This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Advanced Design Problems in Aerospace Engineering

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

Edited by

Angelo Miele

Rice University Houston, Texas

and

Aldo Frediani

University of Pisa Pisa, Italy

**KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
**

NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW

Boston. Dordrecht.com . London.eBook ISBN: Print ISBN: 0-306-48637-7 0-306-48463-3 ©2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York. 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.kluweronline. recording.com http://ebooks. 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. mechanical. electronic.

2629 HS Delft. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. 00146 Rome. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. 2629 HS Delft. Department of Aerospace Engineering. A. Agusta Corporation. Italy. France. Netherlands. Netherlands. England. P. v . De Jong. Hinrichsen. M. T. 31707 Blagnac. Aerospace Design Group. Alli. Frediani. Varese. Cranfield. Cranfield University. Bedforshire MK43 OAL. Delft University of Technology. Varese. 1 Round Point Maurice Bellonte. Chiarelli. University of Pisa. Agusta Corporation. Fielding. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Department of Aerospace Engineering. Italy. Italy. Italy. University of Stuttgart. 70550 Stuttgart. A. Cranfield College of Aeronautics. G.Contributors P. Germany. Italy M. Delft University of Technology. Caramaschi. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. University of Pisa. J. Beukers. 56100 Pisa. University of Rome-3. 56100 Pisa. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Hanel. Bernardini. V. Airbus Industries. I.

DAR Corporation.H. Italy. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Lawrence. Nannoni. Agusta Corporation. Well. Italy. Rice University. Germany. Italy. 00146 Rome. Delft University of Technology. 56100 Pisa. Italy. Texas 77005-1892. G. H. USA. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. S. M. 85747 Garching. Varese. Italy. USA. Aerospace Design Group. 2629 HS Delft. Rice University. Houston. Smith. A. Agusta Corporation. Bedforshire MK43 OAL. Mancuso. Krakers. University of Pisa. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. Roskam. 21017 Cascina di Samarate. Netherlands. University of Rome-3. Troiani. 56100 Pisa. A. Morino. University of Stuttgart. Cranfield College of Aeronautics. Texas 77005-1892. 2201 AZ Nordwijk. E. 120 East 9th Street. England. Germany. L. Varese. G. Department of Aerospace Engineering. A. Van Tooren. M. ESA-ESTEC Laboratory. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. Raggi. Longhi. Department of Aerospace Engineering.vi Contributors L. Aero-Astronautics Group. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Miele. 56100 Pisa. Cranfield University. F. Aero-Astronautics Group. University of Pisa. 2629 HS Delft. K. Kansas 66044. Houston. Wang. Sachs. USA. T.J. 70550 Stuttgart. Netherlands. Delft University of Technology. Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Cranfield. Italy. University of Pisa. J. Netherlands. Department of Aerospace Engineering.L. . Technical University of Munich. Montanari.

Preface

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.

vii

viii

Preface

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

Preface

ix

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.

Frediani University of Pisa Pisa. USA A. Miele Rice University Houston. the Workshop Directors express their thanks to Professors Franco Giannessi and Antonino Zichichi for their contributions. Texas. Italy .x Preface In closing. A.

Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft A. Miele and S.Contents 1. Mancuso 2. Sachs 5. Design of Moon Missions A. Miele and T. Well 6. Miele and S. Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft M. Hanel and K. Design and Test of an Experimental Guidance System with a Perspective Flight Path Display G. Design of Mars Missions A. Mancuso 3. Wang 4. H. H. Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle K. Well 1 31 65 105 131 155 Index 181 xi .

Nordwijk. On the other hand. 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. Netherlands.1 Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft1 A. Guidance. Navigation. (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. MANCUSO3 Abstract. 2201 AZ. Research Professor and Foyt Professor Emeritus of Engineering. the feasibility of single-stage-suborbital (SSSO). and Control Engineer. not only TSTO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. USA. Normalized payload weights are computed and used to assess feasibility. MIELE2 AND S. which might be beyond the present state of the art. and two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) rocket-powered spacecraft is investigated using optimal control theory. but a TSTO spacecraft is considerably superior to a SSTO spacecraft in terms of payload weight. Aerospace Sciences. 1 . and Mathematical Sciences. Rice University. European Space Technology and Research Center. SSTO feasibility is guaranteed for only certain parameter combinations. the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. Texas 77005-1892. Houston. single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO). Aero-Astronautics Group. Ascent trajectories are optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. 1-4. In this paper.

Flight mechanics. The zeropayload lines are of considerable help to the designer in assessing the feasibility of a given spacecraft. SGRA has the major property of being a robust algorithm. exemplified by the Venture Star spacecraft. and it has been employed with success to solve a wide variety of aerospace problems (Refs. exemplified by the Space Shuttle and Ariane threestage spacecraft. 8-10). 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. with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. 11). Miele and S. Realistic constraints are imposed on tangential acceleration. Mancuso a significant effect on payload weight and feasibility. Within the above frame. and a TSTO configuration. orbital spacecraft. . optimal trajectories. suborbital spacecraft. Key Words. In light of (i) to (iii). (iii) on the other hand. and then land horizontally. 11-16) including interplanetary trajectories (Ref. Introduction After more than thirty years of development of multi-stage-to-orbit (MSTO) spacecraft. this paper investigates via optimal control theory the feasibility of three different configurations: a SSSO configuration. 1. rocket-powered spacecraft. reach given suborbital altitude and speed.2 A. Ascent trajectories are optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. a SSTO configuration. 1-7). Refs. ascent trajectories. The first step toward the latter goal is the development of a single-stage-suborbital (SSSO) rocket-powered spacecraft which must take-off vertically. nearly-universal zero-payload lines can be constructed separating the feasibility region (positive payload) from the unfeasibility region (negative payload). the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. and heating rate. The optimization is done employing the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm for optimal control problems (SGRA. exemplified by the X-33 spacecraft. aerodynamic improvements via drag reduction have a relatively minor effect on payload weight and feasibility. dynamic pressure. developed and perfected by the Aero-Astronautics Group of Rice University over the years.

Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 3 flight in windshear (Refs. In Section 3. 2. hence. velocity V. (A2) the Earth rotation is neglected. In Section 4. the following assumptions are employed: (A1) the flight takes place in a vertical plane over a spherical Earth. In Sections 5. the thrust angle of attack is the same as the aerodynamic angle of attack. (A4) the thrust is directed along the spacecraft reference line. and aeroassisted orbital transfer (Refs. (A5) the spacecraft is controlled via the angle of attack and power setting. aerospace plane trajectories (Ref. 14). we present the system description. With the above assumptions. 12-13). the motion of the spacecraft is described by the following differential system for the altitude h. Mathematical Model. In Section 2. Finally. 2. Section 7 contains the conclusions. System Description For all the configurations being studied. Section 6 contains design considerations pointing out the areas of potential improvements. flight path angle and reference weight W (Ref. 17): in which the dot denotes derivative with respect to the time t. we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the TSTO configuration.1. we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the SSSO configuration. . we formulate the optimization problem and give results for the SSTO configuration. 15-16). (A3) the gravitational field is central and obeys the inverse square law. Here.

the reference weight is proportional to the instantaneous mass. local acceleration of gravity g. reference weight W. The aerodynamic forces are given by where is the drag coefficient.4 A. S a reference surface area. the lift coefficient. the following expressions are assumed for the thrust and specific impulse: where is the power setting. by definition. drag D. Note that. Miele and S. 1-4. the exit velocity of the gases. radial distance r. 18). The functions and used in this paper are described in Refs. and the air density (Ref. The quantities on the right-hand side of (1) are the thrust T. Mancuso where is the final time. For the rocket powerplant under consideration. the Earth gravitational constant. and m the instantaneous mass. a reference thrust (thrust for and . the following relations hold: where is the Earth radius. Disregarding the dependence on the Reynolds number. the aerodynamic coefficients can be represented in terms of the angle of attack and the Mach number where a is the speed of sound. lift L. sea-level acceleration of gravity angle of attack and engine specific impulse In addition.

The fact that and are assumed to be constant means that the weak dependence of T and on altitude and Mach number. is disregarded within the present feasibility study. The atmospheric model used is the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere (Ref. the values of the density are tabulated at discrete altitudes. Inequality Constraints. Note that (6a) involves directly both the state and the control. Concerning (6c).Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 5 a reference specific impulse.2. 18). relevant to a precision study. given controls and and given final time In turn. is a reference velocity. see Refs. 2. In addition. and C is a dimensional constant. W(t) can be computed by forward integration for given initial conditions. on the other hand. some path constraints are imposed on tangential acceleration dynamic pressure q. 1-4. for details. . In this model. 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. is a reference altitude. For intermediate altitudes. and heating rate Q per unit time and unit surface area. V(t). specifically. Inspection of the system (1) in light of (2)-(4) shows that the time history of the state h(t). the controls are subject to the two-sided inequality constraints which must be satisfied everywhere along the interval of integration. 18. (6b) and (6c) involve directly the state and indirectly the control.

3.6 A. Supplementary Data. Miele and S.1. The following data have been used in the numerical experiments: 3. Boundary Conditions. the path constraints (6) are taken into account via penalty functionals. subscript i) and final conditions subscript f) are . Single-Stage Suborbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for SSSO configurations designed to achieve Mach number M= 15 in level flight at h = 76.3. Mancuso In solving the optimization problems.2 km: The values (8) are representative of the X-33 spacecraft. 2. The initial conditions (t = 0. the control constraints (5) are accounted for via trigonometric transformations. On the other hand.

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: . the maximum payload problem can be formulated as follows [see (10c)]: The unknowns include the state variables h.2. the reference weight is the same as the takeoff weight.3. First.4. Weight Distribution. For the SSSO configuration. 3. (9d). control variables 3.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 7 In Eqs. and parameter W. Optimization Problem. 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. Computer Runs. 17): with 3. V.

1 and 4. . Next assume that. (ii) The design of the SSSO configuration is feasible for each of the parameter combinations (12). 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. the structural factor is increased beyond the range (12b). The main comments are that: The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for the values (12b) of the structural factor. (i) Zero-Payload Line. In Fig. 1a.8 A. for a given specific impulse in the range (12a). Miele and S.

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. . the spacecraft would reach a lower final Mach number.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 9 Each increase of causes a corresponding decrease in payload weight. until a limiting value is found such that By repeating this procedure for each specific impulse in the range (12a). it is possible to construct a zero-payload line separating the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). 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. implying a subsequent decrease in range. 1b with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. this is shown in Fig.

since both spacecraft are of the single-stage type. (14d).10 A. Miele and S. Mancuso 4. The initial conditions (t = 0.633 km/s at h = 463 km: The values (13) are representative of the Venture Star spacecraft. Single-Stage Orbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for SSTO configurations designed to achieve orbital speed at Space Station altitude. Boundary Conditions. subscript i) and final conditions subscript f) are In Eqs.3. Relations (10) governing the weight distribution for the SSSO spacecraft are also valid for the SSTO spacecraft. hence V = 7. Weight Distribution. the maximum payload problem can be formulated as follows [see (10c)]: . 4. 4. the reference weight is the same as the takeoff weight.1. 4. Optimization Problem.2 and 4.2.2. in light of Sections 3. For the SSTO configuration.

First. control variables 4. 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. In Fig. Computer Runs. and parameter W. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus . V. 2 and 4.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 11 The unknowns include the state variables h. 2a.4.

Instead. 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. (ii) The design of SSTO configurations might be comfortably feasible. a zero-payload line can be constructed for the SSTO spacecraft. 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. 5. With reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. 2b and separates the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). The main comments are that: (i) The normalized payload weight increases as the engine specific impulse increases and as the spacecraft structural factor decreases. By proceeding along the lines of Section 3.12 A. the zeropayload line is shown in Fig. marginally feasible. Zero-Payload Line.633 km/s at h = 463 km: . or unfeasible. the spacecraft would reach a suborbital speed at the same altitude. depending on the parameter values assumed. Miele and S. Mancuso the specific impulse for the values (16b) of the structural factor.4. hence V = 7. Two-Stage Orbital Spacecraft The following data were considered for TSTO configurations designed to achieve orbital speed at Space Station altitude.

left column. Equations (14). right column. let the subscript 2 denote Stage 2. equations (14). .1. must be understood as initial conditions (t = 0. 5. subscript i) for Stage 1. must be understood as final conditions subscript f) for Stage 2. The maximum payload weight problem was studied first for the case of uniform structural factor. Boundary Conditions.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 13 The values (17) are representative of a hypothetical two-stage version of the Venture Star spacecraft. Let the subscript 1 denote Stage 1. Hence. and then for the case of nonuniform structural factor.

the reference weight is the same as the take-off weight. Miele and S. there is a weight discontinuity due to staging. this induces a thrust discontinuity due to the requirement that the tangential acceleration be kept unchanged. structural weight.14 A. (18d). Mancuso In Eqs. Interface Conditions. In turn. Weight Distribution. 5. providing they are rewritten with the subscript 1 for Stage 1 and the subscript 2 for Stage 2. where the tangential acceleration is given by (6a). the relations analogous to (20) are . valid for SSSO and SSTO configurations. the propellant weight. At the interface between Stage 1 and Stage 2. and structural factor via the following relations: with For Stage 2.2. For Stage 1. more precisely [see (20)]. Relations (10). are still valid for the TSTO configuration. and payload weight can be expressed in terms of the initial weight. final weight.

