JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS
Vol. 42, No. 9, September 2019
Engineering Notes
Propagation and Transformation of
Mean Elements at Geostationary Orbits
Hong-Xin Shen,∗ Zheng-Zhong Kuai,† and Heng-Nian Li‡
Xi’an Satellite Control Center, 710043 Xi’an,
People’s Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654
I. Introduction
M EAN element theories have proven useful for trajectory design
and maneuver planning [1,2]. Integration of osculating
elements constructs the perturbed orbit through direct integration of
the Lagrange planetary equation. This method is precise but
computationally inefficient, as the high-frequency perturbations
constrain the integration step size to be very small in order to retain
accuracy. An alternative that is precise and computationally efficient
is to use mean element theory, which is done by separating the short-
period components of the perturbations from the long-period and
secular components of the satellite motion. Mean element theories
may improve state prediction efficiency by allowing for a larger
integration step size or a fully analytical solution, and the averaging
method of the current work belongs to numerical propagation
methods. Integration of mean element motion (long period and
secular) is efficient when applying large step sizes, and the magnitude
of this step size is constrained by the magnitude of the next higher-
frequency oscillation [3]. The transformation of a set of osculating
initial conditions to their mean values is usually required to properly
initialize the propagation. Conversely, once a mean orbit is obtained,
converting of the results back to osculating elements requires an
inverse transformation. In addition, mean orbital elements can be also
used for maneuver planning and calculation. For the geostationary-
equatorial orbit (GEO) studied in this Note, the straightforward
computation of Δv from the required change in the mean semimajor
axis Δa and mean eccentricity Δe may be the most direct and
practical approach [4].
There is an extensive body of work on the application of mean
element theories to satellite astrodynamics. One of the most widely
used approaches is to use an analytical theory. Examples of such
theories are the Brouwer artificial satellite theory [5] and the Kozai
theory [6]. In addition to the analytical theories, newer theories
include Draper’s semi-analytic satellite theory [7,8], extended by
Gao [9] to low-thrust guidance, and the work by Guinn [10]. More
recently Spiridonova et al. [11] presented a method based on the
Received 2 March 2018; revision received 12 May 2019; accepted for
publication 14 June 2019; published online 28 June 2019. Copyright © 2019
by Hong-Xin Shen. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission
to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the
eISSN 1533-3884 to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and
Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp.
*Engineer, State Key Laboratory of Astronautic Dynamics; also
Postdoctoral, Department of Mechanics and Engineering Science, College
of Engineering, Peking University, 100871 Beijing, People’s Republic of
China; hongxin.shen@gmail.com.
†
Engineer, State Key Laboratory of Astronautic Dynamics; 994061824@
qq.com.
‡ theories. Complete perturbation equations describing osculating
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Astronautic Dynamics; henry_xscc@
aliyun.com.
2132
theory of Kaula [12] using an iterative procedure, thus allowing
precise computation of the mean elements. These works were mainly
focused on low Earth orbits (LEO), and so the perturbation from the
aspherical gravity of the Earth received the most attention because it
dominates all other periodic effects on LEO satellites. Ely [13] used a
numerical method to compute the Fourier series coefficients; this
method has the advantage of finding the short-period terms due to any
perturbing acceleration, but probably does not provide physical
insight into the satellite motion. The work by Li [14] using a singular
value decomposition method is similar to the work by Ely.
The method proposed in this Note focuses on the mean elements of
geostationary orbits. Our goal is to write a robust dynamical model
for propagating mean elements, and to formulate a transformation
method between mean elements and osculating elements. In contrast
to LEO, where the aspherical perturbation plays a dominant role,
three perturbation types (i.e., the Earth’s aspherical gravity, lunar-
solar third-body attraction, and solar radiation pressure) are all
important for the mean motion at GEO altitude.
The major difficulty in the use of mean elements in GEO is
probably the application of the Moon’s perturbation. Guinn [10]
derived the third-body periodic gravitational terms from the lunar and
solar perturbing functions given by Kaula [15], where the elements of
a perturbing body must be specified. Celletti et al. [16] expanded the
lunar disturbing function using the Moon’s elements that are referred
to the ecliptic frame. Chao [17] expanded the disturbing function in
terms of the classical elements, under the assumption of circular
third-body orbit. The long-term perturbations in the inclination and
eccentricity at GEO were examined, but only by considering the most
important perturbation for each element, thus limiting the method
accuracy. When dealing with space debris, two-line elements are
given and propagated with the SGP4 model [18]. The SGP4
methodology used for non-LEO cases also includes perturbation due
to the Moon. However, the major disadvantage of SGP4, which is an
analytical propagator, is its accuracy [19]. In our work, the precise
ephemeris of the disturbing body is preferred when computing the
perturbing functions, and better accuracy is therefore obtained.
The common method of averaging is to sort out the secular and
long-period terms in the series equation of the variation of the orbit
elements by averaging out the short-period terms through a definite
integral [19,20]. In contrast, in the present study the key concept for
solving for the mean elements is to obtain the corresponding short-
period amplitude from an indefinite integral. The precise conversion
between mean elements and osculating elements comes from the
accurate modeling of short-period perturbations, especially that from
the Moon. The mean and osculating elements can be quite precisely
converted by means of the indefinite integral of the corresponding
short-period perturbation.
One should note that the short-period oscillations of inclination are
quite small, with variation only of order 1e-4 deg, and so we consider
it of minor interest from the averaging point of view due to its secular
nature. Therefore, in the present work we focus only on the elements
semimajor axis, mean longitude, and eccentricity; these elements are
related to most of orbit applications where planar maneuvers are
preferred. However, the proposed method has a general validity, as far
as one studies inclination in a similar way.
This work provides two major contributions: first, it gives precise
expressions for the short-period amplitude for the nonsingular
elements by employing an indefinite integral of short-period
perturbations; second, the effect of Moon’s rotating angular velocity
relative to the Earth and precise ephemeris of the perturbing body are
considered, thus enabling precise modeling of the lunar disturbing
function. Section II contains an overview of the applied perturbation
elements are presented in Sec. III, based on Lagrange approach.
 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES 2133

