2328 AIAA JOURNAL VOL. 3, NO.

12

Numerical Investigation of Minimum Impulse Orbital Transfer

GARY A. McCuE* AND DAVID F. BENDER!
North American Aviation, Inc., Downey, Calif.

A method for the numerical determination of optimum two-impulse orbital transfers

between inclined elliptical orbits is described. A double-precision IBM 7094 program in-
corporating this method was used to make detailed studies of complicated impulse functions
associated with various orbit pairs. During a numerical study of orbits that osculate a
Lawden spiral, it was found that two-impulse transfers between such orbits required less
velocity change than the corresponding Lawden Spiral maneuver. Extensive numerical data
revealed that the difference in velocity change for the two maneuvers increases approximately
as the 5th power of the true anomaly difference between the points of osculation.

Nomenclature contouring technique capable of examining the nature and

Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363

structure of the entire function was utilized to identify all

Scalar s possible regions of a given function which would yield opti-
mum transfer orbits.1
a = semimajor axis
a ~ magnitude of step size Function contouring proves adequate for locating minima
e = eccentricity (magnitude of e) and for providing insight, but at times it does not yield
i = inclination required numerical accuracy. This is true for many interest-
p = semilatus rectum ing orbit pairs! wherein the impulse functions are comprised
r = radius to satellite of long, narrow "valleys" containing several minima. It is
Si, 82, SB — scaling parameters therefore necessary to employ an alternate technique to
A0 = transfer angle (true anomaly difference in transfer compute precise optimum orbital transfer circumstances
orbit plane) when needed for use in engineering design studies. Ex-
p, = gravitation constant (95634.50100 mile3/sec2) perience with several steep descent processes4"6 led to the
0i = angle from reference axis to departure position in
initial orbit development of the technique presented here. This adaptive
<f>2 = angle from reference axis to arrival position in descent optimization method has been applied successfully
terminal orbit to the minimization of numerous orbital transfer impulse
\l/ — thrust direction angle for Lawden spiral functions.
co = argument of perigee, angle from reference axis to
perigee point
II. Two-Impulse Orbital Transfer Formulation
Vectors
Referring to Fig. 1, consider a two-impulse transfer process
e orbit shape and orientation vector
unit vector in gradient direction between an initial orbit with elements pi, e\y coi, i, and a final
g
I impulse vector orbit defined by pz, e^ co2. The formulation assumes
N unit vector denoting reference direction (line of Keplerian orbits and results from choosing the final orbit
intersection of initial and final orbit planes) as the reference plane. That is, i is the relative inclination
r geocentric satellite position vector of the two orbit planes (cost = WrW2 where Wi and W2
Hi unit vector directed toward point of departure from are unit vectors directed along the angular momentum
initial orbit vectors of the initial and final orbits). For coplanar orbits,
U2 unit vector directed toward point of arrival in final the reference direction N is arbitrary, but for inclined orbits,
orbit N is defined as the line of intersection of the two orbit planes
V velocity vector
w unit vector directed along orbit's angular momentum (N = W2 X W1/|W2 X W t |).
vector For the general case, there is a three-parameter family of
transfer orbits joining any two specific orbits. The angles
Subscripts from the reference line to departure point (<£i) and from the
1 initial orbit reference line to the arrival point (</>2) are a natural choice
2 final orbit for two of the three independent variables, since they, along
t transfer orbit with the given orbital elements, specify position and velocity
tl transfer orbit departure point in the known orbits (Fig. 1). The semilatus rectum (pt) of
t2 transfer orbit arrival point the transfer orbit was the third parameter used for this study.
It was chosen since it simplified the structure of the impulse
I. Introduction function / ($1, </>2, pt). It also avoided several undesirable
1 3
discontinuities that are present in other formulations. (A
I N previous papers, " the authors discussed the properties
of functions associated with optimum two-impulse transfer
between inclined noncoapsidal elliptical orbits. An impulse
discussion of the use of alternate variables may be found in
Refs. 2 and 4.) A discussion of the properties of the impulse
function considered here appears in Ref. 1. Additional
Received December 23, 1964; revision received August 9, properties of this function were obtained by Lee.7
1965. The studies presented here were performed for the
Marshall Space Flight Center under Contract NAS8-5211. The Transfer Geometry
authors wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions and com-
ments of H. W. Bell, and J. E. Mclntyre. Geocentric unit vectors Ui and U2 and radius vectors ri
* Research Scientist, Space Sciences Laboratory, Space and and r2 directed toward the departure and arrival points may
Information Systems Division. Member AIAA.
t Senior Technical Specialist, Space Sciences Laboratory, J An "orbit pair" consists of a pair of orbits; e.g., the initial
Space and Information Systems Division. Member AIAA. and final orbits.
 DECEMBER 1965 MINIMUM IMPULSE ORBITAL TRANSFER 2329

