See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312252561

Satellite formation keeping using differential lift and drag under J2

perturbation

Article in Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology · January 2017

DOI: 10.1108/AEAT-06-2015-0168

CITATIONS READS

18 672

5 authors, including:

Mingxuan Song Jihe Wang

University of Nottingham Ningbo China Sun Yat-Sen University
2 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 608 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Spacecraft Control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jihe Wang on 13 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Satellite formation keeping using differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation
Xiaowei Shao Mingxuan Song Jihe Wang Dexin Zhang Junli Chen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Xiaowei Shao Mingxuan Song Jihe Wang Dexin Zhang Junli Chen , (2017),"Satellite formation keeping using differential lift and
drag under J2 perturbation ", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 89 Iss 1 pp. 11 - 19
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-06-2015-0168
Downloaded on: 04 January 2017, At: 16:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:367394 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Satellite formation keeping using differential
lift and drag under J2 perturbation
Xiaowei Shao, Mingxuan Song, Jihe Wang, Dexin Zhang and Junli Chen
Distributed Spacecraft System Technology Laboratory, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a method to achieve small satellite formation keeping operations by using the differential lift
and drag to control the drift caused by J2 perturbation in circular or near-circular low earth orbits (LEOs).
Design/methodology/approach – Each spacecraft is equipped with five large flat plates, which can be controlled to generate differential
accelerations. The aerodynamic lift and drag acting on a flat plate is calculated by the kinetic theory. To maintain the formation within tracking error
bounds in the presence of J2 perturbation, a nonlinear Lyapunov-based feedback control law is designed.
Findings – Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method is efficient for the satellite formation keeping and better accuracy advantage
in comparison with classical approaches via the fixed maximum differential aerodynamic acceleration.
Research limitations/implications – Because the aerodynamic force will reduce drastically as the orbital altitude increases, the formation keeping
control strategy for small satellites presented in this paper should be limited to the scenarios when satellites are in LEO.
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

Practical implications – The formation keeping control method in this paper can be applied to solve satellite formation keeping problem for small
satellites in LEO.
Originality/value – This paper proposes a Lyapunov control strategy for satellite formation keeping considering both lift and drag forces, and
simulation results show better performance with high accuracy under J2 perturbation.
Keywords J2 perturbation, Feedback control law, Differential aerodynamics force, Formation keeping, Relative motion
Paper type Research paper

Nomenclature x-axis, along-track direction is y y-axis,

cross-track direction is z z-axis.
LEO ⫽ Low earth orbit ax, ay, az ⫽ Differential acceleration in x-, y-, z z-axises
CW ⫽ Clohessy – Wiltshire msat ⫽ Satellite weight
p ⫽ Pressure Nn ⫽ Number of plates
␶ ⫽ Shearing force kdiff, n ⫽ Differential coefficient
␳gas ⫽ Atmospheric density An ⫽ Area of the aerodynamic plate
Vsat ⫽ Velocity of the satellite relative to the ␳d共t兲, ␳˙ d共t兲 ⫽ Desired relative position and velocity of
atmosphere deputy satellite
S ⫽ Molecular speed ratio ␳n共t兲, ␳˙ n共t兲 ⫽ Controlled relative position and velocity of
R ⫽ Universal gas constant deputy satellite
␴1 ⫽ Normal momentum accommodation ⌬␳, ⌬␳˙ ⫽ Relative position and velocity tracking errors
coefficients d ⫽ Disturbance force
␴ ⫽ Tangential momentum accommodation u ⫽ Desired control accelerations
coefficients ␻ ⫽ Orbital angular velocity of the chief satellite.
␪ ⫽ Angle between the incident flow and the Kr, Kv ⫽ Feedback gain matrices
aerodynamic plate
Tt ⫽ Temperature of gas
Ts ⫽ Temperature of surface Introduction
Fl ⫽ Lift force
New technologies have recently proposed to overcome
Fd ⫽ Drag force
potential risk by replacing large complicated satellites with
LVLH ⫽ Local-vertical-local-horizontal frame (also
several smaller satellites (Sabol et al., 2001; Jihe et al., 2012a,
called as RTN frame), radial direction is x
2012b). The design of propulsion system is becoming a
particular challenge that conforms to the stringent mass,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm
The authors are grateful for the support provided for this study by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11502142).
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
89/1 (2017) 11–19 Received 25 June 2015
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] Revised 6 September 2015
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-06-2015-0168] Accepted 6 September 2015