Optimization Problem. 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. For the TSTO configuration. the following relations hold: with 5.3.

for s and the payload of the TSTO configuration (Fig. The total time from takeoff to orbit is 5. 3a. the maximum value of the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the specific impulse for the values (25b) of the structural factor. the TSTO configuration exhibits a much larger payload. 2a). In Fig.4. (i) Zero-Payload Line. With reference to the specific impulse/ structural . 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. Mancuso represent the time lengths of Stage 1 and Stage 2. Miele and S. 2 and 4.16 A. As an example. By proceeding along the lines of Section 3. First. Computer Runs: Uniform Structural Factor. (iii) For those parameter combinations for which the SSTO configuration is feasible. 3a) is about eight times that of the SSTO configuration (Fig. 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.4. a zero-payload line can be constructed for the TSTO spacecraft with uniform structural factor.

3b and separates the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region (above). the zero-payload line is shown in Fig. 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 main comments are that: (iv) For the TSTO spacecraft. with s. Computer Runs: Nonuniform Structural Factor. The maximum payload weight problem (23) was solved again via SGRA for the following combinations of engine specific impulse and spacecraft .Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 17 factor domain.5. 5. (v) For a hypothetical two-stage version of the Venture Star spacecraft. the size of the feasibility region is more than twice that of the SSTO spacecraft.

3 and 4. 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. 4b. 4a. In Fig. the maximum value of the normalized payload .18 A. 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. In Fig.

the zero-payload lines are shown in Fig. these lines separate the feasibility region (below) from the unfeasibility region . 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.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. 4c for the values (26d) of the parameter For each value of k. as the Stage 1 structural factor decreases. 4b). By proceeding along the lines of Section 3. zero-payload lines can be constructed for the TSTO spacecraft with nonuniform structural factor. and as the parameter k decreases. With reference to the specific impulse/ structural factor domain.4. (ii) Even if the Stage 2 structural factor is twice the Stage 1 structural factor (k = 2). hence as the Stage 2 structural factor decreases. the TSTO configuration is feasible. this is true for every value of the specific impulse if or (Fig.

20 A. the size of the feasibility region decreases reducing. Miele and S. to about 55 percent for k =2 and about 35 percent for k = 3. The main comments are that: (iv) As the parameter k increases. . vis-à-vis the size for k = 1. Mancuso (above).

tanks. 6. with reference to the specific impulse/structural factor domain. Design Considerations In Sections 3-5. and reserve margin for emergency. 6.2. and TSTO configurations. 1b. 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. electronics. (vi) As a byproduct of (v). Another concept emerging from Sections 3-4 is that feasibility of the SSSO configuration does not necessarily imply feasibility of the SSTO configuration. SSTO. 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 .1. 2b.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. 3b. and so on. 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. Structural Factor and Specific Impulse. With the above caveat. 4c. an actual design must lie wholly inside the feasibility regions of Figs. 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. let us compare a TSTO configuration with a SSTO configuration for the same payload and the same specific impulse. 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. 6. the maximum payload weight problem was solved for SSSO. The results obtained must be taken “cum grano salis” in that they are nonconservative: they disregard the need of propellant for space maneuvers. reentry maneuvers. and TSTO configurations. This means that. SSSO versus SSTO Configurations.

5b shows that.5 times the SSTO payload. a comparison is meaningful. while the SSTO spacecraft is unfeasible. In short. Fig. Mancuso SSSO configuration performing the task outlined in Section 3. Figures 5a-5d compare SSTO and TSTO configurations for the case where the latter configuration has uniform structural factor. 5c shows that.3. Fig. if the TSTO payload is about 8 times the SSTO payload. if the TSTO payload is about 2. hence. Miele and S. SSTO versus TSTO Configurations. hence. Fig. SSSO and SSTO configurations do not belong to the same ballpark. 5a shows that.05. For the Venture Star spacecraft and s. 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. 6. a comparison is not meaningful. Figure 5d shows the zero-payload lines of SSTO and TSTO . if the TSTO spacecraft is feasible with a normalized payload of about 0.22 A.

Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 23 .

24 A.4. vis-à-vis the SSTO configuration. and so on. making clear that the size of the TSTO feasibility region is about 2. an attractive TSTO design might be a first-stage structure made of only tanks and a second-stage structure made of engines. tanks. Indeed. 2. 6. electronics. and with k = 1. a parametric study has been performed. To assess the influence of the aerodynamic configuration on feasibility. Figures 6a-6b compare SSTO and TSTO configurations for the case where the latter configuration has nonuniform structural factor. Mancuso configurations. Miele and S. Optimal trajectories have been computed again varying the drag by ± 50% . 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. 3. This implies that.5 times the size of the SSTO feasibility region. the TSTO configuration can combine the benefit of higher payload with the benefit of increased safety and reliability.

Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 25 .

while keeping the lift unchanged. 7. or equivalently that the aerodynamic forces do not have a large influence on propellant consumed. only a minor part is spent in overcoming aerodynamic and gravitational effects. Indeed. 7. Miele and S. these results justify having neglected in the analysis drag changes due to staging. where the normalized payload weight is plotted versus the drag factor for the parameters choices (28).26 A. single- . The analysis shows that changing the drag by ± 50 % produces relatively small changes in payload weight. One must conclude that the payload weight is not very sensitive to the aerodynamic model of the spacecraft. increases the drag by 50 %. Conclusions In this paper. yields the drag and lift of the baseline configuration. reduces the drag by 50 %. 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). For TSTO configurations. 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. The following parameter values have been considered: with (28c) indicating that a uniform structural factor is being considered for the TSTO configuration. Clearly. The results are shown in Fig. should an energy balance be made. Mancuso while keeping the lift unchanged. while keeping the lift unchanged. the drag and lift of the spacecraft have been embedded into a one-parameter family of the form where is the drag factor. Namely.

(ii) For the case of uniform structural factor. (iii) For the case of nonuniform structural factor. which might be beyond the present state of the art. the optimization criterion being the maximum payload weight. SSTO feasibility is guaranteed for only certain parameter combinations. The main results are that: SSSO feasibility does not necessarily imply SSTO feasibility: while SSSO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. Ascent trajectories have been optimized for different combinations of spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 27 stage-to-orbit (SSTO). not only TSTO feasibility is guaranteed for all the parameter combinations considered. (i) . but for the same structural factor a TSTO spacecraft is considerably superior to a SSTO spacecraft in terms of payload weight. Normalized payload weights have been computed and used to assess feasibility. 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 two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) rocket-powered spacecraft has been investigated using optimal control theory.

