Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Fundamental issues of orbital transfers for Mars missions

A. Miele∗ , T. Wang, S. Mancuso
Aero-Astronautics Group, Rice University, 230 Ryon Building, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005-1892, USA

Received 19 October 2002; accepted 19 December 2003

Abstract

To assess the fundamental issues of orbital transfers for Mars missions, in particular, the interplay between .ight time,
characteristic velocity, and mass ratio, we study optimal round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO trajectories for a variety of boundary
conditions, with LEO denoting a low Earth orbit and LMO denoting a low Mars orbit. In all cases, the criterion of optimization
is the minimization of the characteristic velocity, which is the sum of all the velocity impulses; the optimization problems are
solved via the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm in mathematical programming format. The assumed physical model
is the restricted four-body model, the four bodies being the Sun, Earth, Mars, spacecraft.
The round-trip trajectories considered di6er from one another in the boundary conditions, speci7cally: (T1) stay time in
LMO free, total time free, phase angle travel free, (T2) stay time in LMO of 30 days, total time free, phase angle travel
free, (T3) stay time in LMO of 30 days, total time free, phase angle travel of the spacecraft equal to that of Earth, (T4) stay
time in LMO of 30 days, total time of 440 days, phase angle travel of the spacecraft equal to that of Earth, (T5) zero stay
time in LMO, total time free, phase angle travel free.
Trajectories T1–T4 involve the circularization of the motion into LMO, Trajectory T5 is a free return trajectory with a
Mars .yby. In the group of trajectories circularizing the motion into LMO, Trajectory T1 is a minimum energy trajectory,
Trajectory T2 is a compromise trajectory, Trajectories T3 and T4 are fast transfer trajectories.
From computation and analysis, the main results are as follows.
(i) For a robotic spacecraft, the best trajectory is the minimum energy Trajectory T1, characterized by a .ight time of
970 days, a characteristic velocity of 11:30 km=s, and a mass ratio of 20.
(ii) For a manned spacecraft, a substantial shortening of the .ight time is needed, but this translates into sti6 penalties in
characteristic velocity and mass ratio. Indeed, for Trajectory T2, the .ight time is 842 days, while the characteristic velocity
is 15:61 km=s and the mass ratio is 69; for Trajectory T3, the .ight time is 546 days, while the characteristic velocity is
18:52 km=s and the mass ratio is 150; for Trajectory T4, the .ight time is 440 days, while the characteristic velocity is
20:79 km=s and the mass ratio is 304.
(iii) The free return Trajectory T5 is of no interest for Mars missions. While its characteristic velocity is nearly the same
as that of Trajectory T1, the .ight time has increased to 1214 days and the mass ratio has increased to 31.
It must be noted that the above mass ratios refer to a round-trip LEO- LMO-LEO and do not include the ascent from/descent
to the Earth surface (mass ratio of about 18) and the descent to/ascent from the Mars surface (mass ratio of about 3.6).
When the above mass ratios are included, one obtains overall mass ratios of order 1000 for Earth–Mars–Earth transfer via
a minimum energy trajectory and of order 10 000 for Earth–Mars–Earth transfer via a fast transfer trajectory.

Paper presented at the 51st IAF Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2–6 October 2000 (IAA-00-IAA.13.1.09).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-713-348-4907; fax: +1-713-348-5407.
E-mail address: miele@rice.edu (A. Miele).