be computed from 0i, 0 2j and the elements of the initial and

final orbits:
Ui = [cos0i, sin0i cosi, sin0i sim] (1)
U2 = [cos02, sin02j 0] (2)

(3)

Unit vectors normal to the three orbit planes are defined

as follows:
FINAL ORBIT
Wi = [0, — sim, cosi] (4)
W2 = [0, 0, 1] (5)
Fig. 1 Orbital transfer geometry,
W, = Ui XU 2 /|Ui X U 2 ! X U2 0 (6)

Two vectors that define the shape and orientation of the Impulse Minimization
initial and final orbits complete the transfer geometry:
Minimization of Eq. (9) by a steep descent technique
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363

ey = eyjcoscoy, sincoy cosi'y, sincoy siniy] y = 1, 2 (7) requires computation of the gradient. Upon differentiation,
Eq. (9) provides the following expression:
The true anomaly interval traversed in the transfer orbit
(A0) may be determined directly: dl = [(I2-dI2)/|!2 (20)
cosA0 - 0° < A0 < 180° (8) or
No generality is lost if the true anomaly interval is limited 57
to the first two quadrants. Although this does restrict the (21)
problem to "short transfers/' the "long transfers" (180° <
A0 < 360°) may be computed by changing the signs of the dl
velocity vectors in the transfer orbit. If sinA0 = 0, the (22)
plane of the transfer is no longer uniquely determined and
an alternate formulation is required to avoid this singularity.6 57 [I:
(23)
Impulse Computation
Terms in the above expressions may be expanded as follows:
The function to be minimized is the total impulse for the
two-impulse maneuver: bl/dp, - ±(e>Vtt/dp«) - (dVi/dp.) (24)
I = + I Is (9) (25)
where
11 = ±V a - (10) (26)
12 = V2 T V(2 (11) (27)
(When a double sign is used, the upper sign refers to a "short (28)
transfer.")
Velocity vectors in the initial and final orbits at the de- (29)
parture and arrival points (Vi and V2) and the corresponding Noting that dVi/dpf and dV2/dp« are each zero results in a
velocity vectors in the transfer orbit (V^ and V<2) are com- simplified expression for d//dp* that may be obtained through
puted as follows: several algebraic manipulations:
X (eHhUi) (12) I 2 -(v +
= d= (30)
X (e 2 -hU 2 ) (13)
X (e, -f uo (14) Additional expressions are obtained from Eqs. (26-29) by
direct differentiation of the vector equations:
X (e, -f U 2 ) (15)
5 cscA0 cscA0 c
The final impulse equations are obtained from Eqs. (10-15)
by substituting Eq. (6) and performing several algebraic " n 50i
manipulations : / M /
- cscA0—-1 ) -
V r2/\
l! = ±[ v + zUi] - Vi (16)
TT
I2 = V2 T [v - zU2] (17) 1
~
where
cosi, — sim'] (32)
v = [(/ip() 1/8 (r 2 - r O J / l r : X r 2 | (18)
avtt
* = (M/P«) 1/2 tan(A0/2) (19)
Impulses corresponding to "long" and "short" transfers
are compared by changing the double sign in Eqs. (16) 502
and (17), and the combination producing the lesser impulse
is used for the remaining computations. 5Vi/502 = 0 (34)
 2330 G. A. McCUE AND D. F. BENDER AIAA JOURNAL