11
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation
Xiaowei Shao et al.
volume and power budgets characteristic, especially for small
satellites (Mueller et al., 2002). However, the application of
the differential aerodynamic forces-based methodologies
allows enhancing the performance in terms of power expended
during the formation (Leonard et al., 1989). Moreover, large
Area-to-Mass ratios are not required. For example, the mass
of the spacecraft is 10 kg and the area of the flat plate is 1 m2
(Horsley et al., 2013). Techniques that apply aerodynamic lift
and drag depend on small satellites with circular or elliptical
orbits in the low earth orbit (LEO). As such, the atmospheric
density and the speed of the satellite are great enough to
generate sufficient aerodynamic lift and drag for performing
orbital maneuvers, such as formation keeping. In De Ruiter
(2011) and Lambert et al. (2011), the viability over
autonomous formation flight experiment with differential
aerodynamic drag control was conducted for JC2Sat-FF.
To accomplish formation keeping, Vassar and Sherwood
(1985) have put forward the classical actuators of chemical
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)
thrusters which provide sufficient power to control the
formation. In Leonard et al. (1989), a control method by using
differential aerodynamic drag was first developed for the
formation keeping of small LEO satellites. This method
assumed that the spacecraft was equipped with several large
flat plates and used Clohessy–Wiltshire (CW) linear equation.
In another related work (Kumar and Ng, 2008), a bang-bang
controller was synthesized for maintaining desired formation,
but they only considered drag force. Moreover, Jigang and
Yulin (2006) developed another control method to maintain
co-plane formation by using differential drag, as the lift was
missing. Kumar et al. (2011) analyzed the feasibility by using
aerodynamic drag force as a mean to control satellite
formation, and again, only the drag force is considered, which
leads to in-plane motion control limitation. Reid and Misra
(2011) investigated the formation flying keeping problem in
the presence of atmospheric drag based on modified
Schweighart and Sedwick (2002) equation, and they also
extended their method to include reference orbits of small
eccentricity, and again, only the drag force is considered.
Pérez and Bevilacqua (2013a, 2013b) presented an adaptive
Lyapunov control strategy for spacecraft maneuvers using
atmospheric differential drag, and again they did not consider
lift. Horsley et al. (2013) extended this technique of formation
control in the relative motion of in-plane and out-of-plane by
using both aerodynamic lift and drag. However, Horsley only
studied using aerodynamic lift and drag to solve satellite
rendezvous problem; until now, there is no research regarding
using both aerodynamic lift and drag to keep satellite
formation.
The classical control strategy is to adopt a rigid manner
by fixing the large plates to generate maximum differential
acceleration, and a limit cycle control law is used for the
satellite formation keeping problem (Leonard et al., 1989).
Leonard et al. (1989) proposed that the control scheme
would restart once the deputy satellite had drifted 0.3048 m
away from the origin. Therefore, the weakness of the
classical method is readily apparent that it only confines the
relative position to a small area. Thus, a modified
continuous control strategy with better accuracy should be
proposed.
12
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19
Our study mainly investigates the satellite formation
keeping problem by using differential accelerations generated
by aerodynamic lift and drag under the J2 perturbation. The
chief satellite considered is in a circular or near-circular LEOs.
The main contributions are listed as follows: a Lyapunov
control strategy is proposed for satellite formation keeping
considering both differential lift and drag forces, and
especially, first, the differential lift force is used to maintain the
relative motion, and simulation results show that better
performance can be achieved by using differential lift force.
Second, the key factors of the formation configuration and
orbital altitude are analyzed to show the application field of
the proposed method.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the aerodynamic
model and the configuration of actuators are introduced.
Second, the control system of the proposed method is
described. Third, numerical simulation is presented. Finally,
the conclusions and future work are provided.
Aerodynamic modeling
The aerodynamic forces acting on a large flat plate can be
decomposed into lift and drag. The drag acts in the opposite
direction paralleling relative to the atmosphere velocity, and
the lift is perpendicular to the direction of drag. Generally, the
influence of lift in satellite formation keeping can be negligible
because the drag is much larger. However, the formation of
small satellites with stabilized altitudes is affected by a steady
and periodic lift by changing the orientation of the large
aerodynamic plates (Moore, 1985). In this paper, we will
consider both aerodynamic lift and drag forces, and the
atmospheric density and pressure are both considered as
constants for simplicity.
Aerodynamic model
When travelling through the rarefied atmosphere, the
aerodynamic force encountered on the surface of a satellite is
a result of the momentum flux difference between the incident
and emitted particles. The velocity and direction of the
emitted particles are influenced by the interaction between the
material of spacecraft surface and the atmospheric particles.
To calculate the aerodynamic lift and drag, two cases are
considered based on the kinetic theory of gases. The specular
reflection is defined that the particles leave at the same speed,
but with an inverted normal velocity. The diffuse reflection
means the particles drifting away from the surface at an
irregular velocity with respect to the atmosphere. In each kind
of the situations, the aerodynamic force can be decomposed
into the pressure and the shearing force, while the former is
perpendicular to the surface, and the latter is parallel to the
