Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology
www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte
Simultaneous optimization of staging and trajectory of launch vehicles using two
different approaches
Reza Jamilnia

, Abolghasem Naghash
Aerospace Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Ave., P.O. Box 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 May 2009
Received in revised form 27 July 2010
Accepted 1 June 2011
Available online 5 July 2011
Keywords:
Launch vehicles
Trajectory optimization
Staging optimization
Direct collocation method
Nonlinear programming
In this paper, two different approaches are proposed for simultaneous optimization of staging and
trajectory of multistage launch vehicles. In the rst approach, the problems of staging optimization
and trajectory optimization are solved separately. These problems are linked together by an overhead
problem to nd the overall optimal solution. In the second approach, the optimal staging and trajectory
are achieved during trajectory optimization in an integrated problem. In the rst approach, staging is
optimized based on ideal velocity and classic formulation of staging, and in the second approach, staging
is optimized based on actual velocity and details of trajectory optimization problem. In both approaches,
direct collocation method and nonlinear programming techniques are used for solving optimization
problems. A numerical example is presented and solved to demonstrate and compare the capabilities of
proposed approaches. Both approaches can lead to very similar solutions in spite of their differences in
staging formulation. Integrated approach can lead to better results because of simultaneous consideration
of objective functions and effective constraints of two optimization problems of staging and trajectory.
2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In designing a Launch Vehicle (LV) for a specic space mission,
minimizing LVs mass is an important objective. Staging is an ef-
fective way to reduce LVs mass. By staging, the useless mass due
to propellant consumption is discarded in each separation and the
possibility of thrust programming and adapting engines to the alti-
tude where they are red is provided. The choice of different pro-
pellants and engines for various stages increases the importance of
propellant mass budgeting between stages. The best budgeting of
propellant mass and structural mass can be determined by staging
optimization. By optimal staging, the LV can reach specied mis-
sion velocity with minimum initial mass.
Up to now, many efforts have been made to optimize staging
of LVs. In initial works, the problem of staging optimization has
been solved with many simplications [8,9,23]. In recent decades,
by development of numerical methods for solving nonlinear con-
strained optimization problems, the possibility of solving this prob-
lem without those simplications has been provided [15,22]. In all
of these works, the problem of staging optimization has been for-
mulated based on ideal velocity. In reality, the ideal velocity is not
achievable because of different waste factors (such as gravitational
forces, aerodynamic forces and ight maneuvers) and part of pro-
duced velocity is wasted during ight. Some researchers have tried
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 64543214; fax: +98 21 66404885.
E-mail addresses: jamilnia@aut.ac.ir (R. Jamilnia), naghash@aut.ac.ir (A. Naghash).
to apply these factors in the formulation of staging optimization
problem [1,5,7]. However, exact determination of velocity waste
without having ight trajectory of an LV is impossible.
By optimizing ight trajectory, we can determine a ight tra-
jectory that leads to minimum propellant consumption and con-
sequently minimum velocity waste. Hence, for exact staging opti-
mization of an LV, it is needed to determine the optimal trajectory.
The problem of trajectory optimization of LVs is one of the most
complicated problems in the eld of optimal control. By signicant
development and progress in computer software and hardware in
recent decades, the possibility of using complicated numerical al-
gorithms and presenting different approaches has been provided
in this eld. In [3,24], some of the ecient methods for solving
trajectory optimization problems have been mentioned.
Up to now, simultaneous optimization of staging and trajec-
tory has been considered in few papers. Chudej and Bulirsch have
solved this problem for a hypersonic two stage LV [4,6]. They have
determined the optimal staging during trajectory optimization by
calculation of optimal values for separation time and nal time of
ight.
In this paper, two different approaches are proposed for simul-
taneous optimization of staging and trajectory of LVs with various
numbers of stages and types of staging (tandem and parallel). In
the rst approach, the problems of staging optimization and trajec-
tory optimization are solved separately. These problems are linked
together by an overhead problem to nd overall optimal solution.
In the second approach, the optimal staging and trajectory are
achieved during trajectory optimization in an integrated problem.
1270-9638/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2011.06.013
86 R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The clas-
sic formulation of staging optimization problem and its solution
method are described in Section 2. In Section 3, the problem of
trajectory optimization is dened and required equations and so-
lution method are presented. Separated and integrated approaches
are described in Section 4. In Section 5, a numerical example is
presented and solved to demonstrate the capabilities of proposed
approaches. Two approaches are compared in Section 6. The con-
cluding remarks are presented in Section 7.
2. Staging optimization
The main duty of an LV is to accelerate a payload to reach
a prescribed position and velocity in space. During ight, part of
LVs mass becomes superuous and useless because of propellant
consumption. As the propellant tanks are designed to contain the
initial propellant mass, they will be too large if part of propellant
is consumed. By staging an LV, the possibility of discarding use-
less mass is provided during ight. Also, by staging the possibility
of thrust programming is provided as well as adapting engines of
stages to the altitude where they are red. By choosing various
engines and propellants for stages of an LV, we should determine
the optimal mass budgeting (masses of propellants and structures)
between stages in conceptual design phase.
To analyze staging of LVs, it is needed to dene some impor-
tant masses and parameters [10,11,17,21]. The initial mass of an
LV consists of three different parts:
M
0
= P +M
s
+M
p
(1)
where M
0
is the initial mass, P is the payload mass, M
s
is the
structural mass and M
p
is the useful propellant mass. The struc-
tural mass consists of LVs structure mass, auxiliary objects mass,
such as pipes, cables, mounting and thermal insulation, installed
equipment mass, such as engines, guidance and control systems,
pressurizing systems and electrical and hydraulic power supply
systems and unconsumed propellant mass.
We can dene following parameters using mentioned masses:
=
P
M
0
(2)
=
M
0
M
0
M
p
(3)
=
M
s
M
s
+M
p
(4)
where is the payload ratio, is the mass ratio and is the
structural eciency.
All of these masses and parameters can be dened for each
stage. The payload mass of each stage is the mass of upper stages
and for the nal stage is the actual payload mass.
In order to determine velocity increment of each stage, we can
use the rocket (Tsiolkovsky) equation [10]:
V = g
0
I
sp
ln (5)
where V is the velocity increment, g
0
is the gravitational acceler-
ation at sea level and I
sp
is the specic impulse. The total velocity
increment of LV (V
total
) is the sum of V of stages:
V
total
=
N