search in that direction was continued until a minimum was

300
Fig. 2 Descent paths plotted on optimum impulse con-
tour map (contour interval = 500 fps).
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363
reached. Then a new gradient was computed and the
search was continued in the new direction. This whole
process was repeated until the minimum impulse was found.
By choosing a differentially small step size and recomputing
the gradient after each step, one may cause the search to
proceed in the direction of steepest descent. Optimization
of an orbital transfer function by a stepwise version of the
steepest descent procedure6 was found to be computationally
superior to the steep descent scheme reported in Refs. 4 and
5. Reference 6 contains a comparison of the convergence
of the two methods. Although these two methods later
proved to be inadequate for minimizing the functions con-
sidered here, they were capable of producing valuable results.
(Some of these results appear in Refs. 9-11.)
Because of the great variety of impulse functions that
may occur, the authors found it desirable to develop a descent
method having sufficient flexibility to overcome the vagaries
of any particular function. Further, a method that would
provide information concerning the structure of a function's

cscAfl Aa "valleys'7 was considered very desirable. In practice, this

—- cscA0
dfa information is valuable because nonoptimum orbital transfers
1 corresponding to points on a "valley floor" often must be
^K -? =o
Jj
(35)

(36)
considered in order to satisfy rendezvous constraints.9
Rapid convergence was not considered a necessity. Instead,
it was desired to insure .a methodical search to the nearest
local minimum.
cscA0 The numerical results presented here were obtained by an
- cscAfl ^ ] -
adaptive descent process that conducts a step by step nu-
merical search employing Eqs. (1-47). The search is termi-
cscA0 nated when the following necessary conditions for a local
minimum have been achieved:
-| (37)
t>fa ' 502 < 6 < € <«
1/2
0 < €« 1 (48)
bV2/c>4>2 = (M/p2) [-cos4>2, -sin<£2, 0] (38)
During the nth step of the search the gradient vector is
The remaining terms in Eqs. (31-38) may be computed computed and the n + 1st coordinate vector is determined
from the following expressions: as follows:
= [—sinfa, cos fa cosi, cosfa sini] (39)
dU2/c>02 = [-sin02, coscfe, 0] (40) - 0 0

sin(fa — O)I)]/PI (41) 0 -2 0 j = 1,2, or 3

sin (02 — co2)]/p2
A6>(dA6//a0y) j = 1, 2
.,- = - csc2A6>(dA(9/5</)y) j = 1, 2
The following convenient expression for A0 allows
computation of the remaining derivatives:
A0 = cos~1(cos01 cos02 + sin^i sin02 cosi)
— (—sin<fti cos02 + COS01 sin02 cosi)
dfa [1 — (cos^i cos</>2 + sin^i sin02 cosi)2]1/2
5A0 — (—cos</>i sin02 + simfti cos02 cosi)
cosi)2]1/2
Sj (49)
(42)
0 0 *
(43)
where a modifies the step size, the s/ are variable scaling
(44) parameters, and g±, g2, and g$ are the components of a unit
vector in the gradient direction. Note that the scaling
matrix is normalized relative to one of the scaling parameters.
This normalization is necessary since it provides a reference
(45) magnitude for the determination of the step size. Note
that normalization in no way restricts the direction of step
since the ratios of the Sj remain unchanged.
Equation (49) is employed to generate points at which the
impulse function / (fa, fa, pt) is evaluated. An additional
constraint on the process requires that the sequence of
(
' computed impulses {I(fa, fa, Pt)n} be monotone decreasing.

