Spacecraft Dynamics And Control Space Science

And Technologies Yongchun Xie download

https://ebookbell.com/product/spacecraft-dynamics-and-control-
space-science-and-technologies-yongchun-xie-50942644

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Spacecraft Dynamics And Control An Introduction 1st Edition Damaren

https://ebookbell.com/product/spacecraft-dynamics-and-control-an-
introduction-1st-edition-damaren-5393630

Spacecraft Dynamics And Control The Embedded Model Control Approach

Canuto

https://ebookbell.com/product/spacecraft-dynamics-and-control-the-
embedded-model-control-approach-canuto-7159346

Fundamental Spacecraft Dynamics And Control 1st Edition Weiduo Hu

https://ebookbell.com/product/fundamental-spacecraft-dynamics-and-
control-1st-edition-weiduo-hu-5435160

Fundamental Spacecraft Dynamics And Control 2015th Edition Weiduo Hu

https://ebookbell.com/product/fundamental-spacecraft-dynamics-and-
control-2015th-edition-weiduo-hu-60104312
Dynamics And Control Of Lorentzaugmented Spacecraft Relative Motion
1st Edition Ye Yan

https://ebookbell.com/product/dynamics-and-control-of-
lorentzaugmented-spacecraft-relative-motion-1st-edition-ye-yan-5676198

Rigidflexible Coupling Dynamics And Control Of Flexible Spacecraft

With Timevarying Parameters Jie Wang

https://ebookbell.com/product/rigidflexible-coupling-dynamics-and-
control-of-flexible-spacecraft-with-timevarying-parameters-jie-
wang-54547656

Flexible Spacecraft Dynamics Control And Guidance Technologies By

Giovanni Campolo Mazzini

https://ebookbell.com/product/flexible-spacecraft-dynamics-control-
and-guidance-technologies-by-giovanni-campolo-mazzini-5307692

Chinese Statecraft In A Changing World Demystifying Enduring

Traditions And Dynamic Constraints Jean Dong

https://ebookbell.com/product/chinese-statecraft-in-a-changing-world-
demystifying-enduring-traditions-and-dynamic-constraints-jean-
dong-53683940

Spacecraft Dynamics T Kane Et Al

https://ebookbell.com/product/spacecraft-dynamics-t-kane-et-al-4113210
Space Science and Technologies
Series Editor: Peijian Ye

Yongchun Xie · Yongjun Lei ·

Jianxin Guo · Bin Meng

Spacecraft Dynamics
and Control
Space Science and Technologies

Series Editor
Peijian Ye, China Academy of Space Technology, Beijing, China
Space Science and Technologies publishes a host of recent advances and
achievements in the field – quickly and informally. It covers a wide range of
disciplines and specialties, with a focus on three main aspects: key theories, basic
implementation methods, and practical engineering applications. It includes, but is
not limited to, theoretical and applied overall system design, subsystem design, major
space-vehicle supporting technologies, and the management of related engineering
implementations.
Within the scopes of the series are monographs, professional books or graduate
textbooks, edited volumes, and reference works purposely devoted to support
education in related areas at the graduate and post-graduate levels.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16385

Yongchun Xie · Yongjun Lei · Jianxin Guo ·
Bin Meng

Spacecraft Dynamics
and Control
Yongchun Xie Yongjun Lei
Beijing Institute of Control Engineering Beijing Institute of Control Engineering
Beijing, China Beijing, China

Jianxin Guo Bin Meng

Beijing Institute of Control Engineering Beijing Institute of Control Engineering
Beijing, China Beijing, China

ISSN 2730-6410 ISSN 2730-6429 (electronic)

Space Science and Technologies
ISBN 978-981-33-6447-9 ISBN 978-981-33-6448-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6448-6

Jointly published with Beijing Institute of Technology Press

The print edition is not for sale in China Mainland. Customers from China Mainland please order the
print book from: Beijing Institute of Technology Press.

© Beijing Institute of Technology Press 2022

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known
or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface

Spacecraft Dynamics and Control is one of the 23 volumes of the Space Science and
Technologies series. It is “a set of authoritative works of both theoretical and practical
significance for front-line researchers in the space field, researchers in related fields,
and teachers and students in universities.” In accordance with the above objectives,
this book focuses on spacecraft dynamics and control. Based on years of research
and practical experience, the book systematically introduces the laws of orbital and
attitude motion of spacecraft, as well as the basic theory and engineering design of
spacecraft control, in order to meet educational and practical needs in spacecraft
engineering.
A spacecraft’s trajectories and attitude have a significant role in spacecraft design.
They are the primary factors that determine the function and performance of the
spacecraft and directly affect the effectiveness of loads on the spacecraft. The orbit
and attitude control of spacecraft is another core component of spacecraft flight
control and management, which is related to spacecraft mission implementation and
the lifetime of spacecraft in orbit. This book is a product of the union of theory
and practice. It summarizes many years of research and practical experience in
control theories of many engineers and technical personnel at the Beijing Institute
of Control Engineering. The control schemes and systems designed based on their
research accomplishments have been successfully applied to many types of space-
craft, including remote sensing satellites, communication satellites, navigation satel-
lites, technology experiment satellites, Shenzhou manned spacecraft, Tianzhou cargo
spacecraft, Tiangong-1/Tiangong-2 space laboratories, and Chang’e lunar explo-
ration satellites for various missions. Furthermore, the schemes and systems devel-
oped are of great significance for future engineering development of manned lunar
landings, deep-space exploration, on-orbit servicing, and other missions.
The book consists of seven chapters: Chapter 1 is the introduction, which reviews
concepts related to types of spacecraft and spacecraft control. Chapter 2 introduces
the orbit and orbital dynamics of spacecraft. Chapter 3 presents methods for orbit
control. Chapter 4 reviews spacecraft attitude kinematics and dynamics. Chapter 5
elaborates on spacecraft attitude determination methods. Chapter 6 presents methods
for spacecraft attitude control. Chapter 7 introduces technologies of autonomous
navigation, guidance, and control of spacecraft.
v
vi Preface

The leading authors and editors of this book are Yongchun Xie, Yongjun Lei,
Jianxin Guo, and Bin Meng, who supervised the compilation and review of the whole
book. Specifically, Yongchun Xie was responsible for the compilation of Chaps. 1
and 7; Jianxin Guo oversaw the compilation of Chaps. 2 and 3; and Yongjun Lei
was responsible for the compilation of Chaps. 4–6. Many experts from the Beijing
Institute of Control Engineering participated in the writing of this book. The authors
of each chapter are as follows. Chapter 1 was written by Yongchun Xie; Chaps. 2
and 3 were written by Jianxin Guo, Shaochun Hu, Liang Zhou, and Tao Liu; Chap. 4
was written by Yongjun Lei, Ya Deng, and Zeguo Wang; Chap. 5 was written by
Yongjun Lei; Chap. 6 was written by Yongjun Lei, Shuping Tan, Fei Li, Yujia Sun,
Ya Deng, and Zeguo Wang; and Chap. 7 was written by Yongchun Xie, Tao Liu,
Kai Xiong, Wenqiang Dong, Ji Li, Maodeng Li, Pengji Wang, Xue Ma, and Xinxin
Yu. Furthermore, Meng Hu, Juan Wang, and Jingya Geng were involved in the
compilation and review of the book, and data compilation was completed by Yipeng
Li, Jingya Geng, and others.
In a book that covers a wide range of topics, there will inevitably be omissions
and mistakes, despite the best efforts of the authors. We warmly welcome criticisms,
corrections, and suggestions from readers and experts.

Beijing, China Yongchun Xie

November 2020 Yongjun Lei
Jianxin Guo
Bin Meng
Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the colleagues who helped to prepare the material of this book:
Shaochun Hu, Liang Zhou, Tao Liu, Ya Deng, Zeguo Wang, Shuping Tan, Fei Li,
Yujia Sun, Kai Xiong, Wenqiang Dong, Ji Li, Maodeng Li, Pengji Wang, Xue Ma,
Xinxin Yu, Yipeng Li, Meng Hu, Juan Wang, and Jingya Geng. We would especially
like to express our deepest appreciation to Professors including Guo Li, Hongxin Wu,
Liangdong Liu, Nanhua Wang, Jun Hu, and Jun Yuan. The chief reviewer of this book
is Guo Li. The first draft of the book was carefully reviewed by Academician Hongxin
Wu and four Professors: Liangdong Liu, Nanhua Wang, Jun Hu, and Jun Yuan. The
compilation of this book is also attributed to the guidance and support received
from the leaders of China Academy of Space Technology and Beijing Institute of
Control Engineering. Special thanks should be given to Academician Peijian Ye
and Professor Li Yuan for detailed guidance and dedicated support. The authors
express their heartfelt gratitude to the National Defense Science and Technology
Book Publishing Fund, the National Key Basic Research and Development Program
of China (grant number: 2013CB733100), and National Natural Science Foundation
(grant number: U20B2054) for financial support. Finally, we also would like to
express our thanks to editors from Beijing Institute of Technology Press for their
meticulous proofreading and valuable assistance.

vii
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Types of Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Low-Earth-Orbit Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Lunar and Deep-Space Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.3 Manned Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.4 Near-Space Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Orbital Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Orbit Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3 Orbit Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.4 Attitude Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.5 Attitude Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.6 Attitude Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.7 Guidance, Navigation, and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Time Systems and Reference Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.1 Time Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.2 Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.3 Transformation Between Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.1 Overview of Two-Body Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.2 Constants of Two-Body Orbital Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.3 Geometric Equation of Two-Body Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.4 Geometric Properties of Two-Body Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.5 Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.6 Libration Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4 Orbital Properties of Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.1 Orbital Parameters and Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.2 Satellite Ground Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ix
x Contents

2.4.3 Launch Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.4.4 Geosynchronous Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.5 Sun-Synchronous Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.6 Critical Inclination Orbits and Frozen Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4.7 Repeat Ground Track Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4.8 Reentry Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4.9 Libration Point Orbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.5 Orbital Perturbation Equations and Their Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5.1 Osculating Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.5.2 Lagrange Perturbation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.5.3 Gauss Perturbation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.5.4 Numerical Integration Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.5.5 Perturbation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.6 Sources of Orbital Perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.6.1 Earth’s Non-sphericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.6.2 Atmospheric Drag Near Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.6.3 Gravitational Forces of the Sun and Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.6.4 Solar Radiation Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.6.5 The Moon’s Non-sphericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.6.6 Mars’ Non-sphericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.6.7 Atmospheric Drag Near Mars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.7 Relative Motion of Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.7.1 Definitions of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.7.2 Equations of Relative Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3 Orbit Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2 Basics of Orbit Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.2.1 Governing Equation of Orbital Maneuvering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.2.2 Impulsive Thrust Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.2.3 Finite Thrust Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.4 Optimal Orbit Control Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.3 Orbit Control for Typical Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3.1 Perturbation Analysis and Stationkeeping of LEO
Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3.2 Perturbation Analysis and Stationkeeping of HEO
Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3.3 Orbit Transfer of HEO Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.3.4 Return Orbit Control for Lunar Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.3.5 Orbit Dynamic Models for Lunar Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.3.6 Design of Cislunar Return Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.3.7 Precise Design of Cislunar Return Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.3.8 Impulsive Thrust Orbit Control for Cislunar Transfer . . . . . . 154
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Contents xi

4 Spacecraft Attitude Kinematics and Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2 Attitude and Attitude Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2.1 Attitude Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2.2 Attitude Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.3 Attitude Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.3.1 Attitude Dynamics of Rigid-Body Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.3.2 Attitude Dynamics of Flexible Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.3.3 Attitude Dynamics of Liquid-Filled Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.3.4 Attitude Dynamics of Multi-Body Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
5 Spacecraft Attitude Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.2 Modeling of Attitude Sensor Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.2.1 Modeling of Random Errors of Gyroscopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
5.2.2 Modeling of Star-Sensor Measurement Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.3 Three-Axis Attitude Determination Based on State Estimation . . . . 213
5.4 Calibration of Relative Error of Attitude Sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.4.1 Calibration of Relative References for Star Sensors . . . . . . . 221
5.4.2 Calibration of Gyro Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.5 Ground-Based Post-Event High-Precision Attitude
Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.6 Determination of Spin Angular Velocity with Abnormal
Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.6.1 Principle of Determining Spin Angular Velocity
of Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.6.2 Strategies for Reducing the Determination
Error of Spin Angular Rate and Improving
the Determination Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
5.6.3 Simulation Verification and Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
6 Spacecraft Attitude Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.2 Attitude Control Based on Angular-Momentum Management
Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.2.1 Spacecraft Attitude Stabilization Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
6.2.2 Attitude Maneuver Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
6.3 Steering Strategies for Angular-Momentum Management
Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
6.3.1 Flywheel Control Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
6.3.2 CMG Control Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
6.3.3 Steering Strategies for Hybrid Actuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
6.4 Liquid-Filled Spacecraft Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
6.4.1 Control Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
xii Contents

6.4.2 Design of Attitude Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

6.5 Multi-Body Spacecraft Attitude Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
6.5.1 Hybrid Attitude Control with Moving Antenna . . . . . . . . . . . 352
6.5.2 Hybrid Attitude Control of Combined Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7 Autonomous Guidance, Navigation, and Control of Spacecraft . . . . . . 371
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
7.2 Absolute Autonomous Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
7.2.1 SINS-GPS Integrated Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
7.2.2 Attitude-Sensor-Based Autonomous Navigation . . . . . . . . . . 375
7.3 Relative Autonomous Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
7.3.1 Relative State Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
7.3.2 Autonomous Orbit Determination and Relative State
Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
7.4 Guidance and Control for Rendezvous and Docking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
7.4.1 Flight Phases and Mission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
7.4.2 Rendezvous and Docking Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
7.4.3 Rendezvous and Docking Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
7.5 Guidance and Control for Reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
7.5.1 Ballistic Reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
7.5.2 Semi-ballistic Reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
7.5.3 Lifting Reentry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
7.5.4 Reentry Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
7.6 Guidance and Control for Soft Landing on Extraterrestrial
Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
7.6.1 Soft Landing on the Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
7.6.2 Soft Landing on Mars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
7.6.3 Soft Landing on Asteroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
About the Authors

Yongchun Xie Professor Yongchun Xie is the Director

of Science and Technology Committee of Beijing Insti-
tute of Control Engineering. She is currently the corre-
sponding member of IAA (International Academy of
Astronautics) and has been engaging in the field of
guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) of spacecraft
rendezvous and docking (RVD) for nearly 20 years.
She has been participating in China’s manned space
project as a leading engineer, who is responsible for the
GNC systems design, and the GNC schemes have been
successfully applied to the RVD tasks of China’s space-
craft. Her research interests are in autonomous guid-
ance and control of rendezvous and intelligent control
of spacecraft. She has published more than 100 arti-
cles in technical journals and conferences, authored 3
books, and won five ministry-level prizes and three
national-level awards.

Yongjun Lei Professor Yongjun Lei currently works as

a Senior Chief Designer of spacecraft control system
in Beijing Institute of Control Engineering. He has
been engaged in the control scheme design for high-
performance low-orbit satellites. His current research
interest is in the area of modeling and control of compli-
cated systems, including flexible structures and multi-
body spacecraft. He won six ministerial-level prizes
(first class once, second class for three times, and third
class twice).

xiii
xiv About the Authors

Jianxin Guo Professor Jianxin Guo currently works as

a Director Designer of medium and high orbit satel-
lite control system in Beijing Institute of Control Engi-
neering. He has been engaged in the control scheme
design for the BEIDOU navigation satellite system and
new generation communication satellites of China. His
current research interests are in spacecraft orbit control
and multi-body spacecraft complex control. He won four
ministerial-level prizes (first class for three times and
second class once).

Bin Meng Professor Bin Meng currently works in

Beijing Institute of Control Engineering. Her major is
in spacecraft guidance and control, and adaptive control
theory and application. As the Principle Investigator or
Co-investigator, she has led or been involved in more
than 10 research projects. She has published more than
30 research articles, 5 in-book chapters, and has been
granted 10 patents. She won the second prize of the 2013
National Technological Invention Award and some other
awards. She has served as a Member of IFAC, Member
of the Chinese Association of Automation, and Member
of editorial boards of Control Theory and its Applica-
tion and Journal of System Science and Mathematical
Science.
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Types of Spacecraft

A spacecraft is a vehicle designed to fly in outer space and can perform a variety
of specific tasks, such as exploring, developing, or utilizing resources in space or
celestial bodies. Spacecraft can be classified into different types depending on their
tasks. Given that a spacecraft may perform different space missions at a time, it is
difficult to classify spacecraft based on a single criterion alone. As shown in Fig. 1.1,
spacecraft can be categorized into four groups according to the orbit and the ability
to transport human beings: low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, lunar and deep-space
probes, manned spacecraft, and near-space vehicles (NSVs). It should be noted that
NSVs may not be regarded as spacecraft in a strict sense.

1.1.1 Low-Earth-Orbit Satellites

LEO satellites, known as artificial Earth satellites, mainly refer to unmanned space-
craft that revolve around the Earth in low earth orbit. More LEO satellites have
seen launched than any other type of spacecraft, and they provide a wide range of
services. In fact, the number of LEO satellites launched accounts for more than 90%
of the total number of spacecraft launched. According to specific missions and the
launch purpose, LEO satellites can be classified into application satellites, scientific
experiment satellites, and technology experiment satellites.
1. Application satellites

Application satellites are satellites used for serving the needs of the national
economy or performing specific tasks. In general, application satellites include
remote-sensing (RS) satellites, reconnaissance satellites, communications satellites,
navigation satellites, and satellites for on-orbit servicing.