2. MIELE. The zeropayload lines are of considerable help to the designer in assessing the feasibility of a given spacecraft. Aero-Astronautics Report 275. (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.. 1997. Indeed. and MANCUSO. A. Mancuso Indeed.. Rice University. References 1. and MANCUSO.. S. A. an attractive TSTO design might be a first-stage structure made of only tanks and a second-stage structure made of engines. 3. prudence suggests that TSTO spacecraft be given concurrent consideration. MIELE. and so on. S. nearly universal zero-payload lines can be constructed separating the feasibility region (positive payload) from the unfeasibility region (negative payload). although attractive from a practical point of view (complete reusability of the spacecraft). tanks. 1997.28 A. MIELE. the design of SSTO spacecraft. (v) In light of (iv).. Rice University. (c) on the other hand. might be unfeasible depending on the parameter values considered. (vi) In conclusion. and MANCUSO. Rice University. while the design of SSSO spacecraft appears to be feasible. especially if it is not possible to achieve in the near future major improvements in spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. electronics. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for SSTO and TSTO Spacecraft. aerodynamic improvements via drag reduction have a relatively minor effect on payload weight and feasibility.. Miele and S. Aero-Astronautics Report 276. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for a Single-Stage Suborbital Spacecraft. Aero-Astronautics Report 277. Optimal Ascent Trajectories for TSTO Spacecraft: Extensions.. (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. 1997. . A. S.

MIELE. Gamma. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. 119. A. Technical Memorandum 4562. Control. Vol.. S. R. A.K. Primal and Dual Formulations of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Trajectory Optimization Problems. pp. R. No. Vol.. WANG. T. pp. Acta Astronautica. 13. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. V. No. pp. J. D. pp. and Dynamics. A. Vol. and WIHITE.. McCORMICK.. N. B. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. Acta Astronautica. C. S. A. Rice University. 1997. TALAY. A.. 1992. and MANCUSO. R. 1986. FREEMAN.. R. E. Aero-Astronautics Report 278. R. 599-609. 1995. 1986. and McMIMM. A. and WANG. and WANG. SEGRAM: A Practical and Versatile Tool for Spacecraft Trajectory Optimization. T. RISHIKOF.. NASA.. Hypersonic Vehicle Model and Control Law Development Using and Synthesis. MIELE.. pp. T. O. A. Part 1: Basic Problem. W.. Payne et al. Access to Space Study. 13. 1994. STANLEY. 5. pp. Journal of Guidance. S. and Theta .. 21-54. SSTO. and TSTO Spacecraft: Extensions. 577-607.. Acceleration. 6. MIELE. 1-2.. CHOWDHRY. PRITCHARD.Design of Rocket-Powered Orbital Spacecraft 29 4. B. Office of Space Systems Development.. 1994. Vol.. H. T. I. NASA Headquarters. D. GREGORY. 26. Optimization and Acceleration Guidance of Flight Trajectories in a Windshear. Summary Report. 10.. 1986. Washington. Part 2: General Problem.241-249. T. 9. and WANG. 10. J. 4. 491-505. MIELE.. MIELE. MIELE. A. 8.. and SPONAUGLE. 7.. 8-10..368-377. 12. Nos. Nos. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation... Optimal Ascent Trajectories for SSSO. DC. Integral Methods in Science and Engineering. Edited by F. Design Options for Advanced Manned Launch Systems. Vol. D. T. LEPSCH. 8.. ANONYMOUS.. and WANG. and BASAPUR.32.. No. 11. 1987. M. A. N.2.

MIELE. and USAF. Flight Mechanics. Acta Astronautica. Vol. Washigton. and Dynamics. and WU. T. G. Ascent Performance Feasibility of the National Aerospace Plane. 16. 1: Theory of Flight Paths. 1997.. Miele and S. 91-108. LEE. pp. 15. D. Mancuso Guidance for Abort Landing in a Windshear. 19.30 A. Vol. 1976. 14. 747-768. A. No. A. Vol. 10. pp. 1976. 17. 12.. 38. A. and Dynamics. and WANG. US Standard Atmosphere. Journal of Guidance. Massachusetts. NOAA. 815-821. 5. 6. Vol. Recent Advances in the Optimization and Guidance of Aeroassisted Orbital Transfers. DC. 18. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1989.. . 1134-1141. MIELE. MIELE. No. 131. Robust Predictor-Corrector Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer. Control. Reading. No.. Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. Journal of Guidance. 1962. Breakwell Memorial Lecture. The 1st John V. 1996. W.. pp. 1996.. pp. Y.. MIELE A. US Government Printing Office. Chapters 13 and 14. NASA. Control. Vol.

Aerospace Sciences. 31 . 2201 AZ. the optimization problem is solved for given final conditions. Netherlands. Guidance. and velocity impulses at departure and arrival. a further parametric study is performed. Texas 77005-1892. Rice University. For given initial and final conditions. Nordwijk. and Mathematical Sciences. if the prescribed flight time is within one 1 2 Research Professor and Foyt Professor Emeritus of Engineering. MANCUSO2 Abstract. the same problem is studied for the Moon-Earth return flight with the same boundary conditions. MIELE1 AND S.2 Design of Moon Missions A.5 days) is larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. Houston. 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. European Space Technology and Research Center. Then. Navigation. 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. In light of these results. Aero-Astronautics Group. In this paper. USA. For given initial conditions. flight time.5 to 3. The results show that. the transfer problem is solved again for fixed flight time smaller or larger than the optimal time. The results show that the flight time obtained for the optimal trajectories (about 4. corresponding to a counterclockwise circular low Earth orbit at Space Station altitude. a systematic study of the optimization of trajectories for Earth-Moon flight is presented. corresponding to either a clockwise or counterclockwise circular low Moon orbit at different altitudes.2 days). and Control Engineer.

we present in this paper a systematic study of optimal Earth-Moon and Moon-Earth trajectories under the following scenario. 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. optimal trajectories. Mancuso day of the optimal time. optimization. This result extends to optimal trajectories the theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe.r. no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. Key Words. For the 3D case. (i) its image with respect to the Earth-Moon axis is also feasible. To supply an answer to the above question. Earth-Moon flight. Reference 1 establishes a relation between the outgoing/return trajectories. the penalty in characteristic velocity is relatively small. provided it is flown in the opposite sense. we inquire whether the image of an optimal Earth-Moon trajectory w. Earth-MoonEarth flight. 1). It is natural to ask whether the feasibility property implies an optimality property. Namely. The optimization criterion is the total characteristic velocity.t. the parameters being optimized are four: initial phase angle of spacecraft . In particular. within the frame of the restricted three-body problem and the 2D case. the theorem states that. For both the 2D case and the 3D case. the Earth-Moon axis has the property of being an optimal Moon-Earth trajectory. flown in the same sense as the original trajectory. Miele and S. the class of two-impulse trajectories is considered. the senior author developed the theorem of image trajectories in Earth-Moon space within the frame of the restricted three-body problem (Ref. if the flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than two days. For larger time deviations. if a trajectory is feasible in Earth-Moon space. the theorem guarantees the feasibility of two additional images: (ii) the image with respect to the Moon orbital plane. (iii) the image with respect to the plane containing the Earth-Moon axis and orthogonal to the Moon orbital plane. Introduction In 1960. Moon-Earth flight. lunar trajectories. flown in the opposite sense. 1.32 A. astrodyamics.