Section IV separates short-period terms from the long-period and
secular terms, thus providing the equations for the mean elements.
Section V describes the suggested averaging algorithm and derives
the analytic expressions for the short-period amplitude, which is used
to switch between osculating and mean elements. The mean elements
propagation and transformation models are tested in Sec. VI.
parameter θk is the angle between the two position vectors rk and r, as
given by krk − rk2
r2k  r2 − 2rk r cos θk.
A simplified expression of the solar radiation acceleration
commonly used for numerical simulations is adopted as given by
Eq. (7) [22]:
Rsp
−CR A∕mP0 xs x  ys y  zs z (7)

II. Preliminaries where CR means the radiation pressure coefficient, A∕m is the
A GEO has a near-zero inclination i and eccentricity e, and so the satellite’s area-to-mass ratio, and coefficient P0
4.56e-6 N∕m2 is
right ascension of the ascending node Ω and the argument of the the solar radiation pressure in the neighborhood of the Earth. Note
perigee ω are not conveniently defined. Here only semimajor axis, that the solar radiation pressure is eliminated when Earth shadow
mean longitude, and eccentricity vector are concerned. A set of occurs. The time of Earth shadow is easily predetermined.
nonsingular orbital elements [21] is used here to avoid singularity
issues. The variables ey
e sinω  Ω and ex
e cosω  Ω,
which relate to the change of the eccentricity magnitude and rotation
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

of the line of apsides, are introduced. Based on the fact that GEO III. Propagation of Osculating Elements
satellites have near-zero inclination and eccentricity, derivatives of In this section, the semi-analytical astrodynamical models used for
the semimajor axis a, mean longitude l, and eccentricities ex and ey the propagation of the osculating elements will be discussed,
can be reduced to the form given by Eqs. (1–4): including Earth’s aspherical gravity, third-body gravity, as well as
solar pressure.
da 2 ∂R

(1)
dt na ∂l A. Semimajor Axis
According to Eqs. (1) and (5) the rate of change of the semimajor
dl 2 ∂R axis caused by Earth’s gravity is given by Eq. (8):

− (2)
dt na ∂a
 
da p




2 μ−6J22 r2e a−5∕2 sin2l − l22 
dey 1 ∂R dt E

2 (3)
dt na ∂ex  3∕2J31 r3e a−7∕2 sinl − l31  − 45J33 r3e a−7∕2 sin3l − l33 
15J 42 r4e a−9∕2 sin2l − l42  − 420J44 r4e a−9∕2 sin4l − l44 
dex 1 ∂R

− 2 (4) (8)
dt na ∂ey
p











where R is disturbing function, n
μ∕a3 is the mean motion, and The third-body gravity disturbing function given by Eq. (6)
μ is the Earth’s gravitational constant. Also, l
Ω  ω  M − Θ
contributes to the variation in the semimajor axis according to
λ − Θ is mean longitude, where Θ is the Greenwich sidereal angle. Eq. (9):
The disturbing function R is the sum of three main disturbing
functions: RE , Rls , and Rsp , resulting from the perturbations due to   s





da a3 μk ∂cos θk 
the nonspherical Earth gravity, the lunisolar attraction, and the solar
2 1  a∕rk 2
radiation pressure, respectively. Without loss of generality we dt ls μ r2k ∂l
consider the gravity field up to degree and order 4 as shown by Eq. (5) − 2a∕rk cos θk −3∕2 − 1 (9)
[14]:

μ 1 We here neglect the influences of small eccentricity and inclination
RE
− J2 re ∕r2  3J22 re ∕r2 cos2l − l22  on cos θk , thus ∂cos θk ∕∂l is given by ∂cos θk ∕∂l

r 2
−xk sin λ  yk cos λ, where λ is defined by λ
l  Θ.
3
− J31 re ∕r2 cosl − l31   15J33 re ∕r3 cos3l − l33  The solar pressure disturbing function given by Eq. (7) contributes
2 to the rate of change of the semimajor axis as shown by Eq. (10):
3 15
 J 4 re ∕r4 − J42 re ∕r4 cos2l − l42 
8 2   s





 105J44 re ∕r4 cos4l − l44  (5) da a3

−2 C A∕mP0 −xk sin λ  yk cos λ (10)
dt sp μ R
where r is the distance to the satellite in Earth-centered J2000 frame,
re is the Earth’s equatorial radius, and l22 , l31 , l33 , l42 , and l44 With the assumption of small eccentricity and inclination, the
represent the coefficients for the gravitational model that can be position vector becomes r
 a cos λ a sin λ 0 T .
found in Ref. [14]. Therefore, the semimajor axis variation is given by Eq. (11):
The disturbing function resulting from the third-body
perturbations can be given in Earth-centered coordinates as shown      
in Eq. (6) [14]: da da da da

  (11)
dt dt E dt ls dt sp
Rls
μk 1∕krk − rk − r∕r2k cos θk  (6)

where subscript k
s, m denote the Sun and the Moon, respectively.

