## 6 Result Analysis
### Feature Variations  
To further understand the details of each intelligent and detection satellite in different scenarios, Figures 8-11 show the evolution of relative distances, illumination angles, and capture angles for each satellite pair.  
Figure 8: Relative distance of intelligent satellite D1 during its evasion of detection satellite A1.  
Figure 10: Relative distance of intelligent satellite D2 during its evasion of detection satellite A2.  
Figure 9: Illumination angle of intelligent satellite D1 during its evasion of detection satellite A1.  
Figures 8 and 9 display the dynamic changes in relative distance and illumination angle for intelligent satellite D1 during its evasion of detection satellite A1 in the approach and sustained phases, respectively.  
From Figures 8 and 9, it can be observed that the relative distance first increases and then decreases over time during the approach phase, while the illumination angle fluctuates significantly. After the approach phase, the illumination angle is constrained within 40\({}^{\circ}\), indicating that D1 positioned itself more favorably through multiple impulse maneuvers during evasion. Through precise orbit adjustments, A1 continuously optimized its relative position, effectively mitigating the negative impact of the illumination angle on mission execution and ensuring optimal angle configuration during detection. In the sustained phase, the relative distance between the two gradually decreases, indicating that the detection satellite continues to approach the intelligent satellite while remaining within safe distance limits. The illumination angle continues to decrease, demonstrating the detection satellite's capability for effective target detection. The results show that intelligent satellite D1 successfully avoided collision with detection satellite A1 while maintaining stability. Throughout the process, D1 employed flexible maneuver strategies multiple times to avoid collision, while A1 ensured successful mission completion through precise impulse strategies and accurate orbit control, further validating the method's efficiency and robustness in dynamic missions.  
Figures 10 and 11 show the dynamic changes in relative distance and capture angle between intelligent satellite D2 and detection satellite A2 during the approach and sustained phases of evasion.  
It can be seen that, during the approach phase, the dynamic adjustment process between intelligent satellite D2 and detection satellite A2 was constrained not only by relative distance but also required strict control of the capture angle within acceptable limits. The figures show that the relative distance between the satellites gradually decreased and eventually converged to within 20 km, while the capture angle reduced to below 10\({}^{\circ}\). This indicates that the optimization strategy during the approach phase satisfied A1's detection mission constraints while maintaining a safe distance from D2. In the sustained phase, the relative distance between the two gradually increased, reflecting their continued optimization of control strategies during the dynamic process. However, the capture angle exhibited significant fluctuations, likely caused by complex trajectory changes resulting from dynamic maneuver adjustments during this phase. Although these fluctuations reflect the intensity of maneuvers to some extent, the capture angle remained within mission-required thresholds overall, demonstrating the optimization algorithm's robustness in handling dynamic changes.  
Figure 11: Capture angle of intelligent satellite D2 during its evasion of detection satellite A2.