Affiliation:
1. Egyptian Space Agency , Egyptian Space Agency , Egypt
2. Department of Astronomy, Space Science, and Meteorology, Faculty of Science , Cairo University , Cairo , Egypt
3. Astronomy and Meteorology Department, Faculty of Science , Al-Azhar University , Cairo , Egypt
Abstract
Abstract
In this paper, constrained minimization for the point of closest approach of two conic sections is developed. For this development, we considered the nine cases of possible conics, namely, (elliptic–elliptic), (elliptic–parabolic), (elliptic–hyperbolic), (parabolic–elliptic), (parabolic–parabolic), (parabolic–hyperbolic), (hyperbolic–elliptic), (hyperbolic–parabolic), and (hyperbolic–hyperbolic). The developments are considered from two points of view, namely, analytical and computational. For the analytical developments, the literal expression of the minimum distance equation (S) and the constraint equation (G), including the first and second derivatives for each case, are established. For the computational developments, we construct an efficient algorithm for calculating the minimum distance by using the Lagrange multiplier method under the constraint on time. Finally, we compute the closest distance S between two conics for some orbits. The accuracy of the solutions was checked under the conditions that L|
solution
≤ ɛ1; G|
solution
≤ ɛ2, where ɛ1,2 < 10−10. For the cases of (parabolic–parabolic), (parabolic–hyperbolic), and (hyperbolic–hyperbolic), we studied thousands of comets, but the condition of the closest approach was not met.
Reference14 articles.
1. Alfano S. (1994) Determining satellite close approaches, part 2, JANSC, Vol. 42, No. 2, 143-152.
2. Available from: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sb_elem#legend
3. Baluyev R.V., Kholshevnikov, K.V. (2005). Distance between two arbitrary unperturbed orbits, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 91, No. 3-4, 287-300.
4. Brown. D.C. (2004) Spacecraft mision desing, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauies, Inc, Washinglon DC, U.S.A. 20024-2.’iIR.
5. Denenberg E., Gurfil, P. (2016) Improvements to time of closest approach calculation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 39, No. 9, 1967-1979.