© Beijing Institute of Technology Press 2022 1

Y. Xie et al., Spacecraft Dynamics and Control, Space Science and Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6448-6_1
2 1 Introduction

Low-dynamic vehicles
Near-space vehicles
High-dynamic vehicles

Application satelites

Low-Earth-orbit satellites Scientific experiment satellites

Technical experiment satellites

Spacecraft

Lunar and deep-space Lunar probes

probes Deep-space probes
Space station

Manned spaceship

Manned spacecraft Cargo spacecraft

Space shuttles
Space tourist flights

Fig. 1.1 Types of spacecraft

RS satellites are artificial satellites used for remote sensing platforms in outer
space, and their orbits are designed according to mission requirements. RS satellites
can cover the entire Earth or a designated area within a certain period of time, and
they have been mainly used for the observation of ocean and land, environmental
protection, applications in agriculture and forestry, and meteorological monitoring.
Common RS satellites include land satellites, ocean satellites, and meteorological
satellites.
Reconnaissance satellites are mainly used to collect different types of informa-
tion from countries or regions of interest, including information on military or non-
military facilities and activities; the distribution, transportation, and use of natural
resources; or meteorological, marine, and hydrological data. A reconnaissance satel-
lite typically takes photographs of the ground and targets with visible-light and
infrared cameras, respectively. It can also intercept and capture radio signals in
various frequency bands.
A communications satellite transmits and amplifies radio communication signals
via a transponder, and it acts as a repeater between a transmitter and a receiver on
Earth. In general, a communications satellite consists of a communications payload
(transponder, antenna, and information-exchange system), an attitude and orbit
control system, a power subsystem, and a command and control system. Communi-
cations satellites can be used in the fields of television, telephone, radio, networks,
and military. According to the type of communications service, communications
satellites can be categorized into those for fixed satellite communications, mobile
satellite communications, television broadcasting, maritime communications, and
1.1 Types of Spacecraft 3

tracking and data relay satellites (TDRS). Further, according to the orbit, commu-
nications satellites can be grouped into four types: communications satellites in a
geostationary orbit (GEO), high elliptical orbit (HEO), medium-Earth orbit (MEO),
and LEO.
A navigation satellite is equipped with special radio navigation equipment, which
can provide all-day location and time information for data terminal equipment on the
ground by continuously sending radio signals to a receiver on Earth. Its main func-
tions include precision timing, navigation, and positioning. Well-known navigation
satellite systems in the world include the Global Positioning System (GPS) owned
by the U.S. government, Russia’s Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS),
the Chinese Bei Dou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), and the European Union’s
Global Satellite Navigation System (GNSS) called Galileo.
Satellites for on-orbit servicing are designed to operate on orbit to help achieve a
series of tasks such as extending the life of spacecraft and improving the capability
of spacecraft to perform tasks with the assistance from human beings and space
robots. The main tasks of on-orbit operations include on-orbit object detection, orbit
transfers, on-orbit refueling, on-orbit fault repair, on-orbit assembly of components,
and on-orbit target attack and defense.
2. Scientific experiment satellites

Scientific experiment satellites are mainly satellites used for scientific detection and
research. Typical examples are satellites for near-Earth geophysical exploration,
astronomical satellites, and satellites for physical testing. Satellites for near-Earth
geophysical exploration are mainly used to study the near-Earth space environment,
including the upper atmosphere, ionosphere, Earth’s magnetosphere, Earth’s gravi-
tational field, and solar radiation. Astronomical satellites are used for the observation
and study of the Sun and other celestial bodies in the solar system. Satellites for phys-
ical testing are mainly used to test physical objects by utilizing the unique features
of the space environment.
On August 16, 2016, China launched the first quantum space satellite “Mozi,” also
known as Quantum Experiments at Space Scale (QUESS), which achieved quantum
communication between a satellite and the ground for the first time. In addition, the
mission verified a previous prediction that pairs of entangled photons would remain
coupled to one another even at a separation of hundreds of thousands of meters.
3. Technology experiment satellites
A technology experiment satellite (TES) is designed to verify new technology or
conduct tests for application satellites. Before launching a satellite, a large number
of ground tests are required to verify the reliability of new technology. Considering
the complexity of satellite technologies and high costs of application satellites, it
is preferable to verify complex technologies by first testing them on less expen-
sive TESs. Therefore, new technology is usually applied in a TES for verification
before use.
China’s satellite series “SJ” (Shi Jian, “practice”) is mainly used for scientific
detection and technical tests. On March 3, 1971, China successfully launched its
4 1 Introduction

first scientific experiment satellite “SJ-1,” which was developed based on the Dong
Fang Hong-1 (DFH-1) satellite. While in orbit, the satellite measured environmental
parameters, such as the high-altitude magnetic field, X-rays, and cosmic rays, and
tested long-life satellite technologies such as a power supply system based on silicon
solar cells as well as an active and passive thermal control system. Following the
success of SJ-1, China has launched over ten satellites for scientific experiments and
technical tests. Thus far, 20 satellites have been launched for SJ missions.

1.1.2 Lunar and Deep-Space Probes

Lunar and deep-space probes (including lunar probes and deep-space probes) typi-
cally refer to unmanned spacecraft that fly by, orbit, and land on the Moon or other
celestial bodies in space.
1. Lunar probes

Between 1958 and 1976, the United States and the Soviet Union launched 47 and 61
lunar probes, respectively. After that, the two countries stopped their lunar exploration
programs. In 1990, Japan launched a lunar probe. Lunar probes generally explore the
Moon with various approaches, such as lunar flyby, hitting the Moon (hard landing),
soft landing, orbiting the of Moon, sampling of lunar soil, or returning to the Earth
after sampling.
China’s lunar exploration project has three-step objectives: “orbiting, landing, and
sample returning.” First, the lunar exploration satellites Chang’e 1 and Chang’e 2
were launched to detect the surface environment and geomorphology of the Moon.
Second, Chang’e 3 was designed to make a soft landing on the lunar surface to
investigate the composition of rocks and minerals in the landing site by using patrol
cars and robots. Third, Chang’e 5 will be launched for lunar roving and returning
samples.
2. Deep-space probes

Deep-space probes are generally sent into interplanetary space by using a launch
vehicle to explore the space with different equipped instruments. The deep space
networks on the ground offer support for the measurement and control of probes and
receives the scientific detection data sent back by the detector via probes. Based on
the capability of technical support and the arrangement of space missions, different
approaches can be adopted to explore the Moon, planets, or other celestial bodies.
Specifically, probes can fly by planets or other celestial bodies, during which they
can perform close detection and photographic observation. A probe can also enter
the orbit of a celestial body and become an artificial satellite for long-term repeated
exploration. It can also perform a hard landing on a celestial body and detect the
target during the fall before the landing. A soft landing on the surface of a celestial
1.1 Types of Spacecraft 5

body can also be adopted for on-site investigation of the celestial body. The probe
can return to the Earth with samples after a soft landing for detailed studies.
The Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa (Japanese for falcon) explored asteroid 25,143
Itokawa and sent the collected samples back to the Earth. It was originally planned
to return to the Earth in June 2007, but the return was delayed by 3 years to June
13, 2010 owing to a fuel leak from the probe. Hayabusa had a seven-year journey of
six billion kilometers (four billion miles), achieving the first detection of an asteroid
that threatens the Earth and returning material samples.
Looking back at the history of deep-space probes, Voyager 1 made the longest
journey ever with a travel distance of 21.2 billion kilometers (13.2 billion miles).
Voyager 1 was an unmanned probe with a mass of 815 kg launched by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on September 5, 1977 for detection
in the outer solar system. The main missions of Voyager 1 were to fly by Jupiter
and Saturn and return with detailed images of these planets. On February 10, 2012,
Voyager 1 entered the heliosheath (a terminal shock region between the solar system
and interstellar matter), which is approximately 17.91 billion kilometers from the
Sun. On September 22, 2013, NASA confirmed and announced that Voyager 1 was
out of the area dominated by solar wind after 36 years of travel.

1.1.3 Manned Spacecraft

A manned spacecraft is a manned aircraft that orbits the Earth or space in a certain
trajectory. According to the operating style, manned spacecraft are divided into five
major types: manned spaceships, cargo spacecraft, space stations, space shuttles, and
space tourist flights.
1. Manned spaceship

A manned spaceship is a spacecraft that can support astronauts to live and work in
space to perform space missions, and to allow the astronaut cockpit to have a ballistic
return and vertical landing. A manned spaceship is actually a type of space shuttle,
and it is the smallest amongst manned spacecraft. Manned spaceships developed
and launched by the Soviet Union/Russia include the Vostok (“East”), Voskhod
(“Sunrise”), and Soyuz (“Union”). The United States has developed and launched
the Mercury spacecraft, Gemini spacecraft, and Apollo spacecraft. The Apollo was
a spacecraft that landed human beings on the Moon. The Shenzhou (“Divine land”)
spacecraft, a manned spacecraft independently developed by China, has reached or
surpassed third-generation manned spacecraft worldwide.
2. Cargo spacecraft

A cargo spacecraft is a spaceship that transports cargo to space. Its main task is to
transport food, air, water, fuel, and equipment to a space station. It is an important
means of transportation for providing supplies to a space station as well as a ground
6 1 Introduction

system for supporting the space station. At present, cargo spacecraft serving the
International Space Station (ISS) include the Japanese cargo spacecraft H-II Transfer
Vehicle (HTV), Russia’s Progress cargo ship, Europe’s Autonomous Transfer Vehicle
(ATV) cargo ship, and the American spacecraft Dragon. China’s Tianzhou (“heav-
enly vessel”) cargo spacecraft, launched on April 20, 2017, is an unmanned cargo
spacecraft used for resupply services at China’s Space Station. The Tianzhou cargo
spacecraft is 10.6 m in length and has a maximum diameter of 3.35 m. It has a launch
mass of 12.91 t with a cargo capacity of approximately 6.5 t. Its main task is to supply
propellant, air, drinking water, and food for astronauts, as well as replacement equip-
ment for the maintenance of the space station for the Tiangong-2 (“heavenly place”)
space laboratory and subsequent Chinese space stations in order to extend the oper-
ating life of space stations and ship waste from the space station back to the Earth.
At present, most cargo spacecraft are not reusable. After separation from a space
station, cargo spacecraft are normally burned in the Earth’s atmosphere on return to
the Earth.
3. Space station

A space station is a spacecraft that can operate on orbit for a long time under certain
conditions for tests or production and can satisfy the needs of astronauts to live and
work. There are two types of space stations: monolithic and modular. Monolithic
stations are launched into orbit by a rocket in a single launch, while modular stations
consist of units or modules that are launched into orbit separately. Modular space
stations have two configurations: building blocks and the integrated truss structure
(ITS). Space stations in the structure of building blocks are docked by multiple
bay sections on orbit, such as the Mir (Russian for “peace”) space station. ITS space
stations are based on assembled or deployable trusses up to several meters or hundreds
of meters in length, which carry several bay sections and equipment, such as the ISS.
4. Space shuttles

A space shuttle is a spacecraft that uses a booster rocket and its own rocket engine
to lift off. It can use its own wings to glide and land on an airport runway, similar to
an airplane, and can be reused many times. Space shuttles can be divided into two
types according to their relationship with the carrier. The first type of spacecraft has
no power during launch. It is only used as the payload of a launch vehicle and is sent
into orbit by a rocket. The second type of spacecraft uses its own rocket engine power
to work alongside the launch vehicle during the launch and ascent process. This type
consists of a space shuttle that can re-enter the atmosphere and is equipped with three
liquid-propellant rocket engines, two solid rocket boosters, and an external fuel tank.
Apart from space shuttles that carry human beings and cargo, some space shuttles
can launch upper-stage rockets on orbit to send the satellite into another orbit.
5. Space tourist flights

Space tourism refers to activities in which tourists enter space to experience space life
and partake in sightseeing in a spaceship. Owing to the extremely high cost of space
1.1 Types of Spacecraft 7

launches and spaceships, Russia has opened up private funding. In exchange, spon-
sors can enter space in the spacecraft. At present, space tourism is mainly operated
in Russia. The idea of self-funded space tourism originated from a proposal by an
engineer named Dennis Anthony Tito who sponsored the Russian Mir space station
in exchange for travelling to space. Dennis Tito took the spacecraft Soyuz TM-32 to
the ISS on April 28, 2001, becoming the first space tourist. The second space tourist
was a South African entrepreneur named Mark Shuttleworth, who entered the ISS on
April 25, 2002 in the spacecraft Soyuz TM-34. The third space tourist was Gregory
Olsen, an American businessman. An Iranian–American engineer, Anousheh Ansari,
became the fourth space tourist and the first female space tourist. As space technolo-
gies continue to develop, space tourism is expected to become a part of the lives of
ordinary people.

1.1.4 Near-Space Vehicles

Near-space vehicles (NSVs) are aircraft that can only fly continuously for a long
time in or near space at an altitude of 20–100 km. NSVs are not spacecraft in a strict
sense. Hypersonic or suborbital vehicles flying in near space benefit from advantages
that aeronautic and aerospace vehicles do not have. They have shown promise for
application in communications security, intelligence gathering, electronic suppres-
sion, early warning, and civilian use. In recent years, a wide range of studies related
to NSVs have been conducted at home and abroad. As a popular research subject,
NSVs can be roughly divided into two types based on flight speed: low-dynamic
vehicles (Mach number < 1) and high-dynamic vehicles (Mach number >1).
1. Low-dynamic vehicles

Low-dynamic vehicles mainly include stratosphere airships, high-altitude balloons,

and solar drones. They have a long suspension time, a large load capacity, a high
flying altitude, strong survivability, and other features. In addition, they can carry
visible-light, infrared, multispectral, and hyperspectral radars and other payloads for
acquiring data, which can be used as a means of obtaining regional information to
improve battlefield awareness and support combat operations. Moreover, they can
carry a variety of payloads for electronic countermeasures to achieve electromag-
netic suppression and electromagnetic strikes on the battlefield, as well as commu-
nications and other energy-relay payloads for field emergency communications,
communication relay, and energy relay services.
2. High-dynamic vehicles

High-dynamic vehicles mainly include hypersonic vehicles, suborbital vehicles, and

space shuttles. They have the characteristics of fast speed, long travel distance, high
maneuverability, strong survivability, and a high variety of suitable payloads. The
advantages of this type of vehicles include long-range and fast arrival, high-speed
8 1 Introduction

and precise attack on targets, reusability, and fast long-range delivery of materials.
Given their advantages, they are highly valuable for military applications and have
potential business value.
Hypersonic vehicles can be mainly grouped into two categories based
on the driving mechanism: unpowered gliding hypersonic vehicles and air-
breathing/combined-cycle hypersonic vehicles. An unpowered gliding hypersonic
vehicle does not have a propulsion system; it relies on a launch vehicle to push it to a
sub-orbit with an altitude of approximately 100 km and on its own lift to maneuver in
the atmosphere. Air-breathing/combined-cycle hypersonic vehicles can fly at hyper-
sonic speed on its own power. Specifically, an air-breathing aerospace vehicle relies
on a carrier to accelerate it to the required speed for a supersonic-combustion ramjet
(scramjet) to operate, following which it is powered by the scramjet to fly at hyper-
sonic speed. A combined-cycle aerospace vehicle can complete the entire process
from takeoff to hypersonic travel by itself. These vehicles combine aerospace engines
with different working principles that work separately in different flight phases to
give full play to their respective advantages.
A reusable launch vehicle (RLV) is a type of vehicle that falls between a space
shuttle and an ordinary aircraft. It can take off as an ordinary aircraft and fly at a
supersonic speed in the atmosphere at an altitude of 20–100 km. In addition, it can
directly accelerate and enter an LEO to release satellites and launch space probes.
After completing tasks such as satellite recovery from space and space maintenance,
it can return to the atmosphere and perform a level landing. As RLVs are reusable,
they are economical and inexpensive carriers that can greatly reduce manufacturing
costs and transportation cycles.

1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control

The motions of a spacecraft include orbital and attitude motions. In order to control
the orbit and attitude of a spacecraft, it is vital to first determine its orbit and atti-
tude. Early spacecraft control mainly refers to orbit control and attitude control.
Considering the increasing requirements for spacecraft functions and the develop-
ment of space technologies, spacecraft control has spawned an important branch of
control engineering: spacecraft guidance, navigation, and control (GNC). As tech-
nology continues to evolve, the form of spacecraft control has also developed from
telemetry and telecontrol as well as manual control to automatic control and even
autonomous control.

1.2.1 Orbital Motions

The orbit is the trajectory of the center of mass of the spacecraft (as a spatially moving
body) when it moves in space. The main factors affecting the orbital characteristics of
1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control 9

a spacecraft include the initial motion characteristics of the spacecraft, the mechanical
environment of the space in which it is located, the active control force it is under,
and its geometric characteristics during the movement. The orbital dynamics of the
spacecraft and the technology for orbit control are important aspects of spacecraft
engineering. German astronomer Johannes Kepler proposed his first law of planetary
motion (the Ellipse Law) and the second law (the Law of Areas) in 1609, and the
third law (the Harmonic Law) proposed in 1619, providing a basis for the orbital
dynamics of spacecraft. Sir Isaac Newton, a British physicist, proposed the law of
gravity and the three laws of motion in 1687, which laid the foundation for spacecraft
engineering.
Ideally, the orbital motion of spacecraft can be regarded as a two-body motion
around a central body, which means that the spacecraft is affected by the gravity
of only the central body. The physical variables describing the orbital motion of
spacecraft include the position of the center of mass, speed, acceleration, and time.
It is generally assumed that the spacecraft mass is much less than that of the central
body. The spacecraft moves in a plane of space, and its orbit can be described by
six orbital elements: the semi-major axis of orbit, eccentricity, argument of perigee,
right ascension of ascending node, orbit inclination, and time of perigee passage.
While the orbital motion of a spacecraft is mainly affected by the gravity of the
central body, any external force will have an influence on the orbit. Such an influence
can lead to changes in the six orbital elements, resulting in a deviation from the
designed orbit. Such a deviation is called an orbital perturbation. For LEO spacecraft,
including LEO satellites and LEO manned spacecraft, the forces that can cause orbit
perturbations include the gravity of the non-ideal spherical Earth, atmospheric drag of
the LEO, gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon, solar radiation pressure and
Earth-reflected radiation pressure, control force of the spacecraft’s own execution
module, magnetic force, effects of Earth tides, internal motions of the Earth, and
atmospheric disturbances.

