This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Volume 1: Advanced Aerospace Systems
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS AND METHODS IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Series Editor: Angelo Miele George R. Brown School of Engineering Rice University
Recent volumes in this series:
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
NUMERICAL DERIVATIVES AND NONLINEAR ANALYSIS Harriet Kagiwada, Robert Kalaba, Nima Rasakhoo, and Karl Spingarn PRINCIPLES OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS Volume 1: Kinematics— The Geometry of Motion M. F. Beatty, Jr. PRINCIPLES OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS Volume 2: Dynamics—The Analysis of Motion Millard F. Beatty, Jr. STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION Volume 1: Optimality Criteria Edited by M. Save and W. Prager OPTIMAL CONTROL APPLICATIONS IN ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS G. S. Christensen, M. E. El-Hawary, and S. A. Soliman GENERALIZED CONCAVITY Mordecai Avriel, Walter W. Diewert, Siegfried Schaible, and Israel Zang MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION IN ENGINEERING AND IN THE SCIENCES Edited by Wolfram Stadler OPTIMAL LONG-TERM OPERATION OF ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS G. S. Christensen and S. A. Soliman INTRODUCTION TO CONTINUUM MECHANICS FOR ENGINEERS Ray M. Bowen STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION Volume 2: Mathematical Programming Edited by M. Save and W. Prager OPTIMAL CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTED NUCLEAR REACTORS G. S. Christensen, S. A. Soliman, and R. Nieva NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS OF INTEGRAL EQUATIONS Edited by Michael A. Golberg APPLIED OPTIMAL CONTROL THEORY OF DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS K. A. Lurie APPLIED MATHEMATICS IN AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Edited by Angelo Miele and Attilio Salvetti NONLINEAR EFFECTS IN FLUIDS AND SOLIDS Edited by Michael M. Carroll and Michael A. Hayes THEORY AND APPLICATIONS OF PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS Piero Bassanini and Alan R. Elcrat UNIFIED PLASTICITY FOR ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS Sol R. Bodner ADVANCED DESIGN PROBLEMS IN AEROSPACE ENGINEERING Volume 1: Advanced Aerospace Systems Edited by Angelo Miele and Aldo Frediani
A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher.
Advanced Design Problems in Aerospace Engineering
Volume 1: Advanced Aerospace Systems
Rice University Houston, Texas
University of Pisa Pisa, Italy
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW
without written consent from the Publisher Created in the United States of America Visit Kluwer Online at: and Kluwer's eBookstore at: http://kluweronline. or otherwise.eBook ISBN: Print ISBN: 0-306-48637-7 0-306-48463-3 ©2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York.kluweronline. London. Boston. Dordrecht. electronic. mechanical.com . recording. Moscow Print ©2003 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers New York All rights reserved No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means.com http://ebooks.
Frediani. Delft University of Technology. Bernardini. Delft University of Technology. A. France. England. Bedforshire MK43 OAL. Italy.Contributors P. Netherlands. Varese. I. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Caramaschi. Airbus Industries. Germany. 56100 Pisa. M. 2629 HS Delft. Department of Aerospace Engineering. Fielding. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Aerospace Design Group. G. T. J. University of Rome-3. University of Pisa. P. Beukers. 2629 HS Delft. Agusta Corporation. v . Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. Alli. Hanel. Hinrichsen. Italy. Varese. Cranfield University. Agusta Corporation. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Cranfield College of Aeronautics. Italy M. 31707 Blagnac. University of Stuttgart. 00146 Rome. Cranfield. Department of Aerospace Engineering. Italy. Netherlands. V. Italy. 56100 Pisa. A. De Jong. University of Pisa. 70550 Stuttgart. 1 Round Point Maurice Bellonte. Chiarelli. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering.
Texas 77005-1892. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. ESA-ESTEC Laboratory. Texas 77005-1892. 00146 Rome. Netherlands. Italy. England. Italy. 120 East 9th Street. F. S. Department of Aerospace Engineering. Italy. H. Netherlands. 2629 HS Delft. T. 56100 Pisa. 56100 Pisa. Krakers. 85747 Garching. G. Troiani. . Well. USA. G. Aero-Astronautics Group. J. 2201 AZ Nordwijk. K. Delft University of Technology. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Morino.vi Contributors L. Delft University of Technology. M. Aero-Astronautics Group. USA. 70550 Stuttgart. A. Longhi. Raggi. Roskam. 2629 HS Delft. E. Houston. Bedforshire MK43 OAL. Kansas 66044. Italy. Miele. Germany. Sachs. Rice University. Cranfield. Varese. Lawrence.J. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Smith. Rice University. University of Pisa. University of Pisa. Aerospace Design Group. USA. Nannoni. University of Pisa. Cranfield College of Aeronautics. Italy. Houston. Agusta Corporation. Mancuso. University of Rome-3. Italy. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. Agusta Corporation.H. M. A. Wang. A. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Cranfield University. Technical University of Munich. Germany. DAR Corporation. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Van Tooren. University of Stuttgart. Montanari.L. Department of Aerospace Engineering. L. 56100 Pisa. Netherlands. Varese. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. Department of Aerospace Engineering.
The meeting on “Advanced Design Problems in Aerospace Engineering” was held in Erice, Sicily, Italy from July 11 to July 18, 1999. The occasion of the meeting was the 28th Workshop of the School of Mathematics “Guido Stampacchia”, directed by Professor Franco Giannessi of the University of Pisa. The School is affiliated with the International Center for Scientific Culture “Ettore Majorana”, which is directed by Professor Antonino Zichichi of the University of Bologna. The intent of the Workshop was the presentation of a series of lectures on the use of mathematics in the conceptual design of various types of aircraft and spacecraft. Both atmospheric flight vehicles and space flight vehicles were discussed. There were 16 contributions, six dealing with Advanced Aerospace Systems and ten dealing with Unconventional and Advanced Aircraft Design. Accordingly, the proceedings are split into two volumes. The first volume (this volume) covers topics in the areas of flight mechanics and astrodynamics pertaining to the design of Advanced Aerospace Systems. The second volume covers topics in the areas of aerodynamics and structures pertaining to Unconventional and Advanced Aircraft Design. An outline is given below. Advanced Aerospace Systems Chapter 1, by A. Miele and S. Mancuso (Rice University and ESA/ESTEC), deals with the design of rocket-powered orbital spacecraft. Single-stage configurations are compared with double-stage configurations using the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm in optimal control format. Chapter 2, by A. Miele and S. Mancuso (Rice University and ESA/ESTEC), deals with the design of Moon missions. Optimal outgoing and return trajectories are determined using the sequential gradientrestoration algorithm in mathematical programming format. The analyses are made within the frame of the restricted three-body problem and the results are interpreted in light of the theorem of image trajectories in Earth-Moon space.
Chapter 3, by A. Miele and T. Wang (Rice University), deals with the design of Mars missions. Optimal outgoing and return trajectories are determined using the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm in mathematical programming format. The analyses are made within the frame of the restricted four-body problem and the results are interpreted in light of the relations between outgoing and return trajectories. Chapter 4, by G. Sachs (Technical University of Munich), deals with the design and test of an experimental guidance system with perspective flight path display. It considers the design issues of a guidance system displaying visual information to the pilot in a three-dimensional format intended to improve manual flight path control. Chapter 5, by K.H. Well (University of Stuttgart), deals with the neighboring vehicle design for a two-stage launch vehicle. It is concerned with the optimization of the ascent trajectory of a two-stage launch vehicle simultaneously with the optimization of some significant design parameters. Chapter 6, by M. Hanel and K.H. Well (University of Stuttgart), deals with the controller design for a flexible aircraft. It presents an overview of the models governing the dynamic behavior of a large four-engine flexible aircraft. It considers several alternative options for control system design. Unconventional Aircraft Design Chapter 7, by J.P. Fielding and H. Smith (Cranfield College of Aeronautics), deals with conceptual and preliminary methods for use on conventional and blended wing-body airliners. Traditional design methods have concentrated largely on aerodynamic techniques, with some allowance made for structures and systems. New multidisciplinary design tools are developed and examples are shown of ways and means useful for tradeoff studies during the early design stages. Chapter 8, by A. Frediani and G. Montanari (University of Pisa), deals with the Prandtl best-wing system. It analyzes the induced drag of a lifting multiwing system. This is followed by a box-wing system and then by the Prandtl best-wing system. Chapter 9, by A. Frediani, A. Longhi, M. Chiarelli, and E. Troiani (University of Pisa), deals with new large aircraft with nonconventional configuration. This design is called the Prandtl plane and is a biplane with twin horizontal and twin vertical swept wings. Its induced drag is smaller than that of any aircraft with the same dimensions. Its structural, aerodynamic, and aeroelastic properties are discussed. Chapter 10, by L. Morino and G. Bernardini (University of Rome-3), deals with the modeling of innovative configurations using
multidisciplinary optimization (MDO) in combination with recent aerodynamic developments. It presents an overview of the techniques for modeling the structural, aerodynamic, and aeroelastic properties of aircraft, to be used in the preliminary design of innovative configurations via multidisciplinary optimization. Advanced Aircraft Design Chapter 11, by P. Alli, M. Raggi, F. Nannoni, and V. Caramaschi (Agusta Corporation), deals with the design problems for new helicopters. These problems are treated in light of the following aspects: man-machine interface, fly-by-wire, rotor aerodynamics, rotor dynamics, aeroelasticity, and noise reduction. Chapter 12, by A. Beukers, M.J.L Van Tooren, and T. De Jong (Delft University of Technology), deals with a multidisciplinary design philosophy for aircraft fuselages. It treats the combined development of new materials, structural concepts, and manufacturing technologies leading to the fulfillment of appropriate mechanical requirements and ease of production. Chapter 13, by A. Beukers, M.J.L. Van Tooren, T. De Jong, and L.A. Krakers (Delft University of Technology), continues Chapter 12 and deals with examples illustrating the multidisciplinary concept. It discusses the following problems: (a) tension-loaded plate with stress concentrations, (b) buckling of a composite plate, and (c) integration of acoustics and aerodynamics in a stiffened shell fuselage. Chapter 14, by J. Hinrichsen (Airbus Industries), deals with the design features and structural technologies for the family of Airbus A3XX aircraft. It reviews the problems arising in the development of the A3XX aircraft family with respect to configuration design, structural design, and application of new materials and manufacturing technologies. Chapter 15, by J. Roskam (DAR Corporation), deals with user-friendly general aviation airplanes via a revolutionary but affordable approach. It discusses the development of personal transportation airplanes as worldwide standard business tools. The areas covered include system design and integration as well as manufacturing at an acceptable cost level. Chapter 16, by J. Roskam (DAR Corporation), deals with the design of a 10-20 passenger jet-powered regional transport and resulting economic challenges. It discusses the introduction of new small passenger jet aircraft designed for short-to-medium ranges. It proposes the development of a family of two airplanes: a single-fuselage 10-passenger airplane and a twin-fuselage 20-passenger airplane.
Italy . Miele Rice University Houston. Texas. A. the Workshop Directors express their thanks to Professors Franco Giannessi and Antonino Zichichi for their contributions. USA A.x Preface In closing. Frediani University of Pisa Pisa.
Well 1 31 65 105 131 155 Index 181 xi . Design and Test of an Experimental Guidance System with a Perspective Flight Path Display G. H. Sachs 5. Wang 4. Mancuso 3. Miele and S. Mancuso 2. Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft M. Hanel and K. H. Design of Mars Missions A. Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle K. Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft A. Design of Moon Missions A. Miele and S.Contents 1. Miele and T. Well 6.
USA. and Control Engineer. MANCUSO3 Abstract. Research Professor and Foyt Professor Emeritus of Engineering. Aerospace Sciences. but a TSTO spacecraft is considerably superior to a SSTO spacecraft in terms of payload weight. On the other hand. and two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) rocket-powered spacecraft is investigated using optimal control theory. European Space Technology and Research Center.1 Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft1 A. MIELE2 AND S. SSTO feasibility is guaranteed for only certain parameter combinations. (ii) use of engines with higher ratio of thrust to propellant weight flow (higher specific impulse) has also 1 2 3 This paper is based on Refs. 1-4. Guidance. Ascent trajectories are optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. Rice University. single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO). not only TSTO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. Netherlands. In this paper. the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. Texas 77005-1892. Houston. 2201 AZ. Nordwijk. The results show that SSSO feasibility does not necessarily imply SSTO feasibility: while SSSO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. Three areas of potential improvements are discussed: (i) use of lighter materials (lower structural factor) has a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility. 1 . Aero-Astronautics Group. which might be beyond the present state of the art. the feasibility of single-stage-suborbital (SSSO). Navigation. and Mathematical Sciences. Normalized payload weights are computed and used to assess feasibility.
Within the above frame. reach given suborbital altitude and speed. (iii) on the other hand.2 A. Key Words. SGRA has the major property of being a robust algorithm. In light of (i) to (iii). 8-10). The optimization is done employing the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm for optimal control problems (SGRA. Mancuso a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility. and heating rate. Ascent trajectories are optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. The first step toward the latter goal is the development of a single-stage-suborbital (SSSO) rocket-powered spacecraft which must take-off vertically. exemplified by the X-33 spacecraft. aerodynamic improvements via drag reduction have a relatively minor effect on payload weight and feasibility. . and it has been employed with success to solve a wide variety of aerospace problems (Refs. 11). Flight mechanics. the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. this paper investigates via optimal control theory the feasibility of three different configurations: a SSSO configuration. nearly-universal zero-payload lines can be constructed separating the feasibility region (positive payload) from the unfeasibility region (negative payload). The zeropayload lines are of considerable help to the designer in assessing the feasibility of a given spacecraft. rocket-powered spacecraft. the natural continuation for a modern space program is the development of two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) and then single-stage-toorbit (SSTO) spacecraft (Refs. Realistic constraints are imposed on tangential acceleration. Refs. and then land horizontally. dynamic pressure. Introduction After more than thirty years of development of multi-stage-to-orbit (MSTO) spacecraft. ascent trajectories. 1. orbital spacecraft. suborbital spacecraft. and a TSTO configuration. 1-7). Miele and S. exemplified by the Venture Star spacecraft. a SSTO configuration. optimal trajectories. exemplified by the Space Shuttle and Ariane threestage spacecraft. developed and perfected by the Aero-Astronautics Group of Rice University over the years. with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. 11-16) including interplanetary trajectories (Ref.
12-13). 17): in which the dot denotes derivative with respect to the time t. the thrust angle of attack is the same as the aerodynamic angle of attack.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 3 flight in windshear (Refs. (A5) the spacecraft is controlled via the angle of attack and power setting. we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the TSTO configuration. we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the SSSO configuration. . 2. (A3) the gravitational field is central and obeys the inverse square law. aerospace plane trajectories (Ref. System Description For all the configurations being studied. 15-16). In Section 2. 2. we present the system description. flight path angle and reference weight W (Ref. the motion of the spacecraft is described by the following differential system for the altitude h. (A4) the thrust is directed along the spacecraft reference line. we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the SSTO configuration.1. (A2) the Earth rotation is neglected. and aeroassisted orbital transfer (Refs. hence. With the above assumptions. In Section 3. Mathematical Model. 14). Section 7 contains the conclusions. In Sections 5. Finally. the following assumptions are employed: (A1) the flight takes place in a vertical plane over a spherical Earth. In Section 4. Section 6 contains design considerations pointing out the areas of potential improvements. velocity V. Here.
the following relations hold: where is the Earth radius. local acceleration of gravity g. S a reference surface area. The aerodynamic forces are given by where is the drag coefficient. the lift coefficient. the aerodynamic coefficients can be represented in terms of the angle of attack and the Mach number where a is the speed of sound. a reference thrust (thrust for and . Miele and S. and m the instantaneous mass.4 A. and the air density (Ref. The functions and used in this paper are described in Refs. the following expressions are assumed for the thrust and specific impulse: where is the power setting. 18). Disregarding the dependence on the Reynolds number. lift L. the reference weight is proportional to the instantaneous mass. drag D. Note that. sea-level acceleration of gravity angle of attack and engine specific impulse In addition. 1-4. radial distance r. by definition. Mancuso where is the final time. For the rocket powerplant under consideration. reference weight W. The quantities on the right-hand side of (1) are the thrust T. the Earth gravitational constant. the exit velocity of the gases.
Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 5 a reference specific impulse. see Refs. (6b) and (6c) involve directly the state and indirectly the control. 2. some path constraints are imposed on tangential acceleration dynamic pressure q. given controls and and given final time In turn. is disregarded within the present feasibility study. the values of the density are tabulated at discrete altitudes. In this model. The atmospheric model used is the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere (Ref. Inequality Constraints. . Inspection of the system (1) in light of (2)-(4) shows that the time history of the state h(t). for details. on the other hand. is a reference velocity. In addition. The fact that and are assumed to be constant means that the weak dependence of T and on altitude and Mach number. and heating rate Q per unit time and unit surface area. 1-4. relevant to a precision study. specifically. For intermediate altitudes. 18. Concerning (6c). Note that (6a) involves directly both the state and the control. and C is a dimensional constant. 18).2. the density is computed by assuming an exponential fit for the function This is equivalent to assuming that the atmosphere behaves isothermally between any two contiguous altitudes tabulated in Ref. W(t) can be computed by forward integration for given initial conditions. the controls are subject to the two-sided inequality constraints which must be satisfied everywhere along the interval of integration. V(t). is a reference altitude.
On the other hand. the control constraints (5) are accounted for via trigonometric transformations. Boundary Conditions. 3. The initial conditions (t = 0. The following data have been used in the numerical experiments: 3.3. subscript i) and final conditions subscript f) are . Miele and S. Supplementary Data. 2. Single-Stage Suborbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for SSSO configurations designed to achieve Mach number M= 15 in level flight at h = 76. Mancuso In solving the optimization problems.6 A.2 km: The values (8) are representative of the X-33 spacecraft.1. the path constraints (6) are taken into account via penalty functionals.
V. 3.3.4.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 7 In Eqs. (9d). and parameter W. Computer Runs.2. the reference weight is the same as the takeoff weight. 17): with 3. the maximum payload problem can be formulated as follows [see (10c)]: The unknowns include the state variables h. control variables 3. Weight Distribution. the maximum payload weight problem (11) was solved via the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) for the following combinations of engine specific impulse and spacecraft structural factor: . First. The propellant weight structural weight and payload weight can be expressed in terms of the initial weight final weight and structural factor via the following relations (Ref. Optimization Problem. For the SSSO configuration.
. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for the values (12b) of the structural factor. 1 and 4. In Fig. (ii) The design of the SSSO configuration is feasible for each of the parameter combinations (12). for a given specific impulse in the range (12a). the structural factor is increased beyond the range (12b). Mancuso The results for the normalized final weight propellant weight structural weight and payload weight associated with various parameter combinations can be found in Refs. (i) Zero-Payload Line. Miele and S. Next assume that. 1a. The main comments are that: The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases.8 A.
implying a subsequent decrease in range. the spacecraft would reach a lower final Mach number. it is possible to construct a zero-payload line separating the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). this is shown in Fig.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 9 Each increase of causes a corresponding decrease in payload weight. . The main comments are that: (iii) Not only the zero-payload line supplies the upper bound ensuring feasibility for each given but simultaneously supplies the lower bound ensuring feasibility for each given (iv) For a spacecraft of the X-33 type. until a limiting value is found such that By repeating this procedure for each specific impulse in the range (12a). 1b with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. with the limiting value of the structural factor is Should the SSSO design be such that it would become impossible for the X-33 spacecraft to reach the desired final Mach number in level flight at the given final altitude Instead.
Single-Stage Orbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for SSTO configurations designed to achieve orbital speed at Space Station altitude. For the SSTO configuration. Mancuso 4. Miele and S. the reference weight is the same as the takeoff weight. (14d).10 A. since both spacecraft are of the single-stage type. Weight Distribution. Relations (10) governing the weight distribution for the SSSO spacecraft are also valid for the SSTO spacecraft. subscript i) and final conditions subscript f) are In Eqs. hence V = 7. in light of Sections 3. 4.2.2. 4. Optimization Problem.1. the maximum payload problem can be formulated as follows [see (10c)]: . 4.633 km/s at h = 463 km: The values (13) are representative of the Venture Star spacecraft.2 and 4. Boundary Conditions.3. The initial conditions (t = 0.
the maximum payload weight problem (15) was solved via SGRA for the following combinations of engine specific impulse and spacecraft structural factor: The results for the normalized final weight propellant weight structural weight and payload weight associated with various parameter combinations can be found in Refs.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 11 The unknowns include the state variables h. 2 and 4. In Fig. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus .4. and parameter W. control variables 4. Computer Runs. First. 2a. V.
By proceeding along the lines of Section 3. Miele and S.633 km/s at h = 463 km: . a zero-payload line can be constructed for the SSTO spacecraft. hence V = 7.4. (ii) The design of SSTO configurations might be comfortably feasible. The main comments are that: (i) The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases. 2b and separates the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). marginally feasible. depending on the parameter values assumed. with the limiting value of the structural factor is Should the SSTO design be such that it would become impossible for the Venture Star spacecraft to reach orbital speed at Space Station altitude. 5. With reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. the zeropayload line is shown in Fig. the spacecraft would reach a suborbital speed at the same altitude.12 A. Instead. The main comments are that: (iii) Not only the zero-payload line supplies the upper bound ensuring feasibility for each given but simultaneously supplies the lower bound ensuring feasibility for each given (iv) For a spacecraft of the Venture Star type. Two-Stage Orbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for TSTO configurations designed to achieve orbital speed at Space Station altitude. Mancuso the specific impulse for the values (16b) of the structural factor. Zero-Payload Line. or unfeasible.