(A5) the gravitational fields of Earth and Moon are central and obey the inverse square law. References 12-15 investigate the partial or total use of electric propulsion or nuclear propulsion for Earth-Moon flight. 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]. (A3) the flight of the spacecraft takes place in the Moon orbital plane. 1-9. see Ref. because the optimization study reveals that the optimal flight times are considerably larger than the flight times of the Apollo missions. We study the transfer from a low Earth orbit (LEO) to a low Moon orbit (LMO) and back. References 10-11 are general interest papers. with subsequent counterclockwise departure from LMO. Finally. 18. For further details on topics covered in this paper. 2. see Refs. . Concerning LMO. the following assumptions are employed: (A1) the Earth is fixed in space. We note that option (a) has characterized all the flights of the Apollo program. System Description The present study is based on a simplified version of the restricted three-body problem. we look at two options: (a) clockwise arrival to LMO. (A2) the eccentricity of the Moon orbit around Earth is neglected. 16-17. (b) counterclockwise arrival to LMO. (A6) the class of two-impulse trajectories. (A4) the spacecraft is subject to only the gravitational fields of Earth and Moon. More precisely.Design of Moon Missions 33 with respect to either Earth or Moon. is considered. with the understanding that the departure from LEO is counterclockwise and the return to LEO is counterclockwise. see Refs. velocity impulse at arrival. For previous studies related directly or indirectly to the subject under consideration. and we inquire whether option (b) has any merit. 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. with subsequent clockwise departure from LMO. flight time. For the algorithms employed to solve the problems formulated in this paper. with reference to the motion of a spacecraft in Earth-Moon space. velocity impulse at departure.

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. the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis and is directed as the Moon initial inertial velocity. P denote the Earth center. M. the dot superscript denotes derivative with respect to the time t.1. Moon center. The above quantities satisfy the following relations: . and spacecraft. are the Moon inertial coordinates. are the radial distances of the spacecraft from Earth and Moon. With this understanding. the x-axis points toward the Moon initial position. Let the subscripts E. Miele and S. Consider an inertial reference frame Exy contained in the Moon orbital plane: its origin is the Earth center.34 A. with where 0 is the initial time and the final time. Mancuso 2. Differential System.

For the low Earth orbit. is an angular coordinate associated with the Moon position. by definition. the following departure data (outgoing trip) and arrival data (return trip) are used in the numerical computation: . The following data are used in the numerical experiments described in this paper: 2.3. is the radial distance of the Moon center from the Earth center.2. Basic Data. LEO Data.Design of Moon Missions 35 Here. Note that. is the angular velocity of the Moon. 2. more precisely the angle which the vector forms with the x-axis. assumed constant.

(ii) tangential. corresponding to counterclockwise departure from LEO with tangential. 3.36 A. LMO Data. For the low Mars orbit. 3. Departure Conditions. 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. accelerating . the relative-to-Earth coordinates are the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. braking velocity impulse to circular velocity at LMO.4. Mancuso corresponding to The values (5a)-(5b) are the Space Station altitude and corresponding radial distance. Earth-Moon Flight We study the LEO-to-LMO transfer of the spacecraft under the following conditions: (i) tangential. Miele and S. Because of Assumption (A1).1. the values (6c) are the circular velocities at the chosen LMO arrival/departure altitudes. 2. Earth fixed in space. accelerating velocity impulse from circular velocity at LEO. the value (5c) is the circular velocity at the Space Station altitude.

is the spacecraft velocity after application of the tangential velocity impulse. 3.Design of Moon Missions 37 velocity impulse. Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth.2. the departure conditions (t = 0) can be written as follows: or alternatively. 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. Arrival Conditions. where Here. Note that Equation (8c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LEO. is the radius of the low Earth orbit and is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the Earth surface. is the accelerating velocity impulse.

corresponding to clockwise or counterclockwise arrival to LMO with tangential. Mancuso same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. braking velocity impulse.38 A. is the spacecraft velocity . where Here. is the radius of the low Moon orbit and is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the Moon surface. the arrival conditions can be written as follows: or alternatively. Miele and S.

the former point of view is employed here because of its simplicity. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the tangential velocity impulse.3. the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 1. because the problem parameters determine completely the initial conditions. 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). In the mathematical programming formulation. and tangency condition (10)-(11c). meaning 3. For Earth-Moon flight. the upper sign refers to clockwise arrival to LMO. 16). To sum up. the gradients are formed only with respect to the problem parameters. (10c)-(10d). is the braking velocity impulse. it is appropriate to employ the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming problems (Ref. Since we have n = 4 parameters and q = 3 constraints. the lower sign refers to counterclockwise arrival to LMO. . where is the total characteristic velocity. In Eqs. the optimization problem can be formulated as follows: Given the basic data (4) and the terminal data (5)-(6). circularization condition (11b)-(12b). 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.Design of Moon Missions 39 in the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) after application of the tangential velocity impulse. In the particular case. Therefore. Equation (11c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and that the braking velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. 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. Optimization Problem.

the phase angles at departure. Results. and the phase angles at arrival are shown in Table 1 for clockwise LMO arrival and Table 2 for counterclockwise LMO arrival. For the results are shown in Tables 1-2 and Figs.40 A. .4. The major parameters of the problem. the second group is formed by trajectories for which the arrival to LMO is counterclockwise. Miele and S. Mancuso 3. Two groups of optimal trajectories have been computed. The first group is formed by trajectories for which the arrival to LMO is clockwise. 1-2.

Design of Moon Missions 41 .

Mancuso . Miele and S.42 A.

Design of Moon Missions 43 .

18).5 to 3.50 days for clockwise LMO arrival. 1 for clockwise LMO arrival and Fig. decreases as the orbital (ii) the braking velocity impulse altitude over the Moon surface increases (see Ref.37 days for counterclockwise LMO arrival) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. Miele and S. nearEarth space. 4. (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. (iii) for the optimal trajectories. depending on the mission).2 days. (i) . the flight time (4. Mancuso Also for the optimal trajectory in Earth-Moon space. 18). Major comments are as follows: the accelerating velocity impulse is nearly independent of the orbital altitude over the Moon surface (see Ref. 2 for counterclockwise LMO arrival.

Departure Conditions. the departure conditions (t = 0) can be written as follows: or alternatively. accelerating velocity impulse from circular velocity at LMO. corresponding to clockwise or counterclockwise departure from LMO with tangential. braking velocity impulse to circular velocity at LEO.Design of Moon Missions 45 4. (ii) tangential. 4. the relative-to-Moon coordinates are not the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence. Moon-Earth Flight We study the LMO-to-LEO transfer of the spacecraft under the following conditions: (i) tangential. where .1. Because Moon is moving with respect to Earth. accelerating velocity impulse.