1.2.2 Orbit Determination

The key task for orbit determination is to study how to determine the position and
velocity of a spacecraft in space at a certain moment. The orbit determination of
spacecraft is a prerequisite for satellite applications. Observation data for a satellite
orbit are obtained from parameters related to the motion of the satellite at several
moments or in several time zones, rather than by directly measuring orbital elements.
Orbital elements are then calculated using specific algorithms based on the principle
of orbital dynamics. The determination of the satellite orbit involves three elemen-
tary processes: data acquisition, initial orbit determination, and improvement of orbit
determination. After a certain amount of orbital observation data have been collected,
the initial orbit of the spacecraft can be determined. Subsequently, more observa-
tional data can be used to obtain a more accurate orbit of the spacecraft through the
improvement of orbit determination based on the initial orbit. In general, the longer
10 1 Introduction

the orbital arc covered by the observation data, the higher will be the accuracy of
orbit determination.

1.2.3 Orbit Control

Orbit control entails the exertion of a control force on the center of mass of a spacecraft
at appropriate moments according to its current position and speed in order to ensure
that the spacecraft reaches the desired position and speed at the desired time.
Based on orbital elements, orbit control can be divided into in-plane control and
out-of-plane control. In-plane control aims to control the semi-major axis, eccen-
tricity, argument of perigee, and recurrent point, while out-of-plane control mainly
involves the control of inclination and the right ascension of the ascending node. In
most cases, the in-plane and out-of-plane control of the elements can be integrated
separately. For example, the in-plane control of the semi-major axis and eccentricity
vector, including the eccentricity and argument of perigee, can be jointly performed.
For LEO satellites, different orbits require different control targets. For instance, the
Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) mainly requires the control of the semi-major axis and
inclination; frozen and critical orbits mainly require the control of the semi-major
axis, eccentricity, and argument of perigee; and recurrent orbits and recoverable
spacecraft require the control of the semi-major axis and recurrent points across the
equatorial plane.
According to the work stages after the spacecraft enters orbit, orbit control can be
generally divided into orbit maneuver, orbit establishment, orbit maintenance, orbit
rendezvous, and re-entry control.
(1) Orbital maneuver refers to control for transferring a spacecraft from one free-
flight-segment orbit to another. For example, after a GEO satellite is launched
into orbit by a launch vehicle, it first enters a large elliptical transfer orbit.
Subsequently, to enter the GEO, orbital maneuvering is required at a distant
place in its transfer orbit.
(2) Orbit establishment refers to control for transferring a spacecraft from its launch
orbit to its mission orbit. Orbit establishment usually requires a series of orbital
maneuvers. For instance, after a GEO satellite is launched into orbit by a launch
vehicle, it needs to undergo a series of orbital maneuvers to enter the GEO and
achieve a fixed point.
(3) Orbit maintenance refers to control for overcoming the influence of orbit
perturbation to keep certain parameters of a spacecraft’s orbit unchanged. For
example, geosynchronous-orbit satellites regularly perform orbital corrections
to accurately maintain their fixed-point positions, SSO and recurrent-orbit
satellites impose control to maintain their inclination and period, and some
control on LEO satellites was introduced to overcome atmospheric drag and
extend the orbital lifetime.
1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control 11

(4) Orbital rendezvous refers to the control process implemented on two different
spacecraft so that they simultaneously arrive at almost the same position with
the same speed.
(5) Re-entry control refers to control for making a spacecraft depart from its
original orbit and re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

1.2.4 Attitude Motion

The attitude of a spacecraft quantifies the rotation of the spacecraft body about its
center of mass. The attitude is used to describe the relationship between the fixed coor-
dinate system of the spacecraft and the reference coordinate system. Attitude param-
eters include the directional cosine matrix, Euler angles, and quaternions. The equa-
tions describing attitude motion include attitude kinematics equations and attitude
dynamics equations. Attitude kinematics equations describe the relationship between
various attitude parameters and the attitude angular velocity. Attitude dynamics equa-
tions are used to describe the pattern of changes in the attitude angular velocity of the
spacecraft after an external moment of force is introduced. The attitude dynamics
equations are based on the theorem of angular momentum. For rigid-body space-
craft, the forms of attitude motion include spin around the maximum-inertia axis,
precession, nutation, Earth-to-Earth three-axis stabilization, and inertial three-axis
stabilization. Spacecraft can have very different dynamic characteristics depending
on the structural characteristics. According to the structural characteristics, space-
craft can be divided into simple rigid-body spacecraft; large, complex liquid-filled
spacecraft; and flexible spacecraft. The dynamic characteristics of a spacecraft have a
great impact on its attitude motions. Furthermore, the moments of active control and
space environmental disturbance, such as the gravity gradient torque, aerodynamic
moment, solar radiation moment, and geomagnetic moments, are important factors
that affect the spacecraft attitude.

1.2.5 Attitude Determination

Attitude determination entails the determination of the attitude parameters of a space-

craft relative to a reference coordinate system, which can be an inertial coordinate
system or an orbital coordinate system. The attitude of a spacecraft is generally deter-
mined based on measurement data obtained from an attitude sensor installed on the
spacecraft. The attitude parameters of the proprio-coordinate system relative to the
reference coordinate system can be obtained using suitable data processing methods.
The accuracy of attitude determination depends on the selected data processing
method and the accuracy of data obtained from the sensor. Sensors commonly used for
12 1 Introduction

spacecraft attitude determination include solar sensors, infrared Earth sensors, gyro-
scopes, star sensors, and magnetometers. Data processing methods mainly include the
double-vector attitude determination algorithm and filters for attitude determination.

1.2.6 Attitude Control

Attitude control is the process by which a spacecraft achieves or maintains the desired
attitude. The two forms of attitude control are attitude stabilization and attitude
maneuvering. Attitude stabilization refers to the process of maintaining the attitude
of a spacecraft at the desired attitude through control, while attitude maneuvering
refers to the process of switching the attitude of a spacecraft from one to another.
Methods for attitude control include the control of reaction jets, reaction wheels,
control moment gyro (CMG), magnetron, and gravity-gradient stabilization. The
design of control laws commonly uses proportional–integral–derivative (PID) control
and PID control with signal filtering, as well as phase-plane control, optimal control,
self-adaptive control, and H∞ (i.e., “H-infinity”) robust control. The choice of the
control law is strongly dependent on the dynamic characteristics of the object and
requirements of performance standards.
Attitude control is a prerequisite for the normal operation of a spacecraft. For
example, when a satellite communicates with or observes the Earth, its antenna
or remote sensor should point at the target on the ground; when the satellite is in
orbit control, the engine must point at the required direction of thrust; and when the
satellite re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere, heat shields must face the forward direction
of airflow. All of the above would be required for a satellite to establish and maintain
a certain attitude with respect to the celestial body. Terms related to attitude control
include orientation, capture, search, and tracking.

(1) Orientation refers to the process of determining the relative position of a single
axis or the three axes of the spacecraft body or appendages, such as solar
panels, observation cameras, and antennas, with respect to a specified reference
direction with certain accuracy. The reference direction can be stable in the
inertial space. For example, astronomical observations are stable toward the
Sun and are called orientation to the Sun. It can also be stable in the orbital
coordinate system. Similarly, if the observation of the Earth is stable to the
Earth, then it is called orientation to the Earth. Attitude orientation needs to
overcome various space disturbances to keep the attitude of the spacecraft body
or appendages in the reference direction. Therefore, the directions need to be
maintained via control.
(2) Capture, also called initial alignment, refers to the maneuvering process of a
spacecraft from an unknown and uncertain attitude to a known and desired atti-
tude. For example, after a spacecraft enters an orbit and a satellite is separated
from the rocket, the spacecraft is said to move from an uncertain attitude to an
1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control 13

attitude oriented towards the Sun or to the Earth. Another example is the orien-
tation or re-orientation of a spacecraft towards the Sun after the attitude of the
spacecraft becomes unstable because of errors during travel. To facilitate the
design of the control system, attitude capture generally has two phases: coarse
alignment and fine alignment. Coarse alignment refers to the process from the
initial maneuver to the attainment of the desired attitude with a wide range of
uncertain initial attitudes. Typically, a large control torque is used to shorten
the maneuvering time, but it does not require high orientation accuracy. Fine
alignment refers to the attitude correction that is required because of a lack of
accuracy of coarse alignment. It is performed to ensure the requirements for
orientation accuracy. Fine alignment generally requires a small control torque.
(3) Search refers to the capture of a moving target by the spacecraft body or
appendages; an example is the search for targets by data relay satellites.
(4) Tracking refers to the continuous orientation of the spacecraft body or
appendages to a moving target; an example is the tracking of targets by data
relay satellites.

Attitude stabilization is the main method to achieve the stable long-term operation
of a spacecraft. Based on attitude kinematics, the attitude stabilization of spacecraft
can be broadly divided into two forms: spin stabilization and three-axis stabilization.
(1) In spin stabilization, a spacecraft such as a satellite rotates around its spin
axis while keeping the spin-axis direction fixed in the inertial space based
on the angular momentum. Spin stabilization is often associated with active
attitude control to correct the errors in the spin-axis direction. A dual-spin
satellite is composed of a spinning body and a despinning body, which are
connected to each other by a despinning bearing. The spinning body rotates
around the bearing axis (spin axis) to obtain the orientation of the spin axis,
while the despinning body is controlled by the despinning motor on the bearing
in addition to the orientation of the spin axis, thereby being three-axis stabilized.
The payload is typically carried in the despinning body.
(2) Three-axis stabilization relies on active attitude control or the use of environ-
mental torque to maintain the orientation of the three axes of the spacecraft in
a certain reference coordinate system.

1.2.7 Guidance, Navigation, and Control

LEO satellites work on mission orbits, and their attitude should satisfy the require-
ments for load orientation and tracking. In this regard, the control of LEO satellites
mainly includes attitude control and orbit control. As the requirements for the func-
tions and performance of satellites continue to increase, the requirements for the
control accuracy and maneuverability of satellites, especially the attitude control
accuracy, stability, and agility, have progressively increased. For manned spacecraft,
lunar and deep-space probes, and even NSVs, new requirements have been proposed
14 1 Introduction

for the control of spacecraft trajectories in addition to conventional attitude and orbit
control. In light of this, an important branch has been introduced to spacecraft control,
i.e. Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC). GNC has a significant role to modern
spacecraft.
Guidance refers to the process of producing a series of maneuver time as well as
the size and direction of speed increment on orbit by using certain algorithms and
orbital dynamics based on the current position and speed of the spacecraft. A space-
craft requires guidance to reach a desired position and speed at a predetermined
time or to fly along a desired trajectory. After orbital maneuvers are completed,
the initial position and speed of the spacecraft can be guided to the desired posi-
tion and speed, or the spacecraft can follow the desired trajectory. Guidance can be
divided into different types according to the guidance algorithms or guidance laws.
Standard ballistic guidance and forecasting guidance are usually suitable for the re-
entry of spacecraft; Clohessy–Wiltshire (CW) terminal guidance, line-of-sight (LOS)
guidance, and optimal multiple-pulse guidance can be applied for rendezvous and
docking; and optimal variable-thrust guidance, nominal orbit guidance, explicit guid-
ance, and gravity-turn guidance are usually applied for a soft landing on the Moon.
The design of guidance laws mainly considers time constraints, fuel consumption or
thrust limitations, attitude requirements, autonomy, and the real-time performance
of algorithms.
Navigation refers to the determination of information about the spacecraft motion,
such as attitude and orbit, by using data processing methods based on the measure-
ment outputs of sensors installed on the spacecraft. It provides information on attitude
and orbit for spacecraft guidance and control. The main data processing methods used
for navigation are filtering methods. Spacecraft navigation includes absolute naviga-
tion, in which the motion of a single spacecraft is estimated, and relative navigation,
in which the relative motion of two or more spacecraft is estimated. According to
the measurement sensors used, absolute navigation can be further categorized into
astronomical navigation, inertial navigation, radio navigation, satellite navigation,
geomagnetic navigation, pulsar navigation, land (beacon) navigation, and integrated
navigation. Relative navigation includes navigation based on satellite navigation
devices, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), microwave radars, and imaging-based
rendezvous and docking sensors.
Control refers to the control of attitude or orbit of a spacecraft through engines
intended for attitude control and orbital transfer, and it is performed based on the
requirements for guidance, the current motion of the spacecraft, and the requirements
for attitude control to achieve the tasks for guidance and attitude control.
In a broad sense, the attitude control, orbit control, and GNC of spacecraft can be
collectively referred to as spacecraft control. Methods for spacecraft control mainly
include telemetry and telecontrol, manual control (including teleoperation control),
automatic control, and autonomous control.
1.2 Connotation of Spacecraft Control 15

1. Telemetry and telecontrol

Telemetry and telecontrol refer to control that relies on ground intervention and
are jointly implemented using spacecraft instruments and equipment on the ground.
In this method, the ground station sends instructions to a spacecraft to adjust its
attitude or orbit. Generally, this method requires assistance from stations worldwide
or relay satellites. Though telemetry and telecontrol do not have high requirements for
spacecraft instruments, they involve long time delays in the communication between
the spacecraft and ground. Therefore, this approach is only suitable for simple attitude
maneuver and orbit control. For example, telemetry and telecontrol have been used
for the attitude maneuver and orbit control of most single- and dual-spin satellites in
early times.
2. Manual control

Manual control (including teleoperation control) refers to the direct or indirect control
by a human being. Relatively delicate operations and fine control can be achieved
with this approach. Nevertheless, it requires professional training, and the time delay
between the Earth and space has a great impact on teleoperation control. The design
of a manual control system needs to meet the requirements for ergonomics and
human factors. For example, it is important to consider ergonomic requirements in
the manual attitude control of a spacecraft by an astronaut, manual control of close
rendezvous and docking, manual control of returning and re-entry, teleoperation
control by an astronaut in a space station for rendezvous and docking with a visiting
cargo spacecraft, and teleoperation control of space robots.
3. Automatic control

Automatic control refers to the control of the motion of a spacecraft by using equip-
ment or devices on the spacecraft in accordance with a set program without relying
on the ground and manual intervention. For example, space-borne control circuits or
computers can obtain measurement data from space-borne sensors and calculate the
amount of control to perform the automatic control of the attitude and orbit of the
satellite. Complex attitude and orbit control tasks can be achieved using automatic
control, which is suitable for systems with high requirements for time response.
However, this approach requires high-performance computing devices for space-
craft control, and it still needs support from ground stations when errors occur in
the control system. At present, automatic control is adopted for the attitude control
of most satellites. It has also been widely used in GNC systems for tasks such as
rendezvous and docking, return and re-entry, and soft landing on the Moon.
4. Autonomous control

In autonomous control, the motion and environmental characteristics of a spacecraft

are completely detected by the instruments and devices on the spacecraft without
any ground or human intervention. This control system can make decisions and
16 1 Introduction

perform a series of motion control to achieve predetermined objectives. Both 180-day

autonomous control of geostationary satellites and autonomous control of deep-space
probes are examples of autonomous control.

Bibliography

1. Zhang R (1998) Attitude dynamics and control of satellite orbit. Beihang University Press,
Beijing
2. Hu Q, Yang F (2010) An introduction to astronautics. China Science and Technology Press,
Beijing
3. Xu F (2004) Satellite engineering. China Astronautic Publishing House, Beijing
4. Zhou J (2001) Principles of spacecraft control. Northwestern Polytechnical University Press,
Xi’an
5. Yang B (2011) Spacecraft guidance, navigation and control. China Science and Technology
Press, Beijing
6. Wu H, Tan S (2012) The status and future of spacecraft control. Aerosp Control Appl 38(5):1–7
7. Wu H, Jun Hu, Xie Y (2016) Spacecraft intelligent autonomous control: past, present and future.
Aerosp Control Appl 42(1):1–6
8. Huang W, Cao D, Han Z (2012) Research progress and prospect of spacecraft dynamics and
control. Adv Mech 42(4):367–394
9. Cui P, Rui Xu, Zhu S et al (2014) State of the art and development trends of on-board autonomy
technology for deep space explorer. Acta Aeronaut ET Astronaut Sinica 35(1):13–28
Chapter 2
Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

2.1 Introduction

The trajectory of a spacecraft’s center of mass in space is called its orbit, which
entails physical features such as position, velocity, acceleration, and time. The orbital
characteristics of a spacecraft are mainly affected by different factors including its
initial kinematic properties, the mechanical environment of space, active control
forces, and the geometric features of motion. Orbital dynamics and the associated
control technologies are critical components of spacecraft engineering.