III. Numerical Optimization Table 1 Optimum transfer parameters

Since the necessary conditions for minimum impulse [setting Initial orbit pi = 5000 miles, ei = 0.2, «i = -90°0, i = 5°
Eqs. (21-23) equal to zero] yield an intractable set of equa- Final orbit p2 = 6000 miles, ez = 0.2, o>2 = +30°0
7094
tions, one is faced with the problem of obtaining numerical Opti- time,
solutions. Early attempts to minimize the impulse function mum 0i,° 0o,° Pt, miles Impulse, fps sec
considered here were successful but often required excessive
amounts of computer time.4'5 The scheme reported in 1 73 .8152 187.5568 6644 .8496 4902 .651223852 3.4
Hefs. 4 and 5 was a step wise steep descent procedure similar 2 40 .8343 298 .2634 6617 .7904 5343 . 148693477 2.5
3 177 .8114 73 .6465 4611 .8023 5393..781144757 3.0
to one of several methods discussed by Kelley.8 That is, 4 308..2034 37,.7403 4592..8574 5654. 191209679 2.8
the local negative gradient was computed, and a step-by-step
 DECEMBER 1965 MINIMUM IMPULSE ORBITAL TRANSFER
The control logic for the optimization process is as follows:
1) If the inequality
7(01, 02, P«)»+l < 7(01, 02, Pt)n
is not satisfied, a is decreased by a prescribed percentage,
and a new coordinate vector (0i, 02, pt)n+i is computed.
This nth stage of the process is repeated until Eq. (50) is
satisfied OT a < e, 0 < e <5C 1. When a < e, sufficient con-
vergence has been achieved and the process is terminated.
2) If Eq. (50) is satisfied, the n + 1 coordinate vec-
tor is adopted and the nth step is considered complete.
If Eq. (50) is satisfied during each of a number of steps this
successful behavior is rewarded by increasing a by a pre-
scribed percentage.
3) Since the scaling parameters are normalized, only
their relative size is of interest. To produce a change in
relative size one may simply penalize undesirable behavior
by decreasing a given scale factor by a predetermined per-
centage. In practice, a scaling parameter Sj is decreased
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363
each time the corresponding component of the gradient
vector QJ changes sign. No provision for increasing s, is
required since decreasing Si(i ^ j ) automatically causes s/
to become relatively more influential.
This process control philosophy is simply a trial and error
learning procedure. It does, however, provide a flexible
and reliable method of handling the inevitable scaling prob-
lems associated with steep descent or gradient methods.
Kelley8 notes that it is usually necessary to employ a
normalization procedure when the variables have different
dimensions. He also notes that it would be desirable to
find a transformation that would map a complicated impulse
function into a more symmetrical form, e.g., concentric
spheres. The adaptive descent process tends to achieve
both of these desirable objectives, and yet, it is a simple
method that is easily programed for digital computer solution.
The fact that only a few seconds of IBM 7094 time is re-
quired to determine a typical local minimum of the impulse
functions considered here substantiates the practicality of
this procedure.
IV. Numerical Results
An impulse function associated with a pair of inclined
elliptical orbits (pi = 5000 miles, p2 = 6000 miles, e\ = e2 =
0.2, co] - -90°, w2 = +30°, and i = 5°) was investigated
with an IBM 7094 FORTRAN IV double-precision computer
program incorporating the adaptive descent technique.
This particular function was previously studied in Ref. 1
by generating an optimum impulse contour map (Fig. 2).
Figure 2 was constructed by a technique termed p-optimiza-
io2 -i
STEPWISE
STEEPEST
DESCENT
Fig. 3 Convergence of
adaptive descent and
stepwise steepest de- CC
scent methods. o - ADAPTIVE
DESCENT
o:
Ld
ADAPTIVE
N- DESCENT
SYMMETRICAL
MINIMUM
(SEE FIGURE 2 )
IOO 200 300 400
NUMBER OF STEPS (n)
2331
n = 2000'. 1 = 2097.825
(50) p = 1000 1= 2097.827
3120.0 -
P
MILES
n = 500 I - 2097.836
3100.0 -
nx= 0: I = 2 1 4 4 . 7 1
= 100: I = 2098.56
n = 200: 1 = 2098.11
•^STEPWISE
STEEPEST DESCENT
(n = 1000 I = 2098.50)
3080.0
20 40 60 80 100 120
, , DEG
Fig. 4 Path followed during adaptive descent optimiza-
tion of a function having a long narrow "valley."
tion.1 That is, one contours an array of impulse values
that have been previously optimized with respect to the
parameter pt.
The descent paths associated with a number of starting
points have been plotted in Fig. 2. This impulse function
has well-defined minima and therefore offers no significant
optimization problems. The four minima predicted by
contouring are quickly established with required accuracy
(13 significant figures). Table 1 contains the parameters
associated with each minimum as well as the IBM 7094
computer time required for the shorter descent paths.
The first curve in Fig. 3 illustrates the convergence of the
adaptive descent program during an optimization involving
one of the minima in Fig. 2. For contrast, an impulse
function having nearly flat-bottomed long narrow valleys
was optimized by the adaptive program and by stepwise
steepest descent. These data are also plotted in Fig. 3.
Although convergence is not as rapid for this particular
function, it is clear that the adaptive method is superior to
stepwise steepest descent.
Figure 4 compares the two methods by plotting the search
paths in the fa, Pt plane. The impulse level I corresponding
to the number of steps in the search n is also noted. By
the end of the first 100 steps the adaptive program had found
the bottom of the valley and had ascertained its long narrow
shape. During the next 100 steps the program made rapid
progress down the valley. Note that the impulse differences
soon were in the 7th significant figure. It is also apparent
that most of the movement throughout the space is concerned
with these last few significant figures. The poor progress
of a stepwise steepest descent process is plotted for com-
parison. One may observe that the adaptive descent
program tends to move along the true path of steepest descent
in spite of the fact that individual steps are not taken in the
local negative gradient direction.
Lawden Spiral vs Two-Impulse Transfer
One may easily observe that the transfer orbits corre-
sponding to optimum two-impulse orbital transfers usually
are nearly tangent to both the initial and final orbits. This
fact and certain other questions generated during prior
studies by function contouring1'2 made the class of "almost
tangent" orbits a prime candidate for further numerical
investigation. Using function contouring and the adaptive
descent program the authors have established the existence
of three local minima in the impulse functions corresponding
to a large class of almost tangent orbits.12 The wide range
of orbit parameters over which three local minima are known
to exist suggests that one must exercise considerable caution
500
when optimizing functions that are suspected of having this
property.
 2332 G. A. McCUE AND D. F. BENDER AIAA JOURNAL