Hence.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 13 The values (17) are representative of a hypothetical two-stage version of the Venture Star spacecraft. Boundary Conditions. right column. subscript i) for Stage 1. let the subscript 2 denote Stage 2. must be understood as final conditions subscript f) for Stage 2. Let the subscript 1 denote Stage 1. . equations (14). Equations (14).1. and then for the case of nonuniform structural factor. The maximum payload weight problem was studied first for the case of uniform structural factor. 5. left column. must be understood as initial conditions (t = 0.
where the tangential acceleration is given by (6a). (18d).2. this induces a thrust discontinuity due to the requirement that the tangential acceleration be kept unchanged. valid for SSSO and SSTO configurations. Mancuso In Eqs. more precisely [see (20)]. At the interface between Stage 1 and Stage 2. For Stage 1. are still valid for the TSTO configuration. Weight Distribution. and payload weight can be expressed in terms of the initial weight. structural weight. In turn. Miele and S.14 A. the propellant weight. the reference weight is the same as the take-off weight. and structural factor via the following relations: with For Stage 2. the relations analogous to (20) are . Interface Conditions. Relations (10). there is a weight discontinuity due to staging. final weight. providing they are rewritten with the subscript 1 for Stage 1 and the subscript 2 for Stage 2. 5.
the following relations hold: with 5. Optimization Problem. For the TSTO configuration. the maximum payload weight problem can be formulated as follows [see (21) and (22)]: The unknowns include the state variables and the control variables and and the parameters and which .Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 15 with For the TSTO configuration as a whole.3.
2a). 2 and 4. the maximum payload weight problem (23) was solved via SGRA for the following combinations of engine specific impulse and spacecraft structural factor: The results for the normalized final weight propellant weight structural weight and payload weight associated with various parameter combinations can be found in Refs. Miele and S.4. As an example.16 A. 3a) is about eight times that of the SSTO configuration (Fig. With reference to the specific impulse/ structural . (i) Zero-Payload Line. By proceeding along the lines of Section 3. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for the values (25b) of the structural factor. a zero-payload line can be constructed for the TSTO spacecraft with uniform structural factor. Mancuso represent the time lengths of Stage 1 and Stage 2.4. Computer Runs: Uniform Structural Factor. The total time from takeoff to orbit is 5. the TSTO configuration exhibits a much larger payload. 3a. for s and the payload of the TSTO configuration (Fig. In Fig. First. (iii) For those parameter combinations for which the SSTO configuration is feasible. The main comments are that: The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases. (ii) The design of TSTO configurations is feasible for each of the parameter combinations considered.
5.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 17 factor domain. Computer Runs: Nonuniform Structural Factor. 3b and separates the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). 5. The main comments are that: (iv) For the TSTO spacecraft. (v) For a hypothetical two-stage version of the Venture Star spacecraft. with s. The maximum payload weight problem (23) was solved again via SGRA for the following combinations of engine specific impulse and spacecraft . the limiting value of the uniform structural factor is This is more than twice the limiting value of the single-stage version of the same spacecraft. the size of the feasibility region is more than twice that of the SSTO spacecraft. the zero-payload line is shown in Fig.
In Fig. Mancuso structural factor: The results for the normalized final weight propellant weight structural weight and payload weight associated with various parameter combinations can be found in Refs. Miele and S. 4b. 3 and 4. In Fig. the maximum value of the normalized payload . the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for the values (26c) of the Stage 1 structural factor and k = 2.18 A. 4a.
4c for the values (26d) of the parameter For each value of k. as the Stage 1 structural factor decreases.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 19 weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for and the values (26d) of the parameter The main comments are that: The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases. the TSTO configuration is feasible. this is true for every value of the specific impulse if or (Fig. 4b).4. With reference to the specific impulse/ structural factor domain. these lines separate the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region . zero-payload lines can be constructed for the TSTO spacecraft with nonuniform structural factor. hence as the Stage 2 structural factor decreases. (ii) Even if the Stage 2 structural factor is twice the Stage 1 structural factor (k = 2). By proceeding along the lines of Section 3. 4a) and for if (iii) For s and the maximum value of the parameter k for which feasibility can be guaranteed is (Fig. this corresponds to a Stage 2 structural factor (i) Zero-Payload Line. the zero-payload lines are shown in Fig. and as the parameter k decreases.
to about 55 percent for k =2 and about 35 percent for k = 3. the size of the feasibility region decreases reducing. The main comments are that: (iv) As the parameter k increases.20 A. vis-à-vis the size for k = 1. Mancuso (above). . Miele and S.
3b. reentry maneuvers. Another concept emerging from Sections 3-4 is that feasibility of the SSSO configuration does not necessarily imply feasibility of the SSTO configuration. tanks. The reason for this statement is that the increase in total energy to be imparted to an SSTO configuration is almost 4 times the increase in total energy of an .Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 21 (v) For the zero-payload line of the TSTO spacecraft becomes nearly identical with the zero-payload line of the SSTO spacecraft. SSTO. 6. electronics. the maximum payload weight problem was solved for SSSO. and reserve margin for emergency.2. The results obtained must be taken “cum grano salis” in that they are nonconservative: they disregard the need of propellant for space maneuvers. 4c. an actual design must lie wholly inside the feasibility regions of Figs. The fact that can be much larger than suggests that an attractive TSTO design might be a firststage structure made of only tanks and a second-stage structure made of engines. and so on. 2b. and TSTO configurations. (vi) As a byproduct of (v). the main concept emerging from Sections 3-5 is that the normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases. Structural Factor and Specific Impulse. SSSO versus SSTO Configurations. 6. For one can design a TSTO configuration with considerably larger than implying increased safety and reliability of the TSTO configuration vis-àvis the SSTO configuration. SSTO. This means that.1. 6. Design Considerations In Sections 3-5. let us compare a TSTO configuration with a SSTO configuration for the same payload and the same specific impulse. with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. This implies that (i) the use of engines with higher ratio of thrust to propellant weight flow and (ii) the use of lighter materials have a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility of SSSO. With the above caveat. 1b. and TSTO configurations.
hence. Mancuso SSSO configuration performing the task outlined in Section 3. SSTO versus TSTO Configurations. if the TSTO payload is about 8 times the SSTO payload.05. Figures 5a-5d compare SSTO and TSTO configurations for the case where the latter configuration has uniform structural factor. These configurations do belong to the same ballpark in that they require the same increase in total energy per unit weight to be placed in orbit. a comparison is meaningful. Fig.3. 5a shows that.5 times the SSTO payload. while the SSTO spacecraft is unfeasible.22 A. Fig. SSSO and SSTO configurations do not belong to the same ballpark. Figure 5d shows the zero-payload lines of SSTO and TSTO . Miele and S. hence. Fig. if the TSTO payload is about 2. In short. 5c shows that. if the TSTO spacecraft is feasible with a normalized payload of about 0. 5b shows that. For the Venture Star spacecraft and s. 6. a comparison is not meaningful.
Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 23 .
Drag Effects. Figure 6a refers to and shows that the TSTO configuration with k = 2 (hence and ) has a higher payload than the SSTO configuration. 2. and so on. 6. Miele and S. This implies that. an attractive TSTO design might be a first-stage structure made of only tanks and a second-stage structure made of engines. Figures 6a-6b compare SSTO and TSTO configurations for the case where the latter configuration has nonuniform structural factor. and with k = 1. electronics. the TSTO configuration can combine the benefit of higher payload with the benefit of increased safety and reliability. Indeed. Mancuso configurations. vis-à-vis the SSTO configuration.5 times the size of the SSTO feasibility region. a parametric study has been performed.4. To assess the influence of the aerodynamic configuration on feasibility. Optimal trajectories have been computed again varying the drag by ± 50% . tanks.24 A. 3. making clear that the size of the TSTO feasibility region is about 2.
Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 25 .
7. or equivalently that the aerodynamic forces do not have a large influence on propellant consumed. where the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the drag factor for the parameters choices (28).26 A. single- . Miele and S. reduces the drag by 50 %. Conclusions In this paper. and hence having assumed that the drag function of Stage 2 is the same as the drag function of Stage 1. the feasibility of single-stage-suborbital (SSSO). the drag and lift of the spacecraft have been embedded into a one-parameter family of the form where is the drag factor. yields the drag and lift of the baseline configuration. For TSTO configurations. Namely. only a minor part is spent in overcoming aerodynamic and gravitational effects. The following parameter values have been considered: with (28c) indicating that a uniform structural factor is being considered for the TSTO configuration. Mancuso while keeping the lift unchanged. The results are shown in Fig. these results justify having neglected in the analysis drag changes due to staging. should an energy balance be made. while keeping the lift unchanged. One must conclude that the payload weight is not very sensitive to the aerodynamic model of the spacecraft. Indeed. increases the drag by 50 %. one would find that the largest part of the energy produced by the rocket powerplant is spent in accelerating the spacecraft to the final velocity. Clearly. The analysis shows that changing the drag by ± 50 % produces relatively small changes in payload weight. while keeping the lift unchanged. 7.
SSTO feasibility is guaranteed for only certain parameter combinations. but for the same structural factor a TSTO spacecraft is considerably superior to a SSTO spacecraft in terms of payload weight. (ii) For the case of uniform structural factor. (i) . (iii) For the case of nonuniform structural factor. The main results are that: SSSO feasibility does not necessarily imply SSTO feasibility: while SSSO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. not only TSTO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. and two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) rocket-powered spacecraft has been investigated using optimal control theory.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 27 stage-to-orbit (SSTO). Ascent trajectories have been optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. Normalized payload weights have been computed and used to assess feasibility. which might be beyond the present state of the art. it is possible to design a TSTO spacecraft combining the advantages of higher payload and higher safety/reliability vis-à-vis a SSTO spacecraft.
and so on. and MANCUSO. and MANCUSO. A. The zeropayload lines are of considerable help to the designer in assessing the feasibility of a given spacecraft. (iv) Investigation of areas of potential improvements has shown that: (a) use of lighter materials (smaller spacecraft structural factor) has a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility. (c) on the other hand. MIELE. S. might be unfeasible depending on the parameter values considered.. the design of SSTO spacecraft. 1997.28 A. References 1. Indeed. Aero-Astronautics Report 275. Miele and S. although attractive from a practical point of view (complete reusability of the spacecraft). Rice University. Rice University. aerodynamic improvements via drag reduction have a relatively minor effect on payload weight and feasibility. 1997. . nearly universal zero-payload lines can be constructed separating the feasibility region (positive payload) from the unfeasibility region (negative payload). prudence suggests that TSTO spacecraft be given concurrent consideration. A. especially if it is not possible to achieve in the near future major improvements in spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. Aero-Astronautics Report 277. (b) use of engines with higher ratio of thrust to propellant weight flow (higher engine specific impulse) has also a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility. tanks. S. while the design of SSSO spacecraft appears to be feasible. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for SSTO and TSTO Spacecraft. an attractive TSTO design might be a first-stage structure made of only tanks and a second-stage structure made of engines. (vi) In conclusion. MIELE... 2. S. MIELE. 1997. and MANCUSO.. Aero-Astronautics Report 276. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for TSTO Spacecraft: Extensions. A. Mancuso Indeed. (v) In light of (iv). electronics. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for a Single-Stage Suborbital Spacecraft.. 3. Rice University..
Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. T. 1986.. Summary Report. T. and Dynamics.. N. N. and SPONAUGLE. D. T.. Vol. MIELE. C.. 7.. and TSTO Spacecraft: Extensions. T. T. MIELE. 1992. and McMIMM. S. Acceleration.K. D. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. TALAY. H. 491-505. pp.. pp. A. Control. M. and MANCUSO. NASA.. 1-2. No. WANG. E. A. 1986. I. Acta Astronautica. W. Acta Astronautica. Primal and Dual Formulations of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Trajectory Optimization Problems. 10. Design Options for Advanced Manned Launch Systems. J. Hypersonic Vehicle Model and Control Law Development Using and Synthesis. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. A. McCORMICK. Edited by F. Rice University. 6. D. 8. 1994. 5.. Part 2: General Problem. and WANG. SSTO.. 1997. R. A..2.241-249. ANONYMOUS. Nos. R. and Theta . A. No. MIELE. SEGRAM: A Practical and Versatile Tool for Spacecraft Trajectory Optimization. 599-609. 10. Optimization and Acceleration Guidance of Flight Trajectories in a Windshear.. 26. NASA Headquarters. LEPSCH. GREGORY.. Nos. J. 13.. 21-54. S. B. 1994. 9. A. Access to Space Study. V. PRITCHARD. and BASAPUR. 12. Washington. A. 8-10. 13... Journal of Guidance. and WANG. No.368-377. 1995. pp. R. 4.. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Integral Methods in Science and Engineering. Office of Space Systems Development. FREEMAN. S. 1986.. and WANG. 8. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for SSSO. A. T. Payne et al. RISHIKOF. Gamma. CHOWDHRY. MIELE... Technical Memorandum 4562. pp. B. 11. 577-607. Aero-Astronautics Report 278. O. and WIHITE. Vol. Vol. R.32. Vol. A... MIELE. STANLEY.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 29 4. Part 1: Basic Problem. pp.. Vol. 1987. DC. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications.. pp. and WANG.. MIELE. 119.. R.
Vol. 18.. DC. 91-108. 17. 1996. Control. Miele and S. 10. Vol.. No.30 A. No. G. and Dynamics. Chapters 13 and 14. Control. and USAF. 131. US Government Printing Office. pp. MIELE. 1134-1141. Ascent Performance Feasibility of the National Aerospace Plane. 6.. 1976. pp. 15. Breakwell Memorial Lecture.. 14. Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. 12. T. US Standard Atmosphere. 1962. Y. and WANG.. No. Journal of Guidance. 1996. A. Reading. Massachusetts. 19. Flight Mechanics. 1997. LEE. MIELE. The 1st John V. . 16. pp. Journal of Guidance. 1989. pp. NOAA.. Mancuso Guidance for Abort Landing in a Windshear. 815-821. MIELE A. D. and WU. 747-768. A. W. Vol.. 1: Theory of Flight Paths. Vol. 1976. Recent Advances in the Optimization and Guidance of Aeroassisted Orbital Transfers. Vol. NASA. 5. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. A. Acta Astronautica. 38. and Dynamics. Robust Predictor-Corrector Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer. Washigton. MIELE.
Nordwijk. Netherlands. the optimization problem is solved for given final conditions. Houston. USA. The results show that the flight time obtained for the optimal trajectories (about 4. In this paper. 31 .2 Design of Moon Missions A. a systematic study of the optimization of trajectories for Earth-Moon flight is presented. and Control Engineer. the same problem is studied for the Moon-Earth return flight with the same boundary conditions. MIELE1 AND S. In light of these results. Rice University. The optimization criterion is the total characteristic velocity and the parameters to be optimized are: the initial phase angle of the spacecraft with respect to Earth. The results show that. and velocity impulses at departure and arrival.5 days) is larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. 2201 AZ. Guidance. flight time. and Mathematical Sciences. a further parametric study is performed. the transfer problem is solved again for fixed flight time smaller or larger than the optimal time. MANCUSO2 Abstract. European Space Technology and Research Center. corresponding to a counterclockwise circular low Earth orbit at Space Station altitude. Texas 77005-1892. For given initial and final conditions. Aerospace Sciences.2 days). Aero-Astronautics Group. The problem is formulated using a simplified version of the restricted three-body model and is solved using the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm for mathematical programming problems. Navigation.5 to 3. For given initial conditions. Then. if the prescribed flight time is within one 1 2 Research Professor and Foyt Professor Emeritus of Engineering. corresponding to either a clockwise or counterclockwise circular low Moon orbit at different altitudes.
Namely. flown in the opposite sense.r. For larger time deviations. optimization. Earth-MoonEarth flight. Introduction In 1960. the class of two-impulse trajectories is considered. no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. the penalty in characteristic velocity is relatively small. (i) its image with respect to the Earth-Moon axis is also feasible. lunar trajectories. 1. if the flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than two days.32 A. Miele and S. Earth-Moon flight. (iii) the image with respect to the plane containing the Earth-Moon axis and orthogonal to the Moon orbital plane. astrodyamics. Key Words. In particular. within the frame of the restricted three-body problem and the 2D case. the parameters being optimized are four: initial phase angle of spacecraft . For both the 2D case and the 3D case. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe. The optimization criterion is the total characteristic velocity. Reference 1 establishes a relation between the outgoing/return trajectories. the Earth-Moon axis has the property of being an optimal Moon-Earth trajectory. 1). To supply an answer to the above question. if a trajectory is feasible in Earth-Moon space.t. the theorem guarantees the feasibility of two additional images: (ii) the image with respect to the Moon orbital plane. For the 3D case. This result extends to optimal trajectories the theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960. flown in the same sense as the original trajectory. Mancuso day of the optimal time. provided it is flown in the opposite sense. optimal trajectories. the senior author developed the theorem of image trajectories in Earth-Moon space within the frame of the restricted three-body problem (Ref. The most interesting finding is that the optimal Earth-Moon and Moon-Earth trajectories are mirror images of one another with respect to the Earth-Moon axis. we present in this paper a systematic study of optimal Earth-Moon and Moon-Earth trajectories under the following scenario. It is natural to ask whether the feasibility property implies an optimality property. we inquire whether the image of an optimal Earth-Moon trajectory w. the theorem states that. Moon-Earth flight.
(b) counterclockwise arrival to LMO. We study the transfer from a low Earth orbit (LEO) to a low Moon orbit (LMO) and back. with the understanding that the departure from LEO is counterclockwise and the return to LEO is counterclockwise. System Description The present study is based on a simplified version of the restricted three-body problem. is considered. with subsequent clockwise departure from LMO. . and we inquire whether option (b) has any merit. (A3) the flight of the spacecraft takes place in the Moon orbital plane. velocity impulse at arrival. we perform a parametric study by recomputing the LEO-to-LMO and LMO-to-LEO transfers for fixed flight time smaller or larger than the optimal time. see Refs. 2. For previous studies related directly or indirectly to the subject under consideration. Concerning LMO. see Refs. (A4) the spacecraft is subject to only the gravitational fields of Earth and Moon. (A5) the gravitational fields of Earth and Moon are central and obey the inverse square law. because the optimization study reveals that the optimal flight times are considerably larger than the flight times of the Apollo missions. We note that option (a) has characterized all the flights of the Apollo program. For the algorithms employed to solve the problems formulated in this paper. 18. 16-17. References 12-15 investigate the partial or total use of electric propulsion or nuclear propulsion for Earth-Moon flight.Design of Moon Missions 33 with respect to either Earth or Moon. (A2) the eccentricity of the Moon orbit around Earth is neglected. 1-9. with reference to the motion of a spacecraft in Earth-Moon space. References 10-11 are general interest papers. the following assumptions are employed: (A1) the Earth is fixed in space. flight time. Finally. see Ref. we look at two options: (a) clockwise arrival to LMO. velocity impulse at departure. with subsequent counterclockwise departure from LMO. (A6) the class of two-impulse trajectories. For further details on topics covered in this paper. departing with an accelerating velocity impulse tangential to the spacecraft velocity relative to Earth [Moon] and arriving with a braking velocity impulse tangential to the spacecraft velocity relative to Moon [Earth]. More precisely.
the x-axis points toward the Moon initial position. and spacecraft.1. the motion of the spacecraft is described by the following differential system for the position coordinates and components of the inertial velocity vector with Here are the Earth and Moon gravitational constants. Moon center. Miele and S. M. the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and is directed as the Moon initial inertial velocity. Let the subscripts E. the dot superscript denotes derivative with respect to the time t. The above quantities satisfy the following relations: . with where 0 is the initial time and the final time. are the Moon inertial coordinates. Differential System. Mancuso 2. Consider an inertial reference frame Exy contained in the Moon orbital plane: its origin is the Earth center. With this understanding.34 A. P denote the Earth center. are the radial distances of the spacecraft from Earth and Moon.
2. LEO Data. The following data are used in the numerical experiments described in this paper: 2. more precisely the angle which the vector forms with the x-axis. is the radial distance of the Moon center from the Earth center. For the low Earth orbit. Note that. Basic Data. is an angular coordinate associated with the Moon position. 2. assumed constant. the following departure data (outgoing trip) and arrival data (return trip) are used in the numerical computation: . by definition. is the angular velocity of the Moon.3.Design of Moon Missions 35 Here.