0094-5765/$ - see front matter
c 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2003.12.018
80 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
At the national level, the wisest strategy appears to be to continue the exploration of Mars via robotic spacecraft and
delay the exploration of Mars via manned spacecraft to such time when, thanks to advances yet to be achieved in the areas
of spacecraft structural factors and engine speci7c impulses, more reasonable values can be achieved for the characteristic
velocity components and the mass ratio components.
c 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Various papers on the feasibility and optimization
of Earth–Mars–Earth trajectories have appeared in re-
cent years [1–8]; their major objective has been to
contain the characteristic velocity (hence, the propel-
lant mass) and the mission time. Based on optimal
trajectory studies, mirror image properties of the out-
going and return trajectories were discussed in Ref. [9]
and asymptotic parallelism properties were discussed
in Ref. [10].
In this paper, to assess the fundamental issues of
orbital transfers for Mars missions, in particular, the
interplay between .ight time, characteristic velocity,
and mass ratio, we study optimal trajectories under
a variety of boundary conditions: (T1) minimum en-
ergy trajectory with free stay time in LMO, free total
time, and free phase angle travel, (T2) minimum en-
ergy trajectory with 7xed stay time in LMO, free total
time, and free phase angle travel, (T3) fast transfer
trajectory with 7xed stay time in LMO, free total time,
and phase angle travel of the spacecraft equal to that
of Earth, (T4) fast transfer trajectory with 7xed stay
time in LMO, 7xed total time, and phase angle travel
of the spacecraft equal to that of Earth, (T5) free re-
turn trajectory with zero stay time in LMO, free total
time, and free phase angle travel; this is a Mars .yby
at a prescribed altitude.
In all cases, the assumed physical model is the re-
stricted four-body model: the spacecraft is considered
subject to the gravitational 7elds of Earth, Mars, and
Sun along the entire trajectory; this is done in or-
der to achieve increased accuracy with respect to the
method of patched conics [11,12]. For all cases, the
optimal trajectory problem is reformulated as a math-
ematical programming problem so as to decrease sub-
stantially the computation time. An important diG-
culty in system integration and optimization is that
the total gravitational acceleration changes rapidly in
near-Earth space and near-Mars space, but slowly in
deep interplanetary space. Indeed, orbital periods are
of order 1 h if the Earth gravity or Mars gravity is
dominant, but of order 1 year if the Sun gravity is dom-
inant . This diGculty can be overcome by solving the
mathematical programming problems via the sequen-
tial gradient-restoration algorithm [13] employed in
conjunction with a variable-stepsize integration tech-
nique.
1.1. Algorithm
In this paper, the optimal trajectories for Mars
missions are computed via the sequential gradient-
restoration algorithm (SGRA) in mathematical pro-
gramming format.
SGRA is an iterative technique which involves a
sequence of two-phase cycles, each cycle including a
gradient phase and a restoration phase. In the gradi-
ent phase, the augmented performance index (perfor-
mance index augmented by the constraints weighted
via appropriate Lagrange multipliers) is decreased,
while avoiding excessive constraint violation. In the
restoration phase, the constraint error is decreased,
while avoiding excessive change in the variables. In a
complete gradient-restoration cycle, the performance
index is decreased, while the constraints are satis7ed
to a preselected accuracy. Thus, a succession of fea-
sible suboptimal solutions is generated, each new so-
lution being an improvement over the previous one
from the point of view of the performance index.
SGRA was developed by Miele et al. during
the period 1968–1986 for both mathematical pro-
gramming problems [13] and optimal control prob-
lems [14,15]. It has proven to be a powerful tool for
solving optimal trajectory problems of atmospheric
and space .ight. Applications and extensions of this
algorithm have been reported in the US, Japan, Ger-
many, Spain, and other countries around the world;
in particular, a version of this algorithm is currently
used at NASA-JSC under the code name SEGRAM,
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
developed by McDonnell Douglas Technical Service
Company [16].
1.2. Contents
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 de-
scribes the system equations. Section 3 presents the
boundary conditions. Section 4 describes the optimal
trajectory problems. Section 5 presents the planetary
and orbital data. Section 6 discusses the numerical
results. Finally, Section 7 contains the conclusions.
2. System equations
2.1. Assumptions
Let LEO denote a low Earth orbit, and let LMO
denote a low Mars orbit. The missions considered in
this paper involve the spacecraft transfer from LEO
to LMO for the outgoing trip and from LMO to LEO
for the return trip. To study these missions, we em-
ploy the restricted four-body model (Sun, Earth, Mars,
(MCS) This system is centered in the Mars center;
spacecraft) and the following assumptions:
(Al) the Sun is 7xed in space,
(A2) Earth and Mars are subject to the Sun gravity,
(A3) the eccentricity of the Earth and Mars orbits
around the Sun is neglected, implying circular
planetary motions,
(A4) the inclination of the Mars orbital plane
vis-a-vis the Earth orbital plane is neglected,
implying planar spacecraft motion,
(A5) the spacecraft is subject to the gravity 7elds of
the Sun, Earth, Mars along the entire trajectory,
(A6) LEO and LMO are circles centered in their re-
spective planets; circularization of the space-
craft motion is assumed prior to departure and
after arrival,
(A7) for a round trip executed via a minimum energy
trajectory, four velocity impulses are assumed
at the departure from LEO, arrival to LMO, de-
parture from LMO, and arrival to LEO; for a
round trip executed via a fast transfer trajec-
tory, an additional midcourse impulse might be
needed in either the outgoing trip or the return
trip; for a round trip executed via a free-return
81
sumed at the departure from LEO and arrival to
LEO; no velocity impulse is applied at LMO.
2.2. Coordinate systems
Having adopted the restricted four-body model, 7ve
motions must be considered: the inertial motions of
Earth, Mars, and the spacecraft with respect to the Sun;
the relative motions of the spacecraft with respect to
Earth and Mars. To study these motions, we employ
three coordinate systems: the Sun coordinate system
(SCS), Earth coordinate system (ECS), and Mars co-
ordinate system (MCS). All of these systems are con-
tained in the idealized Earth/Mars orbital plane and
their axes point toward 7xed directions in space.
(SCS) This system is centered in the Sun center; the
x-axis points toward the Earth initial position;
the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and
is directed as the Earth initial velocity vector.
(ECS) This system is centered in the Earth center;
the x-axis and y-axis of ECS are parallel to
the corresponding axes of SCS.
the x-axis and y-axis of MCS are parallel to
the corresponding axes of SCS.
2.3. Notations
Cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates are em-
ployed, depending on the need. Single subscripts de-
note inertial quantities, while double subscripts denote
relative-to-planet quantities. For coordinate transfor-
mations, see Ref. [17].
(SCS) In Cartesian coordinates, the inertial motions
of Earth E, Mars M, and the spacecraft P with respect
to the Sun S are described by the following quantities:
xE ; yE ; uE ; wE ; (1a)
xM ; yM ; uM ; wM ; (1b)
xP ; yP ; uP ; wP ; (1c)
with the pair (x; y) identifying the position vector and
the pair (u; w) identifying the velocity vector. In polar
coordinates, the quantities corresponding to (1) are
trajectory, only two velocity impulses are as- rE ; E ; VE ; E or E ; (2a)
82 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

rM ; M ; VM ; M or M ; (2b) yE = rE sin E ; (8b)

√
rP ; P ; VP ; P or P ; (2c) uE = − (S =rE ) sin E ; (8c)
with the pair (r; ) identifying the position vector and √
wE = + (S =rE ) cos E ; (8d)
either the pair (V; ) or the pair (V; ) identifying the
velocity vector. Here, V is the velocity modulus,  is where the phase angle E is supplied by Eq. (7b).
the inclination of the velocity vector with respect to
the local horizon,  is the inclination of the velocity 2.5. Inertial motion of Mars
vector with respect to the x-axis.
(ECS) In Cartesian coordinates, the relative motion In the Sun-centered system and using polar coordi-
of the spacecraft P with respect to Earth E is described nates, the Mars motion is described by the following
by the following quantities: relations:
xPE ; yPE ; uPE ; wPE : (3) rM = const; (9a)
In polar coordinates, the quantities corresponding to √ 3
M = !M (t − t0 ) + M (t0 ); !M = (S =rM ); (9b)
(3) are
√
rPE ; PE ; VPE ; PE or PE : (4) VM = (S =rM ); (9c)
(MCS) In Cartesian coordinates, the relative motion M = 0 or M = M − M + =2: (9d)
of the spacecraft P with respect to Mars M is described
by the following quantities: Here, S is the Sun gravitational constant, !M is the
Mars angular velocity around the Sun, t is the generic
xPM ; yPM ; uPM ; wPM : (5) time, t0 is the departure time from LEO, and M (t0 )
In polar coordinates, the quantities corresponding to is the initial phase angle of Mars.
(5) are The Cartesian coordinates corresponding to Eqs. (9)
are
rPM ; PM ; VPM ; PM or PM : (6)
xM = rM cos M ; (10a)
2.4. Inertial motion of Earth
yM = rM sin M ; (10b)
In the Sun-centered system and using polar coordi- √
nates, the Earth motion is described by the following uM = − (S =rM ) sin M ; (10c)
relations: √
wM = + (S =rM ) cos M ; (10d)
rE = const; (7a)
where the phase angle M is supplied by Eq. (9b).
√
E = !E (t − t0 ); !E = (S =rE3 ): (7b)
2.6. Inertial motion of spacecraft
√
VE = (S =rE ); (7c)
In the Sun-centered system and using Cartesian co-
E = 0 or E = E − E + =2: (7d) ordinates, the spacecraft inertial motion is described
by the following di6erential equations:
Here, S is the Sun gravitational constant, !E is the
Earth angular velocity around the Sun, t is the generic ẋP = uP ; (11a)
time, and t0 is the departure time from LEO. Note that,
by de7nition, E (t0 ) = 0. ẏ P = wP ; (11b)
The Cartesian coordinates corresponding to Eqs. (7)
are u̇ P = −(S =rP3 )xP − (E =rPE
3
)(xP − xE )
3
xE = rE cos E ; (8a) −(M =rPM )(xP − xM ); (11c)
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94 83