2.2 Time Systems and Reference Frames

2.2.1 Time Systems

Spacecraft kinematics focuses on a spacecraft’s state of motion, e.g., spatial position

and velocity, at any instant of time. Time systems are established primarily based on
the Earth’s rotation. Owing to the nonuniformity of the Earth’s rotation, time systems
can become complicated under the impact of precession–nutation and polar motion
[1]. Therefore, other time systems based on the Earth’s revolution around the Sun
and atomic oscillation have been developed. Space research involves multiple types
of time systems, with each having two essential elements: hour and unit time length.
1. Sidereal time

Sidereal time is a time measurement system determined by the vernal equinox (alter-
natively, March equinox or spring equinox) and the diurnal motion based on the
Earth’s rotation. The interval of time between two successive returns of the vernal
equinox to an observer’s meridian is defined as one sidereal day. Clearly, the vernal

© Beijing Institute of Technology Press 2022 17

Y. Xie et al., Spacecraft Dynamics and Control, Space Science and Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6448-6_2
18 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

equinox is unavailable for observation; therefore, the concept of hour angle is intro-
duced to define the hours of sidereal time. The angle between an observer’s meridian
on Earth and a fixed star or reference point on the geocentric celestial sphere is called
the hour angle of this star or reference point for the current observation point, which
is expressed as the positive west of the meridian plane. The hour angle of the vernal
equinox with respect to the local meridian of an observation point is the local sidereal
time of this point. During a sidereal day, the sidereal time travels from 0 to 24 h,
where 0 h is the time when the vernal equinox is at the local meridian.
The sidereal time is a basic time system for precisely studying the variation of the
Earth’s rotation, which, in this sense, cannot be replaced by any other time system.
The true equinox is an equinox moving with precession and nutation. The sidereal
time with respect to the true equinox is the apparent sidereal time. An equinox that
moves with only precession is defined as a mean equinox. The sidereal time with
respect to the mean equinox is the mean sidereal time.
2. Apparent solar time and mean solar time

In daily life, solar time systems based on the relative position of the Sun are conve-
nient. The true solar time is also based on the Earth’s rotation, and it is measured by
the hour angle of the true Sun. The interval between two successive returns of the
Sun’s center to the same meridian is one apparent (or true) solar day. An apparent
solar day can be divided into 24 apparent solar hours of 60 apparent solar minutes,
each of which consists of 60 apparent solar seconds. The apparent solar time starts at
the apparent noon, which is numerically equal to the sum of the corresponding hour
angle of the apparent solar time and 12 h. If the hour angle is larger than 12 h, then
24 h should be subtracted from the apparent solar time.
Owing to the inclination of the Earth’s axis, the interval of time in which the
Earth orbits the Sun once varies over time. It is not appropriate to simply define this
interval as one solar day. To solve this problem, the concept of mean solar time is
introduced. The apparent solar day, as a variable, should not be adopted as the unit
of time measurement. Hence, the mean solar time system, which is a uniform system
similar to the apparent solar time, has been developed [2].
In order to establish the mean solar time system, we first introduce an auxiliary
point that conducts uniform motion along the ecliptic; it has the same speed as
the mean velocity of the Sun’s apparent motion and passes through the perihelion
and aphelion simultaneously with the Sun. Subsequently, we introduce a second
auxiliary point that moves uniformly along the equator at a speed equal to that of
the first auxiliary point. These two auxiliary points pass through the vernal equinox
simultaneously. The second auxiliary point is named the sun on the mean equator or
mean sun for short. The mean sun is an imaginary sun that moves at a fixed angular
velocity along its orbit from the perspective of the Earth, with a period equal to that
of the actual Sun.
The instant of time when the local mean sun is at the upper culmination is called
the mean noon, and that when it is at the lower culmination is called the mean
midnight. The time interval between two successive mean midnights is defined as a
2.2 Time Systems and Reference Frames 19

mean solar day, with the mean midnight being its starting point. The time defined
with respect to the imaginary mean sun, similar to the definition of sidereal time, is
called the mean solar time or mean time for short. The period of one rotation of the
Earth with respect to the mean sun is a mean solar day. A mean solar day is divided
into 24 mean solar hours of 60 mean solar minutes, each of which consists of 60
mean solar seconds. The mean solar hour is also location dependent and numerically
equal to the mean solar hour angle plus 12 h. Owing to the Earth’s revolution around
the Sun, a mean solar day is slightly longer than a sidereal day.
During one period of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the Earth rotates 365.2422
times with respect to the Sun, i.e., the period is equal to 365.2422 mean solar days,
which corresponds to 366.2422 rotations with respect to a certain distant star.

1 mean solar day = 24 h, 03 min, and 56.5554 s in sidereal time.

1 sidereal day = 23 h, 56 min, and 04.0905 s in mean solar time.

The hour-angle difference between the apparent solar and mean solar time is
referred to as the equation of time, which can be up to 17 min within a year.
3. Universal time (UT)

For the convenience of everyday life and work, the Greenwich mean time (GMT) or
universal time (UT) has been defined based on the mean solar time.

GMT = Greenwich hour angle ± 12 h

UT and the sidereal time are not two independent time systems. Since 1956, three
versions of UT have been used: (1) UT0, directly measured at an observatory; (2)
UT1, with the correction for meridian shifting caused by polar motion; and (3) UT2,
a smoothed version with a correction for the Earth’s rotation-speed variation using
an empirical formula extrapolation.
4. Julian day (JD) and modified Julian day (MJD)

The Julian day (JD) is a continuous count of days starting at 12:00 UT (noon) on
January 1, 4713 BC. Since the JD number can be quite large and it starts at noon,
with a 12 h difference from the commonly used starting time 00:00 (midnight), a
modified Julian day (MJD) is defined as follows:

MJD = JD − 2400000.5 (2.1)

5. International atomic time (TAI) and terrestrial dynamical time (TDT)

For an atom of some elements, the electromagnetic signal emitted with the transition
of electrons between two known energy levels has a fixed oscillation frequency. A
time standard established based on such oscillation frequencies is called an atomic
time standard. The SI unit of time, second, was officially defined at the 13th General
20 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

Conference on Weights and Measures in 1967 as the duration of 9,192,631,770

periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of CS133 . The time standard established based on this time
unit is called the international atomic time (TAI, from its French name temps atom-
ique international). The dynamical time was adopted by the International Astronom-
ical Union at its XVI General Assembly in 1976 for activities related to theoretical
research on celestial mechanics and the compilation of celestial ephemerides starting
from 1984. The unit of this time is the SI second. The time scale used for ephemerides
from an observer on the surface of the Earth is called terrestrial dynamical time (TDT),
which was later changed to terrestrial time (TT) in 1991 [1].
The conversion between TDT and TAI is

TDT = TAI + 32S · 184 (2.2)

The difference between TDT and UT 1 is

T = TDT − UT 1 = 32S · 184 + TAI − UT 1 (2.3)

6. Coordinated universal time (UTC)

In the long term, UT increasingly lags behind TAI. To overcome this lack of
synchronicity, the coordinated universal time (UTC) was adopted in broadcasting
time signals in 1972. Its unit is the SI second, and it inserts leap seconds in the
middle or end of the year. Every step adjustment is one SI second. The goal of
insertion is to keep UTC within 0.9 s of UT.

2.2.2 Coordinate Systems

The first step to describe an orbit is to find an appropriate reference frame, including
the position of the origin, the fundamental plane (i.e., X–Y plane), the primary direc-
tion (i.e., direction of the X-axis), and the direction of the Z-axis. Different frames
result in different forms and complexities of the orbit, which directly affect how
intuitive the orbital parameters are and how difficult it is to obtain a solution. For
orbits around the Sun, such as those of planets, asteroids, comets, and deep-space
probes, the geocentric equation frame is suitable because the definition of this type
of frame is closely related to the rotation of the Earth. Hence, this section focuses on
coordinate systems that have the Earth’s center as their origins, as well as frames that
are fixed on spacecraft bodies. Other types of frames will be introduced in subsequent
sections.
A full problem of the Earth’s rotation is composed of polar motion, precession,
nutation, and variation in the Earth’s rotation speed. The variation in the Earth’s
axis of rotation in space is analogous to the precession and nutation of a spin-
ning gyroscope caused by external forces. Owing to the processional motion, the
2.2 Time Systems and Reference Frames 21

vernal equinox slowly moves westward. Consequently, the time when the Sun passes
through the vernal equinox every year is earlier than its return to the same spot referred
to as a certain distant star. That is, the tropical year is shorter than the sidereal year,
which is a phenomenon called general precession. General precession consists of
two components, namely, the lunisolar precession caused by the precession of the
equatorial mean pole around the ecliptic pole and the nutation caused by the cyclic
motion of the equatorial apparent pole relative to its mean pole. The polar motion of
the Earth, or simply polar motion, refers to the motion of the Earth’s axis of rotation
relative to its crust. Polar motion leads to local variations in latitudes and longitudes
on the Earth’s surface.
1. J2000 geocentric equatorial inertial coordinates OE XI YI ZI
This coordinate system is also called the epoch mean equatorial inertial system
or geocentric (1st) equatorial system, as denoted by SI . Its origin is at the Earth’s
center, its OE XI axis passes through the J2000.0 mean equinox, and its OE ZI
axis is normal to the J2000.0 epoch mean equatorial plane, which coincides
with the angular velocity vector of the Earth’s rotation. The OE YI axis (on the
equatorial plane), OE XI , and OE ZI form a right-handed system.
The SI system is commonly used in calculations of spacecraft orbits and solar
azimuth angles, as well as in navigation during the reentry phase.
2. Instantaneous mean equatorial system OE XI _MOD YI _MOD ZI _MOD
The origin of this system is the Earth’s center, its OE XI _MOD axis passes through
the instantaneous mean equinox, and its OE ZI _MOD axis is normal to the instan-
taneous mean equatorial plane. OE YI _MOD , OE XI _MOD , and OE ZI _MOD satisfy
the right-hand rule.
3. Instantaneous apparent equatorial system OE XI _TOD YI _TOD ZI _TOD
The origin of this system is the Earth’s center, its OE XI _TOD passes through
the instantaneous apparent equinox, and its OE ZI _TOD axis is normal to the
instantaneous apparent equatorial plane. OE YI _TOD , OE XI _TOD , and OE ZI _TOD
satisfy the right-hand rule.
4. Orbital frame OXo Yo Zo
This frame is denoted by So . Its origin O is the center of mass of the spacecraft,
its OZo axis passes through the Earth’s center, and its OYo axis is along the
negative direction of the orbital angular velocity. OXo (on the orbital plane),
OYo , and OZo satisfy the right-hand rule. So is used as the reference frame for
the in-orbit attitude determination of spacecraft.
5. Body-fixed frame OXb Yb Zb
This frame is denoted by Sb . Its origin O is the center of mass of the spacecraft.
OXb , OYb , and OZb are generally along the three principal inertial axes that are
perpendicular to each other, forming a right-handed coordinate system.
Sb is the installation frame for attitude sensors and actuators (engines) of
a control system. During in-orbit operation of the spacecraft, the difference
between the body frame Sb and orbital frame So is called the attitude error.
22 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

6. Launch coordinate system o0 x y z 

This system is denoted by SL . Its origin is on the launch pad o0 . The o0 x axis is
on the horizontal plane of the launch pad and in the launch direction. The angle
between o0 x and the meridian plane of the launch pad is the launch azimuth,
A0 , which is expressed as the positive east of the meridian plane. The o0 y axis
is along the plumb line of the launch pad, with its positive direction pointing
upwards. The angle between o0 y and the equatorial plane, B0 , is the geographic
latitude of the launch pad. The o0 z  axis is determined based on the right-hand
rule. SL is generally used for initial alignment before launch and emergency
rescue during launch.
7. WGS 84 system OE xW yW zW
The origin of this system is the Earth’s center of mass. The OE zW axis passes
through the Earth’s conventional terrestrial pole (CTP), where CTP is defined
by the International Time Bureau (BIH) based on the coordinates of their obser-
vatory. The OE xW axis passes through the intersection between the WGS 84
fundamental meridian plane (i.e., the prime meridian defined by BIH based on
the coordinates of their observatory) and the equatorial plane determined by
CTP. OE yW , OE zW , and OE xW form a right-handed coordinate system.

2.2.3 Transformation Between Coordinate Systems

1. J2000 geocentric equatorial inertial coordinates OE XI YI ZI and orbital frame

OXo Yo Zo
A spacecraft position in OE XI YI ZI is expressed in terms of the right ascension
of the ascending node , inclination i, and argument u. We have
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0⎤
xo0 XI
⎣ y0 ⎦ = CoI ⎣ Y 0 ⎦ (2.4)
o I
zo0 ZI0

where
⎡ ⎤
− sin u cos  − cos u cos i sin  − sin u sin  + cos u cos i cos  cos u sin i
⎢ ⎥
CoI = ⎣ − sin i sin  sin i cos  − cos i ⎦
− cos u cos  + sin u cos i sin  − cos u sin  − sin u cos i cos  − sin u sin i

2. Body-fixed frame OXb Yb Zb and orbital frame OXo Yo Zo

During in-orbit operation of the spacecraft, the attitude error, or simply atti-
tude, can be determined using the transformation between the two frames. The
transformation matrix Cbo is also called the attitude matrix.
2.2 Time Systems and Reference Frames 23
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0⎤
xb0 xo
⎣ y0 ⎦ = Cbo ⎣ y0 ⎦ (2.5)
b o
zb0 zo0

An attitude matrix can be expressed in terms of direction cosines, Euler angles,

or quaternions. The attitude of a space vehicle can be described more intuitively
and conveniently using Euler angles. The commonly used attitude angles are
based on the three ordered Euler angles between the body frame and orbital
frame: the rotation about OXb yields the roll angle φ, that about OYb yields the
pitch angle θ , and that about OZb yields the yaw angle ψ. When the Euler angles
are used to describe attitude, the attitude matrix is dependent on the sequence
of rotations. For instance, for a z–x–y sequence, the attitude matrix is
⎡ ⎤
cos θ cos ψ − sin θ sin ϕ sin ψ cos θ sin ψ + sin θ sin ϕ cos ψ − sin θ cos ϕ
⎢ ⎥
Cbo = ⎣ − cos ϕ sin ψ coϕ cos ψ sin ϕ ⎦
sin θ cos ψ + cos θ sin ϕ sin ψ sin θ sin ψ − cos θ sin ϕ cos ψ cos θ cos ϕ

When these angles are small, the attitude matrix can be approximated as
⎡ ⎤
1 ψ −θ
Cbo = ⎣ −ψ 1 ϕ ⎦
θ −ϕ 1

Now, the attitude matrix no longer depends on the sequence of rotations.

For large-angle attitude control, singularity can occur when solving the equa-
tions of motion with Euler angles. In this case, quaternions should be adopted.
Thus, the attitude matrix is
⎡ ⎤
q02 + q12 − q22 − q32 2(q1 q2 + q0 q3 ) 2(q1 q3 − q0 q2 )
Cb0 = ⎣ 2(q1 q2 − q0 q3 ) q02 − q12 + q22 − q32 2(q2 q3 + q0 q1 ) ⎦
2(q1 q3 + q0 q2 ) 2(q2 q3 − q0 q1 ) q02 − q12 − q22 + q32

The quaternions are defined as q = q0 +q1 i+q2 j+q3 k, with q02 +q12 +q22 +q32 = 1.
The detailed operations can be found in Chap. 4.
3. J2000 geocentric equatorial inertial coordinates OE XI YI ZI and instantaneous
mean equatorial system OE XI _MOD YI _MOD ZI _MOD
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0⎤
xI0_MOD xI
⎣ y0 ⎦ = CPR ⎣ y0 ⎦ (2.6)
I _MOD I
zI0_MOD zI0

The discrepancy between the two frames is attributed to axial precession. CPR
is the precession matrix, which consists of three rotation matrices, i.e.,
24 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

1 = Rz (−zA )Ry (θA )Rz (−ζA ) (2.7)

where zA , θA , and ζA are equatorial precession angles. They can be calculated

from the following equations:
⎧
⎨ ζA = 2306 .2181T + 0 .30188T 2 + 0 .017998T 3
Z = 2306 .2181T + 1 .09468T 2 + 0 .018203T 3
⎩ A
θA = 2004 .3109T − 0 .43665T 2 + 0 .041833T 3

where T represents the Julian century from epoch J2000.0 to the instant of
observation t.
4. Instantaneous mean equatorial system OE XI _MOD YI _MOD ZI _MOD and instanta-
neous apparent equatorial system OE XI _TOD YI _TOD ZI _TOD
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
xI0_TOD xI _MOD
⎣ y0 ⎦ = CNR ⎣ y0 ⎦ (2.8)
I _TOD I _MOD
0 0
zI _TOD zI _MOD

The discrepancy between the two frames is attributed to nutation. CNR is the
nutation, which consists of three rotation matrices, i.e.,

CNR = Rx (−(ε + ε))Rz (−ψ)Rx (ε) (2.9)

where ε is the mean obliquity calculated from

ε = 23◦ 26 21.448 − 46.8150 T − 0.00059 T 2

In Eq. (2.9), ψ and ε are the nutation in longitude and nutation in obliquity,
respectively. They can be taken from the IAU1980 series.
5. WGS 84 system OE xW yW zW and instantaneous apparent equatorial system
OE XI _TOD YI _TOD ZI _TOD
The WGS84 system rotates with the Earth’s rotation, deviating from the instan-
taneous apparent equatorial system by the Earth’s rotation angle. Let θ0 be the
Greenwich sidereal time at instant t0 , and ωe be the speed of the Earth’s rotation.
Then, at instant t, we have
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ 0 ⎤
0
xW cos(θ0 + ωe (t − t0 )) sin(θ0 + ωe (t − t0 )) 0 xI _TOD
⎣ y0 ⎦ = ⎣ − sin(θ0 + ωe (t − t0 )) cos(θ0 + ωe (t − t0 )) 0 ⎦⎣ yI0_TOD ⎦
W
0
zW 0 0 1 zI0_TOD
(2.10)
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 25

2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem

2.3.1 Overview of Two-Body Problem

The general equation of relative motion of two objects that are subject to perturbations
from other objects can be simplified into an equation of motion for only two objects.
This is the two-body problem.
First, we need two assumptions for simplification.
1. The objects are spherically symmetric such that their masses are concentrated
at their spherical centers.
2. There are no external or internal forces other than the gravitational force along
the line joining the centers of mass of the two bodies.
Next, we need to determine an inertial frame (a frame without acceleration or
rotation) so as to measure the state of motion of an object. Newton described the
inertial frame as one fixed in absolute space, which in essence is independent of the
outside world and remains at rest indefinitely. However, Newton did not clarify how
to find such a frame of absolute rest. Researchers had to presume the existence of
such a frame to conduct research on relative motion; in reality, we have no choice
but to find an “approximately” inertial frame.
Consider a system consisting of two objects that have masses of M and m. Their
position vectors in the inertial frame are rM and rm , respectively. Furthermore, let
r = rm − rM .
Now, in an inertial frame, by using Newton’s law of gravitation, we write

GMm r
mr̈m = −
r2 r
GMm r
M r̈M = (2.11)
r2 r
That is,

GM Gm
r̈m = − r r̈M = 3 r (2.12)
r3 r
Hence,

GM Gm
r̈ = r̈m − r̈M = − 3
r− 3 r (2.13)
r r
Equation (2.3) is the vector differential equation of relative motion of a two-body
problem.
As we primarily study artificial satellites, manned spacecraft, and space probes
orbiting a planet or the Sun in this book, it is fair to state that the mass of a spacecraft,
m, is much smaller than that of a celestial body, M. Thus, G(M + m) ≈ GM .
26 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

For the sake of convenience and generality, we call M the primary body. Further,
we define a gravitational constant μ ≡ GM. Then, Eq. (2.13) becomes
μ
r̈ + r=0 (2.14)
r3
which is the two-body orbital equation of motion. μ varies for different primary
bodies. For the Earth, μ = 3.986005 × 105 km/s; for the Moon, μ = 4.902794 ×
103 km/s; and for the Sun, μ = 1.32712438 × 1011 km/s.