surface. The forces acting on a flat plate in the free molecular
flow can be expressed as (Tsien, 1946):
再 冎
␳gasV sat
2 冉 2 ⫺ ␴2
兹␲
S sin ␪ ⫹
␴2
2 冪冊
Tt ⫺(Ssin ␪)2
Ts
e ⫹
冋 册
p⫽
共 兲 ⫹ 2 冪␲ T
2S2 1 ␴2 Tt
共2 ⫺ ␴2兲 S2sin2␪ ⫹ 共S sin ␪兲 关1 ⫹ erf共S sin ␪兲兴
2 s
⫺ ␴1␳gasVsat
2
cos ␪
␶⫽ 兵e⫺共S sin ␪兲2 ⫹ 兹␲共S sin ␪兲关1 ⫹ erf共S sin ␪兲兴其
2兹␲S
(1)
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation
Xiaowei Shao et al.
where erf共S sin ␪兲 ⫽ 2 兰0Ssin ␪ exp共⫺x2兲dx/兹␲, S⫽Vsat/
2RTt. p and ␶ are the pressure and the shearing force,
respectively. ␳gas is the atmospheric density, Vsat is the velocity
of the satellite relative to the atmosphere and S is the molecular
speed ratio. Here, we assume the atmosphere rotates with
the Earth; hence, the velocity of the atmosphere can be
assumed to zero, R refers to the universal gas constant, ␴1
and ␴ are the normal and tangential momentum
accommodation coefficients. Generally, they are both equal
to 0.8⬃1.0, ␪ is the angle between the incident flow and the
aerodynamic plate, and Tt and Ts are the temperatures of
gas and surface, respectively. For simplicity, if the thermal
conductivity is large enough, TT ⫽ TS is assumed.
The relationship of aerodynamic forces is shown in
Figure 1, and the aerodynamic lift and drag can be expressed by:
Fl ⫽ p cos ␪ ⫺ ␶ sin ␪
(2)
Fd ⫽ p sin ␪ ⫹ ␶ cos ␪
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)
where Fl refers to the lift, and Fd refers to the drag.
Configuration of actuators
A simple approach to generate differential accelerations between
the chief satellite and the deputy satellite will be introduced in
this section. It is necessary to arrange for the plate of the deputy
satellite to keep a certain orientation with respect to the plate of
the chief satellite at the same altitude. The
local-vertical-local-horizontal (LVLH) frame will be introduced.
The x-axis of LVLH points toward the Earth, the y-axis of LVLH
is along the orbital track and the z-axis of LVLH completes the
right hand orthogonal coordinate system.
To generate decoupled differential accelerations in three
directions of the LVLH frame and to ensure that each of the
accelerations can be controlled as required at the same time, each
spacecraft is assumed to include five aerodynamic plates (Figure
2, left panel). To describe the configuration of aerodynamic
plates intuitively, this paper divides them into three groups, a, b
and c, corresponding to the angles of ␪x, ␪y and ␪z shown in
Figure 2. They are defined as the angles between the plate and
the y-axis in classical LVLH coordinate system. The reason why
we consider to use five plates is that y direction only has small
torque generated by lift force if only one plate is used; however,
for x and z directions, the satellite should deploy pairs to
counteract the torque caused by the large drag force. For
simplicity, the configuration of actuators will generate small
torque to rotate the satellite during formation control, which can
be compensated by reaction wheel installed in satellite.
As shown in Figure 3(a), with changing the orientation of the
plate varying from ⫺45 to 45 degrees, for the reason that the
maximum lift-to-drag ratio for a plate can be obtained when the
angle is near 45 degrees (Shao et al., 2015), a positive or negative
differential acceleration ax in the x direction can be generated, as
the aerodynamic forces in the y direction is counteracted. In
Figure 1 The aerodynamic forces acting on a flat plate
τ V′ V The differential aerodynamic control system proposed in this
Fd
θ ␳d共t兲 ⫽ 关xd yd zd兴T and velocity ␳˙ d共t兲 ⫽ 关ẋd ẏd żd兴T of the deputy
V
θ satellite in the chief satellite orbit frame that the relative motion
Fl p
13
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19
Figure 2 Configurations of the aerodynamic plates and the
definitions of the angles
E
F
z z z
θx y y y
D θy θz
F x x x
E
(a) (b) (c)
Notes: (a) Configuration to generate differential aerodynamic
force in x-axis; (b) configuration to generate differential
aerodynamic force in z-axis; (c) configuration to generate
differential aerodynamic force in y-axis
Figure 3(b), to generate a positive relative acceleration ay in the y
direction, only the chief satellite plates will rotate with the range
of 0 to 45 degrees. The plates of the deputy satellite remain to be
parallel to the atmosphere velocity. For generating a negative
acceleration ⫺ ay, an opposite operation will be adopted. Note
that in this manner, the aerodynamic plates of operating satellite
have the same angle of attack but opposite orientation. In Figure
3(c), to generate the differential acceleration ⫺ az in the z
direction, each satellite has two plates with the same angle (⫺45
to 45 degrees), but the plates have an opposite orientation with
respect to the other satellite.
Thus, the differential accelerations can be expressed by:
ax ⫽ KxFl /msat
ay ⫽ KyFd /msat (3)
az ⫽ KzFl /msat
where Kn ⫽ Nnkdiff, n An, Fl and Fd refers to the aerodynamic
lift or drag computed by equation (2), n denotes the group
of the configurations and msat is the weight of the satellite.
For a certain group, Nn is the number of plates, kdiff,n is the
differential coefficient and An is the area of the aerodynamic
plate. For example, the weight of each satellite is 10 kg and
the orbital altitude is 400 km. The normal and tangential
momentum accommodation coefficients are chosen as
␴ ⫽ ␴⬘ ⫽ 0.8. The atmospheric parameters experienced by
spacecraft can be obtained from the 1976 US Standard
Atmosphere (Weast, 1969). The differential drag force is
considered much larger than lift force; hence, the kdiff, n and
An are selected to equalize the differential force generated
by different sets of plates along x, y and z directions. More
parameters about the actuators are given in Table I.
Accordingly, the differential aerodynamic forces in all three
directions can be computed, and the maximum vales are
ⱍaxⱍ ⫽ ⱍazⱍ ⬇ 9.17 ⫻ 10⫺6m/s2 and ⱍayⱍ ⬇ 1.11 ⫻ 10⫺5m/s2.
The problem formulation
paper is shown in Figure 4. Given a desired relative position,
is unperturbed, and the controlled relative position and velocity
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Xiaowei Shao et al. Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19