ẇP = −(S =rP3 )yP − (E =rPE

3
)(yP − yE ) 2.8. Spacecraft motion relative to Mars
3
−(M =rPM )(yP − yM ); (11d)
In the Mars-centered system and using Cartesian co-
with ordinates, the spacecraft relative motion can be com-
√ puted via the relations
rP = (xP2 + yP2 ); (12a)
√ xPM = xP − xM ; (16a)
rPE = [(xP − xE )2 + (yP − yE )2 ]; (12b)
√ yPM = yP − yM ; (16b)
rPM = [(xP − xM )2 + (yP − yM )2 ] (12c)
uPM = uP − uM ; (16c)
denoting the radial distances of the spacecraft from
the Sun, Earth, Mars.
wPM = wP − wM : (16d)
The functions xP (t), yP (t), uP (t), wP (t) obtained
by integrating Eqs. (11) can be converted into the In polar coordinates, the relations corresponding to
corresponding functions in polar coordinates via the Eqs. (16) are
relations √
√ rPM = [(xP − xM )2 + (yP − yM )2 ]; (17a)
rP = (xP2 + yP2 ); (13a)
PM = tan−1 [(yP − yM )=(xP − xM )]; (17b)
−1
P = tan (yP =xP ); (13b) √
√ VPM = [(uP − uM )2 + (wP − wM )2 ]; (17c)
VP = (uP2 + wP2 ); (13c)
PM = tan−1 [(wP − wM )=(uP − uM )] or
−1
P = tan (wP =uP ) or P = P − P + =2: (13d)
PM = PM − PM + =2: (17d)
2.7. Spacecraft motion relative to Earth
3. Boundary conditions
In the Earth-centered system and using Cartesian
coordinates, the spacecraft relative motion can be
3.1. Departure from LEO, outgoing trip
computed via the relations
xPE = xP − xE ; (14a) In the Earth-centered system and using polar coor-
dinates, the spacecraft conditions at the departure from
yPE = yP − yE ; (14b) LEO (time t = t0 ) are given by

uPE = uP − uE ; (14c) rPE (t0 ) = rLEO ; (18a)

wPE = wP − wE : (14d) VPE (t0 ) = VLEO + NVLEO (t0 );

√
In polar coordinates, the relations corresponding to VLEO = (E =rLEO ); (18b)
Eqs. (14) are
√ PE (t0 ) = 0 or
rPE = [(xP − xE )2 + (yP − yE )2 ]; (15a)
PE (t0 ) = PE (t0 ) − PE (t0 ) + =2; (18c)
PE = tan−1 [(yP − yE )=(xP − xE )]; (15b)
with PE (t0 ) free. Relative to Earth, VLEO is the space-
√ craft velocity in the low Earth orbit prior to applica-
VPE = [(uP − uE )2 + (wP − wE )2 ]; (15c)
tion of the tangential, accelerating velocity impulse;
PE = tan−1 [(wP − wE )=(uP − uE )] or NVLEO (t0 ) is the accelerating velocity impulse at LEO;
VPE (t0 ) is the spacecraft velocity after application of
PE = PE − PE + =2: (15d) the accelerating velocity impulse.
84 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

3.2. Midcourse impulse, outgoing trip PM (t3 ) = 0 or

Assume that an accelerating velocity impulse is
needed at midcourse of the outgoing trip. In the
Sun-centered system and using polar coordinates, the
spacecraft midcourse condition (time t = t1 ) is given
by
VP (t1+ ) = VP (t1− ) + NVMID (t1 );
PM (t3 ) = PM (t3 ) − PM (t3 ) + =2; (21c)
with PM (t3 ) free. Formally, Eqs. (21) can be obtained
from Eqs. (20) by simply replacing the time t = t2
with the time t = t3 . However, there is a di6erence of
interpretation: VLMO is now the spacecraft velocity in
(19) the low Mars orbit before application of the tangen-
tial, accelerating velocity impulse; NVLMO (t3 ) is the
with rP (t1 ), P (t1 ), P (t1 ) or P (t1 ) continuous. In
Eq. (19), NVMID (t1 ) is the accelerating velocity im-
pulse at t1 ; the subscript − denotes a quantity eval-
uated before application of the velocity impulse, and
the subscript + denotes a quantity evaluated after ap-
plication of the velocity impulse. Note that, while the
velocity is discontinuous, the remaining state variables
are continuous.
3.3. Arrival to LMO, outgoing trip
In the Mars centered system and using polar coordi-
nates, the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LMO
accelerating velocity impulse at LMO; VPM (t3 ) is the
spacecraft velocity after application of the accelerat-
ing velocity impulse.
3.5. Midcourse impulse, return trip
Assume that a decelerating velocity impulse
is needed at midcourse of the return trip. In the
Sun-centered system and using polar coordinates, the
spacecraft midcourse condition (time t = t4 ) is given
by
VP (t4+ ) = VP (t4− ) − NVMID (22)
(time t = t2 ) are given by with rP (t4 ), P (t4 ), P (t4 ) or P (t4 ) continuous. In
rPM (t2 ) = rLMO ; (20a) Eq. (22), NVMID (t4 ) is the decelerating velocity im-
pulse at t4 ; the subscript − denotes a quantity eval-
VPM (t2 ) = VLMO + NVLMO (t2 ); uated before application of the velocity impulse, and
√ the subscript + denotes a quantity evaluated after ap-
VLMO = (M =rLMO ); (20b)
plication of the velocity impulse. Note that, while the
PM (t2 ) = 0 or velocity is discontinuous, the remaining state variables
are continuous.
PM (t2 ) = PM (t2 ) − PM (t2 ) + =2; (20c)
with PM (t2 ) free. Relative to Mars, VLMO is the 3.6. Arrival to LEO, return trip
spacecraft velocity in the low Mars orbit after ap-
plication of the tangential, decelerating velocity im- In the Earth-centered system and using polar coor-
pulse; NVLMO (t2 ) is the decelerating velocity impulse dinates, the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LEO
at LMO; VPM (t2 ) is the spacecraft velocity before (time t = t5 ) are given by
application of the decelerating velocity impulse. rPE (t5 ) = rLEO ; (23a)