3. braking velocity impulse to circular velocity at LMO. (ii) tangential. Mancuso corresponding to The values (5a)-(5b) are the Space Station altitude and corresponding radial distance.36 A. Because of Assumption (A1). Departure Conditions. accelerating velocity impulse from circular velocity at LEO. Miele and S. 2. the values (6c) are the circular velocities at the chosen LMO arrival/departure altitudes. the value (5c) is the circular velocity at the Space Station altitude. corresponding to counterclockwise departure from LEO with tangential. the following arrival data (outgoing trip) and departure data (return trip) are used in the numerical computation: corresponding to The values (6a)-(6b) are the LMO altitudes and corresponding radial distances.4. LMO Data. the relative-to-Earth coordinates are the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. accelerating . For the low Mars orbit. 3. Earth fixed in space. Earth-Moon Flight We study the LEO-to-LMO transfer of the spacecraft under the following conditions: (i) tangential.1.
is the radius of the low Earth orbit and is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the Earth surface. 3. Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth. the departure conditions (t = 0) can be written as follows: or alternatively. Arrival Conditions. Note that Equation (8c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LEO. where Here.2. the relative-to-Moon coordinates are not the . is the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit (circular velocity) before application of the tangential velocity impulse.Design of Moon Missions 37 velocity impulse. is the accelerating velocity impulse. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the tangential velocity impulse.
the arrival conditions can be written as follows: or alternatively. Mancuso same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. corresponding to clockwise or counterclockwise arrival to LMO with tangential. is the spacecraft velocity .38 A. Miele and S. is the radius of the low Moon orbit and is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the Moon surface. braking velocity impulse. where Here.
Since we have n = 4 parameters and q = 3 constraints. the lower sign refers to counterclockwise arrival to LMO. and tangency condition (10)-(11c). (10c)-(10d). the gradients are formed only with respect to the problem parameters. 16). In the particular case. . the main function of the differential system (1)(2) is that of connecting the initial point with the final point and in particular supplying the gradients of the final conditions with respect to the initial conditions and/or problem parameters. is the braking velocity impulse. where is the total characteristic velocity. the former point of view is employed here because of its simplicity. because the problem parameters determine completely the initial conditions. For Earth-Moon flight. meaning 3. Equation (11c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and that the braking velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. the upper sign refers to clockwise arrival to LMO. In Eqs. To sum up. Therefore.3. we have a mathematical programming problem in which the minimization of the performance index (13a) is sought with respect to the values of which satisfy the radius condition (11a)-(12a). the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 1. In the mathematical programming formulation. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the tangential velocity impulse.Design of Moon Missions 39 in the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) after application of the tangential velocity impulse. circularization condition (11b)-(12b). the optimization problem can be formulated as follows: Given the basic data (4) and the terminal data (5)-(6). Optimization Problem. The unknowns include the state variables and the parameters While this problem can be treated as either a mathematical programming problem or an optimal control problem. it is appropriate to employ the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming problems (Ref.
and the phase angles at arrival are shown in Table 1 for clockwise LMO arrival and Table 2 for counterclockwise LMO arrival.40 A. the second group is formed by trajectories for which the arrival to LMO is counterclockwise. the phase angles at departure. For the results are shown in Tables 1-2 and Figs. Results. . Two groups of optimal trajectories have been computed.4. Miele and S. The first group is formed by trajectories for which the arrival to LMO is clockwise. The major parameters of the problem. Mancuso 3. 1-2.
Design of Moon Missions 41 .
Miele and S. Mancuso .42 A.
Design of Moon Missions 43 .
37 days for counterclockwise LMO arrival) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. (iv) the optimal trajectories with counterclockwise arrival to LMO are slightly superior to the optimal trajectories with clockwise arrival to LMO in terms of characteristic velocity and flight time.44 A. and near-Moon space is shown in Fig. 18). Miele and S. 2 for counterclockwise LMO arrival. (iii) for the optimal trajectories. the flight time (4. 4.5 to 3. Mancuso Also for the optimal trajectory in Earth-Moon space. 1 for clockwise LMO arrival and Fig. 18). depending on the mission). decreases as the orbital (ii) the braking velocity impulse altitude over the Moon surface increases (see Ref. Major comments are as follows: the accelerating velocity impulse is nearly independent of the orbital altitude over the Moon surface (see Ref. nearEarth space. (i) .2 days.50 days for clockwise LMO arrival.
Moon-Earth Flight We study the LMO-to-LEO transfer of the spacecraft under the following conditions: (i) tangential. corresponding to clockwise or counterclockwise departure from LMO with tangential. 4. Departure Conditions. accelerating velocity impulse from circular velocity at LMO. the relative-to-Moon coordinates are not the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth. accelerating velocity impulse. where . (ii) tangential.1. the departure conditions (t = 0) can be written as follows: or alternatively. braking velocity impulse to circular velocity at LEO.Design of Moon Missions 45 4.
the upper sign refers to clockwise departure from LMO. is the spacecraft velocity in the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) before application of the tangential velocity impulse. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the tangential velocity impulse.2. In Eqs. the relative-to-Earth coordinates are the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. braking velocity impulse. Mancuso Here. is the accelerating velocity impulse.46 A. (14c)-(14d). the arrival conditions can be written as follows: or alternatively. . 4. the lower sign refers to counterclockwise departure from LMO. corresponding to counterclockwise arrival to LEO with tangential. is the radius of the low Moon orbit and is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the Moon surface. Equation (15c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. Miele and S. Because of Assumption (A1). Earth fixed in space. Arrival Conditions.
the optimization problem can be formulated as follows: Given the basic data (4) and the terminal data (5)-(6). Note that Equation (18c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the braking velocity impulse is tangential to LEO. we are in the presence of a mathematical programming problem in which the minimization of the performance index (20a) is sought with respect to the values of which satisfy the radius condition (18a)-(19a). is the braking velocity impulse. The unknowns include the state variables and the parameters Similarly to what is stated in Section 3. Optimization Problem. For Moon-Earth flight. where is the total characteristic velocity. .Design of Moon Missions 47 where Here. is the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit (circular velocity) after application of the tangential velocity impulse.3. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the tangential velocity impulse. is the radius of the low Earth orbit and is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the Earth surface. 4.3.
we have n = 4 parameters and q = 3 constraints. 4. so that the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 1. Also for the optimal . and tangency condition (17)-(18c). it is appropriate to employ the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming problems (Ref. Two groups of optimal trajectories have been computed. 16). Miele and S. The results are presented in Tables 3-4 and Figs. and the phase angles at arrival are shown in Table 3 for clockwise LMO departure and Table 4 for counterclockwise LMO departure. the phase angles at departure. Therefore.48 A. Once more. The first group is formed by trajectories for which the departure from LMO is clockwise. 3-4. the second group is formed by trajectories for which the departure from LMO is counterclockwise.4. For the major parameters of the problem. Mancuso circularization condition (18b)-(19b). Results.
2 days. the flight time (4.50 days for clockwise LMO departure. 4. depending on the mission). Major comments are as follows: the accelerating velocity impulse decreases as the orbital altitude over the Moon surface increases (see Ref. and near-Earth space is shown in Fig. 18). 4 for counterclockwise LMO departure.5 to 3. 18). (ii) the braking velocity impulse is nearly independent of the orbital altitude over the Moon surface (see Ref. (iv) the optimal trajectories with counterclockwise departure from LMO are slightly superior to the optimal trajectories with clockwise departure from LMO in terms of characteristic velocity and flight time. near-Moon space. (iii) for the optimal trajectories. (i) . 3 for clockwise LMO departure and Fig.37 days for counterclockwise LMO departure) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2.Design of Moon Missions 49 trajectory in Moon-Earth space.
Mancuso . Miele and S.50 A.
Design of Moon Missions 51 .
Miele and S. Mancuso .52 A.
The relations leading from the angles to the angles are given below. Earth-Moon-Earth Flight A very interesting observation can be made by comparing the results obtained in Sections 3 and 4. . let the departure point of the return trip be paired with the arrival point of the outgoing trip. the is perpendicular to the and is directed as the Moon inertial velocity. 5-6 in a rotating coordinate system here. for the phase angles and the reference line is the instantaneous direction of the Earth-Moon axis. which were plotted in Figs. while is the angle which the vector forms with the rotating Earth-Moon axis. let the departure point of the outgoing trip be paired with the arrival point of the return trip. To better visualize this result. consistently with the predictions of the theorem of the image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. for the optimal outgoing/return trajectories and in a rotating coordinate system. For these paired points. In these tables. 1-4 in an inertial coordinate system E xy. is the angle which the vector forms with the rotating Earth-Moon axis. the origin is the Earth center. corresponding phase angles are equal in modulus and opposite in sign. conversely. two kinds of phase angles are reported: for the phase angles and the reference line is the initial direction of the Earth-Moon axis. With the above definitions in mind.Design of Moon Missions 53 5. the following relations hold (see Tables 1-4): showing that. the optimal trajectories of Sections 3 and 4. in particular Tables 1-2 and Tables 3-4. have been replotted in Figs. Thus. the coincides with the instantaneous Earth-Moon axis and is directed from Earth to Moon. 1).
54 A. Mancuso . Miele and S.
Design of Moon Missions 55 .
Mancuso . Miele and S.56 A.
Alternatively. Ref. and tangency condition. The feasibility problem is now solved for the following LEO and LMO data: . the optimal outgoing and return trajectories are shown in Fig. 16). Feasibility Problem. for counterclockwise arrival to and departure from LMO. namely. if SGRA is employed (Ref.Design of Moon Missions 57 For clockwise arrival to and departure from LMO. 17).50 days for clockwise arrival to LMO. namely: the radius condition. but of a simple feasibility problem. On the other hand.37 days for counterclockwise arrival to LMO) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. 4.5 to 3. for an outgoing trajectory and for a return trajectory. and viceversa. Fixed-Time Trajectories The results of Sections 3 and 4 show that the flight time of an optimal trajectory (4. This being the case. the number of parameters to be optimized reduces to n = 3.1. 1). the number of final conditions is still q = 3. 6. 6. These figures show that the optimal return trajectory is the mirror image with respect to the Earth-Moon axis of the optimal outgoing trajectory. 5 in Earth-Moon space. If is fixed. near-Earth space.2 days depending on the mission). and near-Moon space. near-Earth space. Analogously. once more confirming the theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. 6 in Earth-Moon space. In light of these results. which can be solved for example with the modified quasilinearization algorithm (MQA. the optimal outgoing and return trajectories are shown in Fig. the restoration phase of the algorithm alone yields the solution. the transfer problem has been solved again for a fixed flight time smaller or larger than the optimal flight time. we are no longer in the presence of an optimization problem. and near-Moon space. circularization condition.
(22b) and any of the values (23c). Table 6 refers to clockwise LMO departure. thus confirming again the theorem of image trajectories (Ref. the constraints are Eqs. Results. no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. 1). the penalty in characteristic velocity is relatively small. For LMO-to-LEO flight. Mancuso and these flight times: For LEO-to-LMO flight.2. Table 5 refers to clockwise LMO arrival. (iii) if the prescribed flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than two days. Major comments are as follows: if the prescribed flight time is within one day of the optimal time. (iv) for given flight time. Miele and S. The results obtained for LEO-to-LMO flight and LMOto-LEO flight are presented in Tables 5-6.58 A. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe. 6. (i) 7. Conclusions We present a systematic study of optimal trajectories for Earth-Moon flight under the following scenario: A spacecraft initially in a counterclockwise low Earth orbit (LEO) at Space Station altitude must be transferred to either a clockwise or counterclockwise low Moon orbit (LMO) at various altitudes over the Moon surface. (ii) if the prescribed flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than one day. The unknowns include the state variables and the parameters for LEO-toLMO flight or the parameters for LMO-to-LEO flight. for LMO-to-LEO flight. the constraints are Eqs. (13b) and any of the values (23c). We study a . the outgoing and return trajectories are mirror images of one another with respect to the Earth-Moon axis. For LEO-to-LMO flight.
Major results for both the outgoing and return trips are as follows: . flight time. velocity impulse on arrival. The assumed physical model is a simplified version of the restricted three-body problem.Design of Moon Missions 59 complementary problem for Moon-Earth flight with counterclockwise return to a low Earth orbit. The optimization criterion is the total characteristic velocity and the parameters being optimized are four: initial phase angle of the spacecraft with respect to either Earth (outgoing trip) or Moon (return trip). velocity impulse at departure.
Mancuso the velocity impulse at LEO is nearly independent of the LMO altitude (see Ref. 18). 18). (iii) the flight time of an optimal trajectory is considerably larger than that of an Apollo trajectory. (ii) the velocity impulse at LMO decreases as the LMO altitude increases (see Ref. regardless of whether the LMO arrival/departure is clockwise or counterclockwise.60 A. (iv) the optimal trajectories with counterclockwise LMO arrival/departure are slightly superior to the optimal trajectories with clockwise (i) . Miele and S.
1). the penalty in characteristic velocity is relatively small. (vii) if the prescribed flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than two days. a further parametric study has been performed for both the outgoing and return trips. While the present study has been made in inertial coordinates. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe. . no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. namely: (viii) the optimal LEO-to-LMO trajectories and the optimal LMO-toLEO trajectories are mirror images of one another with respect to the Earth-Moon axis. conversion of the results into rotating coordinates leads to one of the most interesting findings of this paper. (vi) for larger time deviations. (ix) the above result extends to optimal trajectories the theorem of image trajectory formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. In light of (iii).Design of Moon Missions 61 LMO arrival/departure in terms of both characteristic velocity and flight time. Major results are as follows: (v) if the prescribed flight time is within one day of the optimal flight time. The transfer problem has been solved again for a fixed flight time.
No. 3. 8. Narin. DALLAS. 6. R.. REICH.. SHAIKH. 1559-1567. . BAZHINOV. K. pp. MICKELWAIT. and BOOTON. AIAA Journal. C.. 1173-1188. Vol. H. 7. 1960. C. 561-573. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences. S. Edited by V. B.. No. 2. 4. Edited by V. and Venus. V. A. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences. Vol. 341-375. 391-438. I. pp. 1964.. Mars. Mancuso References 1. 1966. 27. 5. Vol. CLARKE. 5. 6.. MIELE. 5. 14. 1966. Miele and S. 225-232. pp. General Characteristics of the Launch Window for Orbital Launch to the Moon. Vol. Moon-to-Earth Trajectories. 1964. 1963. No. 7. Szebehely. pp. Theorem of Image Trajectories in the Earth-Moon Space. Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics. 14. Astronautica Acta. Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics.62 A. G. pp. Vol. Vol. A. 1960. A New Perturbation Method for Computing EarthMoon Trajectories. Analytical and Numerical Studies of Three-Dimensional Trajectories to the Moon. Vol. 12. 20. Edited by F. Szebehely. No. pp.. 207-211. Design of Lunar and Interplanetary Ascent Trajectories. Post-Apollo Space Exploration. 3. G. Analysis of Flight Trajectories to Moon.. C. pp. N. A. Astronautica Acta.
Design of Moon Missions
ROSENBAUM, R., WILLWERTH, A. C., and CHUCK, W., Powered Flight Trajectory Optimization for Lunar and Interplanetary Transfer, Astronautica Acta, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 159-168, 1966. MINER, W. E., and ANDRUS, J. F., Necessary Conditions for Optimal Lunar Trajectories with Discontinuous State Variables and Intermediate Point Constraints, AIAA Journal, Vol. 6, No. 11, pp. 2154-2159, 1968.
10. D’AMARIO, L. A., and EDELBAUM, T. N., Minimum Impulse Three-Body Trajectories, AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 455-462, 1974. 11. PU, C. L., and EDELBAUM, T. N., Four-Body Trajectory Optimization, AIAA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 333-336, 1975. 12. KLUEVER, C. A., and PIERSON, B. L., Optimal Low-Thrust Earth-Moon Transfers with a Switching Function Structure, Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 269-283, 1994. 13. R IVAS, M. L., and PIERSON, B. L., Dynamic Boundary Evaluation Method for Approximate Optimal Lunar Trajectories, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 976978, 1996. 14. KLUEVER, C. A., and PIERSON, B. L., Optimal Earth-Moon Trajectories Using Nuclear Electric Propulsion, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 239-245, 1997. 15. KLUEVER, C. A., Optimal Earth-Moon Trajectories Using Combined Chemical-Electric Propulsion, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 253-258, 1997. 16. MIELE, A., HUANG, H. Y., and HEIDEMAN, J. C., Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for the Minimization of Constrained Functions: Ordinary and Conjugate Gradient Versions, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 213-243, 1969. 17. M IELE, A., N AQVI, S., L EVY, A. V., and I YER, R. R., Numerical Solutions of Nonlinear Equations and Nonlinear Two-
A. Miele and S. Mancuso
Point Boundary-Value Problems, Advances in Control Systems, Edited by C. T. Leondes, Academic Press, New York, New York, Vol. 8, pp. 189-215, 1971.
18. MIELE, A. and MANCUSO, S., Optimal Trajectories for EarthMoon-Earth Flight, Aero-Astronautics Report 295, Rice University, 1998.
3 Design of Mars Missions A. MIELE1 AND T. WANG2
Abstract. This paper deals with the optimal design of round-trip Mars missions, starting from LEO (low Earth orbit), arriving to LMO (low Mars orbit), and then returning to LEO after a waiting time in LMO. The assumed physical model is the restricted four-body model, including Sun, Earth, Mars, and spacecraft. The optimization problem is formulated as a mathematical programming problem: the total characteristic velocity (the sum of the velocity impulses at LEO and LMO) is minimized, subject to the system equations and boundary conditions of the restricted four-body model. The mathematical programming problem is solved via the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm employed in conjunction with a variable-stepsize integration technique to overcome the numerical difficulties due to large changes in the gravity field near Earth and near Mars. The results lead to a baseline optimal trajectory computed under the assumption that the Earth and Mars orbits around Sun are circular and coplanar. The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory, but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory, owing to the disturbing influence exerted by Earth/Mars on the terminal branches of the trajectory. For the baseline optimal trajectory, the total characteristic velocity of a round-trip Mars
Research Professor and Foyt Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Aerospace Sciences, and Mathematical Sciences, Aero-Astronautics Group, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005-1892, USA. Senior Research Scientist, Aero-Astronautics Group, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005-1892, USA.
reflection. this paper deals with the preliminary results obtained with a relatively simple model. optimization. On the other hand. They are suboptimal trajectories obtained by changing the departure date. a research program dealing with the optimization and guidance of flight trajectories from Earth to Mars and back was initiated at Rice University. the near-mirror property no longer holds. hence changing the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. yet sufficiently realistic to capture some of the essential elements of the flight from Earth to Mars and back (Refs. mirror property. in attacking the Mars problem. 1-15). Earth-to-Mars missions. The decision was based on the recognition that the involvement of the USA with the Mars problem had been growing in recent years and it can be expected to grow in the foreseeable future (Refs. the asymptotic parallelism property no longer holds in the departure branch. An important property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the asymptotic parallelism property: For optimal transfer. Miele and T. Departure window trajectories are next-to-best trajectories. 1. sequential gradient restoration algorithm. astrodynamics.66 A. Another property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the near-mirror property. 16-19). the spacecraft inertial velocity must be parallel to the inertial velocity of the closest planet (Earth or Mars) at the entrance to and exit from deep interplanetary space. . For the departure window trajectories.30 km/s (5. For both the outgoing and return trips. Key Words.65 km/s each way) and the total mission time is 970 days (258 days each way plus 454 days waiting in LMO). asymptotic parallelism occurs at the end of the first day and at the beginning of the last day. Wang mission is 11. Accordingly. and inversion. but still holds in the arrival branch. we should start with simple models and then go to models of increasing complexity. asymptotic parallelism property. Our feeling was that. Introduction Several years ago. Flight mechanics. celestial mechanics. round-trip Mars missions. The return trajectory can be obtained from the outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation.
the latter being considerably more complex than the former.2. Regardless of alternative and type. This study is important in that it provides the basis for the development of guidance schemes approximating the optimal trajectories in real time. In astrodynamics. 1. 1. namely. this requires the knowledge of some fundamental. it is customary to replace the consideration of propellant consumption with the consideration of characteristic velocity. There are two basic alternatives for Mars missions: robotic missions and manned missions. minimization of the characteristic velocity is achieved if the spacecraft inertial velocity is parallel to the inertial velocity of the closest planet (Earth or Mars) at the entrance to and exit from deep interplanetary space. each velocity impulse is a positive quantity. albeit easily implementable property of the optimal trajectories. For both LEO-to-LMO transfer and LMO-to-LEO transfer. Types. Optimal Trajectories. Characteristic Velocity. namely. if at all possible. Objectives. In turn. . This is precisely the case with the asymptotic parallelism condition at the entrance to and exit from deep interplanetary space: For both the outgoing and return trips. the second objective is to contain the flight time. trajectories minimizing the characteristic velocity. regardless of whether its action is accelerating or decelerating. the characteristic velocity truly “characterizes” the mission itself. the propellant consumption is monotonically related to the so-called characteristic velocity. Within each alternative. the first objective is to contain the propellant assumption.3. with the following advantage: the characteristic velocity is independent of the spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. by definition. we can distinguish two types of missions: exploratory (survey) missions and sample taking (sample return) missions. In turn. Under certain conditions. Mission Alternatives. there is a basic maneuver which is common to every Mars mission. while this is not the case with the propellant consumption. in-plane or out-of-plane. the sum of the velocity impulses applied to the spacecraft via rocket engines. This presentation is centered on the study of the optimal trajectories.Design of Mars Missions 67 1. the transfer of a spacecraft from a low Earth orbit (LEO) to a low Mars orbit (LMO) and back.1. Indeed.
we are in the presence of a four-body problem. Two possible simplifications are described below. Assuming that the Sun is fixed in space. Four-Body Model At every point of the trajectory.68 A. each described in the planar case by four ODEs. Miele and T. the spacecraft is subject to the gravitational attractions of Earth. 1a). Patched Conics Model. for which analytical solutions are available. Wang 2. Mars. a deep interplanetary space segment in which Sun gravity is dominant. and Sun. Therefore. 2. and Sun (Fig. Earth. the four-body problem is replaced by a succession of two-body problems.1. the four bodies being the spacecraft. . a near-Mars segment in which Mars gravity is dominant. the complete four-body model is described by 18 nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs) in the three-dimensional case and by 12 nonlinear ODEs in the two-dimensional case (planar case). This model consists in subdividing an Earth-to-Mars trajectory into three segments: a near-Earth segment in which Earth gravity is dominant. Mars. Under this scenario.