Figure 3 Differential aerodynamic accelerations resulting from various configurations, P denotes the positive differential acceleration and N
denotes the negative differential acceleration

P ķ ķ
P P
ķ
C D C D C D
z ĸ
ĸ ĸ
r r r
y r r f1c = ⎣⎡ − f1cz , − f1cy ⎦⎤ r f1c = ⎡⎣ − f1cz , − f1cy ⎤⎦ f1d = ⎡⎣ + f1dz , − f1dy ⎤⎦
f c = ⎣⎡ − f cx , − f cy ⎦⎤ f d = ⎣⎡ + f dx , − f dy ⎦⎤ r f d = ⎡⎣0dx , 0dy ⎤⎦ r r
f 2 c = ⎣⎡ + f 2 cz , − f 2 cy ⎦⎤ f 2 c = ⎡⎣ − f 2 cz , − f 2 cy ⎤⎦ f 2 d = ⎡⎣ + f 2 dz , − f1dy ⎤⎦
x +Δf x +Δf y +Δf z

N N
ķ N
ķ ķ
Gas Velocity
C D C D C D
C:the Chief ĸ
ĸ
ĸ
D:the Deputy r r r
r r r f1d = ⎣⎡ − f1dz , − f1dy ⎦⎤ f1c = ⎡⎣ + f1cz , − f1cy ⎤⎦ f1d = ⎡⎣ − f1dz , − f1dy ⎤⎦
f c = ⎣⎡ + f cx , − f cy ⎦⎤ f d = ⎣⎡ − f dx , − f dy ⎦⎤ f c = ⎣⎡0cx , 0cy ⎦⎤ r r r
f 2 d = ⎡⎣ + f 2 dz , − f 2 dy ⎤⎦ f 2 c = ⎡⎣ + f 2 cz , − f 2 cy ⎦⎤ f 2 d = ⎣⎡ − f 2 dz , − f1dy ⎦⎤

−Δf x −Δf y −Δf z

(a) (b) (c)

Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

Notes: (a) Configurations to generate differential aerodynamic force in x-axis;

(b) configurations to generate differential aerodynamic force in y-axis;
(c) configuration to generate differential aerodynamic force in z-axis

Table I Actuator parameters During numerical simulation, Gauss planetary equations

considering J2 perturbation are used to propagate the orbit of
Group Nn kdiff, n An共m2兲 Kactuator
each satellite in the formation, which is given by:
a 1 2 2 4
b 2 1 0.5 1 da 2
c 2 2 1 4 ⫽ 关Fre sin f ⫹ Ft共1 ⫹ ecos f 兲兴
dt n兹1 ⫺ e2
de 兹1 ⫺ e2
⫽ 关Frsin f ⫹ Ft共cos E ⫹ cos f兲兴
dt na
under J2 perturbation are ␳n共t兲 ⫽ 关xn yn zn兴T and ␳˙ n共t兲 ⫽ d⍀ r sin 共␻ ⫹ f兲
关ẋn ẏn żn兴T. The position error and the velocity error can be ⫽ Fn
dt na2兹1 ⫺ e2sin i
expressed as: di r cos 共␻ ⫹ f兲
⫽ Fn
dt na2兹1 ⫺ e2
⌬␳(t) ⫽ ␳d(t) ⫺ ␳n(t)

关 兴
(4) d␻ 兹1 ⫺ e2 2 ⫹ ecos f
⌬␳˙ (t) ⫽ ␳˙ d(t) ⫺ ␳˙ n(t) ⫽ ⫺Frcos f ⫹ Ft sin f ⫺ cos i
d⍀
dt nae 1 ⫹ ecos f dt
Assume that the actual control accelerations generated by the
actuators and the desired control accelerations which can be
dM
dt
⫽n⫺
1 ⫺ e2
nae
Fr
2er
p
r
⫺ cos f ⫹ Ft 1 ⫹ sin f
p关共 兲 共 兲 兴
obtained from the Lyapunov-based controller are virtually (5)
equal, u ⬇ a. To obtain the actual control accelerations, a set
of fitting formulae is proposed to obtain the control angles where:
based on the desired control accelerations. The performance
of the controller will be effected by the fitting formulae 3 uRe
2

accuracy. Additionally, the technique of real-time global Fr ⫽ ⫺ J2 4 关1 ⫺ 3 sin2i sin2共␻ ⫹ f兲兴

2 r
positioning system (GPS) navigation was used, and a splendid 2
3 uRe
accuracy of 1.5 mm and 5␮m/s in relative position and velocity Ft ⫽ ⫺ J2 4 sin2i sin2共␻ ⫹ f兲 (6)
2 r
had been achieved by using representative space hardware 2
3 uRe
(Leung and Montenbruck, 2005). Fn ⫽ ⫺ J2 4 sin2i sin 共␻ ⫹ f兲
2 r

