## 4 Results and Discussion  
In this section, the following four examples are given to verify the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Among these, Example 1 and Example 2 are taken as one group. Their initial conditions and maneuver parameters are the same. The differences between the two examples are that when performing orbital maneuvers, the pursuer in Example 1 adopts the control strategy based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, while the pursuer in Example 2 does not consider the impact of the defender, that is, the parameters \(k_{1}=1\), \(k_{2}=0\) in the objective function \(J_{\mathrm{P}}\). Example 3 and Example 4 are taken as the other group, with the differences between the two examples being the same as those between Example 1 and Example 2 in the first group. The initial orbital altitude of their reference orbit \(h=500\) km, the acceleration of gravity \(g=9.8e-3\,\mathrm{km}/s^{2}\), and the radius of the Earth \(R=6371.393\) km. During the game, the safety distance between players is set as \(0.5\) km. _Example 1._ The maximum unit mass thrusts of the pursuer, the evader, and the defender are \(T_{\mathrm{P}}=0.09\times\mathrm{g}\), \(T_{\mathrm{E}}=0.01\times\mathrm{g}\), and \(T_{\mathrm{D}}=0.02\times\mathrm{g}\), respectively, and the game time is \(267.4124\) s. The initial positions and velocities of the pursuer, the evader, and the defender are shown in Table 2. The pursuer adopts the control strategy based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Figure 2 shows the curves of the positions of the three players changing with time in the directions of \(X\), \(Y\), \(Z\). From Figure 2, it can be seen that the pursuer bypasses the interception of the defender and eventually catches up with the evader. From Table 3, it can be seen that at the terminal moment, the distance between the pursuer and the evader is \(0.3598\) km, which is shorter than the safety distance \(0.5\) km, indicating that at the terminal moment, the pursuer catches up with the evader. Figure 3 shows the distance between the defender and the pursuer during the game. It reaches the shortest distance at \(203.5\) s. After that, the distance between the pursuer and the defender beco \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Pursuer** & **Evader** & **Defender** \\ \hline \(X/\mathrm{km}\) & 0 & 12 & 6 \\ \(Y/\mathrm{km}\) & 0 & 16 & 8 \\ \(Z/\mathrm{km}\) & 20 & 0 & 10 \\ \(V_{X}/\left(\mathrm{km}\cdot\mathrm{s}^{-1}\right)\) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \(V_{Y}/\left(\mathrm{km}\cdot\mathrm{s}^{-1}\right)\) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \(V_{Z}/\left(\mathrm{km}\cdot\mathrm{s}^{-1}\right)\) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Positions and velocities of the initial time. distance being 0.5099 km, which is longer than the safety distance 0.5 km, indicating that during the game the pursuer successfully bypasses the defender. Figure 4 shows the curves of the control variable of each player changing with time in the directions of \(X\), \(Y\), \(Z\). Figure 5 shows the curve of ZEM distance changing with time. From the figures, it can be seen that when the ZEM distance \(\mathbf{Z}_{\text{DP}}(t)\) is close to 0 (i.e., 40 s to 130 s), the pursuer will consider more about evading the defender. So in this phase, the pursuer's control curve is nearer to the control curve of the defender. During the time when the ZEM variables \(\mathbf{Z}_{\text{DP}}(t)\) are not close to 0, the pursuer almost ignores the impact of the defender, so the control curve of the pursuer at this stage almost superposes with that of the evader. Through this strategy, the pursuer successfully bypasses the defenders during the game and finally captures the evader. Figure 3: The distance between the pursuer and the defender changing with time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Pursuer** & **Evader** & **Defender** \\ \hline \(X\)/km & 15.24 & 15.28 & 10.24 \\ \(Y\)/km & 17.44 & 17.68 & 11.72 \\ \(Z\)/km & \(-2.098\) & \(-2.363\) & 4.87 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}