.Design of Mars Missions 69 Then. the third subsystem can be integrated once the solutions of the first two are known. and its magnitude is such that the spacecraft escapes from near-Earth [near-Mars] space into deep interplanetary space. we discarded the patched conics model. Near the interface between contiguous segments. this is equivalent to splitting the complete system of order 12 into three subsystems. and reaches tangentially the low Mars orbit [low Earth orbit]. Restricted Four-Body Model. In light of this statement. System Description Let LEO denote a low Earth orbit. Mars. Then. Here. the spacecraft moves in a circular orbit around Earth [Mars].2. 3. 2. each of order four: the Earth. and spacecraft subsystems. enters near-Mars [near-Earth] space. and Sun. This is the essential simplification provided by the restricted four-body model. Even though the method of patched conics has been widely used in the literature. Mars. a decelerating velocity impulse is applied tangentially to LMO [LEO] so as to achieve circularization of the motion around Mars [Earth]. 1b). Initially. The first two subsystems can be integrated independently of the third. This model consists in assuming that the inertial motions of Earth and Mars are determined only by Sun. while avoiding the pitfalls of the patched conics model. In the planar case. while the inertial motion of the spacecraft is determined by Earth. our experience with it has been rather disappointing for the reason indicated below. an accelerating velocity impulse is applied tangentially to LEO [LMO]. the segmented solutions must be patched together in such a way that some continuity conditions are satisfied at the interface between contiguous segments. the spacecraft takes a long journey along an interplanetary orbit around the Sun. and let LMO denote a low Mars orbit. replacing it with the restricted four-body model. there is a small region in which two of the three gravitational attractions are of the same order. Neglecting one of them on each side of the interface induces small local errors in the spacecraft acceleration. We study the LEO-to-LMO transfer [LMO-to-LEO transfer] of a spacecraft under the following scenario (Fig. which in turn induce large errors in velocity and position owing to long integration times.
Mars. in particular. (A4) the inclination of the Mars orbital plane vis-à-vis the Earth orbital plane is neglected. (A6) for the outgoing and return trips. Mars. we employ three coordinate systems: Sun coordinate system (SCS). the x -axis points to the initial position of the Earth center and the y-axis is orthogonal to the x -axis. and Sun along the entire trajectory. the relative motions of the spacecraft with respect to Earth and Mars. (A3) the eccentricity of the Earth and Mars orbits around the Sun is neglected. SCS is an inertial coordinate system. circularization of motion around the relevant planet is assumed both before departure and after arrival. implying planar spacecraft motion. Having adopted the restricted four-body model to achieve increased precision with respect to the patched conics model. and spacecraft with respect to the Sun. Wang The following hypotheses are employed: (A1) the Sun is fixed in space. with the impulses being applied at the terminal points of the trajectories. implying circular planetary motions. its origin is the Earth center and . (A5) the spacecraft is subject to the gravitational attractions of Earth. To study these motions. y are fixed in space.70 A. ECS is a relative-to-Earth coordinate system. (A2) Earth and Mars are subject only to the Sun gravity. Miele and T. Earth coordinate system (ECS). its origin is the Sun center and its axes x. the class of two-impulse trajectories is considered. and Mars coordinate system (MCS). we are simultaneously interested in five motions: the inertial motions of Earth. (A7) for the outgoing and return trips.
Clearly.Design of Mars Missions 71 its axes are parallel to the axes x . and Sun. 16-19. S denote the centers of Earth. and Sun. Mars. Below.1. w. y and a velocity vector via its components u. see Refs. Hence. ECS and MCS translate without rotation w. Mars. let P denote the spacecraft. and spacecraft in Sun coordinates. its origin is the Mars center and its axes are parallel to the axes x. Earth. for details. let denote the gravitational constants of Earth. y of the Sun coordinate system. in polar coordinates. the position and velocity of Earth are described . the inertial motions of the spacecraft. the position and velocity of Earth are given by (SCS) In Cartesian coordinates. we give the system equations for Earth.t. while the spacecraft boundary conditions are described in relative-to-planet coordinates. y of the Sun coordinate system. If polar coordinates are used. Mars. MCS is a relative-to-Mars coordinate system. 3. Subject to the Sun gravitational attraction and neglecting the orbital eccentricity. Let E. we approximate the Earth (subscript E) trajectory around the Sun with a circle. a position vector is defined its via components x. with 0 the initial time and the final time. SCS. and Mars are described in Sun coordinates. Earth.r. In this paper. a position vector is defined via the radial distance r and phase angle while a velocity vector is defined via the velocity modulus V and local path inclination If Cartesian coordinates are used. let t denote the time. M. Their origins E and M move around the Sun with constant angular velocities and The angular velocity difference is also constant.
Hence. Wang by (SCS) with (SCS) Equation (3c) is an orthogonality condition between vec(SE) and where vec stands for vector. Subject to the Sun gravitational attraction and neglecting the orbital eccentricity. in polar coordinates. Mars.2. 3. Miele and T.72 A. we approximate the Mars (subscript M) trajectory around the Sun with a circle. the position and velocity of Mars are given by (SCS) .
Subject to the gravitational attractions of Sun. Spacecraft. the position and velocity of Mars are described by (SCS) with (SCS) Equation (6c) is an orthogonality condition between vec(SM) and where vec stands for vector.Design of Mars Missions 73 In Cartesian coordinates. the motion of the spacecraft (subscript P) around the Sun is described by the following differential equations in the coordinates of the position vector and the components of the velocity vector: (SCS) .3. 3. Earth. and Mars along the entire trajectory.
In polar coordinates. Earth. and path inclination of the spacecraft.1. is the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit prior to application of the tangential. Wang Here are the radial distances of the spacecraft from the Sun. and Mars.74 A. the spacecraft conditions at the departure from LEO (time t = 0) are given by (ECS) Relative to Earth are the radial distance. Outgoing Trip. is the accelerating velocity impulse at LEO. accelerating velocity impulse. The corresponding equations in Cartesian coordinates are . velocity. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the accelerating velocity impulse. Miele and T. Departure. phase angle. Boundary Conditions 4. these quantities can be computed via the relations (SCS) 4.
Arrival. 4. is the spacecraft . and path inclination of the spacecraft. the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LMO are given by (MCS) Relative to Mars are the radial distance. phase angle. In polar coordinates. Outgoing Trip.2.Design of Mars Missions 75 (ECS) with (ECS) Equation (11c) is an orthogonality condition between vec(EP(0)) and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LEO. velocity.
Wang velocity in the low Mars orbit after application of the tangential.76 A. is the decelerating velocity impulse at LMO. decelerating velocity impulse. and is 4. Return Trip. the spacecraft conditions at the departure from LMO (time t = 0) are given by (MCS) . The corresponding equations in Cartesian coordinates are (MCS) with (MCS) Equation (14c) is an orthogonality condition between meaning that the decelerating velocity impulse tangential to LMO.3. Departure. Miele and T. In polar coordinates. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the decelerating velocity impulse.
Design of Mars Missions 77 Formally. The corresponding equations in Cartesian coordinates are (MCS) with (MCS) Equation (17c) is an orthogonality condition between vec(MP(0)) and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. there is a difference of interpretation: is now the spacecraft velocity in the low Mars orbit before application of the tangential. Arrival. Eqs. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the accelerating velocity impulse. Return Trip.4. is the accelerating velocity impulse at LMO. In polar coordinates. accelerating velocity impulse. However. (15) can be obtained from Eqs. 4. the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LEO are given by (ECS) . (12) by simply replacing the time with the time t = 0.
78 A. Wang Formally. The corresponding equations in Cartesian coordinates are (ECS) with (ECS) Equation (20c) is an orthogonality condition between meaning that the decelerating velocity impulse tangential to LEO. Eqs. there is a difference of interpretation: is now the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit after application of the tangential. (18) can be obtained from Eqs. (9) by simply replacing the time t = 0 with the time However. Miele and T. decelerating velocity impulse. and is . is the decelerating velocity impulse at LEO. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the decelerating velocity impulse.
(iii) MCS-to-SCS Transformation.Design of Mars Missions 79 5. (i) ECS-to-SCS Transformation. For the outgoing trip. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the departure from LEO (time t = 0) from relative-to-Earth coordinates to inertial coordinates. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the departure from LMO (time t = 0) from relative-to-Mars coordinates to inertial coordinates. (ii) SCS-to-MCS Transformation. while the spacecraft boundary conditions are given in relative-to-planet coordinates (ECS) or (MCS). For the outgoing trip. coordinate transformations are needed to pass from one system to another at the terminal points of the outgoing and return trips. Coordinate Transformations Due to the fact that the spacecraft equations of motion are given in inertial coordinates (SCS). In Cartesian coordinates. In Cartesian coordinates. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LMO from inertial coordinates to relative-to-Mars coordinates. . For the return trip. In Cartesian coordinates. The transformations are given below.
The optimization of a LEO-to-LMO transfer can be reduced to a mathematical programming problem involving the following performance index. The most obvious performance is the characteristic velocity. Wang (iv) SCS-to-ECS Transformation. and parameters. we formulate the problem of the optimal round-trip trajectory as a mathematical programming problem. constraints. . Mathematical Programming Problems In this section.80 A. 6. Performance Index. Outgoing Trip. In Cartesian coordinates. 6. For the return trip. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LEO from inertial coordinates to relative-to-Earth coordinates. (ii) determination of the optimal trajectory for the return trip.1. Miele and T. The complete problem can be decomposed into three separate problems to be solved in sequence: (i) determination of the optimal trajectory for the outgoing trip. (iii) determination of the waiting time in the low Mars orbit.
The departure conditions include the radius condition (11a). Satisfaction of the departure conditions is trivial for any choice of the parameters and By the same token. Let a. and The solution of Problem P1 is called the baseline optimal trajectory and yields . For the outgoing trip. which include the radius condition (14a). circularization condition (14b). Parameters.r. the 2 × 1 vector b includes the components of x that are fixed. for instance. (9c).c denote the following vector parameters: The 7 × 1 vector a includes the major parameters governing a LEO-toLMO trajectory. Problem P1 is characterized by n = 5 variables and q = 3 constraints. subject to the constraints (14). decircularization condition (11b). hence.Design of Mars Missions 81 which is the sum of the terminal velocity impulses: is the accelerating velocity impulse at LEO (Earth coordinates) and is the decelerating velocity impulse at LMO (Mars coordinates). the radii of the terminal orbits and the 5 × 1 vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. namely. Constraints. The only constraints to be enforced are the final conditions. the terminal velocity impulses and transfer time spacecraft/Earth relative phase angle at departure and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure Note that if one sets by definition. the differential system (7) is never violated if a forward integration is performed with SCS initial conditions consistent with (11) and (21). constraints (14)]. namely. (9a). implying that there are only two independent parameters. the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 2. the vector parameter c [see (26c)]. given the vector parameter b [see (26b)]. (12a). minimize the performance index (25) w. Problem P1. and tangency condition (14c) [for brevity. and tangency condition (11c) [for brevity.b.t. (12c). constraints (11)].
(15c). Return Trip. Parameters.82 A. which is the sum of the terminal velocity impulses: is the accelerating velocity impulse at LMO (Mars coordinates) and is the decelerating velocity impulse at LEO (Earth coordinates). the radii of the terminal orbits and the 5 × 1 vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. and tangency condition (17c) [for brevity. b. constraints (20)]. Performance Index. Constraints. The most obvious performance is the characteristic velocity. decircularization condition (17b). constraints (17)]. The optimization of a LMO-to-LEO transfer can be reduced to a mathematical programming problem involving the following performance index. (15a). Let a. constraints. namely. (18a). The only constraints to be enforced are the final conditions. Wang the smallest value of the characteristic velocity (25) compatible with a given pair 6. The departure conditions include the radius condition (17a). the differential system (7) is never violated if a forward integration is performed with SCS initial conditions consistent with (17) and (23). the 2 × 1 vector b includes the components of a that are fixed. circularization condition (20b). Miele and T. which include the radius condition (20a). Satisfaction of the departure conditions is trivial for any choice of the parameters and By the same token. and tangency condition (20c) [for brevity.2. and parameters. c denote the following vector parameters: The 7 × 1 vector a includes the major parameters governing a LMO-toLEO trajectory. the terminal velocity impulses and transfer time . namely. (18c).
6. celestial mechanics requires that Mars be ahead of Earth at departure from LEO. subject to the constraints (20).r. the waiting time on LMO can be computed with the relation with angles measured in degrees and time in days. the vector parameter c [see (28c)]. but behind Earth at arrival to LMO. and The solution of Problem P2 is called the baseline optimal trajectory and yields the smallest value of the characteristic velocity (27) compatible with a given pair 6. the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 2. and This implies that the spacecraft cannot return immediately to Earth and is forced to wait a relatively long time in LMO to allow the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference to transition from the optimal arrival value of the outgoing trip to the optimal departure value of the return trip. celestial mechanics requires also that Mars be ahead of Earth at departure from LMO. Assume now that. Problem P2 is characterized by n = 5 variables and q = 3 constraints. For the outgoing trip. hence. For the optimal trajectory. Problem P2. given the vector parameter b [see (28b)].t. it is not possible to fire the rocket engines at the appropriate departure day for the return trip nor within the tolerance supplied by the departure window (see Section 10).3. for Problem P1. hence. Waiting Time. which can be computed with the relation . minimize the performance index (27) w. hence. and For the return trip. for instance. for Problem P2. implying that there are only two independent parameters. Delay Time. For the return trip. due to technical difficulties.Design of Mars Missions 83 spacecraft/Mars relative phase angle at departure and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure Note that if one sets by definition. but behind Earth at arrival to LEO. This implies that there is a further delay time in LMO.4.
Algorithm.1. an industrial version of SGRA has been developed by McDonnell-Douglas Technical Service Company under the code name SEGRAM (Ref. The integration process is computationally expensive and it is difficult to achieve the . 28) and is being used at NASA-Johnson Space Center. 22-24 for early versions and Refs. In the gradient phase. SGRA is an iterative technique which involves a sequence of two-phase cycles. SGRA was developed by Miele at al in both ordinary-gradient version and conjugate-gradient version (Ref. see Refs. 7. Miele and T. the constraint error is decreased. Wang with angles measured in degrees and time in days. the development of SGRA by Miele at al has been parallel to that for mathematical programming problems. a succession of feasible suboptimal solutions is generated. Note that SGRA is available in both mathematical programming format and optimal control format. but the basic form proved to be the more reliable.2. while avoiding excessive constraint violation. For mathematical programming problems. while the constraints are satisfied to a preselected accuracy. Computational Information 7. because of its robustness and stability properties (Ref. Several variations of SGRA were also developed. 7. 25-27 for recent versions. For optimal control problems.84 A. each new solution being an improvement over the previous one from the point of view of the performance index (25) or (27). 20). The achievement of constraint satisfaction and optimality condition satisfaction requires multiple integrations of the system equations of the restricted four-body model. while avoiding excessive change in the problem variables. Thus. Integration Scheme. the augmented performance index (performance index augmented by the constraints weighted via appropriate Lagrange multipliers) is decreased. 21). The sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) in mathematical programming format is used to solve the mathematical programming problems of Section 6. each cycle including a gradient phase and a restoration phase. Also for optimal control problems. In the restoration phase. In a complete gradient-restoration cycle. the performance index is decreased.
but of order one year if the Sun gravity is dominant. orbital periods are of order one hour if the Earth gravity or Mars gravity is dominant. with the stepsize increasing whenever the total gravitational acceleration decreases. In particular.Design of Mars Missions 85 desired accuracy. the angular velocity difference between Earth and Mars is . Remark. but slowly in deep interplanetary space. Indeed.3. Planetary and Mission Data The gravitational constants for the Sun. The computations reported here were done on a Unix Sun Workstation using the C++ programming language. 8. and Mars are given by Earth and Mars travel around the Sun along orbits with average radii The associated average translational velocities and angular velocities (inertial coordinates) are given by In particular. Numerical experiments show that good results can be obtained by linking the integration stepsize to the total gravitational acceleration. Earth. and viceversa. owing to the fact that the total gravitational acceleration changes rapidly in near-Earth space and near-Mars space. The above difficulties can be overcome by properly designing a variable-stepsize integration scheme. the integrations were executed via a fifth-order Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg scheme. 7.
for the return trip.86 A.1. Miele and T. The radii of the terminal orbits are corresponding to the altitudes since the Earth and Mars surface radii are given by The circular velocities at LEO and LMO (relative-to-planet coordinates) are given by and the corresponding escape velocities (relative-to-planet coordinates) are given by 9. 9. 2-3. we present the results obtained by solving the mathematical programming problems of Section 6 with the algorithm of Section 7 in light of the planetary and mission data of Section 8. Wang For the outgoing trip. the spacecraft is to be transferred from a low Earth orbit to a low Mars orbit. Baseline Optimal Trajectory Results In this section. Outgoing Trip. the spacecraft is to be transferred from a low Mars orbit to a low Earth orbit. . The optimal LEO-to-LMO trajectory is shown in Figs.
Design of Mars Missions 87 Figure 2a refers to deep interplanetary space (Sun coordinates). due to the disturbing influence of the gravitational fields of Earth and Mars on the terminal portions of the trajectory. . but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory.
The baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Earth gravitational field. first hour).t. Miele and T. 3a) is reached toward the end of the first day (Earth gravitational attraction negligible w. . Sun gravitational attraction). Wang Figure 3a refers to near-Earth space (relative-to-Earth coordinates.r. See Ref. 18.88 A. 3a. tending to become parallel to the Earth trajectory at the end of near-Earth space. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. but not shown in Fig.
3b.Design of Mars Missions 89 Figure 3b refers to near-Mars space (relative-to-Mars coordinates. See Ref. the baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Mars gravitational field. Major numerical results are given below: (i) The terminal values of the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference are meaning that Mars is ahead of Earth by nearly 44 deg at departure and behind Earth by nearly 75 deg at arrival. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. but not shown in Fig. (ii) The terminal values of the spacecraft/planet relative phase angle are meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse at departure must be applied nearly 62 deg before the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Earth direction. (iii) The characteristic velocity components are implying that the total characteristic velocity is (iv) The terminal values of the spacecraft inertial phase angle are .r. 3b) is reached at the beginning of the last day (Mars gravitational attraction negligible w.t. In reverse time. while the decelerating velocity impulse at arrival must be applied nearly 141 deg before the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Mars direction. tending to become parallel to the Mars trajectory at the beginning of near-Mars space. 18. Sun gravitational attraction). last hour).
Return Trip. Wang implying that the angular travel of the spacecraft is which is within one degree of 180 deg. Figure 2b refers to deep interplanetary space (Sun coordinates). due to the disturbing influence of the gravitational fields of Mars and Earth on the terminal portions of the trajectory. The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory. but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. 2 and 4. Miele and T. (v) The transfer time is 9.2.90 A. . The optimal LMO-to-LEO trajectory is shown in Figs. the value characterizing a Hohmann transfer trajectory.
Major numerical results are given below: (i) The terminal values of the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference are . Sun gravitational attraction). The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig.r.t. 4a. 18. but not shown in Fig. Sun gravitational attraction). but not shown in Fig.Design of Mars Missions 91 Figure 4a refers to near-Mars space (relative-to-Mars coordinates. 4a) is reached toward the end of the first day (Mars gravitational attraction negligible w. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. See Ref. 4b. The baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Mars gravitational field. 18. Figure 4b refers to near-Earth space (relative-to-Earth coordinates.t. 4b) is reached at the beginning of the last day (Earth gravitational attraction negligible w. In reverse time. tending to become parallel to the Mars trajectory at the end of near-Mars space. tending to become parallel to the Earth trajectory at the beginning of near-Earth space. first hour). the baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Earth gravitational field. See Ref.r. last hour).
the value characterizing a Hohmann transfer trajectory. (ii) The terminal values of the spacecraft/planet relative phase angle are meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse at departure must be applied nearly 141 deg after the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Mars direction. Miele and T.92 A. (v) The transfer time is . while the decelerating velocity impulse at arrival must be applied nearly 62 deg after the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Earth direction. Wang meaning that Mars is ahead of Earth by nearly 75 deg at departure and behind Earth by nearly 44 deg at arrival. (iii) The characteristic velocity components are implying that the total characteristic velocity is (iv) The terminal values of the spacecraft inertial phase angle are implying that the angular travel of the spacecraft is which is within one degree of 180 deg.