The parameter μk is the gravitational constant of the perturbing body.
The parameters rk
rk  xk yk zk  and r
r x y z  stand for B. Mean Longitude
the position vectors of the perturbing body and the satellite, The rate of change of the mean longitude caused by Earth’s gravity
respectively. rk is directly obtained from JPL DE405 ephemeris. The is given by Eq. (12):
 2134 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES

  ∂r
dl p



−a sin λ (21)

−2 μ3∕2J2 r2e a−7∕2 − 9J22 r2e a−7∕2 cos2l − l22  ∂ey
dt E
6J31 r3e a−9∕2 cosl − l31 −60J33 r3e a−9∕2 cos3l − l33 
∂r cos θk 
−15∕8J4 r4e a−11∕2  75∕2J42 r4e a−11∕2 cos2l − l42 
axk −3  cos2λ  yk sin2λ∕2 (22)
∂ex
−525J44 r4e a−11∕2 cos4l − l44 
(12) ∂r cos θk 

axk sin2λ − yk 3  cos2λ∕2 (23)
The third-body gravity disturbing function contributes to the rate ∂ey
of change of mean longitude as given by Eq. (13):
It is worth noting that the small values of eccentricity cannot be
  r


ignored in cos θk when considering eccentricity variation, and so the
dl a

−2 μ r2  a2 − 2rk a cos θk −3∕2 rk cos θk − a expression for cos θk is different from that in Eq. (9). In contrast,
dt ls μ k k when only phasing variation is considered, the terms involving
− cos θk ∕r2k  (13) eccentricity are too small and thus can be neglected. Using Eq. (19),
we have ∂cos θk ∕∂l
xk − sin λ − ex sin2λ  ey cos2λ
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

The solar radiation pressure does not influence the rate of change yk cos λ  ex cos2λ  ey sin2λ, which reduces to
of the mean longitude because ∂RP ∕∂a
0, which therefore ∂cos θk ∕∂l
−xk sin λ  yk cos λ due to the small values of
gives dl∕dtsp
0. eccentricity. This expression is in agreement with the earlier
Finally, because the satellite’s mean rotating rate may be different derivations.
from Earth’s rotating rate, one has Eq. (14): One also gets the variations in eccentricity that result from the solar
pressure perturbation given by Eqs. (24) and (25):
   
dl dl dl   r




n − ωe   (14) dey a A 3 1 1
dt dt E dt ls
− CR P0 − xs  xs cos2λ  ys sin2λ
dt sp μ m 2 2 2
where ωe is the Earth’s mean rotating angular velocity. (24)

C. Eccentricity   r



dex a A 3 1 1
As Earth’s aspherical perturbation does not provide significant
CR P0 − ys  xs sin2λ − ys cos2λ
dt sp μ m 2 2 2
influence on the variation in eccentricity, only J2 perturbation is
considered given by Eqs. (15) and (16): (25)
  Therefore, these result in Eqs. (26) and (27):
dey 3 p




− J 2 μr2e a−7∕2 cos λ (15)
dt E 2      
dey dey dey dey

  (26)
dt dt E dt ls dt sp
 
dex 3 p


     

J2 μr2e a−7∕2 sin λ (16) dex dex dex dex
dt E 2
  (27)
dt dt E dt ls dt sp
The third-body perturbation contributes to the variation in
eccentricity according to Eqs. (17) and (18):
  s





 IV. Propagation of Mean Elements
dey 1

μk r2k  r2 − 2rk r cos θk −3∕2 To construct a model for the propagation of mean elements, the
dt ls μa secular perturbation and long-term perturbation should be separated
  
∂r cos θk  ∂r 1 ∂r cos θk  from the short-term perturbation. Note that these mean elements are
× rk −r − 2 (17) single-averaged values resulting from eliminating short-period
∂ex ∂ex rk ∂ex
variation. They therefore have no influence on the secular behavior,
and hence it is not necessary to separate the secular terms and long-
  s





 period terms in the current work. The mean values are used to
dex 1 establish the osculating elements as given by Eq. (28)

− μ r2  r2 − 2rk r cos θk −3∕2
dt ls μa k k
   (18)  
∂r cos θk  ∂r 1 ∂r cos θk  ds ds ds
× rk −r − 2
 (28)
∂ey ∂ey rk ∂ey dt dt dt short

r
a1 − ex cos λ − ey sin λ, and where s is the averaged variation of an orbit element s, which is
influenced by a disturbing function. ds∕dt
 represents the variation of
mean elements, which will be described in this section, and
ds∕dtshort would be useful for the switch between mean and
cos θk
xk cos λ − 3ex ∕2  ex cos2λ∕2  ey sin2λ∕2
osculating elements in the following section.
 yk sin λ − 3ey ∕2  ex sin2λ∕2 − ey cos2λ∕2 (19) We assume that the differential equations for mean elements can be
written as Eqs. (29–32):
     
∂r da da da da

−a cos λ (20)
  (29)
∂ex dt dt E dt ls dt sp
 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES 2135

       
dl dl dl dl dl x2k  y2k x2k  y2k

   (30) cos2 θk mean
, cos2 θk short
cos2 θk −
dt dt E dt ls dt sp dt K 2 2
(36)
     
de y de y dey de y Thus, lunar-solar gravity results in both a long-term effect and

  (31) short-term effect as given by Eqs. (37) and (38):
dt dt E dt ls dt sp
  r



dl a μk 3
     
−2 −1  x2k  y2k a∕rk
de x de x dex de x dt ls μ r2k 2

  (32)
dt dt E dt ls dt sp 3 35
 1 − 5x2k  y2k   x2k  y2k 2 a∕rk 3  (37)
2 8
where dl∕dt
 K is an additional term resulting from semimajor axis
variation rather than perturbations.   r



dl a μk

−2 3cos2 θk short a∕rk
A. Semimajor Axis dt ls,short μ r2k
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