2.3.2 Constants of Two-Body Orbital Motion

In fact, Eq. (2.14) alone provides great insight into the motion of a spacecraft orbiting
the Earth or other primary bodies, determining the spacecraft orbit and some funda-
mental properties of in-orbit motion. For example, the conservation of mechanical
energy and angular momentum are two important laws that can be derived from this
equation.
1. Conservation of mechanical energy
First, the dot products of ṙ and the two sides of Eq. (2.14) are calculated.
μ μ
ṙ · r̈ + ṙ · r = v · v̇ + 3 ṙ · r = 0 (2.15)
r3 r
which can be written as
1 d 2 μ
(v ) + 3 ṙr = 0 (2.16)
2 dt r
Equation (2.16) can be rewritten as

d v2 μ
− =0 (2.17)
dt 2 r

Thus,

d v2 μ
− +c =0 (2.18)
dt 2 r

where c is any constant. Hence, the variable defined in the equation below will
be constant as well.

v2 μ
E= + c− (2.19)
2 r
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 27

E is called the specific mechanical energy. Clearly, the first term on the right-
hand side (RHS) of the above equation is the kinetic energy per unit mass of the
spacecraft, and the second term is the potential energy per unit mass, which is
equal to the work done against the gravitational force from one point in space
to another. The value of the constant c depends on the selection of the reference
point of zero potential energy. If the surface of the primary body, e.g., the Earth,
is set as the zero point, then c = μr , where r is the Earth’s radius. If c = 0,
which implies that a point infinitely far away is used as the zero point, then the
potential energy of the spacecraft will always be negative.
Thus, it can be concluded that when a satellite moves along an orbit, its specific
mechanical energy E remains constant. E is expressed as

v2 μ
E= + − (2.20)
2 r
2. Conservation of angular momentum
By taking the cross products of r and the two sides of Eq. (2.14), we obtain
μ
r × r̈ + r × r=0 (2.21)
r3
Because r × r = 0, the second term on the left-hand side (LHS) of the above
equation is 0, yielding r × r̈ = 0.
Thus,

d d
(r × ṙ) = 0, (r × v) = 0 (2.22)
dt dt
which shows that the vector r × v is a constant of motion, defined as the specific
angular momentum and denoted by h. Therefore, we have proven that the orbital
angular momentum of a spacecraft is a constant written as

h=r×v (2.23)

Clearly, h is perpendicular to the plane formed by r and v. This indicates that

the motion of a spacecraft is confined to a fixed plane in space, i.e., the orbital
plane.
By examining the vectors r and v that lie in the orbital plane, as well as their
relationships with the primary body, we find that at any location in space, the
local plumb line is along the vector r. Hence, the local horizontal plane must be
perpendicular to r. We define the angle between the velocity vector v and local
plumb line as the zenith angle γ, and we define the angle between v and the local
horizontal plane as the flight path elevation angle, or simply flight path angle.
Based on the definition of the cross product, the magnitude of h is calculated as

h = |h| = |r × v| = |r||v| sin γ (2.24)

28 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

Fig. 2.1 Relationship

between the local plumb line
and vector r

It is more convenient to express h in terms of . Because γ and are

complementary, this equation can be written as (Fig. 2.1).

h = rv cos (2.25)

2.3.3 Geometric Equation of Two-Body Orbits

In the previous section, we presented the equation of motion, Eq. (2.14), for a space-
craft orbiting a primary body in a two-body problem. Although this equation has a
simple form, it fully describes the shape and size of an orbit.
By taking the cross products of h and the two sides of Eq. (2.14), we obtain
u
h × r̈ = − h×r (2.26)
r3
By using the conservation of angular momentum and the property (a × b) × c =
b(a · c) − a(b · c) for cross products of vectors, which can be written as

d
(h × ṙ) = h × r̈ + ḣ × ṙ = h × r̈
dt
μ μ μ μ dr d r
h × r = (r × v) × r = v − r = μ (2.27)
r3 r3 r r 2 dt dt r
Thus,

d d r
(ṙ × h) = μ (2.28)
dt dt r
The integration of both sides yields
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 29

r
ṙ × h = μ + B (2.29)
r

where B is a constant vector. Taking the dot products of r and both sides of the above
equation
r
r · (ṙ × h) = r · μ + r · B (2.30)
r
Further, we obtain the scalar equation

h2 = μr + rB cos f (2.31)

where f is the angle between the constant vector B and position vector r. The
geometric equation of the orbit is obtained by solving for r:

h2 /μ
r= (2.32)
1 + (Bμ) cos f

Let p = h2 /μ and e = B/μ. Then, the above equation becomes

p
r= (2.33)
1 + e cos f

It is not difficult to conclude that the geometric equation of the orbit represents a
conic section in a polar coordinate system. The center of mass of the primary body is
the origin of the polar coordinates, located at a focus of the conic. The true anomaly f
is the angle between r and the line joining the focus and its nearest point on the conic.
The constant p is called the semi-latus rectum. The constant e is called eccentricity
and determines the type of conic represented by Eq. (2.33), as shown in Fig. 2.2.
This not only proves Kepler’s first law, but also extends it to the motion of any
conic orbit (not just ellipses).
Thus, the following points can be summarized
1. A conic section (e.g., circle, ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola) is the only possible
shape of a spacecraft orbit in the two-body problem.
2. The center of the primary body must be a focus of the conic orbit.

Fig. 2.2 General equation of

a conic section in polar
coordinates
30 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

3. When a spacecraft moves along a conic orbit, its specific mechanical energy
remains constant. However, conversion between kinetic and potential energies
is possible. This suggests that when the altitude of the spacecraft increases (i.e.,
when r increases), its velocity certainly decreases; conversely, a decrease in r
leads to a higher velocity. Consequently, E is always a constant.
4. For a spacecraft orbiting the primary body, when its r and v change along the
orbit, its specific angular momentum h remains constant.
5. Orbital motion is always confined to a plane fixed in inertial space.

2.3.4 Geometric Properties of Two-Body Orbits

1. Geometric parameters of conic orbits

Conic orbits can be classified into four types: circular, elliptical, parabolic,
and hyperbolic. Figure 2.3 shows some common geometric parameters and the
relations among these different types of orbits.

Fig. 2.3 Common geometric parameters of conic sections

2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 31

All conic sections have two foci, F and F’. The primary focus F represents the
location of the primary body, whereas the secondary focus (or virtual focus)
F’ has little physical meaning in orbital mechanics. The distance between the
two foci is 2c. For a circle, the two foci coincide; therefore, 2c is zero. For
a parabola, the virtual focus can be thought to be at infinity; therefore, 2c is
infinitely large. For a hyperbola, 2c is negative. The chord passing through the
foci is the major axis of the conic section, which is denoted by 2a, where a
is called the semi-major axis or major radius. For a circle, 2a is exactly the
diameter. For a parabola, 2a is infinitely large. For a hyperbola, 2a is negative.
The width of the conic at a focus is a positive quantity called the latus rectum,
which is denoted by 2p in Fig. 2.3.
Except for parabolas, all the other conic sections have the following eccentricity:
c
e= (2.34)
a

p = a(1 − e2 ) (2.35)

2. Periapsis and apoapsis of the orbit

The two endpoints of the major axis of the orbit are called apsides: the one near
the primary focus is the periapsis, while the one far from the primary focus is
the apoapsis. In orbital research, depending on the primary body, these apsides
can be called perigee/apogee for the Earth, perihelion/aphelion for the Sun, and
perilune/apolune for the Moon. It should be noted that these points are not fixed
for circular orbits. Further, the apoapsis is not physically meaningful for open
curves (parabolas and hyperbolas).
To calculate the distance from the primary focus to the periapsis or apoapsis
(if they exist), we only need to substitute f = 0◦ or f = 180◦ in the general
conic-section equation in polar coordinates. Hence, for any conic section,
p
rp = = a(1 − e) (2.36)
1+e
p
ra = = a(1 + e) (2.37)
1−e

Furthermore, at the periapsis or apoapsis (if they exist) of any conic orbit,
the position vector and velocity vector are always perpendicular to each other.
Therefore, as a special case of the above equation,

h = rp vp = ra va (2.38)

where vp and va are the velocities at the two apsides, respectively.

3. Shape of the orbit
From Eqs. (2.20), (2.36), (2.37), and (2.38), as f = 0◦ or f = 180◦ , we get
E = −μ/2a, and the energy E remains constant at any position in orbit. The
32 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

simple relation that is valid for all conic orbits indicates that the semi-major
axis of the orbit is only dependent on the specific mechanical energy of the
spacecraft E.
Circular and elliptical orbits: a > 0, E < 0.
Parabolic orbits: a = ∞, E = 0.
Hyperbolic orbits: a < 0, E > 0.
Therefore, the sign of E alone is sufficient to determine the type of conic orbit
a spacecraft is in. Further, because p = h2 /μ, for any conic orbit,

2Eh2
e= 1+ (2.39)
μ2

Considering that p is determined solely by h and a solely by E, we can state

that h and E collectively specify e, i.e., the specific shape of the conic orbit.
Moreover, because h = rvcos , r > 0, and v > 0 for a regular spacecraft, it is
concluded that the value of the flight path angle (0 ≤ ≤ 180°) determines
the sign of h.
When = 90°, i.e., h = 0, the following are applicable.
If E < 0, then e < 1; the orbit is elliptical or circular.
If E = 0, then e = 1; the orbit is parabolic.
If E > 0, then e > 1; the orbit is hyperbolic.
When = 90°, i.e., h = 0, e is always unity irrespective of the value of E. In
this case, the spacecraft orbit is a straight line joining the primary body’s center
of mass and the current position of the spacecraft, which is also a degenerate
conic. Because this is considered a singularity that rarely occurs in reality, we
will not go into the details of this situation.

2.3.5 Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem

As discussed above, the two-body problem concerns the motion of two interacting
point masses in an inertial frame of reference. In contrast, the three-body problem
studies the motion of three gravitational bodies. Among the three bodies M 1 , M 2 , and
m, m is infinitely small, and its gravitational effects on M 1 and M 2 are negligible;
only the integrations between M 1 and M 2 and their gravitational effects on m are
considered. Therefore, this type of problem of three-body motion is referred to as a
restricted three-body problem (RTBP).
For a libration-point mission of the Sun–Earth system, the Sun, Earth, Moon,
and satellite constitute a restricted four-body problem (RFBP). It is very difficult to
handle an RFBP directly. Hence, we generally simplify it into an RTBP. There are
two main approaches for such simplification. Because a satellite at the libration point
in a transfer orbit has to avoid the sphere of influence of the Moon, the influence
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 33

of the Moon on the satellite can be assumed to be small treated as a perturbation.

This is how the first approach converts the RFBP into an RTBP consisting of the
Sun, Earth, and satellite. In the second approach, the Earth and Moon are treated as
a single point mass at their joint center of mass, provided the satellite is far away
from the Earth–Moon barycenter. In this manner, we have another RTBP consisting
of the Sun, Earth + Moon, and satellite.
In an RTBP, M 1 and M 2 are finite-mass bodies, whereas m is the infinitely
small body. Assuming M 1 ≥ M 2 , M 1 and M 2 are called primary and secondary
massive bodies, respectively. Because the gravitational effects of m on M 1 and M 2
are neglected, M 1 and M 2 only have the gravitational forces acting on each other.
Thus, the motion of M 1 and M 2 can be described by a two-body problem, where
their positions and velocities are known functions of time. In addition, the gravi-
tational forces of M 1 and M 2 exerted on m are also known. Therefore, the RTBP
essentially studies the motion of m under the gravitational attraction from M 1 and
M 2 while M 1 and M 2 exhibit unperturbed motion in the conic orbit. Depending
on the motion curves of M 1 and M 2 , there are hyperbolic, parabolic, and elliptical
(circular) RTBPs. The circular RTBP, or CRTBP, was first proposed by Euler in 1772
for studying the Moon’s motion around the Earth under perturbation from the Sun
in the Sun–Earth–Moon system.
Assuming that the Sun and Earth move in a circular orbit around their joint center
of mass, the system consisting of the Sun, Earth, and satellite is a CRTBP. To describe
the orbital motion of the satellite, we adopt a barycentric rotating frame C-XYZ, as
shown in Fig. 2.4, where M 1 and M 2 represent the Sun and Earth, respectively.
For the convenience of analysis, the equations of motion are usually written in
the dimensionless form. The mass unit [M], distance unit [L], and time unit [T ] are
calculated as follows:

Fig. 2.4 Barycentric inertial coordinates C-X ei Y ei Z ei and barycentric rotating coordinates C-XYZ
34 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics
⎧
⎨ [M ] = M1 + M2
[L] = M
1 M2 (2.40)
⎩
[T ] = [L]3 /G[M ] = 1/n

Thus, within this barycentric rotating frame, the dimensionless equations of

motion of the satellite are
⎧ (1−ρ)(X +ρ) ρ(X −1+ρ)
⎨ Ẍ − 2Ẏ − X = −
⎪ r13
− r23
(1−ρ)Y ρY
Ÿ + 2Ẋ − Y = r 3 − r 3 (2.41)
⎪
⎩ 1 2
Z̈ = (1−ρ)Z
r 3 − ρZ
r 3
1 2


where
 ρ = M2 /(M1 + M 2 ), r 1 = (X + ρ)2 + Y 2 + Z 2 , and r2 =
(X − 1 + ρ) + Y + Z . We can observe that the equations of motion of the
2 2 2

satellite in a CRTBP are a system of nonlinear differential equations.

The above equations of motion can also be expressed using a pseudopotential
function, U = U (X , Y , Z), as follows:
⎧ ∂U
⎨ Ẍ − 2Ẏ = ∂X = UX
Ÿ + 2Ẋ = ∂U = UY (2.42)
⎩ ∂Y
Z̈ = ∂U
∂Z
= UZ

where U is defined as
1 2 1−ρ ρ
U = (X + Y 2 ) + + (2.43)
2 r1 r2

Thus, Jacobi’s integral is written as

C = 2U − (Ẋ 2 + Ẏ 2 + Ż 2 ) (2.44)

Thus far, this is the only integral we have found in CRTBP.

The zero-velocity surface is the surface on which the velocity of the infinitely
small body equals zero.

2U (X , Y , Z) = C (2.45)

The Jacobi constant C is determined by initial conditions, i.e.,

C = 2U (X0 , Y0 , Z0 ) − (Ẋ02 + Ẏ02 + Ż02 ) (2.46)

The geometric structure of the zero-velocity surface varies with the Jacobi
constant C:
2.3 Two-Body Problem and Three-Body Problem 35

2(1 − ρ) 2ρ
C = (X 2 + Y 2 ) + + (2.47)
r1 r2

2.3.6 Libration Points

There are five dynamic equilibrium points in Eq. (2.41), which are known as libration
points (L-points) or Lagrangian points. All of them are in the XY plane, as shown in
Fig. 2.5.
The three colinear points L1 , L2 , and L3 are unstable; a small perturbation can
cause the objects in the vicinity of these points to leave and move further away. L4
and L5 are stable; small motions near these points remain in the vicinity. L1 and L2 lie
on the line connecting the Sun and Earth, approximately 1,500,000 km away from
Earth. L3 is at the opposite side of the Sun and one Earth–Sun distance from the Sun.
The triangular libration points L4 and L5 lie at the third vertices of the two equilateral
triangles that share a common base on the Sun–Earth line.
The libration points are quite useful. For example, satellites orbiting the L1 point
in the Sun–Earth system can conduct continuous observation of the Sun, providing
early prediction of the solar cycle; continuous observation of the sunlit side of Earth is
also possible. The L2 point in the Sun–Earth system can avoid the influence from the
Sun and Earth, which is important for studying the cosmic-ray background and the
existence of terrestrial planets or for the continuous observation of the dark side of the
Earth. Another good example is the L2 point in the Earth–Moon system, the satellites
near which can continuously observe the far side of the Moon or provide continuous
communication with Earth. This is important in solving the communication problem
on the far side of the Moon, as shown in Fig. 2.6.