Fig. 5 Lawden spiral

geometry.
LAWDEN
SPIRAL
TRAJECTORY

An interesting and important group of almost tangent

orbit pairs may be constructed by considering orbits that
osculate a Lawden spiral.13'14 The impulse functions corre-
sponding to these orbit pairs usually exhibit three local
minima. Since the valleys containing the minima usually
are very long and narrow, the problems encountered in
finding an absolute minimum two-impulse transfer for
comparison with the Lawden spiral are not trival. Using
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363

the ^-optimization impulse function contouring technique

reported in Ref. 1, the authors were able to find optimum
two-impulse transfer maneuvers that required less total
AF than the corresponding Lawden spiral maneuvers. 0.001
These results were first reported at a conference on Guidance
and Space Flight Theory at Huntsville, Alabama.15 This AVi_s , FT/SEC

numerical demonstration of the nonoptimality of certain Fig. 7 Lawden spiral AF compared to optimum two-
Lawden spiral maneuvers was also noted in Ref. 16. Using impulse AF (percentage difference noted).
the adaptive descent program, these numerical results have
now been expanded to give a broad comparison of the two-
impulse maneuver and the Lawden spiral. All possible transfers may be generated by allowing S = sm\f/
In Refs. 13 and 14 Lawden develops formulae for an inter- to increase monotonically from 0.0 to 3~1/2. It is clear that
mediate thrust arc that locally satisfies the necessary condi- as S increases, \(/ and r also will increase monotonically from
tions for an optimal planar trajectory in an inverse-square 0.0° to 35°. 2 and from 0.0 to infinity, respectively.
gravitational field. The path is a spiral defined as follows: Orbits that osculate the spiral trajectory may be computed
from the following formulae13-14:
r = a0S6/(l - 3S2) (51) p -= 6
- 4S2)2/(3 - 5S2)2]
ao[S (3 (53)
where r is radius from the attracting center, and a0 is a 6 2 2 2 4 6
proportionality constant whose units are distance. In a = a0[S (3 - 5S ) /(9 - 72S + 169S - 126S )] (54)
Eq. (51), S = sini/' where \f/, the angle denoting thrust e = (1 - p/a)1/2 (55)
direction, is defined in Fig. 5. The central angle traversed
during a given Lawden spiral maneuver may be computed The magnitude of the acceleration at any point is given by
from the following relation: S*"|
6
°*4' (56)
.\l/ + 3 cot^f. (52) J
and the total AF to transfer between two points on the spiral
is given by
-3(1 - -152