It can be observed that there are no periodic terms in the right hand  −9 cos θk  15cos3 θk ∕2a∕rk 2  (38)
of Eq. (8), for instance, the radius r and mean longitude l of
geostationary orbits change quite slightly, and so the variation in the According to the analysis in Sec. III, the mean and short-period
semimajor axis resulting from Earth’s gravity has a linear trend variations resulting from the solar pressure are null. Moreover, the
without short-term variations and thus can be written as short-term oscillation of the semimajor axis Δa results in a short-term
da∕dt
 E
da∕dtE , da∕dtE,short
0. This should be expected, oscillation of the mean longitude with the same frequency. Therefore,
because the longitude acceleration can be considered to be constant the mean and short-term perturbations for the mean longitude are
depending on the longitude location [4], which means that the drift obtained from Eq. (39):
rate is almost a constant. A constant drift rate results in a linear trend
in the semimajor axis.     r





dl dl 3 μ
To approximate 1  a∕rk 2 − 2a∕rk cos θk −3∕2 − 1 precisely,
n − ωe ,
− Δa (39)
in particular for the Moon’s perturbation (i.e., k
m), Taylor dt K dt K,short 2 a5
expansions up to order three are taken into account in terms of a∕rk as
shown in Eq. (33):
C. Eccentricity
1  a∕rk 2 − 2a∕rk cos θk −3∕2 − 1
3a∕rk cos θk According to Eqs. (15) and (16) the Earth’s aspherical perturbation
p



is quite small because 3∕2J 2 μR2e a−7∕2 ≈ 2.7 × 10−7 , and so the
3 5
 −1  5cos2 θk a∕rk 2  −3 cos θk  7cos3 θk a∕rk 3 variation in eccentricity resulting from Earth’s gravity is
2 2 neglected here.
(33) By using Taylor expansions, one obtains Eqs. (40) and (41):

  s





Note that one-order Taylor expansion could be precise enough for de y 15 a5 μk
the computation of the Sun’s perturbation due to the very small value
x 4 − 5x2k − 5y2k 
of a∕rs . dt ls 16 μ r4k k
      (40)
Because of the influence of the term ∂cos θk ∕∂l
−xk sin λ  dey dey dey
yk cos λ in Eq. (9), only short-period perturbation arises from the
−
dt ls,short dt ls dt ls
lunar-solar attraction. Taking first-order Taylor expansions for Eq. (9)
as an example, one obtains Eq. (34):
  s





  r


de x 15 a5 μk
da a a2 2
− y 4 − 5x2k − 5y2k 

3 μ y − x2k  sin2λ  2xk yk cos2λ (34) 16 μ r4k k
dt ls μ k r3k k dt ls
     
dex dex dex
It can be seen that lunar-solar gravity results in a semidaily term
− (41)
dt ls,short dt ls dt ls
perturbation given by da∕dt
 ls
0 and da∕dtls,short
da∕dtls ,
and this fact also can be observed when using third-order Taylor
series approximation without needing the detailed expressions. from which it can be seen that both the short-period and long-period
Also, using Eq. (10) we get da∕dt perturbations result from the lunar and solar attractions. Also, the
 sp
0 and da∕dtsp,short

da∕dtsp . solar pressure contributes to the variation in eccentricity in both long-
period and short-period forms as given by Eqs. (42) and (43):
B. Mean Longitude   r



de y a A
3
Similar to that for the semimajor axis, Earth’s gravity results only
C P x
dt sp μ Rm 0 s
2
in a secular perturbation on the mean longitude as given by   r



dl∕dt
 E
dl∕dtE and dl∕dtE,short
0. dey 1 a A

− C P x cos2λ  ys sin2λ (42)
Through second-order Taylor expansions of Eq. (13) we get dt sp,short 2 μ Rm 0 s
Eq. (35):
  r



dl a μk

−2 −1  3cos2 θk a∕rk   r



dt ls μ r2k dex 3 a A

− C P y
 −9 cos θk  15cos3 θk ∕2a∕rk 2  (35) dt sp 2 μ Rm 0 s
  r



dex 1 a A
It can be observed that the odd powers of cos θk only provide a
C P x sin2λ − ys cos2λ (43)
short-term effect, and we have Eq. (36): dt sp,short 2 μ Rm 0 s
 2136 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES

Table 1 Perturbations analysis results

Perturbation sources Semimajor axis Mean longitude Eccentricity
Earth gravity Secular Secular Neglected
Lunar-solar attraction Short period Secular/short period Long period/short period
Solar radiation pressure Short period None Long period/short period

To have a full view of the characteristics of the perturbations, the Equation (46) is rewritten as follows by using dθk ∕dt
n − nk :
perturbation influences on elements of semimajor axis, mean s




Z
longitude, and eccentricity are summarized in Table 1. It is worth a3 μk
noting that some secular or long-period perturbations were ignored in Δals
−2 sin θk 1  a∕rk 2 − 2rk a cos θk −3∕2
recent literature [14]. For instance, the lunar-solar attraction for mean μ r2k
longitude and eccentricity was not considered, whereas these flaws − 1∕n − nk dθk − C (49)
are fixed in this work.
where nk
xk y_k − x_ k yk ∕x2k  y2k  means the Moon’s or the Sun’s
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

rotating angular velocity relative to the Earth. Note that the Moon’s
V. Transforming Mean and Osculating Elements rotation must be considered in order to maintain good accuracy,
whereas the Sun’s rotation rate relative to the Earth is so small that it
An analytical mean elements calculation scheme isolates the short-
can be neglected.
period terms Δs as defined by Eq. (44):
One obtains the ampl of semimajor axis given by Eq. (50) by using
the approximation given by Eq. (33):
s
s − Δs (44)
s





a3 μk 3
In the current work the amplitude is obtained using an indefinite Δals
−2 − a∕rk cos2 θk short
integral of the short-period terms associated with the removal of the μ r2k n − nk  2
nonperiodic part, that is, as given by Eq. (45):  3 cos θk − 5cos3 θk ∕2a∕rk 2
Z   5
Δs

ds
dt − C (45)  6cos2 θk short − 7cos4 θk short a∕rk 3  (50)
dt short 8

where cos2 θk becomes cos2 θk short by removing the nonperiodic

where the term C on the right-hand side implies that only the periodic terms part, as shown in Eq. (36); also, cos4 θk short
cos4 θk −
terms are taken into account when computing the amplitude. To 3∕8x2k  y2k 2 .
make clearer the meaning of the equation introduced above, a The amplitude of the semimajor axis resulting from solar pressure
simple example is given here: ∫ sin θk cos θk dθk − C
perturbation is given as follows by using Eq. (10):
−cos2 θk ∕2 − C
−cos2 θk short ∕2; therefore the nonperiodic part
q