In light of the previous results.Design of Mars Missions 93 9. the total time for a round-trip LEO-to-LMO mission without delay time becomes and on account of the previous results.5.3. 9. The waiting time in LMO is determined by the need to allow the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference to transition from the arrival value of the outgoing trip to the departure value of the return trip. 9. Near-Mirror Property. Delay Time.1 and 9. Eqs.2. the total time for a round-trip LEO-to-LMO mission with delay time becomes and on account of (40b) and (41). In addition to the asymptotic parallelism property noted in Sections 9. the waiting time on Mars is Therefore. (30) and (34) yield the delay time Therefore. If it is not possible to fire the rocket engines on the appropriate departure day for the return trip nor within the tolerance supplied by the so-called departure window (see Section 10).4. Waiting Time. the optimal trajectories of the .
the vectors a.c appearing in Eqs. (38a). given the triplet minimize the performance index (25) w. The near-mirror property extends to the restricted four-body problem the exact mirror property discovered by Miele for the restricted three-body problem in connection with the flight of a spacecraft in EarthMoon space (Ref. Thus. spacecraft angular travel. For the return trip. and transfer time are the same or nearly the same for the outgoing and return trips. b. 4 respectively as can be seen by transferring from (26c) to (26b) for the outgoing trip and from (28c) to (28b) for the return trip. the radii of the terminal orbits. Wang outgoing and return trips have a near-mirror property. Miele and T. the vectors a. total characteristic velocity. see Ref. spacecraft/planet relative phase angle at departure. The implication is that the optimal return trajectory can be obtained from the optimal outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation. the characteristic velocity components. (37a).(38c). (25) and (28) have dimensions 7.(37c) with Eqs.b. the vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. namely. we modify the previous problems by assuming that the departure date is fixed. Departure Windows for the Outgoing and Return Trips In Section 6.r. transfer time. (37b). These angular quantities can be grouped in pairs having nearly the same modulus but opposite sign for the outgoing and return trips. hence by assuming that is given.t. and inversion. . c have dimensions 7. one can formulate the following new problems: Problem P3. (38b). given the triplet minimize the performance index (27) w. the vector b includes the components of a that are fixed. 3.94 A. the parameters subject to the constraints (20). In this section. and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. reflection. 19 for details.r. For the outgoing trip.t the parameters subject to the constraints (14). namely. Problem P4. In the new problems. we formulated the problems of minimizing the characteristic velocity for the outgoing trip (Problem P1) and return trip (Problem P2). 10. 2. 29). the terminal velocity impulses. 5 respectively. The vector a includes the major parameters governing the transfer. which emerges from the comparison of Eqs. In these problems. Also.
whose solutions form the so-called departure windows for the outgoing and return trips. if in Eq. (43) become with in days and in degrees. By varying the departure date. (45a). if in Eq. the true independent variable is the spacecraft/Mars relative phase angle at departure The following relations connect the departure dates and the Mars/Earth phase angle differences: Therefore. if one sets and accounts for the baseline optimal trajectory results of Section 9. the solution of Problem P4 reduces to that of Problem P2. Results. Eqs. one generates a one-parameter family of mathematical programming problems.Design of Mars Missions 95 While Problems P1 and P2 have two degrees of freedom. Tables 1 and 2 list the departure date.1. For the outgoing and return trips. the solution of Problem P3 reduces to that of Problem P1. hence by varying the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. (45b). Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. 10. For the outgoing trip. Equations (45) establish a one-to-one correspondence between the departure date and the Mars/Earth inertial angle difference at departure. . also note that. Problems P3 and P4 have one degree of freedom. Note that. the true independent variable is the spacecraft/Earth relative phase angle at departure for the return trip.
Major comments are as follows. Wang spacecraft/planet relative phase angle at departure. Finally. for the suboptimal trajectories of both the outgoing and return trips. the angular travel and flight time increase with early departure and decrease with late departure. and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at arrival. the left column refers to the suboptimal trajectory generated via anticipated departure by nearly 6 weeks. Miele and T. the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure increases with early departure and decreases with late departure. the right column refers to the suboptimal trajectory generated via delayed departure by nearly 3 weeks. it must be noted that. total characteristic velocity. but still holds for the arrival branch. characteristic velocity components at departure and arrival. The above statements hold for both the outgoing and return trips.96 A. For the suboptimal trajectories. spacecraft angular travel. the near-mirror property no longer holds. the characteristic velocity components and total characteristic velocity increase with both early and late departures. the asymptotic parallelism property no longer holds for the departure branch. flight time. . In these tables. the central column refers to the baseline optimal trajectory. On the other hand.
(i) The Mars mission is difficult because of the large distances involved. the following comments and conclusions emerge. Comments and Conclusions From the previous analysis. the curvilinear distance traveled along the trajectory exceeds one billion kilometers. namely.71 years for the return trip.71 years for the outgoing trip. plus a delay time of 2.66 years without time delay and 4. 0. In a round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO mission. The total round-trip time is 2. At some point of the trajectory.13 years if the spacecraft is unable to fire the rocket engines within the departure window tolerance for return. (iii) If one converts the characteristic velocity results into mass ratios .79 years with time delay.24 years waiting in LMO.Design of Mars Missions 97 11. (ii) The extremely long journey requires a long flight time. 0. the spacecraft/Earth distance becomes larger than the Earth/Sun distance. 1.
For the return trip. They are suboptimal trajectories obtained by changing the departure date. we need the mass of 20 kg at the departure from LEO. Mars must be ahead of Earth by nearly 75 deg at departure and the accelerating velocity impulse must be applied 141 deg after the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Mars direction. it can be seen that the required mass ratio for a round-trip LEOLMO-LEO mission is about 20. 29). the spacecraft inertial velocity must be parallel to the inertial velocity of the closest planet (Earth or Mars) at the entrance to and exit from deep interplanetary space. For . Wang using typical values of the spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. the required mass ratios can be decreased via the use of aeroassisted orbital transfer maneuvers. (vii) An important property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the asymptotic parallelism property: For optimal transfer. to return the mass of 1 kg to LEO. (ix) Departure window trajectories are next-to-best trajectories. the required mass ratio becomes of order 300. owing to the disturbing influence exerted by the gravity fields of Earth and Mars on the terminal branches of the trajectory. to return the mass of 1 kg to Earth. reflection.98 A. (iv) With reference to (iii). hence changing the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. the required mass ratio becomes of order 1000. If one further includes the ascent from the Mars surface to LMO. also called aerobraking maneuvers. For the outgoing trip. Miele and T. (viii) Another property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the nearmirror property. 30-33 for recent work on these special maneuvers. See Refs. This means that. we need the mass of 1000 kg at the departure from Earth. This asymptotic parallelism occurs at the end of the first day and at the beginning of the last day for both the outgoing and return trips. This property extends to the restricted four-body problem the exact mirror property found for the restricted three-body problem in connection with flight of a spacecraft in Earth/Moon space (Ref. and inversion. Mars must be ahead of Earth by nearly 44 deg at departure and the accelerating velocity impulse must be applied 62 deg before the spacecraft become aligned with the Sun/Earth direction. This means that. but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. (vi) The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory. (v) The best trajectory is the baseline optimal trajectory. The return trajectory can be obtained from the outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation. If one includes the ascent from the Earth surface to LEO.
1975. California.. 1962. and MOYER.. B. the asymptotic parallelism property no longer holds in the departure branch. pp. New Approaches to Space Exploration. delayed departure yields shorter flight time and narrower angular travel. 381-401. San Diego.. Univelt. M. Also. Colorado. Pathways to Mars: New Trajectory Opportunities. on account of the extremely long flight times [see (ii)]. robotic missions should be preferred for the time being. California. Additional studies are under way to account for the ellipticity of the motion of Earth and Mars around Sun. ANONYMOUS. Denver..Design of Mars Missions 99 the departure window trajectories. 3537. Application of a Low Thrust Trajectory Optimization Scheme to Planar Earth-Mars Transfer. ARS Journal. 2. On the other hand. J. 30-33). H. The Viking Mission to Mars. 32. 260-262. pp. Univelt. . pp. (xii) It must be emphasized that the present study is preliminary. J. 3. NIEHOFF. Boston. NASA Mars Conference. References 1. San Diego. (xi) While the present analysis is valid for both robotic and manned missions. Martin Marietta Corporation. Edited by P. (x) For the departure window trajectories. anticipated departure yields longer flight time and wider angular travel. 4. C. Further studies are under way to account for the fact that the Earth and Mars orbital planes are not identical. this author believes that. The Case for Mars. the near-mirror property no longer holds. but still holds in the arrival branch. Reiber. G. 1988. LINDORFER. Edited by D. aerobraking maneuvers are being considered as a means to reduce propellant consumption through penetration of the Mars atmosphere in the outgoing trip and penetration of the Earth atmosphere in the return trip (Refs. W. LECOMPTE. Vol. Manned missions are extremely difficult and should not be attempted unless one solves first all the problems that need to be solved to ensure the survival of the astronauts in space and time. 1984.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.. No. 5. A. E. Vol.. 9. Mars Environmental Survey Probe. C.4. C HARGIN. W. 4.. Mars Pathfinder Six-Degree-of-Freedom Entry Analysis. pp. Univelt. 7. K. E. YANG. M. P APADOPOULOS. and DESAI. and SIDNEY. STRIEPE. Gordon and Breach Publishers. P. R. Orbital Motion. Bishop. Influence of Interplanetary Trajectory Selection on Mars Atmospheric Entry Velocity. Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. P... 44.3. W. and R. Netherlands. MISR Interplanetary Trajectory Design. D. San Diego. Amsterdam.. W. Y. D. 13. W. ENGELUND. SPENCER.. G. T AUBER. D. Univelt. No. 30. Smith. 12.. A. CHEN. No. Mars Pathfinder Atmospheric Entry: Trajectory Design and Dispersion Analysis.. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. R. B. A. 30.100 A. M. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 10. H. England. pp.. L. D.. 431-437.. Wang 5. 2. Bishop. Mars Sample Return: A Direct and Minimum-Risk Design. 32. No. WAGNER. A. S. 1996.. . Vol.. 839-858. L. pp. H ENLINE. R. 1996. 1995.. S. Edited by G. ROY. W. Powell. H. J. No. No.. 670-676. 1996. J. E. California. A. Adam Hilger.207-222. T.. California. Powell. 14.. and FOWLER. Aerobrake Preliminary Design Study. B. A... WERCINSKI. R. H. and MUNK.6. 993-1000... pp. BRAUN. N. 1988. Vol.. A. R. 426-430.. W. Vol. WEILMUENSTER. POWELL. K. 33. 8. 1993. and BRAUN. P. Miele and T. W.. M. 6. pp. 381385.. Piloted Mars Missions Using Cryogenic and Storable Propellants. Lundberg. H. and R. R. 1996. Vol. Jr. M. Smith. F.. 33. LEE. Theory of Interplanetary Flights. R. GURZADYAN. R. P. pp. Spaceflight Mechanics 1996. and MITCHELTREE. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 1993. Spaceflight Mechanics 1996.. Vol. pp. Lundberg.. Edited by G. 1996. San Diego. pp. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. BRAUN. J. Mission Plan for Mars Global Surveyor. 1996. GNOFFO. A. Bristol. and HAMM. 859-876. 11. STRIEPE. POWELL.
381-403. Edited by G. and LEVY. Summary and Comparison of Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. pp. pp. A. A. T. 1999. TIETZE. Libreria Editrice Universitaria Levrotto e Bella.. C. 1969. 21. and WANG.. A. J.. 5. 2. 45. pp. E.. England. K. L. HUANG. Comparison of Several Gradient Algorithms for Mathematical Programming Problems. Mars-Jupiter Aerogravity Assist Trajectories for High-Energy Missions.4.. T IETZE. MIELE.. 20. European Conference Publications. Optimal Trajectories and Mirror Properties for Round-Trip Mars Missions. 3. A. L. T. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. T. MIELE. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. Vol.Y.. A. Acta Astronautica. 1972. 655-668. A. J. Acta Astronautica... 95. T. 521-536.. Jarre. 3. Vol. Optimal Trajectories for Earth-Mars Flight. 16-21. LOHAR. A.. 6. D. No.. A. MISRA. and DAMOULAKIS. J. 23. 1999. 45. Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for the Minimization of Constrained Functions: Ordinary and Conjugate Gradient Versions. Cambridge. 4.. MIELE. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications.. F. M IELE.. No. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications.. Vol. Torino.. 213-243. 34. Edited by S. MIELE. Italy. 22. R. V. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Nonlinear Problems in Aviation and Aerospace. 507-539. pp. Vol. Sivasundaram. 235-282. Vol. A. 4. 19. MIELE. PRITCHARD. No. J. No. 1999.. Vol. Optimal Trajectories and Asymptotic Parallelism Property for Round-Trip Mars Missions. MIELE.. MIELE. 1997. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. Optimal Transfers from an Earth Orbit to a Mars Orbit. J. and L EVY . 16. A. N. 1. H. 17. 1970. A. and HEIDEMAN. pp. 11. No.Design of Mars Missions 101 15.. Vol. 1997.119-133. V. and WANG. pp. Omaggio a Carlo Ferrari. No. 18. 1974. pp. Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Optimal Control Problems. pp. 467-499. Vol. and WANG. and WANG.. . A. and MATEESCU. No. pp. 10..
. 599-609. Vol.102 A. Part 1: Basic Problem. 10. Nos. 29. 747-768. Vol. 5. 119. pp. MIELE.. Acta Astronautica. pp. 13. Edited by F. Vol. 38. and Dynamics. Theorem of Image Trajectories in the Earth-Moon Space. Vol. Vol. No. No. . K. pp. Payne et al. MIELE. pp. Astronautica Acta. No. A. 1986. 8-10. A. MIELE. B. pp. Primal and Dual Formulations of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Trajectory Optimization Problems. Recent Advances in the Optimization and Guidance of Aeroassisted Orbital Transfers. and WANG. 1986. and SPONAUGLE. No. and WANG. 21-54. Miele and T. 1986. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems.. 8. 1960. 1996.. J. V. McCORMICK. and WANG. 139-163. MIELE. 26. T. Robust Predictor-Corrector Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer.2. E. T. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. 25. and WANG.. Integral Methods in Science and Engineering. T. pp. 1-2. 5. and DAMOULAKIS. 41. 1993. T. Vol. 1134-1141. S. PRITCHARD. MIELE. Journal of Guidance. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. SEGRAM: A Practical and Versatile Tool for Spacecraft Trajectory Optimization. A. WANG. 23-42.. MIELE.. B. Vol. Journal of the Franklin Institute.4. Nos.. 225-232. A. A. Part 2: General Problem. Wang 24. MIELE. Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. Vol. No. Modifications and Extensions of the Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Optimal Control Theory. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. RISHIKOF. A. pp.. H. MIELE. A.. J. Nominal Trajectories for the Aeroassisted Flight Experiment. 491-505. A.. Acta Astronautica. 1996. N. 27. 1. DC.. 1972. Washington.. 294. Breakwell Memorial Lecture.. 577-607.. pp. 30.. The 1st John V. 32. R. 31. Acta Astronautica. R. T. 1992. R.. Control. No. 19. 26. and BASAPUR. pp. 28.
pp. 1996. and Dynamics. 549-556.Design of Mars Missions 103 33. Near-Optimal Highly Robust Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer. . and WANG. 19. Journal of Guidance.3. A. Vol. No. Control. MIELE... T.
supplemented by other guidance elements. Germany.4 Design and Test of an Experimental Guidance System with a Perspective Flight Path Display G. with demanding flight tasks aiming at different control aspects. 105 . SACHS1 Abstract. The flight test results show that the synthetic vision system enabled the pilot to control precisely the aircraft and hold it on the command trajectory. The imagery is generated by a computer in real time with an adequate update rate. using attitude and position data from a precision navigation system. This basic synthetic vision system was flight tested in an experimental program consisting of several test series. an extended 3-dimensional guidance display concept is considered which employs a predictor indicating the future position of the aircraft at a specified time ahead. Furthermore. Results from pilot-in-theloop simulation experiments are presented which provide a verification of the design considerations. Design issues of a guidance system displaying visual information in a 3-dimensional format to the pilot for improving manual flight path control are considered. Design issues are described for achieving a predictor aircraft system requiring minimum pilot compensation. A basic concept of such a synthetic vision system is described. Professor and Director. yielding an integrated presentation of the command flight path and the terrain. Technische Universität München. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. 85747 Garching.
which are known as tunnel or highway-in-the-sky displays. Laplace operator. gain. They show the future flight path in a perspective form and may additionally depict a terrain imagery. perspective flight path displays present the . perturbation of y.106 G. Nomenclature = = = = = s T = Y(s) = = y = = = = = = = e g K error. acceleration of gravity. azimuth angle. effective time delay. damping ratio. Such displays. manual flight path control. offer a fundamental enhancement in the visual information of the pilot because they provide status and command information not only of actual but also of future flight situations. Perspective flight path display. transfer function. frequency. Furthermore. roll moment due to roll control input. roll angle. synthetic vision. flight path predictor. roll control. Sachs Key Words. 1. Introduction Innovative approaches for the cockpit instrumentation of aircraft are displays which present guidance information in a 3-dimensional format to the pilot. lateral coordinate. aircraft guidance. time constant.
As a result. Results from recent research including theoretical investigations as well as simulation experiments and flight tests show that significant improvements in aircraft guidance and control can be achieved with displays presenting the flight path and other relevant information in a 3dimensional format (Refs. Further guidance elements of primary significance are displayed in an integrated manner. 2. 15). This is illustrated in Fig. Central element of the 3-dimensional guidance information is the perspective flight path presentation in the form of a tunnel (Fig. 14. 3. one of which is compensatory control applied as a closed-loop control for regulation tasks. which shows a simplified model for describing general pathways of the human controller operating on visually sensed inputs and exerting manual control outputs. 1-18). the mental effort for reconstructing the spatial and temporal situation may be reduced substantially when compared with current instrumentation. The visual information can be perceived intuitively and directly by the pilot and the scanning workload decreased. Different control modes are possible. With command information and preview available. the pilot can use this preview to structure a control feedforward. 1): 3-dimensional guidance information. The flight test verification includes the worldwide first landing of an aircraft with a pictorial display presenting 3dimensional guidance information (synthetic vision) as the only visual information for the pilot (Refs. Indication of the command flight path provides the pilot with a preview of the future trajectory. .Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 107 information in a descriptive format and allow holistic perception. The other control mode is pursuit/preview control which is possible because of command information and preview. 2). precision navigation. Such a display featuring synthetic vision includes the following constituents (Fig. pictorial presentation of outside world. supplemented by other guidance elements. It is the purpose of this paper to describe design issues of perspective flight path displays and to present experimental results from simulation and flight tests. Basic Concept of Three-Dimensional Guidance Display The basic concept of the 3-dimensional guidance display comprises an integrated presentation of the flight path and the terrain.
108 G. Sachs .
4. lakes. areal features (cities. 6): point features (buildings. which shows the integrated presentation of the outside world image and the guidance tunnel. including all relevant information about its elevation and features. Three data groups are applied for describing the terrain features (Fig. The terrain elevation data are referenced to a grid structure the elements of which have a size of 3" × 3" or 1" × 1" (Fig. etc. A grid element represents an area of about 90 m × 60 m (or 30 m × 20 m) at the geographical latitude of the areas where the flight test took place. objects. linear features (roads.). forests.). This is illustrated in Fig. etc. A special treatment of terrain elevation and features is applied for areas where the aircraft operates close to the ground. dimensions. Two groups of data are used for generating the outside world image: terrain elevation and feature analysis data.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 109 The pictorial presentation of the outside world comprises an image of the terrain. In the flight tests. bridges. power line pylons. 1). 5). a high-precision navigation system was applied using .). This is necessary for generating an image according to the actual field of view of the pilot. The precision navigation system provides the synthetic vision computer with position and attitude data (Fig. elevation. rivers. It yields a precise modeling as regards location. etc. etc. railways. like airports.
110 G. Sachs .
7). The wide area DGPS mode was applied in nonterminal flight tests (flights in river valleys and mountainous areas) using a low-frequency transmitting technique for providing the correction signal. Because of the lowfrequency transmitting technique. 19). it was possible to receive the correction data without having to cope with hiding effects due to terrain formations. The GPS ground reference station was located close to the runway. Germany (Ref. The navigation system was operated in local and wide area DGPS modes for transmitting the differential correction data (Fig.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 111 differential global positioning and inertial sensor navigation data. The local area DGPS mode was used in flight tests for terminal flight operations (approach and landing) using a customized ultra high frequency data link. The technique was developed by the Institute of Applied Geodesy in Potsdam. .
Germany. Flight Test Results for Basic Three-Dimensional Guidance Display A series of flight tests was performed aiming at a wide range of guidance applications of the 3D-guidance display system. (ii) low-level flight tests in a highly curved. 1994. July 7-10. Demanding control tasks were specified and investigated. featuring the above guidance information and terrain imagery. Switzerland. October 10-14. 1996. Freiburg/Schwarzwald. Lugano airport. Altmühl river. narrow river valley. (iv) curved/steep/short approaches and low-level and terrain-following flights in a mountainous area. Sachs 3. Germany. March 18-22. (iii) curved and steep approaches in mountainous area. The test program consisted of five flight test series: (i) precision approach and landing flight tests.112 G. (v) curved/steep approaches and curved trajectory-following flights in a mountainous area. Germany. July 31 . Braunschweig Airport. 1997. Offenburg/Schwarzwald.August 4. 1995. 1994. December 12-16. . Germany.