4. . the arrival conditions can be written as follows: or alternatively. Equation (15c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the accelerating velocity impulse is tangential to LMO. corresponding to counterclockwise arrival to LEO with tangential. In Eqs.46 A. Miele and S. Mancuso Here. the lower sign refers to counterclockwise departure from LMO. is the spacecraft velocity in the low Moon orbit (circular velocity) before application of the tangential velocity impulse. Because of Assumption (A1). (14c)-(14d). is the accelerating velocity impulse.2. the upper sign refers to clockwise departure from LMO. is the radius of the low Moon orbit and is the altitude of the low Moon orbit over the Moon surface. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the tangential velocity impulse. Earth fixed in space. braking velocity impulse. Arrival Conditions. the relative-to-Earth coordinates are the same as the inertial coordinates As a consequence.

Note that Equation (18c) is an orthogonality condition for the vectors and meaning that the braking velocity impulse is tangential to LEO. the optimization problem can be formulated as follows: Given the basic data (4) and the terminal data (5)-(6). where is the total characteristic velocity.3. The unknowns include the state variables and the parameters Similarly to what is stated in Section 3. Optimization Problem. is the braking velocity impulse. . 4. 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 spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit (circular velocity) after application of the tangential velocity impulse. For Moon-Earth flight.3. is the radius of the low Earth orbit and is the altitude of the low Earth orbit over the Earth surface.Design of Moon Missions 47 where Here. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the tangential velocity impulse.

Mancuso circularization condition (18b)-(19b). Results. 16). it is appropriate to employ the sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) for mathematical programming problems (Ref. The results are presented in Tables 3-4 and Figs. Miele and S. Once more.4. so that the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 1. Therefore.48 A. 3-4. Also for the optimal . The first group is formed by trajectories for which the departure from LMO is clockwise. Two groups of optimal trajectories have been computed. the second group is formed by trajectories for which the departure from LMO is counterclockwise. For the major parameters of the problem. 4. the phase angles at departure. and tangency condition (17)-(18c). and the phase angles at arrival are shown in Table 3 for clockwise LMO departure and Table 4 for counterclockwise LMO departure. we have n = 4 parameters and q = 3 constraints.

(i) . 18). 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. 18). (ii) the braking velocity impulse is nearly independent of the orbital altitude over the Moon surface (see Ref.50 days for clockwise LMO departure.2 days. (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. 3 for clockwise LMO departure and Fig.Design of Moon Missions 49 trajectory in Moon-Earth space. 4.5 to 3. and near-Earth space is shown in Fig. 4 for counterclockwise LMO departure. near-Moon space. (iii) for the optimal trajectories. the flight time (4.37 days for counterclockwise LMO departure) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2.

Mancuso .50 A. Miele and S.

Design of Moon Missions 51 .

Miele and S.52 A. Mancuso .

which were plotted in Figs. is the angle which the vector forms with the rotating Earth-Moon axis. consistently with the predictions of the theorem of the image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. For these paired points. in particular Tables 1-2 and Tables 3-4. 1). two kinds of phase angles are reported: for the phase angles and the reference line is the initial direction of the Earth-Moon axis. To better visualize this result. the following relations hold (see Tables 1-4): showing that. corresponding phase angles are equal in modulus and opposite in sign. the optimal trajectories of Sections 3 and 4. the coincides with the instantaneous Earth-Moon axis and is directed from Earth to Moon. for the phase angles and the reference line is the instantaneous direction of the Earth-Moon axis. the is perpendicular to the and is directed as the Moon inertial velocity. The relations leading from the angles to the angles are given below. for the optimal outgoing/return trajectories and in a rotating coordinate system. while is the angle which the vector forms with the rotating Earth-Moon axis. have been replotted in Figs. Thus. . let the departure point of the outgoing trip be paired with the arrival point of the return trip. In these tables. 5-6 in a rotating coordinate system here. let the departure point of the return trip be paired with the arrival point of the outgoing trip. the origin is the Earth center.Design of Moon Missions 53 5. With the above definitions in mind. Earth-Moon-Earth Flight A very interesting observation can be made by comparing the results obtained in Sections 3 and 4. conversely. 1-4 in an inertial coordinate system E xy.

Mancuso . Miele and S.54 A.

Design of Moon Missions 55 .

Mancuso .56 A. Miele and S.

4. Analogously.50 days for clockwise arrival to LMO. the restoration phase of the algorithm alone yields the solution. the optimal outgoing and return trajectories are shown in Fig.37 days for counterclockwise arrival to LMO) is considerably larger than that of the Apollo missions (2. for an outgoing trajectory and for a return trajectory. 16). 6 in Earth-Moon space.1. and tangency condition. The feasibility problem is now solved for the following LEO and LMO data: . which can be solved for example with the modified quasilinearization algorithm (MQA. for counterclockwise arrival to and departure from LMO. near-Earth space. In light of these results. if SGRA is employed (Ref. 1). namely. Ref. If is fixed. we are no longer in the presence of an optimization problem. and viceversa. 5 in Earth-Moon space. 6. circularization condition. This being the case. the optimal outgoing and return trajectories are shown in Fig. near-Earth space.5 to 3.Design of Moon Missions 57 For clockwise arrival to and departure from LMO. 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. the transfer problem has been solved again for a fixed flight time smaller or larger than the optimal flight time. the number of final conditions is still q = 3. but of a simple feasibility problem. the number of parameters to be optimized reduces to n = 3. and near-Moon space. Alternatively. and near-Moon space. Fixed-Time Trajectories The results of Sections 3 and 4 show that the flight time of an optimal trajectory (4. Feasibility Problem. once more confirming the theorem of image trajectories formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. On the other hand.2 days depending on the mission). 17). namely: the radius condition.

2. (13b) and any of the values (23c). Miele and S. For LEO-to-LMO flight. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe. the outgoing and return trajectories are mirror images of one another with respect to the Earth-Moon axis. The results obtained for LEO-to-LMO flight and LMOto-LEO flight are presented in Tables 5-6. 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.58 A. 6. Results. (ii) if the prescribed flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than one day. the penalty in characteristic velocity is relatively small. for LMO-to-LEO flight. (22b) and any of the values (23c). We study a . no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. the constraints are Eqs. Mancuso and these flight times: For LEO-to-LMO flight. Major comments are as follows: if the prescribed flight time is within one day of the optimal time. thus confirming again the theorem of image trajectories (Ref. (iii) if the prescribed flight time is greater than the optimal time by more than two days. (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. the constraints are Eqs. Table 5 refers to clockwise LMO arrival. (iv) for given flight time. 1). Table 6 refers to clockwise LMO departure.