Z
C is equal to −x2k  y2k ∕4 according to Eq. (36). It is worth noting
that the nonperiodic terms in the integral are not related to the Δasp
−2 a3 ∕μCR A∕mP0  −xk sin λ  yk cos λdt − C
amplitude arising from the short-period perturbations, and thus the
(51)
nonperiodic terms in the integral should be carefully separated and
then removed. In contrast, the common averaging technique
C is chosen zero, thus Eq. (51) reduces to
generally relies on the equation as given by s
1∕T∫ T0 s dT

1∕2π∫ 2π
0 s dM [19], where M is the mean anomaly, and T denotes
q











the orbital period. One could observe that the method presented by Δasp
−2 a3 ∕μCR A∕mP0 ∕ωe xk cos λ  yk sin λ (52)
Eq. (45) is different from the common averaging technique, which
computes a definite integral of the elements. To summarize, the total amplitude of the semimajor axis is

A. Semimajor Axis Δa
Δals  Δasp (53)

According to the analysis in Sec. IV, the short-period perturbations
resulting from the Earth’s gravity do not appear, and thus we have
B. Mean Longitude
ΔaE
0. The amplitude of the semimajor axis resulting from the
third-body attraction is described by Because Earth’s gravity does not contribute to short-period
perturbations of the mean longitude, the amplitude of the mean
Z   longitude resulting from Earth’s gravity becomes null, that
da
Δals
dt − C (46) is, ΔlE
0.
dt ls,short The short-period perturbation from the lunar-solar attraction
results in an amplitude for the mean longitude by using Eq. (38):
From Eq. (9) we get Eq. (47):
s





Z   Z r


1 a3 μk
da a ∂cos θk  Δlls
− y cos λ − xk sin λ
dt
2 μ a∕r2k 2 μ r3k n − nk  k
dt ls,short μ k ∂l
× 18a∕rk − 25x2k  y2k a∕rk − 6xk cos λ  yk sin λ
× 1  a∕rk 2 − 2a∕rk cos θk −3∕2 − 1dt (47)
−5x2k − y2k  cos2λa∕rk − 10xk yk sin2λa∕rk  (54)
where cos θk can be written as
Using Eq. (39)
cos θk
xk cosl  Θ  yk sinl  Θ
cosλ − λk  (48) Z r





3 μ
ΔlK
− Δals  Δasp dt − C (55)
and λk is defined by λk
arctanyk ∕xk . 2 a5
 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES 2137

s





where Δals and Δasp are given by Eqs. (50) and (52), respectively.
a3 μk
One obtains the expression of ΔlK as follows: Δey ls
sin λ − x2k sin3 λ  6xk yk cos λ
μ n − nk r3k
r





3 μ 1 − 2xk yk cos3 λ−3x2k sin λ  y2k sin3 λ
ΔlK
− A1 xs sin λ − ys cos λ
2 a5 n − ns 3
 a∕rk xk cos2λ − yk sin2λ (58)
1 4
 A x2 − y2k  sin2λ∕4 − xk yk sin2λ∕2 (56)
n − nk 2 k
p













p














where A1
−2 a3 ∕μCR A∕mP0 ∕ωe , A2
3 a5 ∕μ1∕ s





rk μk ∕n − nk .
3
a3 μk
Therefore the amplitude of the mean longitude is Δex ls
− − cos λ − x2k cos3 λ − 6xk yk sin λ
μ n − nk r3k

Δl
Δlls  ΔlK (57)  2xk yk sin3 λ3y2k cos λ  y2k cos3 λ

3
− a∕rk xk cos2λ  yk sin2λ (59)
4
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

C. Eccentricity We get the short-period amplitude of eccentricity resulting from

solar pressure perturbation as given by Eqs. (60) and (61) by using
According to the analysis in Sec. IV the lunar-solar attraction and
Eqs. (42) and (43):
solar pressure result in short-period perturbations for eccentricity. We
get the short-period amplitude of eccentricity resulting from lunar- r



1 a A 1
solar perturbation as given by Eqs. (58) and (59) by using Eqs. (40) Δey sp
− C P x sin2λ − ys cos2λ (60)
and (41) 4 μ Rm 0n s

104
4.217 5
Semimajor axis,km

MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP

3
1

,m
4.2165
-1
-3
4.216 -5
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
a) Semimajor axis a
10-3
146.4 5
Mean longitude,deg

MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP

,deg
146.2 0

146 -5
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
b) Mean longitude l
104 106
0 5
-0.5 MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP 4
-1 3
ey
ey

-1.5 2
-2 1
-2.5 0
-3 -1
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
c) Eccentricity ey