i=1
V
i
=
N

i=1
g
0
I
sp
i
ln
i
(6)
where N is the number of stages. By assuming the specied
V
total
and specic impulses, Eq. (6) is converted to an equation
with N unknown variables (
i
) and innite solutions. In other
words, with different sets of mass ratios, the specied V
total
is
achievable. Staging is the determination of these mass ratios for a
specic mission and payload mass.
In conceptual design phase, staging optimization is the deter-
mination of optimal mass ratios to minimize initial mass of an LV
with specied mission velocity and payload mass. By minimizing
initial mass, launch costs are decreased and launch will be done
more easily. Therefore, we can dene the problem of staging opti-
mization of LVs as follows:
The objective function of this problem is the initial mass of LV
that should be minimized:
F = M
0
= P +
N

i=1
(M
s
i
+M
p
i
) (7)
By dividing Eq. (7) to P and using mass ratio and structural
eciency denitions, we can dene objective function based on
mass ratios:
F = M
0
/P =1 +
_
N

i=1
(M
s
i
+ M
p
i
)
_
_
P (8)
F =
N

i=1
(1
i
)
i
1
i

i
(9)
In this optimization problem, the constraint is achieving spec-
ied nal velocity. Total velocity increment should be equal to
specied nal velocity (mission velocity). Hence, the constraint
function is as follows:
G =
N

i=1
g
0
I
sp
i
ln
i
V
f
=0 (10)
where V
f
is the specied nal velocity. According to the objective
and constraint functions, by specifying stages number, structural
eciencies and specic impulses of stages, we can nd optimal
mass ratios.
In this paper, values for structural eciencies and specic
impulses of stages are assumed specied because these values
strongly depend on operational aspects and the state of the art
of construction techniques. According to the denition of staging,
larger number of stages leads to less accelerating of the useless
mass. However, large stages number is not desired because of ex-
tra rocket engines and auxiliary equipment, special provisions for
separation of various stages, and consequently extra mass. Optimal
stages number can be determined by solving dened staging opti-
mization problem. If we solve this problem for different numbers
of stages, we can see that there is an optimal value for stages num-
ber in each nal velocity. If we choose stages number more than
this value, we do not see any signicant reduction in initial mass
of LV.
Researchers in previous decades have used different simplica-
tions for solving staging optimization problems such as identical
stages, identical specic impulses, and identical structural ecien-
cies. Nowadays, with development of optimization algorithms and
digital computers, these problems are solvable without any simpli-
cation.
In the present paper, we solve dened staging optimization
problem using Non-Linear Programming (NLP) techniques [18] by
an NLP solver, namely IPOPT [26]. IPOPT is a large-scale nonlin-
ear optimization package based on a primaldual interior point
(barrier) method with lter line search algorithm [25,27]. In inte-
rior point method, inequality constraints are converted to equal-
ity and bound constraints, and bound constraints are added to
objective function by a logarithmic barrier term. In IPOPT, per-
turbed KarushKuhnTucker (KKT) necessary optimality conditions
(primaldual equations) are solved by a Newton-type method.
R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592 87
To dene staging optimization problem in IPOPT, we should
dene the objective function (Eq. (9)) and constraint function
(Eq. (10)) and rst and second derivatives of them with respect
to all optimization variables (
i
) as Jacobian and Hessian matri-
ces [26]. This problem can be rapidly and accurately solved by
IPOPT because of low number of optimization variables (number
of stages) and simple objective and constraint functions.
In this paper, equations of staging are presented based on tan-
dem staging. For LV with parallel staging, we can dene an equiv-
alent LV with tandem staging [21]. We can optimize staging of
equivalent LV with presented equations, and convert optimal stag-
ing to parallel conguration.
In the denition of staging optimization problem, we used
rocket equation to compute velocity increment (V ). This V is
an ideal velocity that can be attained by the vehicle in a gravity-
free vacuum, if thrust forces in all stages were to be applied in
the same direction. The actual V is less than ideal V be-
cause of different factors such as gravitational forces, aerodynamic
forces and ight maneuvers which are neglected in derivation of
rocket equation. The difference between ideal V and actual V
is wasted V [19,20,28]:
V
ideal
=V
actual
+V
wasted
(11)
In conceptual design phase, we can compute actual V from
mission velocity. If we want to optimize staging based on rocket
equation, we should determine wasted V . For exact determina-
tion of wasted V , we should know ight trajectory of LV. By
trajectory optimization, we can determine a ight trajectory that
leads to minimum propellant consumption and consequently min-
imum velocity waste. Hence, for determination of minimum initial
mass for a specic space mission, staging and trajectory of LV
should be optimized simultaneously.
3. Trajectory optimization
Trajectory optimization of multistage LVs is a complicated prob-
lem in the eld of optimal control because of nonlinear equations
of motion, path constraints and various models (aerodynamics,
propulsion, gravity, atmosphere, wind and so on). In order to de-
ne an optimal control problem of trajectory optimization of LVs,
we should choose a set of equations of motion and models that
express the dynamic behavior of LVs during ight mission. In this
paper, we choose dynamic equations and models used in [12]. In
this reference, the 3DOF point mass equations of motion in veloc-
ity coordinate system have been used as follows:

V =
_
r
2
E
g
_
sin +
T cos cos + F
x
w
m
(12)
=
V
r
cos sin tan +2
E
(sin cos cos tan )

T cos sin F
y
w
mV cos
(13)
=
_
V
r

g
V
_
cos +2
E
sin cos +
r
2
E
V
cos
+
T sin + F
z
w
mV
(14)
r = V sin (15)

=
V
r
cos cos (16)

=
V cos sin
r cos
(17)

Q =0.5V
3
(18)
where V is the velocity, is the heading angle, is the ight path
angle, r is the distance from the center of earth, is the latitude,
is the longitude and Q is the aerodynamic heating. and
are the angles of thrust vector that are equal to angle of attack
and sideslip angle, respectively, in the absence of wind. Also, m is
the current mass, T is the thrust force, g is the earth gravitational
acceleration,
E
is the angular velocity of earth and is the air
density. F
x
w
, F
y
w
and F
z
w
are the aerodynamic forces in the velocity
coordinate frame that are computed using following equations:
F
x
w
=0.5V
2
S(cos cos C
X
sinC
Y
sin cos C
Z
) (19)
F
y
w
=0.5V
2
S(cos sinC
X
+cos C
Y
sin sinC
Z
) (20)
F
z
w
=0.5V
2
S(sinC
X
+cos C
Z
) (21)
where C
X
, C
Y
and C
Z
are the aerodynamic coecients in the body
coordinate frame and S is the reference area. Aerodynamic coef-
cients are calculated for each LV using angle of attack, sideslip
angle and Mach number.
To compute thrust force in each stage, following equation can
be used:
T
i
= m
i
g
0
I
sp
i
(22)
where m is the propellant consumption rate. We can compute
ight time of each stage and current mass of LV using propel-
lant consumption rate and staging data (propellant and structure
masses of stages). Also we can use standard models of gravity and
atmosphere to compute gravitational acceleration, air density and
Mach number.
After choosing dynamic model, we can dene our trajectory
optimization (optimal control) problem based on this model. In
chosen dynamic model, there are 7 state variables (V , , , r, ,
and Q ) and 2 control variables ( and ). We should nd optimal
time histories of these variables to minimize (or maximize) a scalar
objective function. In this paper, we choose two different objective
functions. If we have staging data before trajectory optimization,
we choose to maximize payload mass as objective. However, if we
do not have staging data before trajectory optimization, we choose
to minimize initial mass as objective. These objectives are equiva-
lent to minimizing propellant consumption.
We can consider various path and point constraints for our
problem in addition to dynamic model. Path constraints are con-
straints that are applied to part or all of ight path such as max-
imum dynamic pressure, maximum aerodynamic heating, maxi-
mum load factors and visibility conditions. Point constraints are
constraints that are applied to specic time sections such as
boundary conditions of state and control variables.
To determine time interval of problem, we can add ight times
of stages. By xed ight times of stages, we have an optimal con-
trol problem with xed time interval. However, by free ight times
of stages, we have a problem with free time interval.
Usually, in ight trajectory of LVs, one or several free ight
phases are predicted. A free ight phase helps some of states reach
nal conditions without propellant consumption. The determina-
tion of optimal free ight time is important because of velocity
waste during this phase. If we want to optimize free ight time
during trajectory optimization, the nal time of trajectory opti-
mization problem should be free.
In this paper, we use direct collocation method to solve the
complicated problem of trajectory optimization. In this method, by
full discretization of all state and control variables, the possibil-
ity of using NLP is provided to solve optimal control problems.
This discretization converts differential and integral equations of
optimal control problems to simple algebraic equations. In other
words, by full discretization, an optimal control problem is con-
verted to a standard NLP problem. This discretization is done by
88 R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592
Fig. 1. Time nodes and optimization variables.
dividing a time interval to smaller subintervals. The bounds of
these subintervals (individual time points) are called node or grid
points. The values of state and control variables at these nodes
are new optimization variables in NLP problem [2]. In Fig. 1, time
nodes and optimization variables are shown.
In direct collocation method, we can discretize optimal con-
trol problems using different collocation methods such as Euler,
trapezoidal, Simpson, RungeKutta and so on. For example, if we
assume the equations of motion as following general form:
x =f
_
x(t), u(t), t
_
(23)
where f( ) is the vector of nonlinear state equations, x(t) is the
state vector, u(t) is the control vector, x(t) is the rst deriva-
tive of the state vector and t is the time. These equations can be
applied as equality constraints between two successive nodes by
using trapezoidal rule [2] as follows:
x
(k+1)
x
(k)
0.5h
k
_
f
(k)
+f
(k+1)
_
=0 (24)
where h
k
is the time difference between two successive nodes and
k is the node number. Other parts of trajectory optimization prob-
lem (objective function, path constraints and boundary conditions)
can be discretized with the same method. With these discretiza-
tions, a large-scale NLP problem is achieved with many optimiza-
tion variables and equality and inequality constraints. To solve this
problem, we can again use IPOPT package as an NLP solver.
For exact and rapid solution of trajectory optimization prob-
lem, it is necessary to scale all variables because of their different
variation ranges. By using simple linear mapping, we can set vari-
ation ranges of state and control variables in an identical range.
Good initial guess and bounding of variables are effective for con-
vergence speed and solving the problem. In trajectory optimization
problems with free ight phase or free ight times of stages, we