3.4. Departure from LMO, return trip VPE (t5 ) = VLEO + NVLEO (t5 );
√
In the Mars-centered system and using polar coordi- VLEO = (E =rLEO ); (23b)
nates, the spacecraft conditions at the departure from
LMO (time t = t3 ) are given by PE (t5 ) = 0 or

rPM (t3 ) = rLMO ; (21a) PE (t5 ) = PE (t5 ) − PE (t5 ) + =2 (23c)

VPM (t3 ) = VLMO + NVLMO (t3 ); with PE (t5 ) free. Formally, Eqs. (23) can be obtained
√ from Eqs. (18) by simply replacing the time t = t0
VLMO = (M =rLMO ); (21b) with the time t = t5 . However, there is a di6erence
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94 85

of interpretation: VLEO is now the spacecraft velocity which can be rewritten as

in the low Earth orbit after application of the tangen- N (t3 ) = N (t2 ) + (!M − !E )STAY : (30)
tial, decelerating velocity impulse; NVLEO (t5 ) is the
decelerating velocity impulse at LEO; VPE (t5 ) is the This relation connects linearly the stay time in LMO
spacecraft velocity before application of the deceler- with the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle di6erences at
ating velocity impulse. the arrival to LMO and departure from LMO.
It must be noted that, at the end of the return trip
3.7. Special case: Mars 7yby (hence, at the end of a round trip), the phase angle
travels of Earth and the spacecraft must be the same or
In the special case of a Mars .yby, the stay time of di6er by an integer multiple of 2 rad = 360◦ ; hence,
the spacecraft in LMO is zero; hence, in radians,
t2 = t3 ; (24a) E (t5 ) − E (t0 ) ∼
= P (t5 ) − P (t0 ) + 2k (31)
implying that with k = 0 or an integer (in practice, k = 1). Owing
to the fact that
STAY = t3 − t2 = 0: (24b)
E (t0 ) = 0; P (t0 ) ∼
= 0; (32)
Note that no velocity impulse is applied at LMO.
Therefore, in the Mars coordinate system and using the above relation becomes
polar coordinates, the spacecraft conditions at Mars E () ∼
= P () if k = 0; (33a)
.yby are given by
E () ∼
= P () + 2 if k = 1: (33b)
rPM (t2 ) = rLMO ; (25a)
Let NV denote the total characteristic velocity,
PM (t2 ) = 0 or which is the sum of all the velocity impulses,

PM (t2 ) = PM (t2 ) − PM (t2 ) + =2; (25b) NV = NVLEO (t0 ) + NVMID (t1 ) + NVLMO (t2 )