(
= (!)"'[ (3 - 5S ) 2
1 (57)
By varying sin2^, one may construct a sequence of orbits
that osculate the Lawden spiral. Table 2 presents the
elements of a number of these osculating orbits that were
used in a comparison of optimum two-impulse transfers and
the corresponding Lawden spiral maneuver. The elements
were produced by a single precision computer program by

Table 2 Elements of orbits osculating to Lawden's spiral

(a0 = 106 miles)

CO, True
relative to anomaly of
first orbit's osculation
SinV p, miles e perigee point
0.01 -
0.04 65.84162 0.4031143 0 103°. 5837
0.06 225.7066 0.4958521 147°. 9592 106°. 7799
0.08 543.9924 0.5752421 233°. 6340 109°. 5519
0.10 1081.600 0.6464052 290°. 3322 112°. 0700
0.001 0.002 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04
0.12 1905.120 0.7120126 330°. 8360 114°. 4234
0.14 3088.218 0.7737022 361°. 2268 116°. 6671
A(SIN%) 0.16 4713.446 0.8325991 384°. 8082 118°. 8397
0.18 6874.618 0.8895526 403°. 5450 120°. 9707
Fig. 6 Lawden spiral AF compared to optimum two- 0.20 9679.999 0.9452619 418°. 6843 123°. 0848
impulse AF.
 DECEMBER 1965 MINIMUM IMPULSE ORBITAL TRANSFER 2333

Table 3 Lawden spiral AF and corresponding optimum two-impulse AF

SinV SinV A0, AF2-imp; (AFf, 5 - AF2-imp)

A(sin2^) initial final deg ft/sec ft /sec AFz^s — AF2-imp AFL5
0.002 0.040 0.042 20.00 13224.62 13224.57 0.05 0.37 X 10-«
0.002 0.060 0.062 10.82 4673.127 4673 . 124 0.003 0.64 X 10-6
0.004 0.040 0.044 38.58 24911.16 24909.69 1.47 0.59 X 10~4
0.004 0.060 0.064 21.10 8963 . 169 8963 . 097 0.072 0.80 X 10-5
0.004 0.10 0.104 9.63 2320.314 2320.3124 0.0016 0.69 X 10-6
0.010 0.04 0.05 87.30 52879.53 52785 94 1.8 X 10~3
0.010 0.06 0.07 49 . 17 19920.26 19915.10 5.16 2.6 X lO- 4
0.010 0.10 0.11 23.00 5365.57 5365.45 0.12 2.2 X 10~5
0.010 0.14 0.15 13.59 2097.834 2097.8240 0.010 0.48 X 10~5
0.010 0.17 0.18 9.92 1161.541 1161.539 0.002 1.7 X 10~6
0.020 0.06 0.08 88.44 33474.10 33373.4 100.7 3.0 X 10~3
0.020 0.10 0.12 42.86 9510.629 9507.881 2.748 0.29 X lO-3
0.020 0.14 0.16 25.76 3807.656 3807.4311 0.225 0.59 X lO- 4
0.020 0.17 0.19 18.93 2126.761 2126.7125 0.0485 0.23 X lO- 4
0.030 0.06 0.09 120.67 43115.81 42671 445 1.0 X lO- 2
0.030 0.17 0.20 27.17 2931.736 2931.424 0.312 0.11 X lO- 3
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363

0.040 0.10 0.14 75.49 15368.62 15320.34 48.28 0.31 X lO- 2

0.040 0.14 0.18 46.63 6373.95 6369.51 4.44 0.70 X lO- 3
0.040 0.17 0.21 34.72 3604.574 3603.494 1.08 0.30 X lO- 3
0.060 0.10 0.16 101.25 19176.27 18961.5 214.7 1.1 X lO- 2
0.060 0.14 0.20 63.88 8144.146 8120 24 2.9 X lO- 3