. In addition. The high navigation performance is achieved by coupling differential global positioning and inertial sensor systems to yield an integrated precision navigation system (Ref. 20). The aircraft is equipped with a high precision navigation system which was developed by this Institute. 8. Thus. The place of the ground reference station for the wide area DGPS mode is also depicted. computer and filter algorithms including error modeling are applied. it is operated by the Institute of Flight Guidance and Control of the Technische Universität Braunschweig as a research aircraft (Fig. it is possible to achieve a high precision for static as well as dynamic behavior. 9).Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 113 An overview of the flight test areas is provided by Fig. The vehicle which is used in the flight test program is a twin engine Dornier 128. which shows the locations in Germany and Switzerland.
The command trajectory was indicated in the 3-dimensional guidance display by a tunnel image. as shown in Fig. with a corresponding change in the course of the tunnel. From the results presented in Figs. 10 shows that the Altmühl river area represents a demanding test environment because of the highly curved and narrow river valley with steep banks. 11 and 12 show that the pilot followed precisely the command trajectory. and particularly for those sections where the control tasks were very demanding in the vertical or lateral direction. 11 and 12. at an height of 100 m above the river as authorized by the flight safety agency. with only small deviations in both the vertical and lateral directions. Sachs Results representative for the flight tests are presented in the following. 11). The test course depicted in Fig. The flight test results presented in Figs. In two sections. 4 for a flight condition of the tests in the Altmühl river valley. The control task was to follow precisely the command trajectory. there are three sections of particular interest because evasive maneuvers were necessary (Fig.114 G. it follows that the aircraft stayed well within the tunnel. which was referenced to the course of the river. They are from the low-level flight tests in the Altmühl river valley. there is a river bend . For the motion in the vertical direction. In a third section. This holds generally for the whole of the flight test course of about 70 km. electrical power lines intersect the river valley. This was shown in the 3-dimensional guidance display.
. For this part of the trajectory. flew over the bank at the riverside and entered again the river valley afterward.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 115 so tight that it could not be followed by the aircraft. an evasive maneuver was specified according to which the pilot left the river valley.
This requirement can be met when the equalizations and gains are selected so that the effective transfer characteristic of the controlled element. Sachs 4. The tunnel and the predictor present command and status information about the present and the future. the pilot and the aircraft. the overall predictive system consists of the 3-dimensional guidance display with the tunnel and the predictor. 13. i.e. There are pilot-centered requirements which result from the presence of the human operator in the control loop. the predictoraircraft system approximates a pure integration over an adequately broad region centered around the pilot-predictor-aircraft crossover (Refs. with the objective to achieve an overall predictive system requiring minimum pilot compensation. . 13). This is because the pilot is provided with precise information about the future aircraft position in relation to the command flight path.116 G. 21. the deviation of the predictor from the reference cross section of the command flight path at the prediction time ahead yields an accurate error indication. As shown in Fig. Three-Dimensional Guidance Display with Predictor An improvement in flight path control is possible by a predictor which indicates the future position of the aircraft at a specified time ahead in the 3-dimensional guidance display (Fig. In general. The pilot can act in response to this error for minimizing flight path deviations in compensatory control mode..22). the predictive system should be constructed to require no low-frequency lead equalization for the pilot and to permit pilot-loop closure over a wide range of gains. For achieving this objective.
there is another point which is concerned with the role of the predictor as an indicator of the future aircraft position.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 117 This relation describes the desired dynamic characteristics of the predictor-aircraft system as the controlled element. Thus. which shows a model for describing the continuation of the flight path in the lateral direction. geometric and kinematic relations come into consideration for describing the continuation of the flight path to which the predicted position can be referenced. 14. with particular reference to the situation at the prediction time ahead. A realistic indication of the future aircraft position can be considered a requirement for face validity according to which the status information presented by the predictor in the 3dimensional guidance display should correspond to the actual situation. Besides this manual control-related predictor issue. . This is illustrated in Fig. It can be used as key requirement for designing the predictor to achieve appropriate dynamic characteristics of the closed-loop pilot-predictor-aircraft system.
The pilot-centered requirement for best transfer characteristics of the predictor-aircraft system, supplemented by the face validity considerations, forms the basis for the predictor control law. With reference to the block diagram in Fig. 15, the predictor law for lateral flight path control can be constructed to yield
where is the prediction time related to the predictor position. Selecting for the roll rate gain
and applying the aircraft dynamics model valid for the frequency region of concern
Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display
the following relation for the predictor-aircraft transfer function is obtained:
From Eq. (5), it follows that there is a K/s frequency region above By proper selection of the prediction time it is possible to construct an adequately broad K/s frequency region centered around the pilot-predictor-aircraft crossover. As a result, the objective of an overall predictive system requiring minimum pilot compensation is achieved. The described K/s properties are illustrated in Fig. 16, which shows the frequency response characteristics of a predictor-aircraft system. The data shown in Fig. 16 relate to an aircraft used in pilot-in-theloop simulation experiments; the relevant results are presented in a subsequent section. A further issue is closed-loop stability of the pilot-predictor-aircraft system. In Fig. 17, the stability properties are evaluated with the root locus technique yielding results of rather general nature. The following pilot model valid for K/s characteristics is applied:
5. Results of Simulation Experiments for Three-Dimensional Guidance Display with Predictor An experimental investigation of the described 3-dimensional guidance display with predictor was the subject of pilot-in-the-loop simulation tests. one primarily related to path and the other to attitude motions. private pilot. Furthermore. Five pilots with different professional background (airline pilots. 17 shows that there are basically two closed-loop modes.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 121 Basically. The layout of the 3dimensional guidance display developed for the experimental program corresponds to the configuration shown in Fig. Fig. The tasks of the pilot . Fig. 17 shows that the system is stable for pilot gains above a certain value Since the gain for pilot-system crossover is significantly greater than it follows from the root locus result that the pilot-predictor-aircraft system is stable. student pilot) performed the simulation experiments which were carried out at a fixed-base simulator. 13.
The sequence of the turns was altered in order to avoid familiarization of the pilots with a fixed trajectory. Sachs was to follow a curved trajectory (Fig. 18). with rather small deviations from the command flight path. 20 which shows the correcting aileron .122 G. showing a decrease of the predictor error as is decreased and vice versa. which can be regarded as representative of a small twin jet engine aircraft. Control activity results are depicted in Fig. indicated as command flight path in the 3-dimensional guidance display. 95 % confidence interval). A primary purpose of the simulation experiments was to investigate the effect of the prediction time because of its significance for the K / s frequency region. In the simulation experiments. it follows as a basic result that the predictor position is controlled effectively by the pilot. Simulation results on predictor position control are presented in Fig. From Fig. 19 (box plot technique. Concerning the prediction time it turns out that it has a substantial effect on the predictor position control. 19. a nonlinear six degree-offreedom aircraft model was used.
Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 123 .
The effect of the prediction time is again significant. For loop closure. Furthermore. Reference is made to Fig. is basically related to a future state. As a consequence. 21.124 G. This is because . the pilot control activity is increased. Sachs commands given by the pilot. But it is also an efficient means for controlling the current position y(t). both errors approach zero in steady-state reference conditions. which indicates the position at the prediction time ahead. showing now an increase of the control activity as is decreased. the predictor position deviations are reduced when is decreased. The described effects of the prediction time on the predictor position error and control activity can be attributed to pilot-loop closure behavior. the downward shift of the K / s frequency region requires an increase of the pilot gain. The predictor. Using the relation between the current position error and the future position error (predictor error) can be expressed as Accounting for it follows that This relation shows that the current position error is basically smaller than the predictor error The reduction of relative to increases significantly in the frequency region above Furthermore. which shows that a decrease of yields a downward shift of the K / s frequency region.
This is illustrated in Fig. Conclusions A guidance display is considered providing the pilot with status and command information in a 3-dimensional format for current and future . which shows that the deviations of the current position are smaller than those of the predictor position as depicted in Fig. 22. 19. 6.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 125 These results were confirmed by pilot-in-the-loop simulation experiments.
and the outside world. For best results in terms . The basic concept features a computer-generated imagery of the command flight path. A series of flight tests aiming at a wide range of applications of the 3D-guidance display were performed. curved/steep/short approaches and low-level and terrainfollowing flights in mountainous areas. The required attitude and position data for a correct adjustment of the displayed imagery are transferred from a precision navigation system using differential global positioning and inertial sensor data.126 G. with demanding control tasks for the pilots like precision approach and landing. narrow river valleys. Sachs flight situations. other guidance information. low-level flights in highly curved. The flight test results show that the pilot controlled precisely the aircraft and held it on the command trajectory. An extended display concept for presenting guidance information in a 3-dimensional format features a predictor which indicates the future position of the aircraft at a specified time ahead.
1984. A. GRUNWALD.. Predictor Laws for Pictorial Flight Displays. Improved Tunnel Display for Curved Trajectory Following: Control Considerations. Vol. 5. 1996.. ROBERTSON. GRUNWALD.. Experimental Evaluation of a Perspective Tunnel Display for ThreeDimensional Helicopter Approaches. M. pp. E. and Dynamics. No. 378-384.. THEUNISSEN.J. No. References 1. Control. and Dynamics. and HATFIELD. and Dynamics. GRUNWALD. 369-377. 19.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 127 of performance and workload. Results from pilot-in-the-loop simulation experiments concerning significant predictor law parameters were performed. Improved Tunnel Display for Curved Trajectory Following: Experimental Evaluation. 623-631. . Journal of Guidance. Integrated Design of a Man-Machine Interface for 4D-Navigation. Delft. 8.B. GRUNWALD. Journal of Guidance. Delft University of Technology. J. A predictor control law is developed for achieving this objective. GRUNWALD. Availability and Use of Information in Perspective FlightPath Displays. 2. 4.. THEUNISSEN. yielding verification of the design considerations. 4.J. Control. A. 7. pp. 19. 2. 5.. Tunnel Display for Four-Dimensional FixedWing Aircraft Approaches. Control.. Control. A. the predictive system should be designed such that the controlled predictor-aircraft element requires minimum pilot compensation. Vol. Vol. 1995. No.. Journal of Guidance. Journal of Guidance. E.J. Netherlands. 3... Vol. 6. Journal of Guidance. and Dynamics. 545552. A. pp. 1996. A. 1985.J. pp. and MULDER. pp. 1997. 2. Vol. Proceedings of the AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference. 3. Control. No. 137-147. 1981. 370-377. 7. pp. and Dynamics. J. 6.J. No. PhD Thesis.J.
Proceedings of the 17th AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems Conference. Two. 3. and THEUNISSEN.. 2.. SACHS. K. and W ICKENS . 11. Synthetic Vision Flight Tests for Precision Approach and Landing. 1999. 15. Flight Testing Synthetic Vision for Precise Guidance Close to the Ground. pp. H. pp. Pilot-Vehicle System Control Issues for Predictive Flight Path Displays. Netherlands. 1210-1219. 1459-1466. DOBLER. pp. C.. TERUI. Cognitive Factors in Aviation Display Design. M. G. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. 0-7803-50863/98. P. 14-16 December 1998.. Y. MULDER.M. Navigation.. 1997. Proceedings of the 17th European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control. and Control Conference. Vol.. 1999. Sachs 8. E. Improvement of Perception and Cognition in Spatial Synthetic Environment. MURAOKA. and Control Conference. France. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. G. K. 1998 (in German). 10. FUNABIKI. 16. I. 87-109. SACHS. No. Delft University Press. 12. 9. pp.. pp. U. 14... 207-214. Valenciennes. LENHART..128 G.. In-Flight Evaluation of Tunnel-in-the Sky Display and Curved Approach Pattern.. HARIGAE.. M. T. Navigation.M. and ONO. K. and VERVERS... 1993. P. HELMETAG. 1998. S... P.. Navigation.. 108-114.. Bellevue. M.. Yearbook 1998-I. G. H.D. German Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.D. pp. and Control Conference.and ThreeDimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison.. International Journal of Aviation Psychology.. Cybernetics of Tunnel-in-the-Sky Displays. Delft.D. 31 October – 6 November 1998.. FADDEN. H ASKELL . SACHS. Flight Testing of Cockpit Displays with Sinthetic Vision. and KAUFHOLD. DOBLER. Washington. and VON VIEHBAHN. C... and HERMLE. 13. and MÖLLER. WICKENS. 707713. D. PURPUS. . 1995. K. 1998. R. MAYER. A. MERWIN.
1-30. MCRUER. 2000. 1988.. J. Navigation. No.. NY. D ITTRICH . S. K ÜHMSTEDT . AGARD Publication LS-157. 18. L ECHNER . Vol. 247-257. Experiments with Real Time Differential GPS Using a Low Frequency Transmitter in Mainflingen. 14-16 June. E. 22. 171-177. and Dynamics. 3.. R. Perspective Predictor/Flight Path Display with Minimum Pilot Compensation. W. G. 1997. No. Feedback Control Models: Manual Control and Tracking. Wiley. Yearbook 1992-I. Pilot Modeling. Aerospace Science and Technology. pp.... Paper Presented at EURNAV-94 Land Vehicle Navigation. pp.. Edited by G.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 129 Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. pp. 2nd Edition. 1999. SACHS.T. Control. 1999. A. 20. VIEWEG. Journal of Guidance. . and Control Conference. HESS. pp. Germany. New York. 1994. et al. 21. Vol. Flight Path Predictor for Minimum Pilot Compensation. pp. 3.. Chapter 2.. and SCHÄNZER. Salvendy. 17. 4. 1249-1294. Precise Flight Navigation by Integration of Satellite Navigation Systems with Inertial Sensors. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. G. Germany: Results and Experiences. D. 420-429. G. German Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. SACHS. pp. 574-582. Dresden. 1992. 19. 23.
models are given that relate (i) the propulsion mass to a desirable increase in the mass flow for the rocket engines and (ii) the structural mass of the fuel tanks to a desirable increase in the propellant mass. H. it is shown how the example vehicle should be modified in order to carry a higher payload into an Earth escape orbit. Professor and Director. 1 2 The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the European Space Technology Center (ESTEC) through its Contract Monitor Klaus Mehlem. 70550 Stuttgart. Besides the trajectory design. 131 . launch vehicles.5 Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage LaunchVehicle1 K. WELL2 Abstract. It is shown that an overall increase of the vehicle liftoff mass of about 4% will result in a payload increase of about 11%. Trajectory optimization. The paper presents numerical results of a study concerned with the simultaneous optimization of the ascent trajectory of a twostage launch vehicle and some significant vehicle design parameters. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. Using these models. Key Words. concurrent engineering. Germany. University of Stuttgart.
in recent years. However. Reference 2 presents a design tool to this end. the optimization is organized hierarchically: The design optimization is performed in an outer loop. atmospheric trajectories are simulated using particular guidance laws during the design process. At most. when changing the geometry of the vehicle. more or less sophisticated aerodynamic codes have to be used which may lead easily to rather large amounts of computing times. while simultaneously answering the question of how the nominal vehicle should be modified in order to increase the payload in that orbit. it is assumed that the modifications from a reference design are small enough such that a recalculation of the aerodynamic coefficients is not needed. There. not only the mass data change but in particular the aerodynamic data do. In addition. In this paper. The software has been applied successfully to reentry vehicle design as well as to design modifications of a winged launcher with air breathing propulsion. the design process must take into consideration that. H. appropriate aerodynamic methods have to be used to recalculate the aerodynamic coefficients. once a particular change in geometry has occurred.132 K. Depending on the required accuracy. It generates an initial estimate for the solution automatically. the trajectory optimization is performed in an inner loop. In principle. attempts have been made to link the task of finding the best ascent trajectory to the task of designing the vehicle size. Therefore. in the inner loop. vehicle design is mostly separated from atmospheric trajectory optimization. Well 1. This software enables a user to specify a particular launch or reentry vehicle and a particular mission solely by data. the design is frozen. Among many other features. Introduction Reference 1 gives an overview of a trajectory optimization software (ASTOS) which has been developed over the past ten years for the European Space Agency. In the outer loop. the trajectory is frozen. Traditionally. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this capability taking as an example the ascent of a two-stage launch vehicle into an Earth escape orbit. and it assists the user in the solution process via a user interface. it contains a particular capability which links the vehicle design to trajectory optimization and allows the combined optimization of the trajectory and the vehicle parameters. the diameter of the cylindrical vehicle stages is kept constant. This leads to the assumption that the drag .
Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 133 forces will not be affected by the modifications. 2. it is conjectured that the results are realistic and can serve as guidelines for eventual modifications. By limiting the modifications to 20% from the nominal values. The essential design modifications are changes in the engine masses and tank sizes for the two stages. It consists of two main stages. . Reference Vehicle Figure 1 shows the reference vehicle.
H. 2). Well the lower cryogenic stage with the H155 engine and the two boosters P230 and the upper stage with the L9 engine.134 K. . Table 1 contains the mass flow for a P230 booster and the drag coefficient of the vehicle (see also Fig. SPELTRA is the device which holds and separates the two payloads once orbital target conditions have been achieved by the upper stage. Figure 1 shows the version of the vehicle carrying two payloads.
Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 135 Table 2 contains the masses of the various vehicle stages. Included in the total structural mass are 1401 kg for the vehicle equipment bay which is attached to the L9 stage and 1935 kg for the payload fairing which is ejected after burnout of the main stage. Table 3 gives the engine data. . About 0. the x designating that these data are for experimental engines.8% of the fuel (unburned propellant) for both the H155x engines and the L9x engines cannot be utilized in the combustion process and thus does not contribute to the propulsion of these two engines.
The state variables are: Inertial velocity components (see Fig. 3. The equations of motion of the center of mass over an oblate. Mathematical Model of the Rocket Vehicle 3. H. position variables and appropriate equations for the mass change of the vehicle during the ascent . rotating Earth are taken from Ref.136 K. 3). Equations of Motion. Well 3.1.
The subscript L indicates inertial variables in the local horizontal coordinate system.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 137 where is the Earth rotational speed and is the vectorial sum of all the external forces. The external forces are the thrust forces the aerodynamic forces .
Therefore. Well and the gravitational forces The thrust force for the boosters is a function of time as given in Table 1. is the gravitational acceleration at sea level. The subscripts B in equations (2) and (3) describe the forces in body axes. The symbols are the Earth gravitational constant and the oblateness and triaxiality constant of the Earth gravitational potential. for example. The two components in Eq. in Ref. no aerodynamic normal forces or side forces are computed in the model. In this paper. a special pressure profile for the launch site Kourou (French Guyana) is taken. and engine exit areas of the various propulsion systems as given in Table 3. p is the ambient pressure as a function of altitude. H. (3) containing the partial derivatives of the side forces and normal forces of the vehicle with respect to angle of attack and sideslip angle are not available for the reference vehicle. their values are given. is the equatorial radius of the Earth. To transform them into the local horizontal axes. 3.138 K. but the model of the US Standard atmosphere might be taken as well. mass flows. and are the specific impulses. the transformation relations . q and are the dynamic pressure and reference area for the aerodynamic forces.
The nozzle exit area is is the throttle the maximum thrust is the actual thrust itself is With these definitions. pitch. is set. therefore. the controls for the ascent problem are the pitch and yaw angles. The transformation matrices are It is assumed that the vehicle will not roll during launch and. and thrust of a particular engine can be increased causing.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 139 are to be applied where are the azimuth. By scaling the engine up. nozzle area. For the task at hand. the mass flow. it is assumed that the boosters are given and are not to be modified. The same transformation applies to the aerodynamic forces in (3). Mass Models for Engine and Tank Sizing. Simple models describing the interrelation of these data are taken from Ref. 3. Modifiable are the two rocket engines and the size of the tanks for the fuel of the main and the upper stages. the engine mass can be calculated as . of course. an increase in the engine mass. Given a sizing parameter the mass flow is modeled as where is the reference mass flow and setting (an additional control). With these definitions. and roll angles describing the launchers attitude with respect to the local horizontal system. 4.2.
this results in a change in length of the tank. Altogether there are four design parameters to be chosen in the optimization. Tables 4 and 5 present the data used in the subsequent calculations. Similarly for tank sizing.b are correlation coefficients. the tank size is to be varied assuming a constant diameter. is the reference value for the propellant mass and is the reference value for the structural mass. As mentioned in the introduction. Well where a. b is another correlation coefficient. Assuming a cylindrical shape of the tank. H.140 K. the propellant mass and the structural mass are Here. Then. Figure 4 shows how the dry engine masses change with increasing fuel flow and how the tank masses change with increasing amounts of fuel. . the change in tank volume is computed from with as mean density of the fuel.
Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 141 .
The initial values for the position are altitude geographical longitude and latitude of Kourou.4. and the fourth phase is the burning of the upper stage engine. i = 1. the subscripts H155. 4. so is the overall burn time of the main engine. P230.p. By defining a sizing parameter .e designate structural. L9 identify the stage association. and engine masses. Initial Conditions. The times for the fairing jettisoning and for the L9 engine cut-off are kept free in the optimization process.. Multiphase Optimal Control Problem The main constraints of the trajectory optimization problem are the differential system described by equations (1)-(6) and the additional differential equation for the change in mass. where is the fuel flow in the ith phase. propellant.142 K. H. VEB stands for vehicle equipment bay. the second and third phase are with the main engine only. Well 4. Table 6 contains the mass flow data for each phase.. The first phase consists of the simultaneous burn of the main engine and the two boosters. The vehicle is supposed to be launched from Kourou (French Guyana).1. the subscripts s. The initial velocity components are taken to be The liftoff mass is computed according to Here. The booster burn time is fixed.