Fig. 2.5 Schematic of the L4

libration points in the
Earth’s orbit
Sun–Earth system

L3 L1 L2

Moon’s orbit

L5
36 2 Spacecraft Orbits and Orbital Dynamics

Fig. 2.6 Communication link with the far side of the Moon

2.4 Orbital Properties of Spacecraft

2.4.1 Orbital Parameters and Transformations

1. Definitions of orbital parameters

The shape and position of a spacecraft’s orbit can be described using six quan-
tities, which are known as orbital elements or Keplerian elements. These quan-
tities are independent and normally have unambiguous physical meanings. We
now examine them in an elliptical orbit around earth.
Orbital elements are important parameters used to describe and determine the
orbital properties of a spacecraft, and they are defined as follows.

(1) Inclination i. The plane on which the spacecraft’s orbit lies is called the
orbital plane, which passes through the Earth’s center. The angle between
the orbital plane and the equatorial plane of Earth is defined as inclination.
(2) Right ascension of the ascending node . It is the longitude of the
ascending node measured from the reference direction of the vernal
equinox, expressed as positive in the direction of the Earth’s rotation
(0 ≤  ≤ 2π). The intersection of the orbital plane and the equatorial
plane yields two points on the celestial body. The point through which
the spacecraft passes during its ascension from the Southern Hemisphere
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 the navy during the war and met his
tragic fate in 1862, while master's mate
on the gun-boat Mound City,
commanded by Admiral Davis.
While attacking a fort on the White
River, a shot from the fort's battery
penetrated the boiler of the Mound City.
In the terrific explosion that followed,
young Kinzie and more than ninety
others were scalded and blown
overboard.
The hospital boat of the fleet
immediately set out to rescue the
MRS. NELLIE (KINZIE) GORDON. wounded men. As Kinzie struck out for
the boat, his friend Augustus Taylor, of
Cairo, called out to him to keep out of the range of the fort as the
sharp-shooters were evidently picking off the wounded men in the
water. This proved to be true; young Kinzie was shot through the legs
and arras by minié balls as he was being lifted into the boat.
He soon heard the shouts of his
comrades; and turning to one of his
friends, he said:
"We have taken the fort. I am ready
to die now."
He sank rapidly and died the
following morning, June 18, just as the
sun was rising. He left a young wife
barely eighteen years old, a daughter of
Judge James, of Racine, Wisconsin, and
his own little daughter was born three
months after his death.
It was necessary to put a guard over JOHN HARRIS KINZIE, JR
the person of Colonel Fry (who was
captured with the fort) to save him from
being sacrificed to the indignation the men felt against him for having
ordered his sharp-shooters to pick off the scalded men and shoot them
in the water.
 APPENDIX E.

WILLIAM WELLS AND REBEKAH

WELLS HEALD.
RATITUDE to our first hero and martyr calls for
a somewhat extended study of his life, and it
will be found interesting enough to repay the
attention.
Colonel Samuel Wells and his brother
Captain William Wells were Kentuckians; the
family being said to have come from Virginia.
William, when twelve years old, was stolen by
the Indians from the residence of Hon.
Nathaniel Pope, where both brothers seem to
have been living. He was adopted by Me-che-
kan-nah-quah, or little Turtle, a chief of the
Miamis, lived in his house and married his
daughter Wa-nan-ga-peth, by whom he had
several children, of whom the following left children:
Pe-me-zah-quah (Rebekah) married Captain Hackley, of Fort Wayne,
leaving Ann and John Hackley, her children.
Ah-mah-qua-zah-quah (a "sweet breeze"—Mary) born at Fort Wayne
May 10, 1800, married Judge James Wolcott March 8, 1821; died at
Maumee City, (now South Toledo,) O., Feb. 19, 1834, leaving children as
follows: William Wells Wolcott, Toledo; Mary Ann (Wolcott) Gilbert,
South Toledo; Henry Clay Wolcott, South Toledo, and James Madison
Wolcott, South Toledo.
Jane (Wells) Grigg, living at Peru, Indiana; has children.
 Yelberton P. Wells, St. Louis, died leaving one child.
William fought on the side of the Indians in the campaign of 1790
and 1791, when they defeated the Americans under Generals Harmer
and Saint Clair. The story of his reclamation, as told by Rebekah (Wells)
Heald to her son Darius, and repeated by him to a stenographer, in my
presence, in 1892, is quite romantic.
Rebekah was daughter of Samuel Wells, elder brother of William,
and was therefore niece of the latter. She must have been born between
1780 and 1790. We learn from the story of her son, the Hon. Darius
Heald, as follows:
She was fond of telling the story of her life, and her children and her
friends were never tired of listening to it. [Her son thinks he has heard her
tell it a hundred times.] She would begin away back in her girlhood, spent in
the country about Louisville, Kentucky, when her father. Colonel Samuel
Wells, was living there; and tell how they all wanted uncle William Wells,
whom they called their "Indian uncle," to leave the Indians who had stolen
him in his boyhood, and come home and belong to his white relations. He
hung back for years, and even at last, when he agreed to visit them, made
the proviso that he should be allowed to bring along an Indian escort with
him, so that he should not be compelled to stay with them if he did not
want to.
Young Rebekah Wells was the one who had been chosen to go to the
Indian council with her father, and persuade her uncle William to come and
visit his old home; she, being a girl, very likely had more influence with him
than any of the men could have had. William Wells was at that time living a
wild Indian life, roaming up and down the Wabash river, and between the
lakes and the Ohio. Probably the place where the battle of Tippicanoe was
fought, in 1811, near the present site of La Fayette, Indiana, was pretty
near the center of his regular stamping ground.
After much hesitation he consented to get together a party of braves,
somewhere from seventy-five to a hundred, and visit his relatives. Little
Turtle, whose daughter he had married, was along, very likely commanding
the escort. They went down to the falls of the Ohio river, about opposite
Louisville, and camped, while William Wells, with a picked band of twenty-
five, crossed the river and met with his own people. Then the question
arose as to whether he was the brother of Colonel Samuel Wells, and he
asked to be taken to the place where he was said to have been captured, to
see if he could remember the circumstances. When he reached there, he
looked about and pointed in a certain direction and asked if there was a
pond there; and they said: "Well, let's go and see." So they went in the
 direction indicated, and to be sure they saw the pond; and he said that he
could remember that pond. Then he saw a younger brother present, whom
he had accidentally wounded in the head as a child, and he said to his
brother:
"Now if you are my brother there ought to be a mark on the back of your
head, where I hit you with a stone one day;" and the brother held up his
head, and William lifted the hair and found the scar, and he said: "Yes, I am
your brother."
William was now convinced for the first time that he was the brother of
Colonel Samuel Wells, but he went back with his Indian friends, his father-
in-law, Little Turtle, and the rest, and it was not until sometime later that he
told Little Turtle that, although he had fought for his Indian friends all his
life, the time had now come when he was going home to fight for his own
flesh and blood. It was under a big tree on the banks of the Miami that he
had this talk, and he pointed to the sun and said: "Till the sun goes up in
the middle of the sky we are friends. After that you can kill me if you want
to." Still they always remained friends, and agreed that if in war, if one
could find out on which side of the army the other was put, he would
change positions so as not to be likely to meet the other in battle; and if
one recognized the other while fighting, he would never aim to hit him.
They also had the privilege of meeting and talking to each other, it being
understood that nothing was to be said about the opposing numbers of
their armies. They were not to act as spies but simply to meet each other as
friends.

It was at about the time when General Wayne, "Mad Anthony," came
into command that Wells left his red friends and began to serve on the
side of his own flesh and blood. He was made captain of a company of
scouts, and must have done good service, for, in 1798, he accompanied
his father-in-law, Little Turtle, to Philadelphia, where the Indian (and
probably Wells also) was presented to President Washington, and in
1803 we find him back at Chicago signing an Indian trader's license: "W.
H. Harrison, Governor of Indian Territory, by William Wells, agent at
Indian affairs." Little Turtle lived usually at Fort Wayne. Of him his friend
John Johnston, of Piqua, Ohio, said:
"He was a man of great wit, humor and vivacity, fond of the company of
gentlemen and delighted in good eating. When I knew him he had two
wives living with him under the same roof in the greatest harmony. This
distinguished chief died at Fort Wayne of a confirmed case of gout, brought
on by high living, and was buried with military honors by the troops of the
United States."
 He died July 14, 1812, and was buried on the west bank of the river
at Fort Wayne. His portrait hangs on the walls of the War Department at
Washington.
In 1809 Captain Wells took his niece, Rebekah, with him to Fort
Wayne on a visit. Captain Heald was then on duty at Fort Wayne, and it
was doubtless there that the love-making took place which led to the
marriage of the two young people in 1811.
The following interesting bits concerning Captain Wells are taken
from a letter written by A. H. Edwards to Hon. John Wentworth (Fergus'
Hist. Series No. 16), the remainder of which letter is given later in this
volume. (See Appendix G.)
Captain Wells, after being captured by the Indians when a boy, remained
with them until the treaty with the Miamis. Somewhere about the year 1795
he was a chief and an adopted brother of the celebrated chief Little Turtle.
Captain Wells signed the marriage certificate, as officiating magistrate, of
my father and mother at Fort Wayne, June, 1805. The certificate is now in
my possession.

"Fort Wayne, 4th June.

"I do hereby certify that I joined Dr. Abraham Edwards and Ruthy Hunt in
the holy bonds of matrimony, on the third instant, according to the law.
"Given under my Hand and Seal, the day and year above written.

"William Wells, Esq."

* * * Captain Wells urged Major Heald not to leave the fort, as he did not
like the way the Indians acted, and was well acquainted with all their
movements as learned from his Indian allies, who deserted him the moment
the firing commenced. Captain N. Heald's story is as I heard it from the
mouth of one who saw it all, the girl and her mother, the one living in our
family for many years, and the mother in Detroit. Their name was Cooper.
Captain Wells, soon after leaving the Indians, was appointed interpreter at
the request of General Wayne, and was with him in his campaign against
the Indians as captain of a company of spies, and many thrilling accounts
were given me of his daring and remarkable adventures as such, related by
one who received them from his own lips, and in confirmation of one of his
adventures pointed at an Indian present, and said: "That Indian," says he,
"belongs to me, and sticks to me like a brother," and then told how he
captured him with his rifle on his shoulder. This Indian was the one who
gave Mrs. Wells the first intimation of his death and then disappeared,
supposed to have returned to his people.
Captain William Wells was acting Indian Agent and Justice of the Peace at
Port Wayne at the time he married my father and mother, and was
considered a remarkably brave and resolute man. I will give you a sketch of
one of his feats as told me by my mother, who was present and witnessed it
all. The Indians were collected at Fort Wayne on the way for the purpose of
meeting the Miamis and other Indians in council. While camped there they
invited the officers of the fort to come out and witness a grand dance, and
other performances, previous to their departure for the Indian conference.
Wells advised the commander of the fort not to go, as he did not like the
actions of the Indians; but his advice was overruled, and all hands went out,
including the officers' ladies. But the troops in the fort were on the alert,
their guns were loaded and sentries were doubled, as it was in the evening.
A very large tent was provided for the purpose of the grand dance. After
many preliminary dances and talks, a large and powerful chief arose and
commenced his dance around the ring, and made many flourishes with his
tomahawk. Then he came up to Wells, who stood next my mother, and
spoke in Indian and made demonstrations with his tomahawk that looked
dangerous, and then took his seat. But no sooner than he did so Wells gave
one of the most unearthly war-whoops she ever heard, and sprang up into
the air as high as her head, and picked up the jaw bone of a horse or ox
that lay near by, and went around the ring in a more vigorous and artistic
Indian style than had been seen that evening; and wound up by going up to
the big Indian and flourishing his jaw-bone, and told him that he had killed
more Indians than white men, and had killed one that looked just like him,
and he believed it was his brother, only much better looking and a better
brave than he was. The Indians were perfectly taken by surprise. Wells
turned to the officers and told them to be going. He hurried them off to the
fort, and had all hands on the alert during the night. When questioned as to
his action and what he said, he replied that he had told the Indians what I
have related. Then he enquired of those present if they did not see that the
Indians standing on the opposite side of the tent had their rifles wrapped up
in their blankets.
"If I had not done just as I had, and talked to that Indian as I did, we
would all have been shot in five minutes; but my actions required a council,
as their plans were, as they supposed, frustrated, and that the troops would
be down on them at the first hostile move they made." He saw the game
when he first went in, as his Indian training taught him, and he waited just
for the demonstration that was made as the signal for action. Wells saw no
time was to be lost, and made good his resolve, and the big Indian cowed
under the demonstration of Wells. My mother said he looked as if he
expected Wells to make an end of him for what he had said to Wells in his
dance. "I had to meet bravado with bravado, and I think I beat," said Wells.
 You could see it in the countenances of all the Indians. The same advice
given to Heald, if attended to, would have saved the massacre of Fort
Dearborn. * * * *
A. H. Edwards.

James Madison Wolcott, grandson of Captain Wells (through Ah-

mah-quah-zah-quah, who married Judge James Wolcott) wrote to Mr.
Wentworth as follows:
We are proud of our Little Turtle [Indian] blood and of our Captain Wells
blood. We try to keep up the customs of our ancestors, and dress
occasionally in Indian costumes. We take no exception when people speak
of our Indian parentage. We take pleasure in sending you the tomahawk
which Captain William Wells had at the time of his death, and which was
brought to his family by an Indian who was in the battle. We also have a
dress-sword which was presented to him by General W. H. Harrison, and a
great many books which he had; showing that even when he lived among
the Indians, he was trying to improve himself. He did all he could to educate
his children. Captain Wells, in the year of his death, sent to President
Madison, at Little Turtle's request, the interpretation of the speech that that
chief made to General W. H. Harrison, January 25, 1812.

Captain Heald never got rid of the effect of his wound. The bullet
remained embedded in his hip and doubtless is in his coffin. He resigned
shortly after the war, and the family (in 1817) settled at Stockland,
Missouri. The new name of the place, O'Fallon, recalls the fact that the
well known Colonel O'Fallon, of St. Louis, was an old friend of the family,
and himself redeemed the things which the Indians had captured at the
massacre (the same articles now cherished as relics of the historic
event) and sent them to Colonel Samuel Wells at Louisville, where they
arrived during the interval when all supposed that Nathan and Rebekah
had perished with the members of the garrison and their fellow-
sufferers.
Among the articles captured by the Indians and, after their
transportation from Chicago to Peoria and from Peoria to Saint Louis,
bought by Colonel O'Fallon and sent to the Falls of the Ohio (Louisville)
to Samuel Wells, are the following, all of which were brought to Chicago
by the Hon. Darius Heald, exhibited to his relatives (the family of Gen.
A. L. Chetlain), and their friends, and here reproduced.
Captain Heald's sword.
 A shawl-pin he wore which, when recovered, had been bent to serve as a
nose-ring.
Part of his uniform coat, which seems to have been divided among his
captors.
Six silver table-spoons and one soup-ladle, each marked "N. R. H.,"
doubtless the wedding-present made by Colonel Samuel Wells to Nathan
and Rebekah Heald.
A hair brooch marked "S. W.," supposed to contain the hair of Samuel
Wells.
A finger-ring marked "R. W." (Probably one of the girlish treasures of
Rebekah Wells.)
A fine tortoise-shell comb, cut somewhat in the shape of an eagle's beak
and having silver ornaments representing the bird's eye, nostril, etc.
 DARIUS HEALD, WITH SWORD AND OTHER
MASSACRE RELICS.