should dene extra optimization variables for free times to com-
pute their optimal values during optimization.
Direct collocation method, like all direct solution methods of
optimal control problems, can be applied without deriving nec-
essary conditions, adjoint, transversality, and maximum principle.
This feature makes the method appealing for complicated appli-
cations and promises versatility and robustness. Also, in contrast
to all other techniques, this method does not require an a priori
specication of the arc sequence for problems with path inequali-
ties [3].
The combination of direct collocation method and NLP has sev-
eral advantages. Direct collocation method is independent of used
equations because of fully numerical nature of this method. Hence,
adding, modifying and improving the equations do not change the
general form of solution. Also, this method is not very sensitive to
initial guesses and has a good convergence speed.
Direct collocation method does not explicitly form necessary
conditions. In fact, one of the major reasons why this method is
popular is that it is not necessary to estimate values for adjoint
variables. On the other hand, because the adjoint equations are not
available, they cannot be used to assess the accuracy of the solu-
tion. Consequently, we choose to address a different measure of
discretization error. First, we approximate the optimal discrete val-
ues x
(k)
and u
(k)
by B-spline curves as x(t) and u(t), respectively.
Then, we assume u(t) is correct (and optimal) and estimate the er-
ror between x(t) and true x(t). This is a subtle, but very important,
distinction, for it implies that optimality of the control history u(t)
is not checked when measuring the discretization error [2].
4. Two different approaches for simultaneous optimization
In this section, two different approaches are proposed for si-
multaneous optimization of staging and trajectory of multistage
LVs. These approaches differ in the method of inclusion of staging
optimization. In the rst approach (separated approach), staging
is optimized independently of trajectory optimization. However, in
the second approach (integrated approach), staging is optimized
integratedly by trajectory optimization. In both approaches, the
main objective of simultaneous optimization is to nd minimum
initial mass of LV to reach specied mission velocity.
4.1. Separated approach
In this approach, the problems of staging optimization and tra-
jectory optimization are solved separately. In separated approach,
rst two programs are written for staging optimization and trajec-
tory optimization.
Staging optimization program is written based on presented
formulation in Section 2 and specications of the LV (propellant
consumption rates, specic impulses and structural eciencies of
stages and payload mass). The input to this program is ideal nal
velocity and its output is optimal mass ratios of stages. By using
NLP, staging optimization program determines optimal mass ratios
such that the LV can reach specied ideal nal velocity with mini-
mum initial mass. The optimal masses of propellant and structure
of stages can be computed by optimal mass ratios.
Trajectory optimization program is written based on presented
formulation in Section 3 and details of prescribed mission for an
LV (launch site, path constraints and boundary conditions of tra-
jectory). The inputs to this program are masses of propellant and
structure of stages and its output is maximized payload mass. By
using NLP and direct collocation method, trajectory optimization
program determines an optimal trajectory such that the LV can
perform the mission by maximum payload mass. By maximizing
payload mass, propellant consumption is minimized.
In order to link these optimization programs, we use an over-
head program. In this program, we dene the difference between
actual payload mass and maximized payload mass (output of tra-
jectory optimization program) as a function of ideal nal velocity
(input to staging optimization program). We can nd the zero of
this function (desired ideal nal velocity) by RegulaFalsi method
in nite iterations. RegulaFalsi method is an algorithm to nd ze-
ros of a function [13].
By linking these programs, we can apply separated approach.
In this approach, rst, an initial guess for an ideal nal veloc-
ity (V
f
) is assumed. Staging optimization program nds optimal
staging based on chosen ideal nal velocity and trajectory op-
timization program determines optimal trajectory and maximum
payload mass based on optimal staging. Then, the overhead pro-
gram compares maximized payload mass with actual payload mass
and nds a new value for the ideal nal velocity using RegulaFalsi
method. Staging optimization program nds optimal staging again
and trajectory optimization program determines optimal trajectory
and maximum payload mass for new ideal nal velocity. This loop
is repeated until the maximized payload mass becomes equal to
actual payload mass. By making overhead program converge and
R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592 89
Fig. 2. The schematic of separated approach.
nding desired ideal nal velocity, optimal staging and trajectory
are achieved simultaneously. The schematic of this approach is il-
lustrated in Fig. 2.
4.2. Integrated approach
In this approach, staging optimization and trajectory optimiza-
tion are solved integratedly. In integrated approach, only trajectory
optimization program is used. In order to optimize staging in tra-
jectory optimization program, we should make two changes in this
program.
First, we should consider all ight times of stages as optimiza-
tion variables to apply variation in masses of propellant and struc-
ture of stages to program. During trajectory optimization solution,
we can compute the masses of propellant and structure of stages
by these variables at each iteration:
M
pi
= m
i
t
i
(25)
M
si
=