104 104
0 2
MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP
-1 0
ex
ex

-2 -2

-3 -4
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
d) Eccentricity ex
Fig. 1 Comparison between MEPP and HPOP (case 1). a) Semimajor axis a. b) Mean longitude l. c) Eccentricity ey . d) Eccentricity ex .
 2138 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES

r



1 a A 1
Δex sp
− C P x cos2λ  ys sin2λ (61) facilitate the comparison with the results we use the high precision
4 μ Rm 0n s orbit propagation (HPOP) method of STK that uses the same models.
In the following discussion, the resulting mean elements will
To summarize, the total amplitude of the eccentricity vector is be shown.
given by Eqs. (62) and (63):
A. Propagation of Mean Elements
Δey
Δey ls  Δey sp (62)
In Figs. 1 and 2 we can observe the osculating orbital elements over
28 days and the mean elements precise propagation (MEPP) method
Δex
Δex ls  Δex sp (63) presented in this Note. In the plots the legend “OSC” represents the
osculating elements generated using the method described in Sec. III.
The osculating semimajor axis has a total variation up to about 2 km.
The MEPP results agree very well with the averaged evolution of the
VI. Validation osculating results. Because the mean longitude does not vary
Tests of the above expressions start with osculating trajectories that significantly, as shown in Figs. 1b and 2b, this fact results in an almost
include perturbations from Earth’s nonspherical gravity, Moon and linear change in the average semimajor axis over the current time
Sun’s gravity, and solar radiation pressure. For the central body span. Results given by the other y axis stand for the difference
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

gravity all harmonics up to degree and order 4 are considered. The
osculating trajectories are generated with the initial conditions given
in the J2000 frame. Two illustrative scenarios are considered: a

42164.8 km and M
280.0 deg for case 1, whereas a

42.166.8 km and M
180.0 deg for case 2. The other orbital
elements and epoch are the same for both scenarios: e
0.0003,
i
0.09 deg, Ω
54.0 deg, ω
162.0 deg, and Epoch = March
12 2018 12:00:00 UTC. For both cases, the area-to-mass ratio is
A∕m
0.02. The radiation pressure coefficient is CR
1.5. To
between the OSC method and the HPOP method, denoted by the
legend “OSC-HPOP” in the plots. The comparison results show that
the osculating-elements model has good agreement with the HPOP of
STK. It is worth noting that the osculating-elements model and
HPOP cannot be exactly the same, as the osculating-elements model
uses a new system based on the geostationary assumptions.
Moreover, the change trend of mean longitude is visible in the
evolution of mean semimajor axis. This is because the mean value of
the geostationary semimajor axis is around 42,165.7 km [4,14],

10 4
4.217 5
Semimajor axis,km

MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP 3

1

,m
4.2165
-1
-3
4.216 -5
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
a) Semimajor axis a
10 -3
46.2 2
Mean longitude,deg

MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP , deg

46 0

45.8 -2
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
b) Mean longitude l
10 -6
10 -4
0.5 6
0 MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP 5
-0.5 4
-1 3
ey
ey

-1.5 2
-2 1
-2.5 0
-3 -1
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
c) Eccentricity ey
10 -6
10 -4
0 1
MEPP OSC OSC-HPOP
-1 0
ex
ex

-2 -1

-3 -2

-4 -3
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
d) Eccentricity ex
Fig. 2 Comparison between MEPP and HPOP (case 2). a) Semimajor axis a. b) Mean longitude l. c) Eccentricity ey . d) Eccentricity ex .
 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES 2139

which corresponds to a null drift rate of longitude. Thus, when the
mean semimajor axis grows above this critical value, an opposite
longitude drift arises, which has a sort of stabilizing effect.
A significant motivation for the use of the mean-elements method
is to increase the allowable propagation step size compared with
propagating the osculating elements. Propagation of the osculating
elements requires an integration step size of the order of 10 min based
on the conventional RKF7(8) integrator. However, if we remove the
short-period variations, we can propagate the remaining equations of
motion for mean elements, and the integration step size can be of the
order of 1 day. This fact demonstrates that the goal of efficient
propagation of the motion is achieved very well.
B. Converting Osculating to Mean Elements
Time series of the osculating and converted mean elements for 28
days are generated and are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. In the plots the
legend “MEAN” implies that short-period perturbations have been
subtracted from the osculating elements. It can be observed that the
mean semimajor axis has a variation only about 5 m (see Figs. 3b
and 4b), and the remaining variation of mean longitude almost tends to
disappear (see Figs. 3c and 4c). Thus, the mean elements of semimajor
axis and mean longitude in Figs. 3 and 4 look nearly identical to that in
Figs. 1 and 2. It is important noting that the variation of semimajor axis
would grow up to tens of meters without considering the Moon’s
rotating angular velocity relative to the Earth, as illustrated by Eq. (49).

10 4
4.2168
Semimajor axis,km

MEAN OSC
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

4.2166

4.2164

4.2162
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
a) Semimajor axis a
10 4
4.21665
Semimajor axis,km

4.2166
4.21655
10 4
4.2165 4.21658
4.21657
4.21645 4.21656
19.5 20.5 21.5 22.5
4.2164
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
b) Mean semimajor axis a

146.4
Mean longitude,deg

MEAN OSC

146.3

146.2

146.1
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
c) Mean longitude l
10 -4
0
MEAN OSC
-1
ey

-2

-3
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
d) Eccentricity ey

10 -4
-0.5
-1 MEAN OSC

-1.5
ex

-2
-2.5
-3
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
e) Eccentricity ex
Fig. 3 Transforming mean elements from osculating elements (case 1). a) Semimajor axis a. b) Mean Semimajor axis a. c) Mean longitude l.
d) Eccentricity ey . e) Eccentricity ex .
 2140 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9: ENGINEERING NOTES

10 4
4.217

Semimajor axis,km
MEAN OSC
4.2168

4.2166

4.2164

4.2162
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
a) Semimajor axis a
10 4
4.2168
Semimajor axis,km

4.2167
4.2166
10 4
4.2165
4.2165 4.21649
4.2164 4.21648
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654

20.5 21 21.5 22
4.2163
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
b) Mean semimajor axis a

46.15
Mean longitude,deg

MEAN OSC
46.1

46.05

46

45.95
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
c) Mean longitude l
10 -4
1
MEAN OSC
0
ey

-1

-2

-3
0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
d) Eccentricity ey
10 -4
-1
MEAN OSC

-2
ex

-3

0 7 14 21 28
Time,day
e) Eccentricity ex
Fig. 4 Transforming mean elements from osculating elements (case 2). a) Semimajor axis a. b) Mean Semimajor axis a. c) Mean longitude l.
d) Eccentricity ey . e) Eccentricity ex .