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). flight time. velocity impulse at departure. 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. Major results for both the outgoing and return trips are as follows: . velocity impulse on arrival.

18). regardless of whether the LMO arrival/departure is clockwise or counterclockwise.60 A. 18). (iv) the optimal trajectories with counterclockwise LMO arrival/departure are slightly superior to the optimal trajectories with clockwise (i) . Miele and S. (ii) the velocity impulse at LMO decreases as the LMO altitude increases (see Ref. Mancuso the velocity impulse at LEO is nearly independent of the LMO altitude (see Ref. (iii) the flight time of an optimal trajectory is considerably larger than that of an Apollo trajectory.

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. 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. (ix) the above result extends to optimal trajectories the theorem of image trajectory formulated by Miele for feasible trajectories in 1960 (Ref. While the present study has been made in inertial coordinates. Major results are as follows: (v) if the prescribed flight time is within one day of the optimal flight time. In light of (iii). (vi) for larger time deviations. no feasible trajectory exists for the given boundary conditions. a further parametric study has been performed for both the outgoing and return trips. The transfer problem has been solved again for a fixed flight time. the penalty in characteristic velocity becomes more severe.Design of Moon Missions 61 LMO arrival/departure in terms of both characteristic velocity and flight time. .

I. DALLAS. Vol. S. General Characteristics of the Launch Window for Orbital Launch to the Moon. 20. pp. 6. A. pp. 391-438. Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics. 225-232. Edited by F. and BOOTON. Moon-to-Earth Trajectories. pp. 27. Analytical and Numerical Studies of Three-Dimensional Trajectories to the Moon. 5. C. 1960. pp.62 A. 8. K. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences. MIELE. 1966. REICH. Mars. pp. 1173-1188. N... and Venus. 3. Theorem of Image Trajectories in the Earth-Moon Space. G. C. Szebehely.. No. H. Vol. . 341-375. 12. 14. Vol. C. Edited by V.. 1963. Miele and S. No. 6. No. Szebehely. Astronautica Acta. MICKELWAIT. Post-Apollo Space Exploration. Vol. Analysis of Flight Trajectories to Moon. Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics. Design of Lunar and Interplanetary Ascent Trajectories. 3. 1966. 207-211. R. No. 1964. 7. Narin. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences. Vol. SHAIKH. A. B. 5. 7. Astronautica Acta. Edited by V. Mancuso References 1.. Vol. A. 1559-1567. pp. pp. 4. 1964. 1960. Vol.. 561-573. 2. A New Perturbation Method for Computing EarthMoon Trajectories. 14. BAZHINOV. AIAA Journal. V. 5.. G. CLARKE..

Design of Moon Missions

63

8.

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.

9.

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-

64

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

1

2

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.

65

Earth-to-Mars missions.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. 1. yet sufficiently realistic to capture some of the essential elements of the flight from Earth to Mars and back (Refs. mirror property. Introduction Several years ago. Wang mission is 11. astrodynamics. this paper deals with the preliminary results obtained with a relatively simple model. sequential gradient restoration algorithm. the near-mirror property no longer holds. For both the outgoing and return trips. round-trip Mars missions. For the departure window trajectories. The return trajectory can be obtained from the outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation. Miele and T. but still holds in the arrival branch. asymptotic parallelism property. 16-19). Flight mechanics. . and inversion. reflection.66 A. optimization. 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. a research program dealing with the optimization and guidance of flight trajectories from Earth to Mars and back was initiated at Rice University. Our feeling was that. 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. hence changing the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. Key Words. Another property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the near-mirror property. Departure window trajectories are next-to-best trajectories. They are suboptimal trajectories obtained by changing the departure date. On the other hand. celestial mechanics.30 km/s (5. 1-15). 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. Accordingly. we should start with simple models and then go to models of increasing complexity. in attacking the Mars problem.

Optimal Trajectories. Characteristic Velocity. Objectives.2. the first objective is to contain the propellant assumption. In turn. it is customary to replace the consideration of propellant consumption with the consideration of characteristic velocity. Under certain conditions. 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 latter being considerably more complex than the former. Types. regardless of whether its action is accelerating or decelerating. while this is not the case with the propellant consumption. there is a basic maneuver which is common to every Mars mission. Regardless of alternative and type. In astrodynamics. we can distinguish two types of missions: exploratory (survey) missions and sample taking (sample return) missions. the propellant consumption is monotonically related to the so-called characteristic velocity. this requires the knowledge of some fundamental. 1. 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. In turn. namely. the second objective is to contain the flight time. trajectories minimizing the characteristic velocity. Indeed. by definition.Design of Mars Missions 67 1. Within each alternative.3.1. with the following advantage: the characteristic velocity is independent of the spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. in-plane or out-of-plane. the characteristic velocity truly “characterizes” the mission itself. For both LEO-to-LMO transfer and LMO-to-LEO transfer. This study is important in that it provides the basis for the development of guidance schemes approximating the optimal trajectories in real time. . This presentation is centered on the study of the optimal trajectories. the transfer of a spacecraft from a low Earth orbit (LEO) to a low Mars orbit (LMO) and back. each velocity impulse is a positive quantity. There are two basic alternatives for Mars missions: robotic missions and manned missions. 1. albeit easily implementable property of the optimal trajectories. namely. the sum of the velocity impulses applied to the spacecraft via rocket engines. Mission Alternatives. if at all possible.

the four bodies being the spacecraft. . for which analytical solutions are available. the spacecraft is subject to the gravitational attractions of Earth. each described in the planar case by four ODEs. Four-Body Model At every point of the trajectory. the four-body problem is replaced by a succession of two-body problems. Under this scenario.1. 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). a deep interplanetary space segment in which Sun gravity is dominant. we are in the presence of a four-body problem. Patched Conics Model. and Sun (Fig. Mars. Mars. Therefore. and Sun. Two possible simplifications are described below.68 A. Miele and T. Wang 2. Assuming that the Sun is fixed in space. a near-Mars segment in which Mars gravity is dominant. This model consists in subdividing an Earth-to-Mars trajectory into three segments: a near-Earth segment in which Earth gravity is dominant. Earth. 2. 1a).