i
M
pi
(1
i
)
=

i
m
i
t
i
(1
i
)
(26)
where t
i
is the ight time of stage i. Initial and current masses
of the LV can be computed using these masses of propellant and
structure of stages.
The second change that should be made to trajectory optimiza-
tion program is to change objective function from maximizing pay-
load mass to minimizing initial mass. In this case, actual payload
mass is used in trajectory optimization and initial mass is consid-
ered as a function of ight times of stages:
M
0
= P +
N

i=1
(M
s
i
+M
p
i
) = P +
N

i=1
m
i
t
i
(1
i
)
(27)
Other parts of trajectory optimization program are completely
identical to the used trajectory optimization program in separated
approach.
In integrated approach, by solving the integrated problem in
the changed trajectory optimization program, optimal staging and
trajectory are achieved simultaneously. The schematic of this ap-
proach is illustrated in Fig. 3.
To apply practical considerations, we can perform some modi-
cations. We can apply delay times between burnout and separation
and between separation and ignition to optimization problem by
adding some constant values to ight times of stages. Also, we can
consider reserve propellants for some stages. These modications
do not change the general form of integrated problem and solution
process.
Fig. 3. The schematic of integrated approach.
Table 1
The specications of Europa II.
Stage m (kg/s) I
sp
(s)
I 549.1 280.1 0.07
II 95.8 280.9 0.22
III 7.9 300.2 0.25
IV 15.2 275.5 0.13
Table 2
Trajectory boundary conditions.
State variable Initial value Final value
V (m/s) 0.0 9718.2
(deg) free 97.3
(deg) 90.0 0.0
h (km) 0.0 250.0
(deg) 5.2 0.0
(deg) 52.8 free
5. Example
In this section, a numerical example is presented to demon-
strate and compare the capabilities of two proposed approaches.
In this example, we want to optimize staging and trajectory of an
LV simultaneously by using separated and integrated approaches.
In this example, we use the specications of Europa II LV [12].
The values for propellant consumption rates, specic impulses and
structural eciencies of stages of this LV are listed in Table 1.
The mission for this LV is to deliver a 387 kg payload to perigee
point of a geosynchronous transfer orbit with a 7 deg inclination.
The apogee and perigee altitudes of chosen transfer orbit for this
mission are 35950 km and 250 km, respectively. The vertical ight
time is 10 s and the latitude and longitude of launch site (Korou,
French Guyana) are 5.2 deg and 52.8 deg, respectively. A free
ight phase is prescribed between third and fourth stages.
We can compute boundary conditions (initial and nal condi-
tions) for the dened mission using orbital mechanics [11,16]. The
computed boundary conditions are listed in Table 2.
For solving this example, rst we should add the specications
of Europa II LV to staging optimization program and mission de-
tails to trajectory optimization program. Then, we should choose
the number of nodes for full discretization of trajectory optimiza-
tion problem. The mission for Europa II has ve ight phases (four
powered ight and one free ight). In order to discretize, we can
divide each ight phase to equal subintervals. For dividing each
phase to n subintervals, n + 1 time nodes are required. There-
90 R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592
Table 3
The specications of discretized trajectory optimization problem and nal results of simultaneous optimization (separated approach).
n NTN NOV NOC NNZ DE TST (s) MIM (kg)
50 251 2261 1762 18912 3.215E3 35.6 78083.6
100 501 4511 3512 37812 5.423E4 87.9 78142.5
150 751 6761 5262 56712 6.265E5 116.7 78159.4
200 1001 9011 7012 75612 1.028E5 148.5 78163.4
250 1251 11261 8762 94512 4.112E7 247.7 78167.3
Table 4
The specications of discretized trajectory optimization problem and nal results of simultaneous optimization (integrated approach).
n NTN NOV NOC NNZ DE TST (s) MIM (kg)
50 251 2264 1762 26262 6.958E3 182.8 77780.3
100 501 4514 3512 52512 8.214E4 244.6 77841.2
150 751 6764 5262 78762 4.247E5 506.0 77851.7
200 1001 9014 7012 105012 2.758E6 841.1 77855.4
250 1251 11264 8762 131262 6.452E7 1023.1 77857.5
Table 5
The iterations of the overhead program.
Iteration V
f
(m/s) M
0
(kg) P
max
P (kg)
1 11000.0 78467.8 1.795
2 11500.0 106629.6 118.061
3 10992.3 78103.0 0.385
4 10993.1 78167.3 0.009
fore, for ve ight phases, 5n + 1 nodes are required (the last
node of each phase is the rst node of next phase). In used equa-
tions of motion in trajectory optimization program, there are 7
state variables and 2 control variables. Therefore, we should dene
(5n + 1) 9 optimization variables to collocate state and control
variables. In separated approach, we should add 2 optimization
variables for free ight time and payload mass. In integrated ap-