setting do equal to 106 miles. Velocities and impulses are
proportional to (ju/a0)1/2. For the calculations presented
here /* was set equal to 95634.50100 miles3/sec2.
An IBM 7094 double-precision computer program was
utilized to compute optimum two-impulse transfers between
numerous pairs of orbits which osculate the spiral. Nu-
merical results pertaining to these computations are sum-
marized in Table 3. The calculations were performed for
various initial orbits (sin2^ initial) and various separations
between the points of osculation, A (sin2^). The central
angle A# traversed during each of the maneuvers is also
noted. The velocity changes AF required for various
Lawden spiral arcs (AVLs) are tabulated alongside the
impulse required for the corresponding optimum two-impulse
transfer (AF 2 -i mp ). The calculations are accurate to the
number of significant figures tabulated. Table 3 also
tabulates the difference in AF for the two maneuvers and
compares this difference to the AF for the spiral maneuver.
In all cases computed, a two-impulse maneuver that required
less AF than the corresponding Lawden spiral maneuver
was found.
In Fig. 6 the difference in velocity change required for the
maneuvers AF^s — AF2-imP is plotted as a function of
position difference between the osculation points. A family
of curves was generated by varying sin2;/' of the initial orbit.
The single precision Lawden spiral calculations were not
sufficiently accurate to allow these comparisons to be ex-
tended to smaller values of A(sin2^). All the curves pre-
sented indicate that the difference in velocity change increases
approximately as the 4.7 power of A(sin2^).
Figure 7 was constructed to allow rapid comparison of
AFz,s and AVLs — AF2-imp. Several diagonal lines were
drawn to denote the percentage difference between the AF
required for the two maneuvers. In this figure the different
curves were generated by varying the separation between
the points of osculation on the Lawden spiral. The per-
centage difference in AF for the two maneuvers increases
rapidly as the distances separating the points of osculation
increases. This percentage difference also increases as
sin2^ of the initial orbit decreases.
By plotting AF for the two maneuvers as a function of
A0 one may demonstrate that the Lawden spiral becomes
more nearly optimal as the arc length traversed approaches
zero. Figure 8, which was constructed from the numerical
results appearing in Table 3, indicates that AFz,s — AF2-imp
increases as the 5th power of A0. Extrapolating this nu-
merical result leads one to conclude that the Lawden spiral
can be optimal only over a differentially small arc length.
This is consistent with recent results reported by Robbins.17
Minimum Impulse Transfer between Inclined Orbits
Although Contensou,18 Breakwell,19 and Lawden14 have
demonstrated the existence of optimal one- and two-impulse
maneuvers between coplanar noncoapsidal elliptical orbits,
the authors are not aware of a corresponding proof for inclined
orbits. However, the analyses of Refs. 14, 18, and 19 could
be extended to inclined orbits and one would expect to obtain
results similar to those obtained for coplanar orbits.
For a two-impulse transfer between inclined orbits to be
optimal it is necessary that it be composed of two optimal
one-impulse maneuvers. That is, the transfers from the
initial orbit to the transfer orbit and from the transfer orbit
to the final orbit must each be optimal. To investigate
this necessary condition numerically the optimum two-
impulse transfer between several different inclined non-
coapsidal elliptical orbit pairs was computed. The impulse
functions concerning transfers from the initial orbit to the
transfer orbit and from the transfer orbit to the final orbit
were each examined in considerable detail using the adaptive
descent program. Table 4 contains orbital elements for
one such set of orbits. In all cases these impulse functions
exhibited the flat bottomed valleys encountered with optimal
one-impulse transfers between coplanar orbits. These

Table 4 Elements of initial, final, and optimum transfer orbit (two-impulse transfer)