2 for the amount of propellant to be used in each of the main stage and the upper stage as well as in each of the engines. Cost Function. and velocity are computed as Furthermore. The inertial path inclination. Target and Intermediate Conditions. From orbital mechanics. inertial azimuth.2. there are altogether five parameters to be optimized. a few auxiliary variables need to be defined (see Ref. with as the parameter f is defined and the semimajor axis and eccentricity are defined as These parameters take on different values for different kind of conic sections.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 143 according to Section 3. the initial mass is a function of these five parameters. In order to define the final boundary conditions. the fifth being the payload mass In this way. it is known that the true anomaly can be computed from . 4. 3).
Well The orbital elements can be calculated by applying the laws of spherical trigonometry to the triangle with the sides in Fig. From this figure.144 K. H. 5. is the inertial longitude of the vehicle at a particular time. Here. It can be defined as where is the geocentric longitude at the time of launch. one obtains .
A hyperbolic target orbit can be defined by its excess velocity its true anomaly for and the declination of its asymptote for By specifying the excess velocity and the declination of the asymptote. the cost function for the optimal control problem is to maximize Table 7 summarizes the trajectory optimization problem. Of course. the perigee altitude and the heat flux are needed. The design parameters are with the subscripted notation as described above. As intermediate conditions. and (27). the parameter f and the eccentricity are calculated from (19) for a given value of R. Finally. and are computed from (29). the semimajor axis and the inclination are defined via (28) and (25) for a given velocity vector. these three equations can be used to determine the unknown orbital elements.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 145 Since the true anomaly is known from (23). (26). the integrals over the mass flow for each vehicle stage must satisfy the conditions .
Solving the Trajectory Optimization Problem The ASTOS software has been used to solve the above described problem. 8). Ref. two methods are implemented. 5. one is a direct multiple shooting method. two nonlinear programming solvers are implemented: A sequential linear least squares quadratic program solver (SLLSQP. Both methods transcribe the continuous optimal control problem into high parametric nonlinear programming problems which are solved by standard software. Well 5. 5. a guidance law based on the required velocity . Inside the software. H.1. the other method is based on direct collocation. 7) and a sparse nonlinear optimization solver (SNOPT. see Ref. In order to generate the initial time histories for the controls and the states. 6.146 K. Initial Guess. Inside ASTOS. first suggested in Ref. Ref.
see Fig. For given orbital parameters of such a highly eccentric target orbit. that particular velocity which the vehicle should have in the desired orbit at that radius vector. Although in principle only applicable for elliptical target orbits. one computes the reference velocity. that is. 9) is used. 3.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 147 concept (Ref. The components in a local horizontal system are where and with are the inertial elevation and the azimuth angles of the required velocity vector with respect to the local horizontal system. it can be used for the above problem as an approximation by choosing a sufficiently large apogee altitude for the makeshift target orbit. The difference between the required velocity vector and the actual velocity vector is .
by accelerating the vehicle in the direction of this goal can be achieved. 10) that. with From the figure. According to Fig. Ref. as the solution of the quadratic equation with .148 K. Well This velocity difference must ultimately be zero. One can show (see e. one gets and after some manipulations. 6. the vehicle acceleration is The direction and magnitude of are obtained from where is the effective gravitational acceleration. H.g.
Figure 7 shows the state time histories and as well as the control time histories and for both the initial guess and the nominal solution. a nominal trajectory can be obtained by integrating the equations of motion from the initial state. Step 2: Gravity turn. Both altitude and speed are somewhat smaller for a given time. These nominal values are given in Table 8 together with the optimal values. usually until the burnout of the major stage. Step 3: 5. Both trajectories have to satisfy the intermediate . that is. These as well as other state and control time histories of the nominal case do not differ much from those of the optimal case. The yaw direction of the thrust vector is simply With this guidance law. the solution with fixed values of the design parameters. and osculating perigee altitude of the H155x stage.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 149 where the appropriate sign has to be chosen. Guidance steering according to the above procedure until a specified time or until the desired orbit has been reached. Optimal Solutions. Step 1: Vertical ascent followed by a constant pitch rate until a prescribed pitch attitude is obtained. due to the fact that the vehicle is heavier initially. Figure 8 shows the altitude. Flight with this attitude until the angle of attack is zero. The complete initial guess is obtained in the following three major steps. ground track. inertial speed. flight with zero angle of attack until some user specified event or time.2. that is.
150 K. H. Well .
The upper part of the table contains the structural. The VEB mass and fairing mass are included in the overall structural mass. The overall flight time is approximately the same. The overall increase in engine mass is 17% with respect to the engine masses without boosters. The increase in liftoff mass is about 4%. The order of magnitude of the changes is between 15 to 20% for each stage. The lower part of the table gives the resulting changes in percent compared to the nominal design. the increase in payload is about 11%. The main difference between the nominal and the optimal case is shown in Table 8.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 151 boundary condition on the osculating perigee altitude at 580 sec. the main stage needs to be extended by approximately 5m. since the booster mass contributes significantly to the overall mass of the vehicle. . the changes are rather small for the vehicle altogether. and engine masses for both the nominal case and the optimal case. The five design parameter values are given and can be compared to the nominal values. propulsive. Due to the increased engine and fuel mass. while the geometric modifications of the upper stage are small.
USA. Washington. References 1.. M.. . H. S CHOETTLE. U... which is not surprising. Bellevue. Institute for Space Systems. 1992. This is due partly to the modeling assumptions that the diameter of the vehicle geometry has been held constant and that the dynamic lift of the vehicle has not been taken into account.. 48th International Astronautical Congress. 1995 (in German). Technical Report 2. and M EHLEM. M ARKL. K. Turin. Well 6. 3. Netherlands. U. ASTOS: A Trajectory Analysis and Optimization Software for Launch and Reentry Vehicles. W ELL. Report IRS 95-IB-11. since for rocket propelled conventional launch vehicles the performance of the propulsion system depends weakly on the atmospheric conditions through the back pressure. E. K. Fahrzeugmodelle für Sensitivitätsstudien konventioneller Trägerraketen (Vehicle Modelling of Conventional Launch Vehicles for Sensitivity Analysis).. It is shown that the modified vehicle does not influence the ascent trajectory to a great extent. U. 1997. University of Stuttgart.04. BUHL. R AHN. a greater interdependence between design and trajectory is conjectured to be observed. 2. 1996. and R AHN . K. H.. Multidisciplinary Design Tool for System and Mission Optimization of Launch Vehicles. Italy. Modelling: Advanced Launcher Trajectory Optimization Software Technical Documentation. M. W. and WOLFF. and M ESSERSCHMID. EBERT. The approach presented here is applicable to launch vehicles with airbreathing propulsion as well where the interaction between design and trajectory is much more predominant. Conclusions The paper addresses the simultaneous optimization of both the ascent trajectory and some typical vehicle design parameters of a two-stage launch vehicle. H. 4. Paper IAF-97-V4.152 K.. By removing these restrictions. A. S CHÖTTLE ... 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. European Space Technology and Research Center. Nordwijk.. Germany. Contract 8046-88-NL-MAC. Stuttgart.
Department of Mathematics. H. and PARIS. Control. .. McGraw-Hill. 7.. 9.. 338-342.. NY. Guidance. pp.. 10. W. University of Stuttgart. Institute for Flight Mechanics and Control. TOMP . E. San Diego. 1991. 243-247. 1997. KRAFT. R.H. P. and WELL. A Multiple Shooting Algorithm for Direct Solution of Optimal Control Problems. 1984. GRIMM. S. G. VDI Fortschrittsberichte. BOCK. D. No. Astronautical Guidance. 10...FORTRAN Modules for Optimal Control Calculations. M. Journal of Guidance. W. 254. BATTIN. Proceedings of the 9th IFAC World Congress. K. New York. pp. Lecture Notes. Vol. 1994 (in German). J. MURRAY. 8. Users Guide for SNOPT 5.. C. HARGRAVES. R. Direct Trajectory Optimization Using Nonlinear Programming and Collocation. Budapest. and PLITT. E. W. K. 1987. GILL. Hungary.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 153 5.. and Dynamics. Report NA 97-5-4. University of California.. Volume 8. 1964. and SAUNDERS.. 6.3: A Fortran Package for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming.
It is concluded that. which does not influence actively the elastic behavior. Flight control. certain flying quality criteria can be met and damping of all the elastic modes can be improved. University of Stuttgart. HANEL1 and K. The paper presents an overview of modeling the dynamic behavior of a large four-engine flexible aircraft and considers some of the options for control system design. which can be used for simulating the rigid motion as well as the flexible motion of the aircraft. University of Stuttgart. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. Professor and Director. and (iii) a robust controller. Research Scientist. H. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. 70550 Stuttgart. The result is a system of nonlinear equations of motion. Key Words. The second part analyzes the dynamic properties of a sample aircraft by considering the linearized equations of motion for flight in a vertical plane at several operating points in the flight envelope. Germany. 155 . 70550 Stuttgart. WELL2 Abstract. In the third part. it is shown how the eigenfrequencies of the rigid body and the elastic motion change with the load and flight conditions. (ii) an output feedback controller. using an integral controller. The first part describes how to build an integral model. three options for control system design are discussed: (i) a conventional SAS controller. Here. flexible aircraft. Germany.6 Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft M. aeroservoelasticity.
. high altitude cruise.e. elevator. Since these vibrations cannot be controlled by conventional stability augmentation systems (SAS). Well 1. Ride comfort and structural loads. 1). Stability augmentation and aeroelastic control loops are separated by dynamic filters. with mode shapes and frequencies changing with the flight conditions and loading. Hanel and K. especially for flight in a turbulent atmosphere. several recent studies (Refs. linearized integrated flight mechanics and aeroelastics models are generated as outlined in Ref. In addition to the sensor information obtained from an inertial platform. a realistic aircraft model has to be generated. Control is based on conventionally available control surfaces for primary flight control. While in Ref. some modern aircraft are equipped with additional control loops to improve the ride comfort (Ref. Therefore. Here. 6) are employed to generate separate control design models for the longitudinal motion. 4. especially at high speed. In addition. This means that flight maneuvers and gusts may incite strong elastic reactions.156 M. Emphasis in this paper is put on the . Model reduction techniques (Ref. which influence also the rigid-body flight mechanics. a simulation model with nonlinear rigid-body dynamics is used for flight maneuver verification. while efforts to reduce the structural weight reduce the structural stiffness. 2-5) have investigated the integration of flight mechanics and aeroelastic control design. the separate design of stability augmentation system and aeroelastic control loops becomes more difficult. accelerometers placed along the aircraft structure are used. rudder and inner and outer ailerons. are influenced strongly by the vibrations of the aircraft structure. As rigid body dynamics and low frequency elastic modes get closer with increasing structural flexibility. here symmetric inner and outer aileron activity is restricted to low authority aeroelastic control purposes. H. Both effects lead to more flexible aircraft structures with significant aeroelastic coupling between flight mechanics and structural dynamics. Introduction The evolution of large transport aircraft is characterized by fuselages getting longer and wing spans getting wider. As the aircraft rigid-body motion and the elastic degrees of freedom are highly coupled. 2 symmetrically deflected inner ailerons are available as means of direct lift control. i. The flight control system for the longitudinal motion is divided into an outer-loop flight path and attitude control and an inner-loop stability augmentation and aeroelastic control.
The second approach is based on output feedback and does influence the rigid body as well as the aeroelastic dynamic behavior of the aircraft. Ref. the structure is assumed to consist of many geometrically simple parts. pitch. 7) or may be even more elaborate with various autopilot functions. 3 states u. describing the displacement behavior of . For this paper.v. and aileron angles and the power setting.q. 3 states p. Structural Dynamics. and yaw rates around the bodyfixed axes. In every element. the rigid-body dynamics of an aircraft is described by the equations of motion consisting of 12 nonlinear scalar differential equations with 3 states x. that is roll. a conventional cascaded single-input-single-output (SISO) design is presented. Three alternatives are discussed for the inner-loop control system design. The structural dynamics for the static and dynamic deformations of the aircraft is described by linear differential equations. rudder.z for the position of the aircraft center of mass. To arrive at such a model. 2. First. which are generated using the finite-element method (FEM. This gives a robust design with respect to the different operating points of the aircraft. the finite elements. which improves the flying qualities of the aircraft without any active aeroelastic control.g. A detailed description of these equations is given for instance in Ref. As a third approach. it is assumed that the outer loop produces essentially a reference command for the desired C* command. optimization is used to design the controller for the inner loop.1. where C* is a combination of the vertical acceleration at the pilot position and pitch rate.w for the velocity components in a body-fixed reference coordinate system.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 157 inner-loop control. a space-dependent displacement function is approximated by a fixed number of interpolation functions. and roll angles to describe the attitude with respect to an Earth-fixed reference coordinate system. which is assumed to be embedded in an outer-loop structure. azimuth. pitch. 2. 3 states that is.y. The controls are the elevator. This outer-loop controller may be based on the concept of total energy control (TECS.r. 8. Modeling the Dynamic Aircraft Behavior In general. see e. Ref. 9).
158 M. and external forces is expressed as a function of the nodal displacements and the external nodal point forces. The corresponding eigenvectors can be chosen to represent the unit displacements in the direction of the axes of the center-of-mass-based. any small arbitrary . the solution of the homogeneous differential equation is determined by setting thereby separating the time-dependent and space-dependent components of the solution and solving the resulting eigenvalue problem. For the dynamic deformation. a system of second-order differential equations for the nodal displacements is obtained. Integrating over the element volume (and the known interpolation functions). elastic stiffness. Well the element as a function of the displacement z of the discrete nodes. For the determination of the static deformation of the structure the algebraic equation has to be solved. body-fixed reference frame and the unit rotations about these axes. is the vector of nodal displacements and is the vector of external point forces. Assembling the results for the individual elements. H. 6 zero eigenvalues. For a free-flying aircraft structure. representing the rigid body motion are obtained. In equation (1). The corresponding eigenmotions of the undamped structure are harmonic oscillations with eigenfrequency Now. Hanel and K. The eigenvectors (orthogonal to the rigid body motion) associated with the negative eigenvalues describe the elastic deformations of the structure at the fixed center of mass. The eigenvectors describe the mode shapes (normal modes) of the undamped structure. the work done by the inertial. They are normalized with respect to the mass matrix. the stiffness matrix and the load matrix of the aircraft. denotes the mass matrix.
The inertial coupling of the control surface motion and elastic deformation is neglected.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 159 motion and deformation of the aircraft can be represented (within the resolution of the discretization) by the superposition of the free undamped normal modes. For the purpose of aeroelastic calculations. a transfer function representing the actuator dynamics is added. For the flightmechanical and aeroelastic analyses addressed in this paper. Aerodynamic Forces and Moments.2. is the matrix of the eigenvectors for the elastic motion. the control modes describing the unit deflections of the control surfaces. the doublet-lattice-method (DLM) for . A good approximation can be achieved by retaining only a small number of modes at the low-frequency end of the set. In a later step. 2. are added to the eigenvector matrix The control surface motion is appended with given spring constants and mass and stiffness matrices in generalized coordinates. with Here is the matrix of the eigenvectors for the rigid body motion. the aircraft motion can be described with sufficient precision using modes (6 rigid body modes plus up to 60 low-frequency elastic modes for a full aircraft model) up to about 20Hz. Inserting the approximation of equation (5) into equation (1) and left multiplying by a compact representation of the aircraft motion and deformation can be achieved using a relatively small number of generalized coordinates in the vector Additional vectors. and q is a vector of generalized coordinates. The air flow around a flexible aircraft is modeled as an inviscid compressible flow.
Then. of uniform but unknown strength. and the free stream velocity. it is possible to calculate a matrix of influence coefficients that relates the changes in the lifting force at box i to the changes in the induced downwash at box j. c the wingspan or the mean chord. is the dynamic pressure. In this approach. 10). To extend the use of the DLM to the transonic flight regime. the surface of the aircraft structure is discretized by means of trapezoidal boxes arranged in columns parallel to the free stream. Introducing this into equation (1) yields the relation where is a transformation matrix from aerodynamic to body-fixed axes. Transforming equation (8) to the frequency domain using the . G is a matrix that provides an interpolation between the structural noding and the boxes used for the aerodynamic calculations. Using the above technique.160 M. The resulting forces (normal to the plane of the box) and moments (about the 1/4-line of the box) are obtained by multiplying the pressure difference over each box with the box area. The result of the aerodynamic force and moment calculations using this method is Here. The power plants are modeled as annular wings. The DLM is well suited to account for the influence of wings and tail planes. Hanel and K. an integral equation for the induced downwash can be solved approximately for individual reduced frequencies with as the undamped rigid body or structural frequency. expressed as local pressure differences. This influence coefficient matrix has to be calculated for different Mach numbers and a number of frequencies in the range of interest. the calculated pressure distributions can be calibrated using a nonlinear Euler solution for steady flows. The influence of the fuselage can be treated approximately. H. Well the approximate numeric calculation of the unsteady pressure distribution on harmonically oscillating surfaces in three-dimensional subsonic flow was developed by Albano and Rodden (Ref. the so-called panels. The 1/4-chord line of each box is taken to contain a distribution of acceleration potential doublets.
Having obtained the deformation vector a coordinate transformation to the stability axes at a particular Mach number is performed. Flutter calculations are described in Ref.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 161 reduced Laplace variable matrix gives and assuming a structural damping with the reduced frequency and the complex matrix Equation (9) is called the flutter equation. With the aerodynamic forces available. the term represents the steady-state aerodynamic force corresponding to the trim angle of attack at a particular Mach number. Flutter occurs if for any eigenvalue . 2. The complex eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the nonlinear eigenvalue problem have to be determined iteratively. State Space Description. The corresponding eigenvector determines the flutter shape.3. the differential system must be solved for the deformation vector with given acceleration due to gravity and a transformation matrix from a geodetic system to a body-fixed coordinate system. Aerodynamic forces based on the generalized DLM aerodynamic force coefficient can be evaluated only for . With the definition the generalized aerodynamic forces in the new coordinate system can be expressed as Here. 9. To this end. a steady-state trim solution of the flexible aircraft can be computed.
rational transfer functions and continuous-time state-space representations allow no exact representation of dead times and delays. The major difficulty associated with rational function approximation is the matching of phase responses dominated by phase lags due to dead times. the number of lag states required for different methods varies considerably. a large number of additional lag states is required to provide the necessary phase lag. 11 formulates a general rational transfer function matrix.162 M. Well harmonic oscillations at given discrete reduced frequencies k. the unsteady aerodynamic forces have to be represented in the time domain. Dead times occur frequently in unsteady aerodynamic responses. the total weighted least-square approximation error. or simply for normalizing the tabulated data. under some constraints. Usually. roots with absolute values spread within the range of the tabulated reduced frequencies are chosen. in the reduced Laplace variable to match the tabulated coefficient matrix on the imaginary axis. that is. However. Up to 3 constraints for every element of can be introduced to enforce perfect data fit at specific frequencies (for example at k=0). As a large number of lag states means higher model complexity and increased calculation effort. methods requiring a lower number of lag states are preferable for industrial-size problems. The minimum-state method of Ref. representing for example the transit time from the wing to the tailplane. E are determined from a nonlinear weighted least-square solution minimizing. This can be achieved first by approximating the tabulated force coefficients by rational functions of the Laplace variable s and then by transforming the resulting transfer functions to the time domain. Hanel and K. Weights are used to improve data fitting for selected elements at specific frequencies. The elements of the matrices D. Instead. H. To realize a time domain simulation model. where The diagonal matrix R in equation (13) is used to define the aerodynamic lag states. While the lag states are a common feature of all rational function approximations. .
while the ram drag depends on the local flow condition. an interpolation scheme based on third-order Hermite polynomials and the (evidently false) assumption of zero tangent at the Mach grids is used. the thrust vector moves with the powerplant during vibrations. Therefore. where the vector representing the aerodynamic lag states is introduced. A time-domain representation of the aerodynamic forces. the simulation of a flight trajectory. With an approximation of induced drag in place. the coupled flight mechanics and aeroelastic equation can finally be described as . it is possible to complete the translational equation of motion in the body-fixed x-direction by adding thrust and ram drag. the thrust forces can be described by where denotes the thrust forces at the trim condition. requires an interpolation between different sets of matrices.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 163 From the transfer function matrix in equation (13). For the scheduling. E (R is assumed constant) scheduled with Mach number is given in equations (15)-(16). After summing up the forces of the powerplants and generalizing. In a flexible aircraft. a time domain state-space representation can be derived by changing from to s (the unscaled Laplace variable) and then applying the inverse Laplace transform. and denotes the thrust forces due to changes in the throttle position (throttle position vector In stability axes. when the Mach number changes. and denote the linearized thrust forces depending on aircraft motion and deformation. It should be remembered though that both the aerodynamic coefficient matrix and the set of approximation matrices resulting form the minimum-state method are valid for only a single Mach number and trim condition. with coefficient matrices D.
see e. M is the generalized mass matrix. Hanel and K. and elevator. The cruise condition is set at a speed of Mach 0.86 and an altitude of 30000ft. and correspondingly Mach number and dynamic pressure) and the load condition (tank loading. rudder. see Table 1. is the generalized stiffness matrix. Three additional flight and load conditions are chosen for detailed analysis. is the gravitational acceleration. a heavy four-engine transport aircraft is chosen as an example. H is a generalized matrix that contains the Coriolis terms due to the moving coordinate system. they allow us to develop an understanding of the basic phenomena related to changes in the flight condition (speed. altitude. Ref. changing mass. is a transformation matrix from geodetic coordinates to stability axes. For a detailed derivation of these equations. H. and e. 4. Analysis of the Aircraft Dynamics In this paper.164 M. Flight condition 1 represents the cruise condition and is chosen . is the control input consisting of the inner ailerons and outer ailerons. B is the input matrix obtained from a partitioning of the doublet lattice matrix. and has been described above. 3.g. moments of inertia. Well Here. Although they represent only a small part of the flight envelope. position).g.