with PM (t2 ) and VPM (t2 ) free. +NVLMO (t3 ) + NVMID (t4 ) + NVLEO (t5 ): (34)
With this understanding, we formulated the following
general problem: (P) Minimize the total characteris-
4. Optimal trajectory problems
tic velocity (34) subject to constraints (7) –(25) plus
the possible presence of additional constraints on the
Let OUT , STAY , RET ,  denote the .ight time of
variables appearing in Eqs. (27), (30), (33).
the outgoing trip, stay time in LMO, .ight time of
The solution of Problem (P) is called Trajectory T.
the return trip, and total .ight time. By de7nition, the
While Problem (P) looks like a formidable problem
following relations hold:
of optimal control, it can be reduced to a mathemat-
OUT = t2 − t0 ; STAY = t3 − t2 ; ical programming problem involving relatively few
constraints and parameters if the computation is or-
RET = t5 − t3 ;  = t 5 − t0 ; (26) ganized in such a way that most of constraints (7) –
so that (25) are satis7ed in a trivial way Refs. [9,10]. With
this understanding, 7ve particular aspects of Problem
 = OUT + STAY + RET : (27)
(P) are considered below.
Let
4.1. Minimum energy trajectory T1
N (t) = M (t) − E (t) (28)
denote the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle di6erence In this problem, we assume that there is no mid-
at any time. Use of Eqs. (7b) and (9b) between the course impulse in either the outgoing trip or the return
times t2 and t3 yields the relation trip,
N (t3 ) = N (t2 ) + (!M − !E )(t3 − t2 ); (29) NVMID (t1 ) = 0; NVMID (t4 ) = 0: (35)
86 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
Hence, the characteristic velocity (34) reduces to
NV = NVLEO (t0 ) + NVLMO (t2 ) + NVLMO (t3 )
+NVLEO (t5 ):
Also, we assume that the total .ight time and the stay
time in LMO are unconstrained, more precisely,
 = free; STAY = free:
The reduction to a mathematical programming
problem is done by recognizing that the essential
constraints are these:
(i) for the outgoing trip, the LMO arrival conditions
(20);
(ii) for the return trip, the LEO arrival conditions
(23);
(iii) for the entire trip, the time relation (27) connect-
ing the total .ight time and the partial times;
(iv) for the stay on Mars, the relation (30) connect-
ing the stay time in LMO with the Mars/Earth
phase angle di6erences at the arrival to LMO and
departure from LMO.
The parameters appearing in the above constraints are
these:
(A) the velocity impulses
NVLEO (t0 ); NVLMO (t2 );
NVLMO (t3 ); NVLEO (t5 );
(B) the transfer/stay times
OUT ; STAY ; RET ; ;
(C) the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle di6erences
at the departure from LEO and departure from
LMO,
N (t0 ) = M (t0 ) − E (t0 );
N (t3 ) = M (t3 ) − E (t3 );
(D) the spacecraft/Earth relative phase angles at the
departure from LEO and departure from LMO,
PE (t0 ) = PE (t0 ) − E (t0 );
PM (t3 ) = PM (t3 ) − M (t3 ):
With the above understanding, we formulate the fol-
lowing problem: (P1) Minimize the performance in-
dex (36) with respect to the parameters (38) consistent
(36) with the essential constraints (20), (23), (27), (30).
To sum up, we are in the presence of a mathemat-
ical programming problem involving n = 12 parame-
ters, q = 8 constraints, and hence n − q = 4 degrees
of freedom. These degrees of freedom must be satu-
(37) rated in such a way that the performance index (36)
is minimized. The solution of Problem P1 is called
Trajectory T1.
4.2. Compromise trajectory T2
In this problem, we assume that there is no mid-
course impulse in either the outgoing trip or return
trip, so that (35) and (36) still hold. Also, we assume
that the total .ight time is unconstrained, while the
stay time in LMO is 7xed, more precisely,
 = free; (39a)
STAY = 30 days: (39b)
The reduction to a mathematical programming
problem is done by recognizing that the essential
constraints are still (20), (23), (27), (30), while the
variables are the same as (38) minus STAY , which is
7xed (see Eq. (39b)].
With the above understanding, we formulate the fol-
lowing problem: (P2) Minimize the performance in-
(38a) dex (36) with respect to the parameters (38) consis-
tent with the constraints (20), (23), (27), (30), with
STAY excluded from the parameter count.
(38b) To sum up, we are in the presence of a mathemat-
ical programming problem involving n = 11 parame-
ters, q = 8 constraints, and hence n − q = 3 degrees
of freedom. These degrees of freedom must be satu-
rated in such a way that the performance index (36)
is minimized. The solution of Problem P2 is called
Trajectory T2.
(38a)
4.3. Fast transfer trajectory T3
The solutions T1 and T2 of the minimum energy
Problems P1 and P2 satisfy Eq. (33b); namely, they
are such that the phase angle travel of Earth is larger
(38d) than that of the spacecraft by 360◦ . Note that, for
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
Problems P1 and P2, Eq. (33b) is not a constraint, but
a result of the optimization process.
To generate a round-trip fast transfer trajectory, one
must force the phase angle travels of Earth and the
spacecraft to be equal or nearly equal; hence, one must
force the satisfaction of Eq. (33a) and for that matter
the violation of Eq. (33b). Physically, this requires the
presence of a midcourse velocity impulse in either the
outgoing trip or the return trip.
In this section, we assume the presence of a deceler-
ating velocity impulse at midcourse of the return trip,
hence
NVMID (t1 ) = 0; NVMID (t4 ) = 0: (40)
Clearly, the characteristic velocity (34) reduces to
NV = NVLEO (t0 ) + NVLMO (t2 ) + NVLMO (t3 )
+NVMID (t4 ) + NVLEO (t5 ): (41)
Further, we assume that the total .ight time is uncon-
strained, while the stay time in LMO is 7xed, more
precisely,
 = free; (42a)
STAY = 30 days: (42b)
Finally, we impose the fast transfer condition (33a),
rewritten here for convenience as follows:
E () ∼
= P (): (43)
The reduction to a mathematical programming
problem is done by recognizing that the essential con-
straints (20), (23), (27), (30) must be augmented by
the constraint (43), while the variables are the param-
eters (38), augmented by NVMID (t4 ) and MID =t4 −t3 ,
with STAY excluded from the parameter count.
With the above understanding, we formulate the
following problem: (P3) Minimize the performance
index (41) with respect to the parameters (38) aug-
mented by NVMID (t4 ) and MID = t4 − t3 , subject to
the constraints (20), (23),(27), (30), (43), with STAY
excluded from the parameter count.
To sum up, we are in the presence of a mathemat-
ical programming problem involving n = 13 parame-
ters, q = 9 constraints, and hence n − q = 4 degrees
of freedom. These degrees of freedom must be satu-
rated in such a way that the performance index (41)
is minimized. The solution of Problem P3 is called
Trajectory T3.
87
4.4. Fast transfer trajectory T4
This problem is complementary to Problem P3, in
the sense that we assume the presence of an acceler-
ating velocity impulse at midcourse of the outgoing
trip; hence,
NVMID (t1 ) = 0; NVMID (t4 ) = 0: (44)
Clearly, the characteristic velocity (34) reduces to
NV = NVLEO (t0 ) + NVMID (t1 ) + NVLMO (t2 )
+NVLMO (t3 ) + NVLEO (t5 ): (45)
Further, we assume that both the total .ight time and
the stay time in LMO are given, more precisely,
 = 440 days; (46a)
STAY = 30 days: (46b)
Once more, we impose the fast transfer condition
(33a), rewritten here for convenience as follows:
E () ∼
= P (): (47)
The reduction to a mathematical programming
problem is done by recognizing that the essential con-
straints (20), (23), (27), (30) must be augmented by
the constraint (47), while the variables are the param-
eters (38), augmented by NVMID (t1 ) and MID =t1 −t0 ,
with  and STAY excluded from the parameter count.
With the above understanding, we formulate the
following problem: (P4) Minimize the performance
index (45) with respect to the parameters (38) aug-
mented by NVMID (t1 ) and MID = t1 − t0 , subject to
the constraints (20), (23) (27), (30), (47), with  and
STAY excluded from the parameter count.
To sum up, we are in the presence of a mathemat-
ical programming problem involving n = 12 parame-
ters, q = 9 constraints, and hence n − q = 3 degrees
of freedom. These degrees of freedom must be satu-
rated in such a way that the performance index (45)
is minimized. The solution of Problem P4 is called
Trajectory T4.
4.5. Free return trajectory T5
While Trajectories T1–T4 require the circulariza-
tion of the spacecraft motion into LMO, in a free re-
turn trajectory this requirement is eliminated; hence,
88 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

there are no velocity impulses at LMO. In addition,
there is no need for a midcourse impulse. Since
NVLMO (t2 ) = NVLMO (t3 ) = 0;
NVMID (t1 ) = NVMID (t4 ) = 0; (48)
the characteristic velocity (34) reduces to
NV = NVLEO (t0 ) + NVLEO (t5 ): (49)
The Mars .yby occurs tangentially to LMO in the
relative motion of the spacecraft with respect to Mars.
The .yby time is t2 = t3 .
The total .ight time is unconstrained and the stay
time in LMO is vanishingly small; hence,
 = free; (50a)
STAY = 0: (50b)
Since we dispense with the fast transfer condition
(33a), one must expect the round-trip free return tra-
jectory to be consistent with (33b), although this equa-
tion is not imposed as a constraint of the problem.
The reduction to a mathematical programming
problem is done by recognizing that, since Eq. (30)
reduces to an identity, the essential constraints are
these:
(D) the spacecraft/Earth relative phase angle at de-
parture from LEO,
PE (t0 ) = PE (t0 ) − E (t0 ): (52d)
With the above understanding, we formulate the
following problem: (P5) Minimize the performance
index (49) with respect to the parameters (52), subject
to the constraints (23), (25), (51).
To sum up, we are in the presence of a mathemat-
ical programming problem including n = 7 parame-
ters, q = 6 constraints, and hence n − q = 1 degree of
freedom. This single degree of freedom must be sat-
urated in such a way that the performance index (49)
is minimized. The solution of Problem P5 is called
Trajectory T5.
5. Mission data
5.1. Planetary data
The gravitational constants for the Sun, Earth, and
Mars are given by
S = 1:327E11; E = 3:986E05;