Figure 4 Differential aerodynamic control system

After obtaining the absolute orbit of each satellite, the
fJ 2
differential approach and coordination transformation are
Actuators
ρd , ρ& d + &
Δ ρ ,Δ ρ Lyapunov-based u Fitting θ Aerodynamic a ρ, ρ& adopted to obtain the relative motion. Figure 5 shows a
Satellites
−
controller formulae plates summary of this approach that orbital elements of the chief
ρn , ρ&n
satellite and the deputy satellite are influenced by the
gravitational perturbation, J2 perturbation and actual control
Sensors, GPS relative navigation
accelerations, where EL2RV denotes transformation from

14
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Xiaowei Shao et al. Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19

Figure 5 Relative state simulation using orbital elements Lyapunov-based controller

The control Lyapunov function (Kristiansen and Nicklasson,
elec ele′c rc , vc 2009) can be presented by:
a, f J 2 EL2RV
− ρ, ρ&
AECI
LVLH 1 T 1
V共x兲 ⫽ ⌬␳ Kr⌬␳⫹ ⌬␳˙ T⌬␳˙ (10)
+ 2 2
a, f J 2 EL2RV
eled ele′d rd , vd
where Kr ⫽ KrT ⬎ 0 and x ⫽ 关⌬␳ ⌬␳˙ 兴T.
The differentiation of V共x兲 and insertion of equation (8)
orbit element to position velocity vectors, and elec is the orbit results in:
element of chief satellite.
To design the formation keeping controller, simple relative V̇共x兲 ⫽ ⌬␳˙ T[(A1 ⫹ Kr)⌬␳ ⫹ A2⌬␳˙ ⫹ d ⫹ u] (11)
motion equation with adequate accuracy is needed. Here, the
CW equations are selected to design the controller. The If the control force is designed as:
motion of the deputy satellite relative to the chief satellite is
expressed by the CW equations: u ⫽ ⫺(A1 ⫹ Kr)⌬␳ ⫺ (A2 ⫹ Kv)⌬␳˙ ⫺ d (12)

ẍ ⫺ 2␻ẏ ⫺ 3␻2x ⫽ dx ⫹ ux where Kv ⫽ KTv ⬎ 0, then, it can obtained from equation (11)
ÿ ⫹ 2␻ẋ ⫽ dy ⫹ uy (7) that:
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

z̈ ⫹ ␻2z ⫽ dz ⫹ uz
V̇共x兲 ⫽ ⫺⌬␳˙ TKv⌬␳˙ ⱕ 0 (13)
where d ⫽ 关dx, dy, dz兴 are disturbance force terms due to
T
As a result, one has:
external perturbation effects, u ⫽ 关ux, uy, uz兴T are desired
control accelerations and ␻ refers to the orbital angular V(0) ⫽ 0
velocity of the chief satellite. After defining the above dynamic V(x) ⬎ 0, ∀x ⫽ 0
system, it is then rewritten as (Varma and Kumar, 2012): (14)
V̇(x) ⬍ 0, ∀x ⫽ 0

冋⌬⌬␳␳˙¨ 册 ⫽ 冋A0 册冋⌬⌬␳␳˙ 册 ⫹ B(d ⫹ u)

lim V ⫽ ⬁
I3⫻3 㛳x㛳¡⬁
(8)
1 A2
It can be concluded that the equilibrium point 共⌬␳, ⌬␳˙ 兲 ⫽ (0,
where: 0) is uniformly globally asymptotically stable (Khalil, 2002).

A1 ⫽ 冋 3␻2 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 ⫺ ␻2
, A2 ⫽ 册 冋 0

0
2␻ 0
⫺2␻ 0 0 , B ⫽
0 0
册0
I3⫻3 冋 册
Fitting formulae
To obtain the actual control accelerations, it is desirable to
have an expression for the angles which could be used over the
entire range of differential accelerations generated by large
(9)
plates between the satellites. However, it will be unachievable
So, the problem we studied in this paper is formulated as: through the kinetic theory. Thus, an approach is presented in
design control law u to drive the relative states of equation (8) terms of a group of fitting formulae which matches the theory
to zero, as time t ¡ ⬁. in the free-molecular flow limits.
Because the orbital altitude is assumed to be 400 km, the
atmospheric parameters are constants, including the
The control system design atmospheric temperature, density, pressure, etc., and only
After formulating the satellite formation keeping problem by the angle of attack is taken into consideration for constituting
using both differential lift and drag force, in this section, the the formulae; the solutions to equation (3) exemplified by the
Lyapunov-based formation keeping controller and the data with the angles of the deputy satellite varying from 0 to 45
corresponding fitting formulae to establish the relationship degrees can be computed. Based on the general global
between generated aerodynamic forces and the required optimization method (Redondo et al., 2009), the fitting
rotating angles of plates are presented. formulae can be expressed by:

␪x ⫽ 再 3.99 ⫹ 6.47 ⫻ 105ax ⫹ 56.42兹ax ln ax ⫹ 1.08 ⫻ 104兹ax ⫺ 55.96/ln ax, ␪x

⫺5.64 ⫻ 10 ⫹ 7.89 ⫻ 10 ax ⫺ 1.98 ⫻ 10
2 7 5
兹ax ln ax ⫺ 2.34 ⫻ 10 兹ax ⫹ 1.11 ⫻ 10 /ax, ␪x
6 ⫺4
僆[0o, 15o]
僆(15o, 45o]
冎
␪y ⫽ 再 ⫺60.64 ⫹ 1.03 ⫻ 105ay ⫹ 8.84 ⫻ 103兹ay ln (ay) ⫹ 1.01 ⫻ 105兹ay ⫺ 1.19 ⫻ 103 /ln (ay), ␪y
⫺1.50 ⫻ 10 ⫹ 1.42 ⫻ 10 ay ⫺ 3.88 ⫻ 10
2 7 4
僆[0o, 15o]
兹ay ln (ay) ⫺ 4.33 ⫻ 10 兹ay ⫹ 4.79 ⫻ 10 /ay, ␪y 僆(15o, 45o]
5 ⫺5 冎
␪y ⫽ 再 ⫺3.99 ⫹ 6.47 ⫻ 105az ⫹ 56.42兹az ln az ⫹ 1.08 ⫻ 104兹az ⫺ 55.96/ln az, ␪z
⫺5.64 ⫻ 10 ⫹ 7.89 ⫻ 10 az ⫺ 1.98 ⫻ 10
2 7 5
兹az ln az ⫺ 2.34 ⫻ 10 兹az ⫹ 1.11 ⫻ 10 /az, ␪z
6 ⫺4
僆[0o, 15o]
僆(15o, 45o]
冎 (15)

15
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Xiaowei Shao et al. Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19

where ␪x, ␪y and ␪z are the angles of the chief satellite. ax, ay Table II Orbital elements of the chief satellite
and az are the control accelerations of the chief satellite. Parameter Units Value
To validate the fitting expression of differential
aerodynamic accelerations, results of the fitting formulae are a km 6778.137
compared with the experimental data obtained from the e 0
kinetic theory. The fitting formulae curve is predicting i deg 96.4522
complete symmetry to the origin that the differential w deg 90
accelerations will have the same value but opposite sign for ⍀ deg 0
case that the angle is negative. M deg 0
The errors caused by the fitting formulae and the actuators
are defined as eformula and eactuator, and they are presented by:
Table III Initial relative conditions
eformula ⫽ ⱍ (␪formula ⫺ ␪actual)/ ␪actual ⱍ x 共m兲 y 共m兲 z 共m兲 ẋ 共m/s兲 ẏ 共m/s兲 ż 共m/s兲
(16)
eactuator ⫽ ⱍ (␪actuator ⫺ ␪⬘actual)/ ␪⬘actual ⱍ
82.50 ⫺930.46 55.27 ⫺0.17 ⫺0.04 0.29
where ␪formula is the angle computed by the fitting formulae,
␪actuator is the desired control angle, ␪actual is the angle computed giving the initial state, the desired formation geometry can be
from the aerodynamic model and ␪⬘actual is the actual control
generated by using CW equations.
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

angle. The results of fitting formulae simulation are shown in

Figure 6 with the errors, eformula ⫽ 5 ⫻ 10⫺3. Thus, the fitting
formulae are in good agreement with the actual data. To
obtain a more accurate actual control force, the actuator
operation errors is assumed to be eactuator ⫽ 5 ⫻ 10⫺2 for
satellite formation keeping.
Simulation results
To illustrate the performance of the proposed control laws,
simulation results for the sample case of a pair of small
satellites are presented. Extensive tests have also been
conducted to analyze factors of formation configuration and
orbital altitude which could influence the method for
formation keeping mission. The feedback gain matrices in the
control law are chosen as Kr ⫽ 3 ⫻ 10⫺5I and Kv ⫽
2 ⫻ 10⫺2I. The orbital altitude of the satellites is 400 km. The
differential accelerations generated by aerodynamic plates are
presented in the section Aerodynamic modeling. The satellite
formation is composed of the chief satellite and the deputy
satellite, and Table II reports the initial orbital elements of the
chief satellite. The desired relative orbit is defined by giving
the initial relative position and velocity of deputy satellite with
respect to chief satellite in the LVLH frame in Table III. By
Uncontrolled formation
To analyze the relative motion drift caused by J2 perturbation,
numerical simulation is conducted. The resulting relative
position and velocity errors are shown in Figure 7, which are
obtained by comparing the values calculated in J2-perturbed
environment to them obtained by using ideal CW equations.
As expected, a secular relative drift is generated over three
orbits with no initial errors in position and velocity.
Controlled formation
To investigate the accuracy of the method, simulations are
also conducted with the GPS measurement errors and
actuator errors. Assume that the initial tracking errors are
⌬␳ ⫽ 关2, ⫺1, 5兴T m and ⌬␳˙ ⫽ 关⫺0.002, 0.004, 0.007兴T m/s;
here, the tracking errors are referring the differential relative
states between actual relative states and designed values,
which are determined by designed formation geometry.
Figure 8 illustrates the controlled relative motion between the
spacecraft in three orbital periods. The result shows that
within approximately half a period, the system is stabilized.
Through theoretical analysis, if only drag force
is considered, then out-of-plane relative motion is