proach, we should add 5 optimization variables for ight times of
stages and free ight phase.
In Tables 3 and 4, the specications of discretized trajectory op-
timization problem (NLP problem) and nal results of simultane-
ous optimization for various numbers of nodes by two approaches
are listed. In these tables, the number of subintervals per phase
(n), the Number of Total Nodes (NTN), the Number of Optimization
Variables (NOV), the Number of Optimization Constraints (NOC)
and the Number of Non-Zero elements of Jacobian matrix (NNZ)
are listed as well as Discretization Error (DE), Total Solution Time
(TST) and Minimized Initial Mass (MIM). In these tables, solution
times have been measured on a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz computer and
discretization errors have been calculated by the method described
in Section 3 and [2]. In Table 3, total solution time of separated
approach is calculated by adding solution times of multiple runs
of staging optimization, trajectory optimization and overhead pro-
grams.
According to Tables 3 and 4, by increasing the number of
nodes and producing larger optimization problem, solution time
increased and discretization error decreased. The differences of
minimized initial masses which are calculated with various num-
bers of nodes are about 0.001 of initial mass of the LV.
Now, in order to investigate achieved results of simultaneous
optimization by two approaches, we present the details of optimal
solutions for the case of 250 subintervals (251 nodes) per phase.
First, we present the results of separated approach. In this ap-
proach, the overhead program has converged in 4 iterations. There-
fore, both programs of staging optimization and trajectory opti-
mization have been run four times. The results of iterations of
overhead program are listed in Table 5.
The nal optimal staging (after four times run) is presented in
Table 6. In this table, the ight time, propellant mass and structural
mass of stages are listed as well as the ideal, actual and wasted ve-
locities. The nal optimal trajectory is illustrated in Fig. 4 (dashed
line). In this gure, time histories of state and control variables are
shown in 9 subgures.
In integrated approach, only one problem is solved at a time.
After solving the integrated problem, optimal staging and trajec-
tory are achieved simultaneously. The optimal staging is presented
in Table 7 and the optimal trajectory is illustrated in Fig. 4 (solid
line).
The achieved results for two proposed approaches are very sim-
ilar in spite of their differences in staging formulation. According
to Table 6, the minimized initial mass by separated approach is
78167.3 kg and according to Table 7, the minimized initial mass
by integrated approach is 77857.5 kg, whereas the initial mass of
Europa II for this mission is 112099 kg (including 43.7 kg reserve
propellant). Therefore, the simultaneous optimization of staging
and trajectory in both approaches has led to about 30% reduction
in initial mass of the LV. The minimized initial mass in integrated
approach is 309.8 kg less than separated approach.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, the LV has a tendency to y horizon-
tally for minimizing propellant consumption. In horizontal ight,
the gravitational force is neutralized by the centrifugal force, and
thrust force only accelerates the LV.
According to Tables 6 and 7, the maximum velocity waste has
occurred in the rst stage because of large gravitational and aero-
dynamic forces and needed maneuvers to change vertical ight to
Table 6
Optimal staging (separated approach).
Stage/phase t (s) M
p
(kg) M
s
(kg) V
ideal
(m/s) V
actual
(m/s) V
wasted
(m/s)
I 117.2 64378.5 4845.7 4765.8 3813.5 952.3
II 41.8 4006.4 1130.0 1636.8 1554.4 82.4
III 206.3 1630.0 543.3 1645.5 1483.7 161.8
Free ight 291.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.3 63.3
IV 71.3 1084.4 162.0 2945.6 2929.9 15.7
Total 728.1 71099.3 6681.0 10993.7 9718.2 1275.5
R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592 91
Fig. 4. Optimal trajectory (time histories of state and control variables).
Table 7
Optimal staging (integrated approach).
Stage/phase t (s) M
p
(kg) M
s
(kg) V
ideal
(m/s) V
actual
(m/s) V
wasted
(m/s)
I 117.1 64320.1 4841.3 4825.6 3847.6 977.9
II 42.1 4028.2 1136.1 1695.5 1631.8 63.7
III 194.1 1533.6 511.2 1673.1 1536.0 137.1
Free ight 391.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.9 77.9
IV 63.0 957.0 143.0 2789.1 2780.7 8.4
Total 807.4 70838.9 6631.6 10983.3 9718.2 1265.0
horizontal one. Totally, about 12% of ideal velocity has been wasted
during ight and 9718.2 m/s actual velocity has been achieved.
6. Comparison of two approaches
In previous section, a numerical example for simultaneous op-
timization of staging and trajectory was solved by using two pro-