M = 4:283E04 (km3 =s2 ): (53)

(i) for the outgoing trip, the LMO arrival conditions
(25); Earth and Mars travel around Sun along orbits with
(ii) for the return trip, the LEO arrival conditions average radii
(23);
(iii) for entire trip, the time relation (27) simpli7ed rE = 1:496E08; rM = 2:279E08 (km): (54a)
by the fact that STAY = 0, The associated average translational velocities and an-
gular velocities are given by
 = OUT + RET : (51)
VE = 29:78; VM = 24:13 (km=s); (54b)
The parameters appearing in the essential constraints
(23), (25), (51) are these: !E = 0:9855; !M = 0:5241 (deg=day): (54c)

(A) the velocity impulses In particular, the angular velocity di6erence between
Earth and Mars is
NVLEO (t0 ); NVLEO (t5 ); (52a)
N! = !E − !M = 0:4614 (deg=day): (55)
(B) the transfer times
OUT ; RET ; ; (52b) 5.2. Orbital data
(C) the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle di6erence at
For the outgoing trip, the spacecraft is to be trans-
departure from LEO,
ferred from a low Earth orbit to a low Mars orbit; for
N (t0 ) = M (t0 ) − E (t0 ); (52c) the return trip, the spacecraft is to be transferred from
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94 89

a low Mars orbit to a low Earth orbit. The radii of the Table 2
terminal orbits are Characteristic velocities (km/s) for a round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO
rLEO = 6841; rLMO = 4097 (km); (56a) NV T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

corresponding to the altitudes Outgoing trip NVLEO 3.55 3.79 3.62 5.07 7.57
NVMID 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00
hLEO = 463; hLMO = 200 (km); (56b) NVLMO 2.10 4.15 2.72 5.06 0.00

since the Earth and Mars surface radii are given by Return trip NVLMO 2.10 3.92 4.62 3.80 0.00
NVMID 0.00 0.00 3.48 0.00 0.00
RE = 6378; RM = 3397 (km): (56c)
NVLEO 3.55 3.76 4.08 4.18 3.76
The circular velocities (subscript c) at LEO and LMO
Round trip NVOUT 5.65 7.93 6.34 12.81 7.57
are given by
NVRET 5.65 7.68 12.17 7.97 3.76
(Vc )LEO = 7:633; (Vc )LMO = 3:451 (km=s) (56d) NV 11.30 15.61 18.52 20.79 11.33

and the corresponding escape velocities (subscript *)

are
(V∗ )LEO = 10:795; (V∗ )LMO = 4:880 (km=s):
The main results are as follows.
(56e)
Trajectory T1. This is a minimum energy trajectory
computed for free stay time in LMO, free total time,
6. Numerical results and free phase angle travel; there is no midcourse ve-
locity impulse in either the outgoing trip or the return
Five optimal round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO trajecto- trip.
ries were computed, based on the formulation of Sec- For Trajectory T1, the .ight time of 970 days in-
tion 5 and using the sequential gradient-restoration cludes 258 days for the outgoing trip, 258 days for the
algorithm for mathematical programming problems return trip, and 454 days staying in LMO. The charac-
[13]. The numerical results are shown in Tables 1–8 teristic velocity is 11:30 km=s and the corresponding
and Figs. 1–5. mass ratio is 20. Table 4 shows that, upon completion
Tables 1–3 show the travel/stay times, characteris- of the round trip, the spacecraft phase angle travel is
tic velocities, and major parameters for a round trip. 360◦ less than the Earth phase angle travel.
Included in Table 3 is the mass ratio associated with Trajectory T2. This is a compromise trajectory
each trajectory, namely, the ratio of the mass depart- computed for a 7xed stay time in LMO of 30 days,
ing from LEO to the mass returning to LEO. Note free total time, and free phase angle travel; once more,
that the computation of the mass ratios was done for there is no midcourse velocity impulse in either the
a multistage spacecraft having a uniform structural outgoing trip or the return trip.
factor  = 0:1 and a uniform engine speci7c impulse For Trajectory T2, the .ight time of 842 days in-
ISP = 450 s. Tables 4–8 show the phase angle histories cludes 412 days for the outgoing trip, 399 days for
of all the trajectories. the return trip, and 30 days staying in LMO. The
characteristic velocity is 15:61 km=s and the cor-
Table 1 responding mass ratio is 69. Table 5 shows that,
Travel/stay times [days] for a round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO upon completion of the round trip, the spacecraft
phase angle travel is 360◦ less than the Earth phase
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
angle travel. Comparing Trajectories T2 and T1,
OUT 257.9 412.3 207.7 261.3 246.1 we see that a considerable price must be paid for
STAY 454.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 shortening the stay in LMO: a 38% increase in
RET 257.8 399.3 308.2 148.7 967.8
characteristic velocity, which translates into a mass
 970.0 841.7 545.9 440.0 1213.8 ratio increase according to a multiplicative factor
of 3.4.
90 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

Table 3
Major parameters for a round trip LEO-LMO-LEO

Quantity T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

 = t5 − t0 970.0 841.7 545.9 440.0 1213.8

NV 11.30 15.61 18.52 20.79 11.33
P (t5 ) − P (t0 ) 596.1 469.5 538.0 433.6 836.3
E (t5 ) − E (t0 ) 956.1 829.5 538.0 433.6 1196.3
M (t5 ) − M (t0 ) 508.4 441.2 286.1 230.6 636.2
m(t0 )=m(t5 ) 20.1 68.8 150.0 304.1 31.2

Notation:  = t5 − t0 , Flight time (days); NV , Characteristic velocity (km/s); P (t5 ) − P (t0 ), Spacecraft phase angle travel (deg);
E (t5 ) − E (t0 ), Earth phase angle travel (deg); M (t5 ) − M (t0 ), Mars phase angle travel (deg); m(t0 )=m(t5 ), Ratio of mass departing
from LEO to mass returning to LEO, computed for a multistage rocket with uniform structural factor  = 0:1 and engine speci7c impulse
ISP = 450 s.