Figure 6 Errors of the fitting formulae

–3 –3
x 10 x 10
7 1

0.9
6
0.8

5 0.7

0.6
4
0.5
3
0.4

2 0.3

0.2
1
0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
angle of attack in x or z direction (deg) angle of attack in y direction (deg)

16
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Xiaowei Shao et al. Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19

Figure 7 Drift of relative position and velocity under J2 maintained in centimeter accuracy according to Figure 8.
perturbation Therefore, the conclusion is that better formation keeping
performance is achieved by using lift force.
relative position error (m)

100
Figure 9 indicates the aerodynamic differential accelerations
0 generated by actuators, which are less than the limited values,
–100
ⱍaxⱍ ⫽ ⱍazⱍ ⬇ 9.17 ⫻ 10⫺6m/s2 and ⱍayⱍ ⬇ 1.11 ⫻ 10⫺5m/s2. It
X is shown that the chief satellite and the deputy satellite can
–200 Y change the orientations of the aerodynamic plates slowly in
Z
real time during the formation keeping control.
–300
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
orbit Analysis of key factors
relative velocity error (m/s)

0.02 To identify the application of the proposed method using

0
aerodynamic forces, two major factors, the formation
configuration and the orbital altitude, are analyzed,
–0.02
X respectively. Generally, the control method will become
–0.04 Y invalid when the J2-perturbed acceleration is larger than the
Z aerodynamic acceleration. Simulation results are analyzed by
–0.06 comparing the results between the acceleration generated by
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

orbit J2 perturbation and the maximum aerodynamic acceleration.

First, the case of a general circular orbit (GCO) (Alfriend
Figure 8 Controlled relative position and velocity in three directions et al., 2009) is considered to analyze the relationship between
the differential aerodynamic acceleration and the J2-perturbed
10
relative position error (m)

X
acceleration. Provided that the altitude is 400 km and the
Y spatial radius between the satellites varies from 1 to 2.5 km,
5
Z the maximum differential forces generated by actuators will be
a constant due to the orbital altitude is invariant. Figure 10
0
shows that when the spatial radius increases to 1.86 km, this
method is invalid in the x direction, while 1.33 km in the y
–5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 direction and 2.21 km in the z direction, respectively.
orbit Similarly, slightly different in another case is that the spatial
radius of GCO is 500 m, and the altitude varies from 450 to
relative velocity error (m/s)

0.01
X 500 km. Figure 11 shows that the J2-perturbed acceleration
0.005 Y
reduces slowly, while the aerodynamic acceleration reduces
Z
0 dramatically. When the altitude is 481 km, this method is
invalid in the x direction, while 459 km in the y direction and
–0.005
492 km in the z direction, respectively.
–0.01 To summarize, the proposed continuous formation keeping
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
orbit
method by using differential aerodynamic forces is effect
subject to formation with certain configuration size and orbital
altitude. In another word, the mission designer should analyze
uncontrollable, in three orbit period, and the out-of-plane the effectiveness of the proposed method before applying it in
relative motion will drift in around 5 meters according to orbit, and the analysis process can be conducted by using the
Figure 7. But by using lift force, the z position can be method presented above.

Figure 9 Controlled differential accelerations in three directions

–5 –5 –5
x 10 x 10 x 10
1 1.5 1.5
radial-track control acceleration (m/s)

along-track control acceleration (m/s)

cross-track control acceleration (m/s )

1 1
2

0.5

0.5 0.5
0

0 0

–0.5
–0.5 –0.5

–1
–1 –1

–1.5 –1.5 –1.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
orbit orbit orbit

17
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Xiaowei Shao et al. Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19

Figure 10 Differential acceleration comparison of the spatial radius from 1 to 2.5 km

–6 –5 –6
x 10 x 10 x 10
14 2.6 11
J2 acceleration J2 acceleration J2 acceleration
13 aerodynamic acceleration 2.4 aerodynamic acceleration aerodynamic acceleration
10
12
2.2
radial-track acceleration (m/s )

along-track acceleration (m/s )

cross-track acceleration (m/s )

2

2
11 9
2
10
1.8 8
9
1.6 7
8
1.4
7 6
1.2
6
5
5 1

4 0.8 4
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
radius (m) radius (m) radius (m)
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)

Figure 11 Differential acceleration comparison of the altitude from 450 to 500 km

–6 –6 –6
x 10 x 10 x 10
4 5 4
J2 acceleration J2 acceleration J2 acceleration
aerodynamic acceleration aerodynamic acceleration aerodynamic acceleration
4.5
3.5 3.5
radial-track acceleration (m/s )

along-track acceleration (m/s )

cross-track acceleration (m/s )

2

2
4
3 3

3.5

2.5 2.5
3

2 2
2.5

1.5 2 1.5
450 460 470 480 490 500 450 460 470 480 490 500 450 460 470 480 490 500
altitude (km) altitude (km) altitude (km)