Mr. Wentworth further says:

In the biographical sketches of the members of the Corinthian Lodge of
Masons, at Concord, Mass., I find the following:
Nathan Heald, initiated in 1797, died at Stockland (now O'Fallon) in St.
Charles County, Missouri, where he had resided some years, in 1832, aged
57 years. He was born in Ipswich, N. H., September 29, 1775, was the third
sou of Colonel Thomas and Sybel (Adams) Heald and in early life joined the
U. S. Army. Mrs. Maria (Heald) Edwards, of this city, born at Ipswich, N. H,
in 1803, mother of Mrs. General Chetlain, was the eldest child of his brother,
Hon. Thomas Heald, one of the Associate Judges of the Supreme Court of
Alabama. (Fergus' Hist. Series No. 16.)
 A considerable part of Captain Heald's first report of the massacre
appears in our old friend Niles' Weekly Register, Nov. 7, 1812. (I have
quoted it, to a great extent, in connection with the story of the event.)
Extract of a letter from Captain Heald, late commandant at Fort Chicago,
dated at Pittsburg, October 23, 1812:
On the 9th of August, I received orders from General Hull to evacuate the
post and proceed with my command to Detroit, by land, leaving it at my
discretion to dispose of the public property as I thought proper. The
neighboring Indians got the information as soon as I did, and came in from
all quarters to receive goods in the factory-store, which they understood
were to be given to them. On the 13th, Captain Wells, of Fort Wayne,
arrived with about thirty Miamis, for the purpose of escorting us in, by
request of General Hull. On the 14th I delivered to the Indians all the goods
of the factory-store, and a considerable quantity of provisions which we
could not take with us. The surplus arms and ammunition I thought proper
to destroy, fearing they would make bad use of it, if put in their possession.
I also destroyed all liquor on hand soon after they began to collect.
The collection was unusually large for that place, but they conducted with
the strictest propriety until after I left the fort. On the 15th, at 9 A. M., we
commenced our march. A part of the Miamis were detached in front, the
remainder in our rear, as guards, under the direction of Captain Wells. The
situation of the country rendered it necessary for us to take the beach, with
the lake on our left and a high sand-bank on our right at about one hundred
yards distance. We had proceeded about a mile and a half when it was
discovered that the Indians were prepared to attack us from behind the
bank. I immediately marched up, with the company, to the top of the bank,
when the action commenced; after firing one round we charged, and the
Indians gave way in front and joined those on our flanks. In about fifteen
minutes they got possession of all our horses, provisions, and baggage of
every description, and, finding the Miamis did not assist us, I drew off the
men I had left and took possession of a small elevation in the open prairie,
out of shot of the bank or any other cover. The Indians did not follow me
but assembled in a body on the top of the bank, and after some private
consultation among themselves, made signs for me to approach them. I
advanced toward them alone and was met by one of the Pottowatomie
chiefs called Black-bird, with an interpreter. After shaking hands, he
requested me to surrender, promising to spare the lives of all the prisoners.
On a few moments consideration I concluded it would be most prudent to
comply with his request, although I did not put entire confidence in his
promise. After delivering up our arms we were taken back to their
encampment near the fort, and distributed among the different tribes.
 The next morning they set fire to the fort and left the place, taking the
prisoners with them. Their number of warriors was between four and five
hundred, mostly from the Pottowatomie nation, and their loss, from the best
information I could get, was about fifteen. Our strength was about fifty-four
regulars and twelve militia, out of which twenty-six regulars and all the
militia were killed in the action, with two women and twelve children. Ensign
George Ronan and Dr. Isaac Van Voorhis of my company, with Captain Wells
of Fort Wayne, to my great sorrow, are numbered among the dead.
Lieutenant Linai T. Helm, with twenty-five non-commissioned officers and
privates and eleven women and children, were prisoners when we
separated.
Mrs. Heald and myself were taken to the mouth of the river St. Joseph,
and, being both badly wounded, were permitted to reside with Mr. Burnett,
an Indian trader. In a few days after our arrival there, the Indians went off
to take Fort Wayne, and in their absence I engaged a Frenchman to take us
to Michilimackinac by water, where I gave myself up as a prisoner of war,
with one of my sergeants. The commanding officer, Captain Roberts, offered
me every assistance in his power to render our situation comfortable while
we remained there, and to enable us to proceed on our journey. To him I
gave my parole of honor, and came to Detroit and reported myself to
Colonel Proctor, who gave us a passage to Buffalo, from that place I came
by way of Presque-Isle, and arrived here yesterday.
Nathan Heald.

The following letter from Captain Heald, written three years after
taking up his residence in Missouri, speaks for itself:
St. Charles, Missouri Territory May 18th, 1820.
Sir:—I had the honor of receiving your letter of the 30th of March, a few
days since. The garrison at Chicago commanded by me at the time Detroit
was surrendered by General Hull, were every man paid up to the 30th of
June, 1812, inclusive, officers' subsistence and forage included.
The last payment embraced nine months, and was made by myself as the
agent of Mr. Eastman, but I cannot say what the amount was. Every paper
relative to that transaction was soon after lost. I am, however, confident
that there was no deposit with me to pay the garrison for the three months
subsequent to the 30th of June, 1812.
The receipt-rolls which I had taken from Mr. Eastman, together with the
balance of money in my hands, fell into the hands of the Indians on the
15th of August, 1812, when the troops under my command were defeated
near Chicago; what became of them afterwards I know not. I have no
papers in my possession relative to that garrison, excepting one muster-roll
for the month of May, 1812. By it I find that the garrison there consisted of
 one captain, one 2nd lieutenant, one ensign, one surgeon's mate, four
sergeants, two corporals, four musicians and forty-one privates. I cannot
determine what the strength of the garrison was at any other time during
the years 1811 and 1812, but it was on the decline. Monthly returns were
regularly submitted to the Adjutant and Inspector-General's office, at
Washington City, which, I suppose, can be found at any time.
I am respectfully sir, your most obedient servant,
Nathan Heald.
Peter Hagner, Esq.,
3rd Auditor's Office, Treasury
Department, Washington City.

This brings up to the mind of every officer the terrors of the "Auditors of
the Treasury." Not victory or defeat, not wounds or even death—nay, not old
Time himself can clear a soldier from the terrible ordeal of the "Accounting
Department." Poor Heald had evidently been asked: "Where is the money
which was in your hands before the savages surrounded you, slaughtered
your troops, wounded yourself and your wife, massacred the civilians under
your care, tortured to death your wounded and burned your fort?" At the
same time the ordnance bureau doubtless asked what had become of the
arms, ammunition, accoutrements and cooking utensils; the commissary
bureau asked after the stores and the quartermaster's bureau after the
equippage. Scores of thousands of volunteer officers in the Union war found
to their cost that their fighting was the only thing which the War
Department kept no record of; that their account-keeping and reporting was
what must be most carefully looked after if they would free themselves,
their heirs, executors and assigns, from imperishable obligations. For the
government knows no "statute of limitations"—takes no account of the
lapse of time any more than does Nature in her operations. "Contra regem
tempus non occurret."
Yet, paradoxical as it may seem, this is right. If all men were honest, "red
tape" could be done away with; but as men are, individual accountability is
indispensable. Without it, the army might fall into negligence leading to
corruption, instead of being, as it is, the very example of administrational
honor and probity.

It so happens that the death of Mrs. Maria (Heald) Edwards, niece of

Captain Nathan Heald and mother of Mrs. General Chetlain, is
announced after the above matter had been put in print. She died on
May 6, 1893, at the residence of General Chetlain, in this city, at the ripe
age of ninety years.
It stirs the heart to think that, almost up to this very day, there was
living among us so near a relative to the gallant and unfortunate
captain; a woman who was a girl nine years old when her uncle passed
through the direful ordeal.
MASSACRE TREE AND PART OF PULLMAN
HOUSE.
 APPENDIX F.

THE BONES OF JOHN LALIME.—

SUBSTANCE OF A PAPER READ BY
JOSEPH KIRKLAND BEFORE THE
CHICAGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY, ON
THE OCCASION OF THE
PRESENTATION TO THE SOCIETY OF
CERTAIN HUMAN RELICS, JULY 21,
1891.
OME ominous threatenings were heard
at old Ft. Dearborn before the bursting
of the storm of August 15, 1812. Among
them was the killing of the interpreter
for the government, John Lalime.
John Kinzie arrived at Fort Dearborn
in 1804, and with his family occupied a
house built of squared logs, which, up to
about 1840, stood where the corner of
Cass and Kinzie streets now is. He was
an Indian-trader, furnishing what the
savages desired and taking furs in
exchange. The government also had an
Indian agent, or trader, there.
Various circumstances tend to show
that before 1812 considerable rivalry existed between the government
fur-trading agency and the civilian dealers. The former had certain
advantages in the cheapness of purchase and transportation, but were
restricted as to selling liquor. The latter were nominally under the same
restriction, but practically free, and the Indians, like other dipsomaniacs,
hated every man who tried to restrain their drinking. The short-sighted
savages mistook their friends for their enemies, their enemies for their
friends. They loved the poison and the poisoner.
Mrs. Kinzie, in Wau-Bun, says that there were two factions in the
garrison, the Kinzies sympathizing with the opposition. Also that, though
the garrison was massacred, no Kinzie was injured, the immunity
extending even to Lieutenant Linai T. Helm, who had married Mr. Kinzie's
step-daughter. Also that while the fort was burned, the Kinzie mansion
was left untouched, and remained standing up to within the memory of
living men.
For several years before 1812, John Lalime, a Frenchman, had been
the government's salaried interpreter at Fort Dearborn. The earliest
mention of the name occurs in a letter written from St. Joseph by
William Burnett to his Detroit correspondent, which begins with the
words: "When Mr. Lalime was in Detroit last you was pleased to tell him
that if I should want anything at your house, it should be at my service."
The next intelligence about him is in two letters he wrote concerning
Indian matters. The first was to Wm. Clark, Governor of Missouri, and
reads as follows:
Chicago, 26th May, 1811.
Sir—An Indian from the Peorias passed here yesterday and has given me
information that the Indians about that place have been about the
settlements of Kaskasia and Vincennes and have stolen from fifteen to
twenty horses. It appears by the information given me that the principal
actors are two brothers of the wife of Main Foe. He is residing on the Peoria,
or a little above it, at a place they call "Prairie du Corbeau." By the express
going to Fort Wayne I will communicate this to the agent. I presume, sir,
that you will communicate this to the Governor of Kaskasia and General
Harrison. I am sir, with respect,
Y'r h'ble serv't,
J. Lalime.
 The second letter is the one mentioned in
the first. It is written to John Johnson, United
States factor at Fort Wayne, dated July 7th,
1811, and reads as follows:
Since my last to you we have news of other
depredations and murders committed about the
settlement of Cahokia. The first news we received
was that the brother-in-law of Main Poc went down
and stole a number of horses. Second, another
party went down, stole some horses, killed a man
and took off a young woman, but they being
pursued were obliged to leave her to save
themselves. Third, they have been there and killed
and destroyed a whole family. The cause of it in
part is from the Little Chief that came last fall to
see Governor Harrison under the feigned name of
Wapepa. He told the Indians that he had told the
governor that the Americans were settling on their
lands, and asked him what should be done with
them. He told the Indians that the Governor had
told him they were bad people.

We observe that the Peoria chief, Main Poc,

is mentioned as blameworthy for these wrongs.
It may be interesting to know Main Poc's side
of the question. Said he:
You astonish me with your talk! Whenever you do
wrong there is nothing said or done; but when we
do anything you immediately take us and tie us by
the neck with a rope. You say, what will become of
our women and children if there is war? On the
other hand, what will become of your women and
children? It is best to avoid war.
Remains unearthed April
26th and presented to the Lalime's letters show that he was a man of
ability and education. We also guess, from a
Historical Society July 27,
1891. clause in Article III of the treaty of 1821, that
Lalime lived after the manner of those days,
and left at least one half-breed child. The clause reserves a half-section
of land for "John B. Lalime, son of Noke-no-qua."
 Miss Noke-no-qua is not otherwise known to history.
The next knowledge we have of Lalime relates to his violent death in
the spring of 1812, about five months before the massacre, at a point
on the south bank of the river within a stone's throw of where is now
the south end of Rush Street bridge.

GURDON SALTONSTALL HUBBARD. (Last picture taken

of him.)

In a letter written by the lamented Gurdon Hubbard to John

Wentworth, June 25th, 1881, we read:
As regards the unfortunate killing of Mr. Lalime by Mr. John Kinzie, I have
heard the account of it related by Mrs. Kinzie and her daughter, Mrs. Helm.
Mr. Kinzie never, in my hearing, alluded to or spoke of it. He deeply
regretted the act. Knowing his aversion to conversing on the subject, I
never spoke to him about it.
Mrs. Kinzie said that her husband and Lalime had for several years been
on unfriendly terms, and had had frequent altercations; that at the time of
the encounter Mr. Kinzie had crossed the river alone, in a canoe, going to
 the fort, and that Lalime met him outside the garrison and shot him, the ball
cutting the side of his neck. She supposed that Lalime saw her husband
crossing, and taking his pistol went through the gate purposely to meet him.
Mr. Kinzie, closing with Lalime, stabbed him and returned to the house
covered with blood. He told his wife what he had done, that he feared he
had killed Lalime, and probably a squad would be sent for him and that he
must hide. She, in haste, took bandages and with him retreated to the
woods, where as soon as possible she dressed his wounds, returning just in
time to meet an officer with a squad with orders to seize her husband. He
could not be found. For several days he was hid in the bush and cared for
by his wife.
Lalime was, I understand, an educated man, and quite a favorite with the
officers, who were greatly excited. They decided he should be buried near
Kinzie's house, in plain view from his front door and piazza. The grave was
enclosed in a picket fence, which Mr. Kinzie, in his lifetime, kept in perfect
order. My impression has ever been that Mr. Kinzie acted, as he told his
wife, in self-defence. This is borne out by the fact that, after a full
investigation by the officers, whose friend the deceased was, they acquitted
Mr. Kinzie, who then returned to his family.
In some of these details I may be in error, but the fact has always been
firm in my mind that Lalime made the attack, provoking the killing, in self-
defence. Mr. Kinzie deeply regretted the result, and avoided any reference to
it.
Yours,
G. S. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard does not say he remembers having seen the grave. He
did not come to Chicago to live until 1836. Judge Blodgett, as we shall
see hereafter, describes its position as not on the river bank, but back in
the timber.
A somewhat different account of the affair was given by Mrs. Porthier
(Victoire Mirandeau,) and printed in Captain Andreas' History of Chicago,
Vol. II, page 105.
 My sister Madeline and I saw the fight between John Kinzie and Lalime, when
Lalime was killed. It was sunset, when they used to shut the gates of the fort. Kinzie
and Lalime came out together, and soon we heard Lieutenant Helm call out for Mr.
Kinzie to look out for Lalime, as he had a pistol. Quick we saw the men come
together. We heard the pistol go off and saw the smoke. Then they fell down
together. I don't know as Lalime got up at all, but Kinzie got home pretty quick.
Blood was running from his shoulder, where Lalime had shot him. In the night he
packed up some things and my father took him to Milwaukee, where he stayed until
his shoulder got well and he found he would not be troubled if he came back. You
see, Kinzie wasn't to blame at all. He didn't have any pistol nor knife—nothing. After
Lalime shot him and Kinzie got his arms around him, he (Lalime) pulled out his dirk,
and as they fell he was stabbed with his own knife. That is what they all said. I
didn't see the knife at all. I don't remember where Lalime was buried. I don't think
his grave was very near Kinzie's house. I don't remember that Mr. Kinzie ever took
care of the grave. That is all I know about it. I don't know what the quarrel was
about. It was an old one—business, I guess.

This bears all the thumb-marks of truth. It comes at first hand from a
disinterested eye-witness. Even if we suppose Mrs. Kinzie to have seen the
affray, which she does not say, it was doubtless from the opposite side of the
river, while Victoire and her sister were in the fort itself. No other account,
direct from an eye-witness, has ever been published.
Now, without pretending to certainty, it strikes me as probable that up to
this time Kinzie stood on the Indian side of the irrepressible conflict between
white men and red men, while the army and Lalime took the other. Mrs. Helm's
narrative in Wau-Bun is decidedly hostile to the good sense of the commandant
of the fort, and even to the courage of some of his faithful subordinates, while
obviously friendly to the mutinous element in his command. Therefore it seems
to me quite likely that Lalime's crazy attack on Kinzie was not entirely
disconnected with that irrepressible conflict, that this long-standing quarrel had
more than appears on the surface to do with the admitted success of Kinzie's
trade and the well-known unprofitableness of the business carried on by the
government agency.
On April 29th, 1891, there was unearthed at the southwest corner of Cass
and Illinois streets, a skeleton. Workmen were digging a cellar there for a large
new building, and were startled by having the shovel stopped by a skull,
wherein its edge made a slight abrasion. Further examination brought to light
some spinal vertebrae, some fragments of ribs, some remains of shoulder-
blades and pelvis-bones, some bones of the upper and lower arms and the hip-
bones, besides two bones of the lower part of one leg; also fragments, nearly
crumbled away, of a rude pine coffin. The rumor of the discovery spread
through the neighborhood, and luckily reached the ears of Mr. Scott Fergus,
son of the veteran printer, Robert Fergus, whose establishment stands within
ten feet of the place where these relics of mortality had so long lain unnoticed.
Mr. Fergus at once tried to save and collect the bones, and finding some
disposition on the part of the laborers to disregard his requests, he rang for the
police-patrol wagon, which bundled the little lot into a soap-box and carried
them to the East Chicago Avenue station.
I was out of town at this time and did not hear of the interesting
occurrence until Mr. Fergus told me of it upon my return, about a month later. I
then went to the station, only to learn that the bones, being unclaimed, had
been sent in the patrol-wagon to the morgue at the County Hospital, on the
West Side. However, on looking up the officer who carried them over, he freely
and kindly offered to try to reclaim them, and have them delivered to the
Historical Society. The morgue officials, after a few days, at a merely nominal
expense, complied with the request, and they are now here. Was this, is this
the skeleton of John Lalime?
The place where the bones were found is within a stone's throw of the
exact spot indicated by Gurdon Hubbard as the place where the picket fence
marked the grave, "two hundred yards west of the Kinzie house."
Dr. Arthur B. Hosmer, and Dr. Otto Freer, who have examined the relics
independently of each other, and assisted me in arranging them in human
semblance, consider them to be the skeleton of a slender white man, about
five feet and four inches in height.
The color, consistency and general conditions indicate that they had lain in
the ground (dry sand) for a very long time, reaching probably or possibly the
seventy-nine years which have elapsed since Lalime's death.
Now, admitting their expert judgment to be correct, this man died not far
from 1812. At that time there had not and never had been in all these parts
more than some fifty to one hundred white men, nearly all of whom were
soldiers, living in the fort and subject to burial in the fort burying-ground,
adjoining the present site of Michigan Avenue and Randolph street. At a later
date, say fifty years ago, isolated burials were not uncommon, but even then
they could scarcely have occurred in so public a spot as the north bank cf the
river, close to the docks and warehouses which had been by that time built
there.
John C. Haines, Fernando Jones and others remember perfectly the
existence of that lonely little fenced enclosure, and even that it was said to
mark the resting-place of a man killed in a fight. They and all others agree that
no other burials were made thereabouts, so far as known. Another point,
favorable or otherwise to this identification, is the fact that the place where the
skeleton was found is the lot whereon stood the first St. James Church, and
that the attendants there, as I was informed by one of them, Mr. Ezra McCagg,
never heard of any burial as having taken place in the church-yard.
On the other hand, Mr. Hubbard designates "the river bank" as the place of
burial, and the memory of Mr. Fernando Jones is to the effect that the fenced
enclosure was nearer to the place of Rush Street bridge than is the spot of
finding.
But in contradiction to this view. Judge Blodgett tells me that he was here
in 1831 and 1832, which was several years before either Mr. Jones or Mr.
Haines, and before Mr. Hubbard came here to live, he being then trading at
Danville. The Judge adds that with the Beaubien and Laframboise boys he
paddled canoes on the creek, played in the old Kinzie log-house and wandered
all about the numerous paths that ran along the river bank, and back into the
thick, tangled underbrush which filled the woods, covering almost all the North
Side west of the shore sand-hills. He says that one path over which they
traveled back and forth ran from the old house west to the forks of the river,
passing north of the old Agency house—"Cobweb Castle"—which stood near
the northeast corner of Kinzie and State Streets. Also that from that path
behind Cobweb Castle the boys pointed further north to where they said there
was a grave where the man was buried whom John Kinzie had killed, but they
never went out to that spot, and so far as he remembered he never saw the
grave. A kind of awe kept him quite clear of that place. All he knows is that it
was somewhere out in the brush behind the Agency house.
This seems to locate the grave as nearly as possible at the corner of Illinois
and Cass streets, where these relics were found. Fernando Jones suggests that
even if the grave was originally elsewhere, the remains might have got into the
church lot in this way: In 1832 Robert Kinzie entered and subdivided Kinzie's
Addition, bounded by Chicago Avenue on the north, the lake on the east,
Kinzie Street on the south and State Street on the west, and gradually he and
his brother John sold the lots. In 1835 they gave the St. James Society the two
lots where the church was built and wherein this skeleton was found. What
more likely than that on selling the lot whereon the original interment took
place (supposing it to be other than where the bones were unearthed) the
sellers were compelled, either by the buyer's stipulation or their own sense of
duty to their father's manifest wishes, to find a new place for the coffin of poor
Lalime, and thereupon selected the spare room in the new church-yard?
 It is worthy of note, that as, with the skeleton, were found the remains of a
coffin—a single bit of pine board, showing the well-known "shoulder angle,"
though decayed so that only a crumbling strip half an inch thick was left—this
could not have been a secret interment, made to conceal the death of a man.
It would seem utterly improbable that two men's bodies should have been
coffined and buried within the little space of ground, in the few years of time
pointed out by all these circumstances. We learn that Lalime was so buried;
also that, so far as known, all other excavations thereabouts have failed to
expose his remains; also that these relics have now come to light. Everyone
must draw his own conclusion. I have drawn mine. If it be erroneous, this
exploitation of the subject will be likely to bring out the truth.