In Figs. 3d, 3e, 4d, and 4e we can see the osculating and mean osculating results agree very well with the conversion from the
eccentricities. After removing the short-period perturbations averaged evolution of the MEPP to the osculating results. The
resulting from the third-body attraction and solar pressure, the comparison results at the end time are given by Tables 2 and 3,
remaining variation in mean eccentricity is of order 1e-6. Also, the corresponding to case 1 and case 2, respectively.

Table 2 Comparison between mean-to-osculating elements and Table 3 Comparison between mean-to-osculating elements and
osculating elements (case 1) osculating elements (case 2)
Propagation method a, km l, deg ey ex Propagation method a, km l, deg ey ex
MEPP 42,166.2609 146.3463 −0.5651e-4 −2.1147e-4 MEPP 42,164.0064 46.1038 −0.1158e-4 −2.5630e-4
Mean to osculating 42,166.6457 146.3458 −0.3411e-4 −2.5000e-4 Mean to osculating 42,163.5589 46.1047 0.0374e-4 −2.5681e-4
Osculating 42,166.6450 146.3461 −0.3383e-4 −2.4991e-4 Osculating 42,163.5600 46.1051 0.0447e-4 −2.5733e-4
 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9:
104
4.217
Semimajor axis,km
4.2165
4.216
4.2155
4.215
4.2145
0 50 100
Fig. 5 Transforming mean semimajor axis from osculating semimajor axis in 1-year timescale (case 2).
Theoretically, when converting from osculating elements to mean
elements, it is preferred to use mean elements that is unknown as
input for computing the short-period amplitude so that the iteration
process could be required when using known osculating elements as
input; however, because mean and osculating values are close to each
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654
other, numerical tests show that different input initial conditions do
not make any significant change in the conversion results, and so the
iteration process in fact is not needed in this work.
C. Discussion
This Note introduces a new differential system in order to
efficiently propagate and transform the orbital elements in the
perturbed geostationary regime. The new system contains the
essential features of the initial system, but it is more efficient to
simulate numerically. As a matter of fact, the new system is effective
particularly in the geostationary regime. Because of the effect of the
equilibrium points in GEO resulting from the perturbations, the GEO
is somehow stable even for long propagation times, and so the
geostationary assumptions (orbital period close to a sidereal day,
near-zero eccentricity, and inclination) are satisfied with sufficient
accuracy.
A numerical test for a 1-year propagation time is presented
particularly for scenario 2. Figures 5 and 6, respectively, show the
evolution of semimajor axis and eccentricity. It can be seen that
semimajor axis varies around its normal value, and eccentricity does
not diverge from zero. Also, 1 year is almost the period of eccentricity
evolution due to the dominating role of solar-pressure perturbation,
as shown by Fig. 6. Therefore, the authors have confidence (even
though not the certainty) that the method is applicable to a larger
timescale simulation as long as the orbit is near geostationary.
Actually, the mean elements model was developed for the precise
maneuver planning of station keeping/acquisition. In this respect, the
28-day timescale is rather enough. On the other hand, probably only
the secular terms (rather than secular and long-period terms together)
deserve consideration for a larger timescale (years or decades).
10 -4
4
MEAN OSC
2 the short-period terms were separated from long-period and secular
0 terms, the amplitude of each element is obtained and used for the
End
ey
Start
-2
-4
-6
-10 -8 -6 -4
ex
10
Fig. 6 Transforming mean eccentricity from osculating eccentricity in
1-year timescale (case 2).
ENGINEERING NOTES 2141
MEAN OSC
150 200 250 300 350 400
Time,day
The existing technique of permitted access probably is the SGP4
model (http://www.centerforspace.com/downloads/), and so a
comparison is especially relevant. Although there is no certainty
that the SGP4 theory has no value in GEO, one finds that the SGP4
performs inferiorly to that in LEO cases. This fact is mainly
demonstrated in two aspects: 1) the generating osculating semimajor
axis almost has no short-period oscillation, and this fact may imply
that the model cannot describe the actual position of GEO satellites;
2) the generating osculating eccentricity has no long-period variation,
and due to that the solar radiation pressure is not taken into
consideration in this model. Besides, an alternative state-of-the-art
method for osculating/mean elements conversion is developed by Lin
Liu from Nanjing University [23]; however, the remaining variation
in the mean semimajor axis is normally about 10 m according to the
internal documents. Moreover, the osculating/mean elements
conversion method in this Note is fully analytical and of significant
advantage over Liu’s theory in computation efficiency; the average
CPU time for single point conversion is 1.562e-5 s vs.0.145 s. This
computation process is executed on a desktop personal computer
with an i7 CPU at 3.2 GHz, and Microsoft Visual C++ 2015 is used.
An improvement of four orders of magnitude in CPU time (while
keeping the superiority of conversion accuracy) is found.
Because the current work is based on a simplified form of the
Lagrange planetary equations, which are obtained in case of low
eccentricity and inclination, when the eccentricity and inclination
grow beyond some upper limits, the theory developed in this work
would become inaccurate. Relative simulations have been performed
to highlight this fact, and then it is found that the increased
eccentricity and inclination, respectively, have the greatest impact on