posed approach. By comparing the achieved results, we can see
that the main difference in results is due to time of free ight
phase. Free ight helps some of states reach their nal conditions
without propellant consumption and with very low velocity waste.
In order to take advantage of free ight, the optimal time of this
phase should be determined. By optimizing this time, propellant
consumption of the LV is decreased and the required initial mass
to perform the mission is reduced.
In separated approach, exact determination of free ight time is
impossible, because staging and trajectory optimization are solved
separately. In this approach, staging is optimized based on ideal ve-
locity, and the ight trajectory has a general effect on staging op-
timization. However, in integrated approach, staging is optimized
based on actual velocity and the details of trajectory optimization
problem. Therefore, exact determination of free ight time is pos-
sible in this approach. In the example, integrated approach has
reduced the ight times of third and fourth stages by choosing
longer free ight time compared to what the separated approach
has done.
Generally, in separated approach, details of trajectory optimiza-
tion problem (such as variable bounds, path constraints, free ight
phase and so on) do not have direct effects on staging optimiza-
tion. However, in integrated approach, details of trajectory opti-
mization problem have direct effects on staging optimization. This
is the main difference in two proposed approaches.
In separated approach, trajectory optimization problem is
solved more easily than integrated approach because of hav-
ing staging data before trajectory optimization. In this approach,
propellant and structure masses and ight times of stages are
specied before trajectory optimization. However, in integrated ap-
proach, staging is not specied before trajectory optimization. In
this approach, propellant and structure masses and ight times of
stages are variables and they are optimized during trajectory op-
92 R. Jamilnia, A. Naghash / Aerospace Science and Technology 23 (2012) 8592
timization. Hence, solution time for integrated approach is more
than total solution time for separated approach. According to Ta-
bles 3 and 4, solution time for integrated approach is more than
total solution time for separated approach (including multiple runs
of staging optimization, trajectory optimization and overhead pro-
grams) for a specied n.
The solution time of integrated problem is long because of the
effects of variable ight times to all of optimization variables (state
and control variables at time nodes). By varying ight times, all
of optimization variables vary. In Tables 3 and 4, we can see this
fact by comparing the Numbers of Non-Zero elements of Jacobian
matrix (NNZ).
In proposed approaches, the main source of error generation is
full discretization of trajectory optimization problem. In both ap-
proaches, collocation method and dynamic models are completely
identical. Hence, the discretization errors of approaches are iden-
tical and of the same order. The small difference of calculated
discretization errors between two approaches for a specied n is
for specic procedure of calculation of errors in direct collocation
method.
The separated approach is a suitable choice for simultaneous
optimization of staging and trajectory in Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization (MDO) of LVs because of its coupling capability with
commercial trajectory optimization software [14]. We can link
staging optimization and overhead programs to commercial trajec-
tory optimization software in an MDO structure and apply sep-
arated approach to this structure. Essentially, we have proposed
separated approach for MDO application.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, two different approaches were presented for si-
multaneous optimization of staging and trajectory of LVs. By us-
ing these approaches, we can exactly determine optimal staging
by calculation of velocity wastes in ight trajectory. By applying
trajectory optimization in staging optimization process and mini-
mizing velocity wastes, we can nd minimum initial mass of an LV
to perform a mission.
Two proposed approaches differ in the method of inclusion of
staging optimization. In separated approach, staging is optimized
based on ideal velocity and classic formulation of staging, and the
trajectory of LV has a general effect on staging optimization. Sepa-
rated approach because of separated optimization of staging and
trajectory, has simple and rapid solution process. This approach
is a suitable choice for simultaneous optimization of staging and
trajectory in MDO of LVs. In integrated approach, staging is op-
timized based on actual velocity and details of trajectory opti-