LETTER FROM FERNANDO JONES.

Chicago, July 20th, 1891.
Joseph Kirkland, Esquire:
Dear Sir—In answer to your inquiry as to any incidents coming to my knowledge
as to the grave of John Lalime, who was buried near the mouth of the Chicago River
in the year 1812, I furnish the following statement:
When I arrived in Chicago, on my sixteenth birthday, May 26th, 1835, I landed on
the north side of the present river, near its mouth, very near to the old John Kinzie
homestead. I was escorted to the historic Cobweb Castle and the Dearborn Street
bridge by the children of an old friend of my father's, Samuel Jackson, who was
employed upon the north pier harbor work, and who had been an old neighbor in
Buffalo, New York, where he had also been employed upon the government harbor.
The little boy, Ezra, and the girl, Abigail, pointed out a grave situated a little to the
north of our path and several hundred feet west of the Kinzie house. The grave was
surrounded by a neat white picket fence. I passed it many times afterward, during
that and the succeeding summer, and often visited it with children about my own
age. The history of this lonely grave, as detailed by them, gave it a peculiar
fascination to me, and to them, and to others who saw it. I recall now, after an
interval of mere than half a century, a number of persons who visited this grave
with me, among whom were the Indian wife of Captain Jamison; the wife of Lieut.
Thompson, a half-breed woman; Virginia Baxley, daughter of Captain Baxley, of the
fort; Pierre Laframboise, son of a chief and interpreter; Alexander Beaubien, son of
a trader, and John C. Haines, who was also a clerk near me on South Water Street.
The tradition in regard to this grave was that it was the last resting-place of a
Frenchman named Lalime, who was government interpreter at the fort, and who
was killed in an encounter with the old Indian-trader, John Kinzie. It was said that
the officers of the garrison had the body buried in sight of Mr. Kinzie's house in
resentment for his murder. But it seems that old Mr. Kinzie took the sting from this
reproach by carefully tending the spot during his lifetime, and his son, John H.
Kinzie, continued the same care over it.
Soon after the erection of St. James Episcopal Church, about the year 1838, a
grave was noticed on the north side of the lot and in the rear of the church, which
was situated on the southwest corner of Cass and Illinois Streets, and opposite the
new house of John H. Kinzie. The lot upon which the Frenchman was buried had
been sold by Mr. John H. Kinzie, and was built upon, and Mr. Kinzie had given the lot
upon the corner for the church. Mr. Alonzo C. Wood, the builder of the church, who
still survives, informs me that the grave appeared there mysteriously, and his
remembrance is that the Rev. Mr. Hallam, the priest in charge, informed him that
the remains were placed there by the direction of Mr. Kinzie, or Mrs. Kinzie, but he
has no further distinct recollection in regard to it. I, myself, never mentioned the
subject to Mr. John H. Kinzie, but remember a conversation with his brother, Robert
A. Kinzie, U. S. Paymaster, in which he expressed satisfaction that his brother had
taken care of the bones of poor Lalime. It was understood by the few conversant
with the history of Lalime's death that both the elder Kinzie and his son, John H.,
were averse to speaking of the matter, but "Bob" was very like an Indian, and not at
all reticent on the question, and that the legend among those who took any interest
in the matter has always been that this solitary grave in the church-yard was the
grave of the "little Frenchman" who was first buried near the spot. Under the
circumstances, it is not strange that the removal should have been quietly made,
and I have little doubt in my own mind that the tradition is correct.
Very sincerely yours,

Fernando Jones.

LETTER FROM THE HON. J. C. HAINES.

Chicago, 15 July, 1891.
Major J. Kirkland:
Without very definite recollection as to just where the grave of John Lalime stood
in 1835, when I came to Chicago, I can say that I knew of its existence and have an
impression it stood in St. James' Church lot, corner of Cass and Michigan Streets.
John C. Haines.

DR. HOSMER'S LETTER.

108 Pine Street, Chicago,
July 11, 1893. }
The bones shown me at this date at the Chicago Historical Society, constitute the
major portion of a human skeleton—that of an adult white male of slender build and
about five feet four to five inches in height. There is evidence of a partial or
complete fracture of the left femur, at some time in his life, thoroughly repaired and
with some permanent thickening of the bone.
Judging by the color, weight and rotten condition of the bones, I believe that they
have been in the ground (supposing it to be sandy and above water-level) at least
sixty (60) but not to exceed one hundred (100) years.
A. B. Hosmer, M. D.

DR. FREER'S LETTER.

The skeleton shown me by Mr. Joseph Kirkland is without doubt of great age and
resembles in appearance fragments of others that have lain for many years in sandy
soil. All animal matter has departed from the bones, leaving them very light and
consisting of the mineral portions alone.
The type of skeleton is that of a man of moderate stature and light build. The skull
is that of a white man and of great symmetry. The lower jaw is missing, but the
upper perfect, barring loss of all teeth but one. The presence of the third molar's
sockets speaks for the complete maturity of the man. It is impossible exactly to
estimate the exact time that the skeleton has been in the ground, but its
appearance would tally well with the eighty years it is supposed to have lain there.
Dr. O. T. Freer.
July 20th, 1891.
THE LATE CALUMET CLUB-HOUSE.
 APPENDIX G.

IMPORTANT REMINISCENCES OF AN OLD

SETTLER (A. H. EDWARDS).—[from "FORT
DEARBORN"; FERGUS' HISTORICAL
SERIES, NO. 16.]
Sheboygan (Wis.), May 24th, 1891.
Hon. John Wentworth:
Dear Sir—I have had the pleasure of reading your account and also the remarks of
others in regard to Chicago and Illinois history. I am acquainted with some facts
derived from conversation with one who was there, and witnessed the fight and
killing of many of those who lost their lives on that memorable day. She was a
daughter of one of the soldiers, and was one of the children who, with her mother
and sisters, occupied the wagons, or conveyances that was to convey them from the
fort. She told me she saw her father when he fell, and also many others. She, with
her mother and sisters, were taken prisoners among the Indians for nearly two
years, and were finally taken to Mackinac and sold to the traders and sent to
Detroit. On our arrival in Detroit, in 1816, after the war, this girl was taken into our
family, and was then about thirteen years old, and had been scalped. She said a
young Indian came to the wagon where she was and grabbed her by the hair and
pulled her out of the wagon, and she fought him the best she knew how, scratching
and biting, till finally he threw her down and scalped her. She was so frightened she
was not aware of it until the blood ran down her face. An old squaw interfered and
prevented her from being tomahawked by the Indian, she going with the squaw to
her wigwam, and was taken care of and her head cured. This squaw was one that
often came to their house. The bare spot on the top of the head was about the size
of a silver dollar. She saw Captain Wells killed, and told the same story as related in
your pamphlet.
My father was well acquainted with Captain Wells; was stationed with him at Fort
Wayne, Indiana, where I was born, in 1807, and he was surgeon of the post. My
mother was a daughter of Col. Thomas Hunt of the Fifth Infantry.
I think there must be a mistake as to the year the Kinzies returned to Chicago. My
father and family arrived in Detroit in June, 1816; the Kinzies were there then, and I
was schoolmate of John, Robert, Ellen and Maria during that year, and I think they
returned to Chicago in 1817. Mr. Kinzie went in the fall of 1816, and the family in
the spring of 1817.
 I was in Chicago in 1832 in the Black Hawk War time, as First Lieutenant of
cavalry, from Michigan. The regiment was commanded by General Hart L. Stewart,
now living in Chicago.
During the Black Hawk War, and when in Chicago, we heard of the killing of the
Hall family and the carrying off of the two girls. Our company camped that night at
the mouth of the Little Calumet, and next morning went into Chicago, and the fort
was occupied by women and children of the surrounding country.
Then I saw for the last time my schoolmate, R. A. Kinzie. My brother. Col. L. A. H.
Edwards, was in command of the fort after we left, and had a Cass County regiment
of military from Michigan. We met him on our return at Door Prairie. He remained
there until the arrival of Major Whistler, in June, 1832; he retired from the fort
before the landing of any of the U. S. troops, on account of cholera being among
them, and he wished to avoid any contact with them on that account. His command
camped on the prairie, about a mile from the fort, and remained only a day or two.
Fearing the cholera might get among his men, he left for home, as he saw they
were not needed any longer, and was so informed by Major Whistler.
Captain Anderson, Ensign Wallace and myself camped under the hospitable roof of
General Beaubien, on the bank of the lake, not very far from the fort, who had kept
the only house there. Mark Beaubien Jr. went into Chicago with us, he having joined
us at Niles, on his way home from school. He was the son of the one called the
fiddler.
Our family lived in Detroit and were well acquainted with the Whistlers. My father.
Major Edwards, was in Detroit at the surrender of Hull, as Surgeon-General of the
Northwestern Army. He went from Ohio, and arriving in Detroit, received his
appointment. Our family was then living in Dayton, Ohio. At the close of the war he
resigned, and in 1816 removed to Detroit and was appointed sutler to all
Northwestern posts—Fort Gratiot, Mackinac, Green Bay [Fort Howard], and Chicago
[Fort Dearborn]—his books, now in my possession, showing his dealings with each
of these stores, and all the officers mentioned in your paper.

It is pleasant to note that at the disastrous fire at the Calumet Club, which
occurred while these pages were preparing, the Beaubien fiddle and the Wells
hatchet were saved.

Sheboygan (Wis.), Jan. 10, 1881.

Your letter of the 5th came to hand to-day. The person I named as being present
at the massacre, was a daughter of Cooper,[AV] one of the soldiers who was killed in
the fight. Her account, as given to me, as also her mother's, was that as soon as all
the soldiers were disposed of, the Indians made a rush for the wagons, where the
women and children were. Her mother, and sister younger than herself, were taken
from the wagon and carried away. A young Indian boy about fourteen or fifteen
years old dragged her by the hair out of the wagon, and she bit and scratched him
so badly that he finally scalped her and would have killed her if an old squaw had
not prevented him. I think she married a man by the name of Farnum and lived
many years in Detroit. Her mother died there about the year 1832. The sisters were
 living in Detroit in 1828. I have since heard they were living in Mackinac. I do not
know the first name of Cooper. He was killed and the girl said she saw her father's
scalp in the hands of an Indian afterward. He had sandy hair. I think she said they
were Scotch. Isabella had children. The girl said she saw Wells when he fell from his
horse, and that his face was painted. What became of her sister I do not know, as I
left Detroit in 1823, but my father and mother remained there until 1828. You will
receive with this a statement written by my father regarding himself, a short time
before his death, which occurred in October, 1860, at Kalamazoo, Mich., where he
had resided for many years. The statement will give you all the information in
regard to himself as well as who my mother was. Her father, Thomas Hunt, was
appointed a surgeon in the army directly after the battle of Bunker Hill, where he
was brought into notice by an act of gallantry, then only a boy of fifteen. He
remained in the army until his death, in 1808, in command of his regiment, at
Bellefontaine, Missouri. His sons and grandsons have been representatives in the
army ever since. Captain Thomas Hunt, mentioned in your letter, was a son, and the
present General Henry J. Hunt, of the Artillery, and General Lewis C. Hunt,
commanding the Fourth Infantry, grandsons, whose father (my mother's brother)
was Captain Samuel W. Hunt of the army.
My grandfather, Thomas Hunt, was a captain under Lafayette, and was wounded
at Yorktown in storming a redoubt of the British. Afterward he was with General
Anthony Wayne in his campaign against the Indians, and was left in command of
Fort Wayne as its first commander after the subjection of the Indians.

A. H. Edwards.
[AV] "John Cooper, Surgeon's Mate," is found in the muster-roll shown on
page 150. He also signed the certificate to the roll.

For other extracts from this interesting paper see Appendix E—"The Wells
and Heald families."
THE SAUGANASH (1833).
 APPENDIX H.

BILLY CALDWELL, THE SAUGANASH.

HE Sauganash had qualities, good and bad, appertaining to
each of his parent races. He had fighting courage and coolness
in danger, he had physical endurance, he had personal
faithfulness to personal friends, he had a love of strong drink.
There is now (1893) in this city, an account-book kept which
was at a Chicago grocery store in the thirties, wherein appear
many charges reading: "One quart whisky to B. Caldwell." The
book is in possession of Julian Rumsey, Esq., a relative of Mrs.
Juliette (Magill) Kinzie, author of "Wau-Bun."
When the inevitable separation came, and the Indians, after a grand
farewell war-dance (August 18, 1835),[AW] departed on their migration toward
the setting sun, Caldwell went with them, and died September 28, 1841, at
Council Bluffs, Iowa. His old friend Mark Beaubien, had named after him the
first and most noted of Chicago's real hotels, the "Sauganash," lovingly
remembered by many of the "first families."
[AW] See Appendix I.

Letter written by the Sauganash [Billy Caldwell] and Shabonee [Chambly].

Council Bluffs, March 23rd, 1840.
To General Harrison's Friends:
The other day several newspapers were brought to us; and peeping over them, to
our astonishment we found that the hero of the late war was called a coward. This
would have surprised the tall braves, Tecumseh, of the Shawnees, and Round Head
and Walk-in-the-water of the late Tomahawkees. The first time we got acquainted
with General Harrison, it was at the council fires of the late Old Tempest, General
Wayne, on the headquarters of the Wabash at Greenville, 1796. From that time till
1811 we had many friendly smokes with him; but from 1812 we changed our
tobacco smoke into powder smoke. Then we found that General Harrison was a
brave warrior and humane to his prisoners, as reported to us by two of Tecumseh's
young men, who were taken in the fleet with Captain Barclay on the 10th of
September, 1813, and on the Thames, where he routed both the red-men and the
British, and where he showed his courage and his humanity to his prisoners, both
white and red. See report of Adams Brown and family, taken on the morning of the
battle, October 5th, 1813. We are the only two surviving of that day in this country.
We hope the good white men will protect the name of General Harrison. We remain
your friends forever.
Chamblee [Shabonee], Aid to Tecumseh.

ME-TEE-A; A SIGNER OF THE TREATY OF

1821.
 APPENDIX I.

FAREWELL WAR-DANCE OF THE

INDIANS.
ARLY in 1833 Indians to the number of five thousand or more,
assembled at Chicago, around the fort, the village, the rivers and
the portage, to treat for the sale of their entire remaining
possessions in Illinois and Wisconsin. John Joseph Latrobe, in his
"Rambles in North America," gives the following realistic sketch of
the state of things hereabouts just sixty years ago:
A mushroom town on the verge of a level country, crowded to its utmost
capacity and beyond, a surrounding cloud of Indians encamped on the
prairie, beneath the shelter of the woods, on the river-side or by the low sand-hills
along the lake, companies of old warriers under every bush, smoking, arguing,
palavering, pow-wowing, with no apparent prospect of agreement.

The negotiations dragged on for weeks and months, for the Indians were
slow to put an end to their jollification, an occasion when they were the guests
of the Government, and fared sumptuously with nothing to pay. The treaty had
still to be ratified by the senate before its provisions could be carried out and
the settlement made. This took about two years.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com