the mean elements of eccentricity and mean longitude. In the
concrete, noticeable divergence of the mean eccentricity arises when
the initial eccentricity is increased to 0.001, and 2-deg inclination
makes the mean motion of the mean longitude start to diverge from
the accurate one.
VII. Conclusions
An algorithm for converting between osculating and mean orbit
elements for geostationary satellites has been developed, and the
expressions are provided in this Note. Through perturbation analysis,
terms, thus obtaining the equations to propagate the osculating and
mean elements. Through an indefinite integration of short-period
conversion. The conversion method does not use any iteration
procedure. It is shown that the Moon’s rotating angular velocity
relative to the Earth needs to be considered to improve the
transformation accuracy. Numerical tests show that the variations of
the mean semimajor axis and eccentricity of geostationary orbits
reduce to 5 m and 1e-6, respectively, and this method is also
applicable to inclination through a similar implementation.
Acknowledgments
-2
-4 This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 11702330). We thank Lorenzo Casalino
for his useful suggestions.
 2142 J. GUIDANCE, VOL. 42, NO. 9:
References
[1] Schaub, H., Vadali, S. R., Junkins, J. L., and Alfriend, K. T., “Spacecraft
Formation Flying Control Using Mean Orbit Elements,” Journal of
Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2000, pp. 69–87.
[2] Gurfil, P., “Analysis of J2 Perturbed Motion Using Mean Non-
Osculating Orbital Elements,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Astronomy, Vol. 90, Nos. 3–4, 2004, pp. 289–306.
doi:10.1007/s10569-004-0890-x
[3] Ely, T. A., “Mean Element Propagations Using Numerical Averaging,”
The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2014,
pp. 275–304.
doi:10.1007/s40295-014-0020-2
[4] Soop, E. M., Handbook of Geostationary Orbits, Kluwer Academic
Publ., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994, Chap. 3.
[5] Brouwer, D., “Solution of the Problem of Artificial Satellite
Theory Without Drag,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1274,
1959, pp. 378–396.
doi:10.1086/107958
Downloaded by National University of Defense Technology on October 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.G003654
[6] Kozai, Y., “The Motion of a Close Earth Satellite,” The Astronomical
Journal, Vol. 64, Nov. 1959, pp. 367–377.
doi:10.1086/107957
[7] Danielson, D. A., Sagovac, C. P., Neta, B., and Early, L. W.,
“Semianalytic Satellite Theory,” Naval Postgraduate School, NPS MA-
95-002, Monterey, CA, 1995.
[8] Zeis, E., and Cefola, P., “Computerized Algebraic Utilities for the
Construction of Nonsingular Satellite Theories,” Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1980, pp. 48–54.
doi:10.2514/3.55946
[9] Gao, Y., “Low-Thrust Nonlinear Guidance by Tracking Mean Orbital
Elements,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 4,
2008, pp. 1103–1110.
doi:10.2514/1.31256
[10] Guinn, J. R., “Periodic Gravitational Perturbations for Conversion
Between Osculating and Mean Orbit Elements,” AAS/AIAA
Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, AAS Paper 91-430, Springfield,
VA, 1991.
[11] Spiridonova, S., Kirschner, M., and Hugentobler, U., “Precise Mean
Orbital Elements Determination for Leo Monitoring and Maintenance,”
International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, Johns Hopkins
Univ. Applied Physics Lab., Laurel, MD, May 2014.
ENGINEERING NOTES
[12] Kaula, W. M., Theory of Satellite Geodesy: Applications of Satellites to
Geodesy, Blaisdell Publishing Company, Waltham, MA, 2013, Chap. 3.
[13] Ely, T. A., “Transforming Mean and Osculating Elements Using
Numerical Methods,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences,
Vol. 62, No. 1, 2015, pp. 21–43.
doi:10.1007/s40295-015-0036-2
[14] Li, H., Geostationary Satellites Collocation, Springer, Heidelberg,
2014, Chap. 5.
[15] Kaula, W. M., “Development of the Lunar and Solar Disturbing
Functions for a Close Satellite,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 67,
No. 5, 1962, pp. 300–303.
doi:10.1086/108729
[16] Celletti, A., Gales, C., Pucacco, G., and Rosengren, A. J., “Analytical
Development of the Lunisolar Disturbing Function and the Critical
Inclination Secular Resonance,” Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
Astronomy, Vol. 127, No. 3, 2017, pp. 259–283.
doi:10.1007/s10569-016-9726-8
[17] Chao, C. C., Applied Orbit Perturbation and Maintenance, AIAA &
The Aerospace Corp., Reston, VA, 2005, pp. 59–64.
[18] Hoots, F. R., Schumacher, P. W., Jr., and Glover, R. A., “History of
Analytical Orbit Modeling in the U.S. Space Surveillance System,”
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004,
pp. 174–185.
doi:10.2514/1.9161
[19] Gurfil, P., and Seidelmann, P. K., Celestial Mechanics and
Astrodynamics: Theory and Practice, Springer, Berlin, 2016, Chap. 13.
[20] Zhong, W., and Gurfil, P., “Mean Orbital Elements Estimation for
Autonomous Satellite Guidance and Orbit Control,” Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2013, pp. 1624–1641.
doi:10.2514/1.60701
[21] Zhao, S. G., Gurfil, P., and Zhang, J. R., “Optimal Servicing of
Geostationary Satellites Considering Earth’s Triaxiality and Lunisolar
Effects,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 39, No. 10,
2015, pp. 2219–2231.
doi:10.2514/1.G001424
[22] Montenbruck, O., and Gill, E., Satellite Orbits—Models, Methods, and
Applications, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 77–79.
[23] Liu, L., and Tang, J., Satellite Orbit Theory and Application (in
Chinese), Publishing House of Electronics Industry, Beijing, 2015,
pp. 117–258.