Orbit p, miles co, deg ij deg , deg

Initial 5000 0.2 -90 55 0
Final 6000 0.2 +30 0 0
Transfer 6035.6723 0.19455356 -32.522206 52.024687 -2.3361065
 2334 G. A. McCUE AND D. F. BENDER
100.0
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on May 22, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.3363
Fig. 8 AF difference
between Lawden spiral
and two-impulse man-
euvers as a function of
the true anomaly
difference (A0).
10 20 50
AS, DEGREES
numerical results, therefore, strongly indicate the existence
of optimal one-impulse transfers between certain inclined
noncoapsidal elliptical orbits pairs. This result also satisfies
a necessary condition for optimal two-impulse transfer
between noncoapsidal elliptical orbits. The existence of
optimal two-impulse maneuvers between inclined non-
coapsidal elliptical orbits therefore seems likely.
V. Conclusion
A numerical program for precise computation of optimum
two-impulse transfers between inclined noncoapsidal el-
liptical orbits has been developed and verified. When supple-
mented by previously developed function mapping tech-
niques, this adaptive descent program has successfully
minimized numerous difficult impulse functions. The com-
plexity of the more interesting functions suggests that con-
siderable caution should be exercised when numerically
seeking the absolute minimum one- or two-impulse transfer.
In view of the demonstrated optimality of the one- and two-
impulse maneuver for transferring between a large class of
orbits, this proven numerical optimization program appears
to be a valuable tool for use in research and engineering
studies.
AIAA JOURNAL
References
1
McCue, G. A., "Optimum two-impulse orbital transfer and
rendezvous between inclined elliptical orbits," AIAA J. 1,
1865-1872 (1963).
2
Des Jardins, P. R., Bender, D. F., and McCue, G. A.,
"Orbital transfer and satellite rendezvous," North American
Aviation, Inc. Final Kept. SID 62-870 (August 31, 1962).
3
McCue, G. A., "Optimization and visualization of
functions," AIAA J. 2, 99-100 (1964).
4
Kerfoot, H. P., Bender, D. F., and Des Jardins, P. R.,
"Analytical study of satellite rendezvous," North American
Aviation, Inc. Final Rept. MD 59-272 (October 20, 1960).
5
Kerfoot, H. P. and Des Jardins, P. R., "Coplanar two-
impulse orbital transfers," ARS Preprint 2063-61 (October 9,
1961).
6
Des Jardins, P. R. and Bender, D. F., "Extended satellite
rendezvous study," North American Aviation, Inc. First
Quarterly Rept. SID 61-304 (September 14, 1961).
7
Lee, G., "An analysis of two-impulse orbital transfer,"
AIAA J. 2, 1767-1773 (1964).
8
Kelley, H. J., "Method of gradients," Optimization Tech-
niques, edited by G. Leitmann (Academic Press Inc., New York,
1962), pp. 206-210.
9
Bender, D. F., "Rendezvous possibilities with the impulse
of optimum two-impulse transfer," Space Rendezvous Rescue and
Recovery, edited by N. V. Petersen (Western Periodicals Co.,
North Hollywood, Calif., 1963), pp. 271-241.
10
Hoelker, R. F., "Orbit transfer studies by numerical proc-
esses," Marshall Space Flight Center, AERO-61-24 (March 24,
1961).
11
Bender, D. F., "Optimum coplanar two-impulse transfer
between elliptic orbits," J. Aerospace Eng. 21, 44-52 (1962).
12
McCue, G. A. and Bender, D. F., "Optimum transfers
between nearly tangent orbits," North American Aviation, Inc.
SID 65-1097 (May 1, 1965).
13
Lawden, D. F., "Optimal intermediate-thrust arcs in a
gravitational field," Astronaut. Acta 8, 106-123 (1962).
14
Lawden, D. F., Optimal Trajectories for Space Navigation
(Butterworths Scientific Publications Ltd., London, 1963),
pp. 86-94, 114-117.
15
Bender, D. F. and McCue, G. A., "Numerical demonstration
of the nonoptimality of certain of the Lawden spiral maneuvers,"
llth Technical Meeting Concerning Space Flight and Guidance
Theory, Marshall Space Flight Center (December 19, 1962).
16
Breakwell, J. V., private communication with Derek F.
Lawden, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. (December 18, 1962).
17
Robbins, H. M., "Optimality of intermediate-thrust arcs
of rocket trajectories," AIAA J. 3, 1094-1099 (1965).
18
Contensou, P., "Etude theorique des trajectories optimales
dans un champ de gravitation. Application au cas d'un center
d'attraction unique," Astronaut. Acta 8, 134-150 (1963); also
Grumman Research Dept. Translation Tr-22 translated by P.
Kenneth (August 1962).
19
Breakwell, J. V., "Minimum impulse transfer," AIAA
Preprint 63-416 (1963).