Table 4 Table 7
Phase angle histories of Earth, Mars, spacecraft for Trajectory T1 Phase angle histories of Earth, Mars, spacecraft for Trajectory T4

t (days) E (deg) M (deg) P (deg) t (days) E (deg) M (deg) P (deg)

t0 = 0:0 0.0 43.9 0.0 t0 = 0:0 0.0 173.5 0.0

t2 = 257:9 254.2 179.1 179.1 t2 = 261:3 257.5 310.4 310.4
t3 = 712:2 702.0 417.1 417.1 t3 = 291:3 287.1 326.2 326.2
t5 = 970:0 956.1 552.3 596.1 t5 = 440:0 433.6 404.1 433.6

Table 5 Table 8
Phase angle histories of Earth, Mars, spacecraft for Trajectory T2 Phase angle histories of Earth, Mars, spacecraft for Trajectory T5

t (days) E (deg) M (deg) P (deg) t (days) E (deg) M (deg) P (deg)

t0 = 0:0 0.0 12.2 0.0 t0 = 0:0 0.0 124.5 0.0

t2 = 412:3 406.4 228.3 228.3 t2 = 246:1 242.5 253.4 253.4
t3 = 442:3 435.9 244.0 244.0 t3 = 246:1 242.5 253.4 253.4
t5 = 841:7 829.5 453.3 469.5 t5 = 1213:8 1196.3 760.7 836.3

Notation: t0 , Departure time from LEO (days); t2 , Arrival time

to LMO (days); t3 , Departure time from LMO (days); t5 , Arrival
Table 6 time to LEO (days).
Phase angle histories of Earth, Mars, spacecraft for Trajectory T3

t (days) E (deg) M (deg) P (deg) For Trajectory T3, the .ight time of 546 days in-
t0 = 0:0 0.0 46.8 0.0 cludes 208 days for the outgoing trip, 308 days for
t2 = 207:7 204.7 155.7 155.7 the return trip, and 30 days staying in LMO. The
t3 = 237:7 234.3 171.4 171.4 characteristic velocity is 18:52 km=s and the corre-
t5 = 545:9 538.0 333.0 538.0 sponding mass ratio is 150. Table 6 shows that, upon
completion of the round trip, the spacecraft phase an-
gle travel is the same as the Earth phase angle travel.
Trajectory T3. This is a fast transfer trajectory com- Comparing Trajectories T3 and T1, we see that a sti6
puted for a 7xed stay time in LMO of 30 days, free price must be paid for shortening the total time: a
total time, and phase angle travel of the spacecraft 64% increase in characteristic velocity, which trans-
equal to that of Earth; a midcourse velocity impulse lates into a mass ratio increase according to a multi-
is assumed for the return trip. plicative factor of 7.5.
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
Arrival to LMO
Earth
Sun
Mars
Departure from LEO
Mars
Arrival to LEO
Sun
Departure from LMO
Earth
Fig. 1. Minimum energy trajectory in interplanetary space, Sun
coordinates, total time = 970.0 days, stay time in LMO = 454.3
days, total velocity impulse = 11:30 km=s, no midcourse impulse.
Trajectory T4. This is a fast transfer trajectory com-
puted for a 7xed stay time in LMO of 30 days, a 7xed
total time of 440 days, and phase angle travel of the
spacecraft equal to that of Earth; a midcourse velocity
impulse is assumed for the outgoing trip.
For Trajectory T4, the .ight time of 440 days in-
cludes 261 days for the outgoing trip, 149 days for
the return trip, and 30 days staying in LMO. The
characteristic velocity is 20:79 km=s and the corre-
sponding mass ratio is 304. Table 7 shows that, upon
completion of the round trip, the spacecraft phase an-
gle travel is the same as the Earth phase angle travel.
Comparing Trajectories T4 and T1, we see that an
even sti6er price must be paid for further shortening
91
Arrival to LMO
Sun
Earth
Departure from LEO
Mars
Arrival to LEO
Departure from LMO
Mars
Sun
Earth
Fig. 2. Compromise trajectory in interplanetary space, Sun coor-
dinates, total time = 841.7 days, stay time in LMO = 30.0 days,
total velocity impulse = 15:61 km=s, no midcourse impulse.
the total time: an 84% increase in characteristic ve-
locity, which translates into a mass ratio increase ac-
cording to a multiplicative factor of 15.1.
Trajectory T5. This is a free-return trajectory com-
puted for zero stay time in LMO, free total time, and
free phase angle travel; there is no circularization of
the motion in LMO; there is no midcourse velocity
impulse in either the outgoing trip or the return trip.
The spacecraft departs from LEO, executes a Mars
.yby at the prescribed altitude of 200 km above the
Mars surface, and returns to LEO.
For Trajectory T5, the .ight time of 1214 days in-
cludes 246 days for the outgoing trip and 968 days for
the return trip; there is no stay time in LMO. The char-
acteristic velocity is 11:33 km=s and the correspond-
ing mass ratio is 31. Table 8 shows that, upon com-
pletion of the round trip, the spacecraft phase angle
travel is 360◦ less than the Earth phase angle travel.
Comparing Trajectories T5 and T1, we see that,
even though the characteristic velocity has remained
92 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

Arrival to LMO Mars Midcourse impulse

Earth

Earth
Sun
Sun

Arrival to LMO Departure from LEO

Mars
Departure from LEO

Departure from LMO

Arrival to LEO
Arrival to LEO

Sun
Earth
Earth

Sun Mars

Departure from LMO

Mars Fig. 4. Fast transfer trajectory in interplanetary space, Sun coordi-

Midcourse impulse nates, total time = 440.0 days, stay time in LMO = 30.0 days, total
velocity impulse = 20:79 km=s, outgoing trip midcourse impulse.