Conclusion De Ruiter, A. (2011), “A fault-tolerant magnetic spin

stabilizing controller for the JC2Sat-FF mission”, Acta
In this paper, the aerodynamic lift force is first used to derive
Astronautic, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 160-171.
Lyapunov-based formation keeping control law under J2
Horsley, M., Nikolaev, S. and Pertica, A. (2013), “Small
perturbation. Based on the kinetic theory, a set of fitting
satellite rendezvous using differential lift and drag”, Journal
formulae was given to obtain the control angle from the
of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 2,
desired differential acceleration obtained by presented
pp. 445-453.
Lyapunov-based controller. To evaluate the performance of
Jigang, H. and Yulin, Z. (2006), “Application of phase-plane
the proposed method in actual circumstance, the errors
method in the co-plane formation maintenance of
caused by the GPS measurements and the actuators were
formation flying satellites”, 25th Chinese Control Conference,
considered. The analysis about the formation configuration
Harbin, Heilongjiang.
and orbital altitude was shown that the proposed method was
Jihe, W., Xibin, C. and Jinxiu, Z. (2012a), “Optimal virtual
valid and efficient in satellite formation keeping problem,
practically for satellite formation mission in LEO with small center selection for formation flying maintenance”, Aircraft
configuration size. It should be stressed that the proposed Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 84 No. 4,
method was only applicable for two satellites formation pp. 260-270.
keeping. As one of our future works, extension of the approach Jihe, W., Jinxiu, Z., Xibin, C. and Feng, W. (2012b),
for formation keeping of three or more satellites should be “Optimal satellite formation reconfiguration strategy based
investigated. on relative orbital elements”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 76,
pp. 99-114.
Khalil, H.K. (2002), Nonlinear System, Prentice Hall, Upper
References
Saddle River, NJ, pp. 111-117.
Alfriend, K.T., Vadali, S.R., Gurfil, P., How, J. and Breger, L. Kristiansen, P. and Nicklasson, P.J. (2009), “Spacecraft
(2009), Spacecraft Formation Flying: Dynamics, Control, and formation flying: a review and new results on state feedback
Navigation, Butterworth – Heinemann, Oxford, p. 87. control”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1537-1552.

18
 Differential lift and drag under J2 perturbation
Xiaowei Shao et al.
Kumar, B.S. and Ng, A. (2008), “A bang-bang control
approach to maneuver spacecraft in a formation with
differential drag”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control
Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI.
Kumar, B.S., Ng, A., Yoshihara, K. and De Ruiter, A. (2011),
“Differential drag as a means of spacecraft formation
control”, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 1125-1135.
Lambert, C., Ng, A., Nakamura, Y. and Horiguchi, H.
(2011), “Intersatellite separation mechanism for the JC2Sat
formation-flying missions”, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 654-663.
Leonard, C., Hollister, W. and Bergmann, E. (1989), “Orbital
formation keeping with differential drag”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 108-113.
Leung, S. and Montenbruck, O. (2005), “Real-time
navigation of formation-flying spacecraft using global
Downloaded by Shanghai Jiao Tong University At 16:44 04 January 2017 (PT)
positioning system measurements”, Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226-235.
Moore, P. (1985), “The effect of aerodynamic lift on
near-circular satellite orbits”, Planetary and Space Science,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 479-491.
Mueller, J., Marrese, C., Ziemer, J., Green, A., Yang, E.,
Mojarradi, M., Johnson, T., White, V. and Bame, D.
(2002), “JPL micro-thrust propulsion activities”, AIAA
Nanotech 2002, Houston.
Pérez, D. and Bevilacqua, R. (2013a), “Differential drag
spacecraft rendezvous using an adaptive Lyapunov control
strategy”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 83, pp. 196-207.
Pérez, D. and Bevilacqua, R. (2013b), “Spacecraft
maneuvering via atmospheric differential drag using an
adaptive Lyapunov controller”, AAS 13-440, 23rd AAS/
AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, Kauai, HI, February
2013.
Redondo, J.L., García, I. and Ortigosa, P.M. (2009),
“Universal global optimization algorithm on shared
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
19
View publication stats
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
Volume 89 · Number 1 · 2017 · 11–19
memory multiprocessors”, Distributed Computing, Artificial
Intelligence, Bioinformatics, Soft Computing, and Ambient
Assisted Living Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5518,
pp. 219-222.
Reid, T. and Misra, A.K. (2011), “Formation flight of
satellites in the presence of atmospheric drag”, Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, Sciences and Applications, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 64-91.
Sabol, C., Burns, R. and McLaughlin, C.A. (2001), “Satellite
formation flying design and evolution”, Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 270-278.
Schweighart, S.A. and Sedwick, R.J. (2002), “High-fidelity
linearized J2 model for satellite formation flight”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1073-1080.
Tsien, H.S. (1946), “Super aerodynamics, mechanics of
rarefied gases”, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 13
No. 12, pp. 653-664.
Varma, S. and Kumar, K.D. (2012), “Multiple satellite
formation flying using differential aerodynamic drag”,
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 325-336.
Vassar, R.H. and Sherwood, R.B. (1985), “Formation
keeping for a pair of satellite in a circular orbit”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 235-242.
Weast, R.C. (1969), “Handbook of chemistry and physics”,
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, Vol. 257 No. 6,
p. 423.
Shao, X., Song, M., Zhang, D. and Sun, R. (2015), “Satellite
rendezvous using differential aerodynamic forces under J2
pertubration”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology,
Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 427-436.
Corresponding author
Xiaowei Shao can be contacted at: shaoxwmail@163.com