It is the most challenging from an aeroelastic point of view. In order to analyze the dynamic response of the flexible structure as a function of various input signals. The analysis is based on individual single-input-single-output (SISO) transfer functions. In the 1-10 Hz frequency range however. Figure 1 shows the transfer functions from elevator deflection on cockpit vertical acceleration. at the center and aft fuselage positions. The main results are discussed using only a limited number of transfer functions from the longitudinal motion. the aircraft response is dominated by weakly damped elastic modes. measurements at the cockpit. For the example aircraft. Higher-frequency . Flight conditions 2 and 3 are encountered during climb and flight condition 4 is encountered during descent. Fig. 2 shows the transfer function from symmetric inner aileron deflection on midwing vertical acceleration. and at the engines are chosen. the frequency responses are investigated. especially wing bending.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 165 as the control design flight condition. engine and fuselage modes. on the wing. The rigid-body modes (phugoid and short period mode) can be identified easily in the low-frequency domain.
it can be concluded that the control bandwidth for a flight mechanics stability augmentation system that does not affect aeroelastics must not exceed 1Hz. It is less severe for an integrated flight and aeroelastic control law. H. From the gain amplitudes in the aeroelastic frequency range. The load distribution (fuel and payload) influences strongly the dynamic behavior of the elastic structure and consequently the aeroelastic . Comparing the two transfer functions of the longitudinal motion. But even then. For the given configuration. Well modes also have considerable influence. a steep descent to cut off those elastic modes that are to remain unaffected by the control law is required. while the outer engine vertical vibration mode (coupled with the wing torsion) interacts with the first fuselage bending mode and can be measured over all of the aircraft.166 M. Hanel and K. but are more difficult to identify on the basis of these transfer functions. the outer engine vertical vibration mode (together with the fuselage bending) is the most critical with respect to flutter. it can be noticed that the first (symmetric) wing bending mode is not perceived in the cockpit but dominates the response at the wing. This restriction limits severely the achievable handling qualities.
the analysis described in this paper is concentrated on the highload cases. Therefore. With mass and moments of inertia reduced. strong changes in the damping (maximum amplitudes) and phase response are also observed. the curves represent the basic lowfrequency response felt by the pilot and the passengers and targeted by the flight and aeroelastic control effort. The input signals used for the simulations shown subsequently have been designed not to contain frequencies beyond about 5 Hz and could be reproduced by a pilot. As expected. the low-fuel configuration (000-70) turns out to be the least critical with respect to aeroelastics. While changes in the elastic mode shapes and frequencies are not unexpected (wing bending frequency should increase with fuel consumption). Figure 4 shows the time response to the same elevator pulse for different flight conditions. It can be seen that the amplitude varies differently with the flight condition for the pitch rate and cockpit vertical . Figure 3 shows the frequency response for three different load conditions (IE0-70. comparatively more control power is available.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 167 coupling. Therefore. IET-70 and 000-70) at constant flight condition. time responses are of interest for an assessment of the aircraft handling qualities and for developing a physical understanding of the accelerations and the level of vibration experienced by the pilot and the passengers. Although frequency responses are the preferred means of analysis.
As a consequence. The acceleration response at different positions of the structure is dominated by the fuselage bending and outer engine mode vibrations. Figure 5 compares the frequency responses of these models to the response of the nominal model. This is due to the fact that. . Well acceleration. a larger angle of attack is required to generate the same amount of lift and consequently vertical acceleration. at lower speed. Hanel and K. it is interesting to investigate the influence of the frequency neighborhood between rigid-body motion and aeroelastic modes on aeroelastic coupling. H. two state-space models for the example aircraft in cruise flight have been generated with stiffness changed to 50% and 200% of the nominal value. integrated models for flight mechanics and aeroelastics were deemed necessary.168 M. It has been argued above that aeroelastic coupling would increase as rigid-body motion and aeroelastic modes get closer in frequency. As said before. This relationship should be kept in mind for control design. an integrated flight and aeroelastic control law is envisaged in this paper. coupling between these two modes is strong and intensifies with increasing speed and dynamic pressure. further. To that end. In this context.
Due to the lag states. this would be controllable easily by a pilot. All elastic modes are close to the imaginary axis. The rigid-body mode frequencies are also strongly affected by the elastic stiffness. the pole positions loose some significance. with phugoid frequency decreasing and short-period frequency increasing with the stiffness. The short period mode is rather well damped. For the aircraft model with reduced stiffness. as the frequency and damping of the aeroelastic modes are not determined uniquely by the dominant (2nd order) poles. its frequency is about one fourth of the frequency of the lowest elastic mode. that is. Table 2 contains the modes of a reference aircraft for One can see easily that the phugoid is unstable. As could be expected. .Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 169 It can be seen that aeroelastic coupling indeed increases with decreasing stiffness and vice versa. the frequency response of the stiffer aircraft tends toward the response of the models with fewer or no elastic modes. which is the first wing bending mode. they have low damping. which are used to approximate the aeroelastic phase lags. Due to the long period of approximately five minutes. damping of the fuselage bending and outer engine vertical vibration modes is lower than for the nominal model and coupling between short-period motion and wing bending is significant (see the change in the phase response). however.
170 M. This controller may be a flight path angle controller. or an altitude hold controller. Hanel and K. Well 4. Controller Design As mentioned above. or a speed hold controller. a C* command is the reference command for the inner loop with . the controller design of the outer loop is not considered. Here. H.
6 and is compared to a commanded value The design goals are: (i) to stabilize the phugoid and to increase the damping of the short period mode. see Table 1. the function is computed in the feedback loop in Fig. if possible without scheduling the controller. (iii) to increase the damping of the aeroelastic modes up to about four Hz. This function is commonly used to specify the flying qualities of an aircraft. The state vector is defined as Here. In addition. with the structural motion.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 171 where is position of the pilot with respect to the center of gravity. Figure 6 shows a possible architecture for the inner-loop control. the other variables are explained below. (ii) to reduce structural vibrations as well as to increase passenger comfort. here operating point 1. For the control system design. and are the lag . At the core of the model is the state space system describing the linearized equations of motion at a particular operating point. are associated with the rigid-body motion. it is required that the closed-loop system is robust with respect to various operating points. The time history of C* is supposed to be between the lower and upper time history bounds.
and the lateral accelerations of the inner and outer engines. It is assumed that the following measurements are available: where the first two components are attitude. H. Stability Augmentation. Considerable vibrations with low . Hanel and K. the design goal (i) can be achieved. in front of the controller. 4. the third component is the acceleration at the center of mass.172 M. the acceleration at the winglets. like in conventional SAS controllers. The matrices A. the output signals are recorded. C* is fedback. The low-pass filter 1 avoids the excitation of the elastic modes. If one disregards the aeroelastic behavior in the control system design. there is a low-pass filter which filters out any higher-frequency signals which the controller might produce. These measurements can be used for the control system design. the following components are the vertical accelerations at the forward fuselage. The box entitled “test signals” generates perturbations while simulating the CLS. but there is no artificial damping. Between the controller.5 degrees magnitude after four seconds.1. B. Figure 7 shows the time responses due to a reference input of the commanded C* satisfying certain flying quality criteria and due to an impulsive perturbation of the inner ailerons of 3. which can be used with low authority for longitudinal control. In the order of appearance. D in Fig. there is a measurement box which selects those output signals to be fedback to the controller. the midwing acceleration at the wings. With this signal. the actuator signals are recorded in the simulation of the closed-loop system (CLS). 6 are the results of the linearization process. attitude rate at the center of mass. On top of the figure. Well states. there is an additional low-pass filter which filters out any high frequency commands in Below the plant dynamics box. C. at the rear fuselage. The aircraft is controlled by where the components are the elevator and the inner and outer symmetric ailerons. on the right side of the figure.
Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft
damping in the cockpit and at the outer engines are observed. In practice, this would not be tolerable and a separate aeroelastic controller could be designed which improves the damping of the elastic modes. This simple SAS controller is used in the sequel as a reference in order to quantify the improvements which advanced control design methods may offer. 4.2. Integral Controller Using Output Feedback. In addition to the elevator, symmetric inner and outer ailerons are used as actuators. Furthermore, all or some of the available output signals are fedback. Then, the control design problems is formulated as a quadratic output feedback control problem in which the cost functional
M. Hanel and K. H. Well
is minimized with respect to the elements of the gain matrix K. The choice of the constant weighting matrices Q,R determines the quality of the resulting feedback law,
In Fig. 8, this integral controller shows an improved time response for the flexible motion of the aircraft (solid lines) in comparison to the reference controller (dashed lines). In Fig. 9, it can be seen that the damping increases for all poles. The open-loop modes presented in Table 2 represent the dynamics of a typical four-engine aircraft. Thus, the multivariable control system design achieves goals (i) and (ii). Concerning the third goal, it is stated without additional results that robustness with respect to varying operating points cannot be achieved without some scheduling for the gain matrix K.
4.3. Integral, Robust Controller Using the Control Design Method. The advantages of the previous design methods are a clear structure with a unique assignment of dynamic elements (filters,
Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft
integrators, sensors) to particular tasks. This makes it possible to define structured redundancy concepts for those cases where for instance sensors or actuators degrade. The disadvantage of these methods is their lack of robustness. To compensate the deficiency observed in the output feedback design, the design method considers modifications of the nominal plant in the design process; that is, error models for various dynamic components of the system are defined and considered in the design process. In addition, nonmeasured states are estimated through an observer. The design goals are defined in terms of the norm of particular transfer functions of the closed-loop system. This norm is a metric of all gains as a function of the frequency. For the transfer function from to C *, for instance, one could demand that the closed-loop system should perform like a second-order system with the transfer function Then, the requirement in terms of the controller is formulated as
the modeling errors can be formulated. then the criterion should be with a specified weight. If all the design goals are formulated in this way. H. s being the Laplace variable.176 M. The approach can be extended to multivariable problems.g. This approach has been used here and details about the design procedure are given in Ref. Figure 10 shows the time histories for the same . 12. Well with respect to the controller contained in I is 1 in the scalar case and an appropriately dimensioned identity matrix in a multivariable case. 4. In a similar way. Alternatively. Hanel and K. should the influence of a gust with gust velocity on the pitch rate q be minimized. which minimizes the infinity norm of a transfer matrix describing the influence of the external inputs on the external output z. see e. then the design task consists of finding a controller K(s). Ref. The transfer matrix can be viewed as a frequency dependent weighting function.
the same controller is used for simulating unit step responses in C* with a perturbation after 4 sec at the inner ailerons. which the reference controller did not have. is the flight path inclination. like in the output feedback controller design. The variables shown are defined in equation (20). Here.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 177 variables as presented in Fig. . It is rather difficult to increase the damping of the engine modes. The aircraft response is quite similar for all flight conditions shown and the elastic mode damping is satisfactory. Figure 12 (in two parts) demonstrates that the controller is robust indeed. 8. It can be observed that the robust controller shows actuator activity at the inner and outer ailerons. Figure 11 shows the pole migration. It can be observed that damping is increased for all modes.
178 M. H. Well . Hanel and K.
5. pitch rate.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 179 5. which can only be improved marginally through the control system. in the y-direction of the lateral aircraft axis. Robust Flight and Aeroelastic Control System Design for a Large Transport Aircraft. 1997. it has been shown that an integral controller can achieve desired flying qualities as well as dampen the elastic vibrations considerably. M. Scottsdale. 775-783.. Flugregelung und aktive Schwingungsdämpfung für flexible Großraumflugzeuge. 3. HANEL. Germany. Navigation and Control Conference... This is achieved by feeding back to the control system not only pitch attitude. and vertical acceleration at the center of gravity. Conclusions Based on an integral model describing the dynamic behavior of the rigid motion as well as the elastic motion of a flexible aircraft. University of Stuttgart. Universität Stuttgart. 1999. Ottawa. Strasbourg.3630. Stuttgart. 2000.. SEYFFARTH... F. various accelerations measured at certain positions of the aircraft. et al. P. but in addition. . Flight Control Law Synthesis for a Flexible Aircraft. and LIVET. 4. M. NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO). Arizona. TEUFEL. Specialist Meeting on Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control. 2. The least damped eigenmode is a symmetric vibration of both the outer engines.. KUBICA. J. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. Comfort in Turbulence for a Large Civil Transport Aircraft.. 1994. Dissertation. France. HANEL.. Dissertation. Paper AIAA 94 . and WELL. Germany. K. Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics. Canada. References 1. T. K. Integrated Flight Mechanics and Aeroelastic Modelling and Control of a Flexible Aircraft Considering Multidimensional Gust Input. SCHULER. 1993. pp. H.
1996. MOORE. pp. John Wiley and Sons. 10. 1190-1196. 7. et al. 1.. J. B. pp.. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 12. H. No. Vol. . K ARPEL. E.. No. L. pp. A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity. 17-32. No. STEVENS. No. C. 1983. AIAA Journal. New York. E. Observability and Model Reduction.. Journal of Aircraft. 9. Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems: Controllability. and S TRUL... 1989... F.. A Doublet-Lattice Method for Calculating Lift Distributions on Oscillating Surfaces in Subsonic Flows. K. 2.. 11. Dordrecht. Vertical Flight Path and Speed Control Autopilot Design Using Total Energy Principles. pp. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. DOWELL. 8. K HARGONEKAR . G LOVER .180 M. 6. 831-847. 1995. LAMBREGTS. P. M. E. State-Space Solutions to Standard and Control Problems. Vol. Aircraft Control and Simulation. and RODDEN W. 34. 279 – 285. D OYLE . 1969.. L. and LEWIS. Hanel and K. H. and FRANCIS. 1981. ALBANO. A. Minimum-State Unsteady Aerodynamic Approximations with Flexible Constraints. 26. B. 8... 33. 1992. Vol. Vol. Well 6. 7. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. Paper AIAA 83-2239. Holland. B.. NY.
105 Ascent trajectories. 31 Manual flight path control. 31. 31. 131 Earth-to-Mars missions. 1. 1 Sequential gradient-restoration algorithm. 65 Asymptotic parallelism property. 65 Moon-Earth flight. 31. 65 Earth-Moon flight. 65 Optimization. 1 Perspective flight path display. 1.General Index Aeroservoelasticity. 31. 65 Rocket-powered spacecraft. 65 Suborbital spacecraft. 1. 105 Round-trip Mars missions. 31. 105 Trajectory optimization. 1 Astrodynamics. 1. 65. 65 Celestial mechanics. 31. 65 Orbital spacecraft. 31 Earth-Moon-Earth flight. 105 Mirror property. 105 Launch vehicles. 66 Flight path predictor. 131 Lunar trajectories. 31. 1. 1. 31 Optimal trajectories. 155 Flight mechanics. 1 Synthetic vision. 31 Flexible aircraft. 131 181 . 155 Aircraft guidance. 155 Flight control. 65 Concurrent engineering.
31 perspective flight path display. 111–113 Drag. 65 Moon mission. 69. 136–139 mass models for engine and tank sizing. 157–159 Flight path control. 116–121 results of simulation experiments. controller design Flight path predictor. 152 mathematical model of rocket vehicle equations of motion. 133–136 trajectory optimization problem. 143–146 reference vehicle. 84 integration scheme. types. 86–88. 156–157. 83. 26 Earth coordinate system (ECS). 67 Flexible aircraft. 86–90.Subject Index Aeroservoelasticity. 111–113 Guidance display. 48–52. 93 near-mirror property. modeling Aircraft. 170–172 integral controller using control. 67 Design controller for a flexible aircraft. 146 initial guess. 105. 76–77 characteristic velocity. 156. and objectives. arrival. 86–88. 125–127 basic concept. 164–169. 84–85 coordinate transformation. 66. 157 stability augmentation. 32 Manual control. 15 experimental guidance system. 156. 105 rocket-powered orbital spacecraft. 98 Low Earth orbit (LEO) data. 116–118. 86 delay time. 67 183 . 1 two-stage launch vehicle. 77–78 return trip. 132. 132–136. 90–92. 79–80 delay time. 2 ASTOS software. 24. 31. 70–71. see also Guidance display Mars coordinate system (MCS). 35–36. flexible: see Flexible aircraft Aircraft guidance: see Guidance display Ascent trajectories. 92. see also Guidance display Global positioning system. 36. see also Flexible aircraft. 82. 92 Launch vehicles. 172–173 state space description. 93 Low Mars orbit (LMO) data. 174–178 integral controller using output feedback. 40–44 arrival conditions. 94–97 waiting time. 116–127. 37–39 departure conditions. 39 Earth-to-Mars missions: see Mars missions Exploratory Mars missions. 139–141 multiphase optimal control problem. 36–37 optimization problem. 107–112 flight test results. 159–161 analysis of aircraft dynamics. 161–164 structural dynamics. 146–149 optimal solutions. 82. 85–86 Low Moon orbit (LMO). 94 mission alternatives. 80 mirror property. 53–62 Earth-Moon flight. 70–71. 142–143 target and intermediate conditions. 93 boundary conditions outgoing trip. 65. 93–94 outgoing trip. 105 Mars mission. 51. 33. 131 Differential global positioning system (DGPS). 83–84 four-body model. 146 Astrodynamics. 75–77 Mars missions. 74–75 return trip. 45–46 Low Moon orbit (LMO) data. 36. 90. 69. 112–116 with predictor. three-dimensional. 142 cost function. arrival. departure. 90. 67 computational information algorithm. 143–146 initial conditions. 56–58 Low Mars orbit (LMO). 68 mathematical programming problems. 121–125 Hohmann transfer trajectory. 173–174 modeling aircraft dynamic behavior. 83. 97–99 baseline optimal trajectory results. 45–47. 106–107. 33. 75–76 outgoing trip. departure. 54–62 Lunar trajectories. 164–170 controller design. 179 aerodynamic forces and moments. 40–44. 74–80 Earth-Moon-Earth flight. 90. 94–96 return trip. 45. see also Flexible aircraft. 149–151 Low Earth orbit (LEO).
47–49 trajectories. 2–3. 39. 53 Two-stage orbital spacecraft: see TSTO spacecraft Two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) spacecraft. 21–22 SSTO vs. 32–33. 15–16 weight distribution. 45 arrival conditions. 13–14 computer runs. 32–33. 3–5 SSSO vs. 82–83 system description. 5–6 mathematical model. 2. 6. 2. 32–33. 27. 53 Optimization. 7–8 optimization problem. 22–26 Subject Index Rocket-powered orbital spacecraft (continued) specific impulse. 69–71 Earth. 3 Sample taking (sample return) Mars missions. 14 optimization problem. 80–82 patched conics model. 69 return trip. 109–111 Trajectory optimization. 73–74 waiting time. 11–12 optimization problem. 57–58 fixed-time trajectories. 46–47 departure conditions. 2. 12. 116. 26–28 boundary conditions. 11. 13. 53 Patched conics model. 2 Optimal trajectories. 10 zero-payload line. 48. SSTO configurations. 16–17. 26–28 design considerations. 117. 45–46 optimization problem. 12–13. 172–173 Suborbital spacecraft: see SSSO spacecraft Sun coordinate system (SCS). 33–34 Multi-stage-to-orbit (MSTO) spacecraft. 21 Stability augmentation systems (SAS). 72–73 spacecraft. 10 computer runs. 67 Predictor-aircraft transfer function. 67 outgoing trip. 8–9 Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. 71–72 Mars. 79–80 Survey missions to Mars. 70–74. 27 inequality constraints. see also Guidance display Terrain elevation modeling. 2. 119–120 Robotic Mars missions. 57–58 system description. 19–21 . 7. 83 Moon-Earth flight. 106–107. 58–62. 68–69 Perspective flight path display. 26. 21 structural factor. TSTO configurations. 24.184 Mars missions (continued) optimal trajectories. 2. 67 Sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA). 34–35 feasibility problem. 21 system description. see also EarthMoon flight differential system. 67 Rocket-powered orbital spacecraft. 27–28 boundary conditions. 10–11 weight distribution. 116–117 Planned Mars missions. 16–21 interface conditions. 6–7 computer runs. 2. 28 boundary conditions. 10. 32–33. 67 Synthetic vision. 7 weight distribution. see also Guidance display Pilot-predictor-aircraft crossover. 14–15 zero-payload line. 21 drag effects. 156. 16. 85–86 restricted four-body model. 68–69 planetary and mission data. 48–52 Moon missions. 107. 84 Single-stage orbital spacecraft: see SSTO spacecraft Single-stage-suborbital (SSSO) spacecraft. 7 zero-payload line.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.