Fig. 3. Fast transfer trajectory in interplanetary space, Sun coordi-

nates, total time = 545.9 days, stay time in LMO = 30.0 days, total
velocity impulse = 18:52 km=s, return trip midcourse impulse.
nearly the same, the mass ratio has increased according
to a multiplicative factor of 1.55, due to a more uneven
distribution of the velocity impulses; also, the total
.ight time has increased by 25%. Therefore, a free
return trajectory is not useful for Mars missions, while
its counterpart for Moon missions is of considerable
interest [7].
7. Conclusions
To assess the interplay between .ight time, charac-
teristic velocity, and mass ratio for Mars missions, we
have studied optimal LEO-LMO-LEO trajectories un-
der a variety of boundary conditions, with LEO denot-
ing a low Earth orbit and LMO denoting a low Mars
orbit. The trajectories investigated are these: (T1) min-
imum energy trajectory; (T2) compromise trajectory
with a stay time in LMO of 30 days; (T3) fast trans-
fer trajectory with a stay time in LMO of 30 days and
phase angle travel of the spacecraft equal to that of
Earth; (T4) fast transfer trajectory with a stay time in
LMO of 30 days, total time of 440 days, and phase an-
gle travel of the spacecraft equal to that of Earth; (T5)
free return trajectory with zero stay time in LMO.
The main conclusions are given below.
(i) For robotic missions, Trajectory T1 is the best.
It requires a total time of 970 days, a characteristic
velocity of 11:30 km=s, and a mass ratio of 20.
(ii) For manned missions, a substantial shortening
of the .ight time is needed, but this translates into sti6
penalties in characteristic velocity and mass ratio. For
the shortest mission considered, that of Trajectory T4,
the total time is reduced to 440 days, while the charac-
teristic velocity nearly doubles to 20:79 km=s and the
 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94
Mars
Arrival to LMO
Earth
Sun
Departure from LEO
Arrival to LEO
Departure from LMO
Earth
Sun
Mars
Fig. 5. Free return trajectory in interplanetary space, Sun coordi-
nates, total time = 1213.8 days, stay time in LMO = 0.0 days,
total velocity impulse = 11:33 km=s, no midcourse impulse, no
impulse at LMO.
mass ratio increases to 304, namely, by a multiplica-
tion factor of 15 w.r.t. the mass ratio of Trajectory T1.
(iii) The free return trajectory is of little interest for
Mars missions, while its counterpart for Moon mis-
sions is of considerable interest.
It must be noted that the above mass ratios refer to
a round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO. They do not include the
ascent from/descent to the Earth surface (mass ratio
of about 18) and the descent to/ascent from the Mars
surface (mass ratio of about 3.6). When the above
mass ratios are included, one obtains overall mass ra-
tios of order 1000 for Earth–Mars–Earth transfer via
a minimum energy trajectory and of order 10 000 for
Earth–Mars–Earth transfer via a fast transfer
trajectory.
At the national level, the wisest strategy appears
to be to continue the exploration of Mars via robotic
spacecraft and delay the exploration of Mars via
manned spacecraft to such time when, thanks to
advances yet to be achieved in the areas of space-
93
craft structural factors and engine speci7c impulses,
more reasonable values can be achieved for the char-
acteristic velocity components and the mass ratio
components.
References
[1] J.C. Nieho6, Pathways to Mars: new trajectory opportunities,
in: D.B. Reiber (Ed.), NASA Mars Conference, Univelt,
San Diego, CA, 1988, pp. 381–401.
[2] S.J. Ho6man, J.V. McAdams, J.C. Nieho6, Round-trip
trajectory options for human exploration of Mars, in: J.
Teles (Ed.), Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 69,
Univelt, San Diego, CA, 1989, pp. 663–679.
[3] G. Walberg, How shall we go to Mars? A review of mission
scenarios, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 30 (2) (1993)
129–139.
[4] R.D. Braun, R.W. Powell, W.C. Engelund, P.A. Gno6o,
K.J. Weilmuenster, R.A. Mitcheltree, Mars Path7nder
six-degree-of-freedom entry analysis, Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets 32 (6) (1995) 993–1000.
[5] A. Miele, T. Wang, Optimal transfers from an Earth orbit to
a Mars orbit, Acta Astronautica 45 (3) (1999) 119–133.
[6] A. Miele, T. Wang, S. Mancuso, Assessment of launch
vehicle advances to enable Human Mars excursions, Acta
Astronautica 49 (11) (2001) 563–580.
[7] A. Miele, T. Wang, S. Mancuso, Optimal free-return
trajectories for Moon missions and Mars missions, Journal
of the Astronautical Sciences 48 (2,3) (2000) 183–206.
[8] T. Crain, R.H. Bishop, W. Fowler, K. Rock, Interplanetary
.yby mission optimization using a hybrid global-local search
method, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 37 (4) (2000)
468–474.
[9] A. Miele, T. Wang, Optimal trajectories and mirror properties
for round-trip Mars missions, Acta Astronautica 45 (11)
(1999) 655–668.
[10] A. Miele, T. Wang, Optimal trajectories and asymptotic
parallelism property for round-trip Mars mission, in:
S. Sivasundaram (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Nonlinear Problems in Aviation and Aero-
space, Daytona Beach, FL, 1998, Vol. 2, European
Conference Publications, Cambridge, England, 1999,
pp. 507–539.
[11] P.F. Wercinski, Mars sample return: a direct and
minimum-risk design, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 33
(3) (1996) 381–385.
[12] L. Casalino, G. Colasurdo, D. Pastrone, Optimization
procedure for preliminary design of opposition-class Mars
missions, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 21
(1) (1998) 134–140.
[13] A. Miele, H.Y. Huang, J.C. Heideman, Sequential
gradient-restoration algorithm for the minimization of
constrained functions: ordinary and conjugate gradient
versions, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 4
(4) (1969) 213–243.
94 A. Miele et al. / Acta Astronautica 55 (2004) 79 – 94

[14] A. Miele, R.E. Pritchard, I.N. Damoulakis, Sequential
gradient-restoration algorithm for optimal control problems,
Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 5 (4) (1970)
235–282.
[15] A. Miele, T. Wang, V.K. Basapur, Primal and dual
formulations of sequential gradient-restoration algorithms for
trajectory optimization problems, Acta Astronautica 13 (8)
(1986) 491–505.
[16] B.H. Rishikof, B.R. McCormick, R.E. Pritchard, S.J.
Sponaugle, SEGRAM: a practical and versatile tool for
spacecraft trajectory optimization, Acta Astronautica 26
(8–10) (1992) 599–609.
[17] A. Miele, Flight Mechanics, Vol. 1: Theory of Flight Paths,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1962.