mization problem. This approach demonstrates the possibility of
optimization of design parameters during trajectory optimization.
According to achieved results, two proposed approaches can
lead to very similar solutions in spite of their differences in staging
formulation. Both approaches can lead to about 30% reduction in
initial mass of Europa II to perform a specied mission. This sim-
ilarity demonstrates the applicability of both approaches in simul-
taneous optimization of staging and trajectory of LVs. Of course,
integrated approach can lead to better results because of simulta-
neous consideration of objective functions and effective constraints
of two optimization problems of staging and trajectory.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Andreas Wchter for his
NLP solver package, IPOPT, and they admire his decision to publish
it as an open source code. The authors express their appreciation
to Mr. Saeed Serpooshan for his contribution in programming tra-
jectory optimization code.
References
[1] C.N. Adkins, Optimization of multistage rockets including drag, J. Spacecraft 7
(1970) 751755.
[2] J.T. Betts, Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Nonlinear Programming,
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001.
[3] J.T. Betts, Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization, J. Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 21 (2) (1998) 193207.
[4] R. Bulirsch, K. Chudej, Combined optimization of trajectory and stage separa-
tion of a hypersonic two-stage space vehicle, Zeitschrift fr Flugwissenschaften
und Weltraumforschung 19 (1) (1995) 5560.
[5] D.N. Burghes, Optimum staging of multistage rockets, J. Mathematical Educa-
tion in Science and Technology 5 (1) (1974) 310.
[6] K. Chudej, R. Bulirsch, Numerical solution of a simultaneous staging and trajec-
tory optimization problem of a hypersonic space vehicle, in: 5th International
Aerospace Planes and Hypersonic Technologies Conference, AIAA and DGLR,
Munich, Germany, December 1993.
[7] E.R. Cobb, Optimum staging techniques to maximize payload total energy, J.
American Rocket Society 31 (1961) 342344.
[8] J.J. Coleman, Optimum stage weight distribution of multistage rockets, J. Amer-
ican Rocket Society 31 (1961) 259261.
[9] R.S. Cooper, Performance of optimized multistage rockets, J. Aerospace Sci-
ences 29 (1962) 13391343.
[10] J.W. Cornelisse, H.F.R. Schyer, K.F. Wakker, Rocket Propulsion and Spaceight
Dynamics, Pitman Publishing, 1979.
[11] H.D. Curtis, Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students, Butterworth
Heinemann, 2005.
[12] W. Duffek, G.C. Shau, Optimization of the ascent trajectory of a 4-stage launch-
ing vehicle for geosynchronous missions, DFVLR, 1974.
[13] C.F. Gerald, P.O. Wheatley, Applied Numerical Analysis, Addison Wesley, 2003.
[14] R. Jamilnia, Multidisciplinary design optimization of multistage launch vehicles,
MSc thesis, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, 2007 (in Persian).
[15] J. Liu Xin, G. Tang Qian, An Xiang, A new ecient method of multistage solid
rocket optimization, in: 33rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
and Exhibit, Seattle, WA, July 1997.
[16] T. Logsdon, Orbital Mechanics: Theory and Applications, WileyInterscience,
1997.
[17] R.X. Meyer, Elements of Space Technology for Aerospace Engineers, Academic
Press, 1999.
[18] A.L. Peressini, F.E. Sullivan, J.J. Uhl, The Mathematics of Nonlinear Programming,
Springer, 1993.
[19] T.P. Saran, W.J. Larson, Spacecraft Structures and Mechanisms from Concept to
Launch, Springer, 1995.
[20] G.P. Sutton, O. Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements, WileyInterscience, 2000.
[21] A. Tewari, Atmospheric and Space Flight Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation
with MATLAB and Simulink, Springer, 2006.
[22] A.M. Trulove, K.W. Whitaker, Rocket stage optimization using a simple genetic
algorithm, AIAA-1993-1778, 1993.
[23] M. Vertregt, A method for calculating the mass ratios of step rockets, J. British
Interplanetary Society 15 (1956) 9597.
[24] O. VonStryk, R. Bulirsch, Direct and indirect methods for trajectory optimiza-
tion, Annals of Operations Research 37 (1992) 357373.
[25] A. Wchter, An interior point algorithm for large scale nonlinear optimization
with applications in process engineering, PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon Univer-
sity, Pennsylvania, 2002.
[26] A. Wchter, Introduction to IPOPT, Carnegie Mellon University, 2008.
[27] A. Wchter, L.T. Biegler, On the implementation of an interior point lter line-
search algorithm for large scale nonlinear programming, J. Mathematical Pro-
gramming 106 (1) (2006) 2557.
[28] J. Wertz, W.J. Larson, Space Mission Analysis and Design, Microcosm Press,
1999.