data Processing, Slough. de Leeuw, W. H. and Pouw, A. (1974), Mission Analysis of the As- tronomical Netherlands Satellite, IAF Paper 74-121, Amsterdam. Geyling, F. T. and Westerman, H. R. (1971), Introduction to Orbital Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, p. 98-104. Jensen, J., Townsend, G., Kork, J. and Kraft, D. (1962), Design Guide to Orbital Flight, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 733-744. Fitzpatrick, P. M. (1970), Principles of Celestial Mechanics, Academic Press, New York, p. 129-132.