Mars. while avoiding the pitfalls of the patched conics model. this is equivalent to splitting the complete system of order 12 into three subsystems. The first two subsystems can be integrated independently of the third. and reaches tangentially the low Mars orbit [low Earth orbit]. the third subsystem can be integrated once the solutions of the first two are known. Neglecting one of them on each side of the interface induces small local errors in the spacecraft acceleration.2. which in turn induce large errors in velocity and position owing to long integration times. This model consists in assuming that the inertial motions of Earth and Mars are determined only by Sun. Initially. there is a small region in which two of the three gravitational attractions are of the same order. the spacecraft moves in a circular orbit around Earth [Mars]. the segmented solutions must be patched together in such a way that some continuity conditions are satisfied at the interface between contiguous segments. a decelerating velocity impulse is applied tangentially to LMO [LEO] so as to achieve circularization of the motion around Mars [Earth]. Restricted Four-Body Model. each of order four: the Earth. Even though the method of patched conics has been widely used in the literature. Mars. In light of this statement. 2. and its magnitude is such that the spacecraft escapes from near-Earth [near-Mars] space into deep interplanetary space. 3. and let LMO denote a low Mars orbit. Near the interface between contiguous segments. 1b). We study the LEO-to-LMO transfer [LMO-to-LEO transfer] of a spacecraft under the following scenario (Fig. Here. System Description Let LEO denote a low Earth orbit. an accelerating velocity impulse is applied tangentially to LEO [LMO]. while the inertial motion of the spacecraft is determined by Earth. In the planar case. the spacecraft takes a long journey along an interplanetary orbit around the Sun. enters near-Mars [near-Earth] space. we discarded the patched conics model. and Sun. This is the essential simplification provided by the restricted four-body model. Then. replacing it with the restricted four-body model. .Design of Mars Missions 69 Then. our experience with it has been rather disappointing for the reason indicated below. and spacecraft subsystems.

Mars. with the impulses being applied at the terminal points of the trajectories. SCS is an inertial coordinate system. its origin is the Earth center and . implying circular planetary motions. implying planar spacecraft motion. we employ three coordinate systems: Sun coordinate system (SCS). its origin is the Sun center and its axes x. Wang The following hypotheses are employed: (A1) the Sun is fixed in space. the class of two-impulse trajectories is considered. the x -axis points to the initial position of the Earth center and the y-axis is orthogonal to the x -axis. and Mars coordinate system (MCS). (A6) for the outgoing and return trips. and spacecraft with respect to the Sun. (A3) the eccentricity of the Earth and Mars orbits around the Sun is neglected. (A2) Earth and Mars are subject only to the Sun gravity. Miele and T. the relative motions of the spacecraft with respect to Earth and Mars. circularization of motion around the relevant planet is assumed both before departure and after arrival. Earth coordinate system (ECS).70 A. Mars. To study these motions. (A7) for the outgoing and return trips. ECS is a relative-to-Earth coordinate system. we are simultaneously interested in five motions: the inertial motions of Earth. and Sun along the entire trajectory. in particular. Having adopted the restricted four-body model to achieve increased precision with respect to the patched conics model. (A4) the inclination of the Mars orbital plane vis-à-vis the Earth orbital plane is neglected. (A5) the spacecraft is subject to the gravitational attractions of Earth. y are fixed in space.

w. If polar coordinates are used. Clearly. Hence. M. In this paper. let t denote the time.1. S denote the centers of Earth. y of the Sun coordinate system. ECS and MCS translate without rotation w. let denote the gravitational constants of Earth. we approximate the Earth (subscript E) trajectory around the Sun with a circle. in polar coordinates. and Sun. the inertial motions of the spacecraft. while the spacecraft boundary conditions are described in relative-to-planet coordinates. we give the system equations for Earth. Subject to the Sun gravitational attraction and neglecting the orbital eccentricity. MCS is a relative-to-Mars coordinate system.r. see Refs. and Mars are described in Sun coordinates. and Sun. Their origins E and M move around the Sun with constant angular velocities and The angular velocity difference is also constant. y of the Sun coordinate system. with 0 the initial time and the final time. SCS. Mars. for details. Mars. Earth. Mars. and spacecraft in Sun coordinates. Let E. Earth. 3. y and a velocity vector via its components u. a position vector is defined its via components x. 16-19. the position and velocity of Earth are described .t. 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. the position and velocity of Earth are given by (SCS) In Cartesian coordinates.Design of Mars Missions 71 its axes are parallel to the axes x . let P denote the spacecraft. Below. its origin is the Mars center and its axes are parallel to the axes x.

Miele and T. the position and velocity of Mars are given by (SCS) .72 A. in polar coordinates. 3. we approximate the Mars (subscript M) trajectory around the Sun with a circle. Hence. Mars. Subject to the Sun gravitational attraction and neglecting the orbital eccentricity.2. Wang by (SCS) with (SCS) Equation (3c) is an orthogonality condition between vec(SE) and where vec stands for vector.

Spacecraft.Design of Mars Missions 73 In Cartesian coordinates. and Mars along the entire trajectory.3. 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. Earth. 3. 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) . Subject to the gravitational attractions of Sun.

these quantities can be computed via the relations (SCS) 4. Outgoing Trip. Miele and T. the spacecraft conditions at the departure from LEO (time t = 0) are given by (ECS) Relative to Earth are the radial distance. The corresponding equations in Cartesian coordinates are . is the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit prior to application of the tangential. Earth. accelerating velocity impulse. phase angle. and path inclination of the spacecraft. and Mars.1.74 A. velocity. Departure. is the accelerating velocity impulse at LEO. Boundary Conditions 4. is the spacecraft velocity after application of the accelerating velocity impulse. In polar coordinates. Wang Here are the radial distances of the spacecraft from the Sun.

4.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. Arrival.2. velocity. and path inclination of the spacecraft. In polar coordinates. Outgoing Trip. phase angle. the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LMO are given by (MCS) Relative to Mars are the radial distance. is the spacecraft .

Return Trip. In polar coordinates. Departure. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the decelerating velocity impulse. 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. Miele and T. decelerating velocity impulse.3. and is 4. the spacecraft conditions at the departure from LMO (time t = 0) are given by (MCS) .76 A. Wang velocity in the low Mars orbit after application of the tangential. is the decelerating velocity impulse at LMO.

Eqs. Arrival.Design of Mars Missions 77 Formally. Return Trip.4. (12) by simply replacing the time with the time t = 0. 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. 4. In polar coordinates. accelerating velocity impulse. the spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LEO are given by (ECS) . is the spacecraft velocity after application of the accelerating velocity impulse. However. is the accelerating velocity impulse at LMO. (15) can be obtained from Eqs. there is a difference of interpretation: is now the spacecraft velocity in the low Mars orbit before application of the tangential.

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. (9) by simply replacing the time t = 0 with the time However. Wang Formally. (18) can be obtained from Eqs. is the decelerating velocity impulse at LEO. is the spacecraft velocity before application of the decelerating velocity impulse. decelerating velocity impulse. Miele and T. Eqs. there is a difference of interpretation: is now the spacecraft velocity in the low Earth orbit after application of the tangential. and is .78 A.

For the outgoing trip. (i) ECS-to-SCS Transformation. . 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. The transformations are given below. In Cartesian coordinates. In Cartesian coordinates. (ii) SCS-to-MCS Transformation. (iii) MCS-to-SCS Transformation. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LMO from inertial coordinates to relative-to-Mars coordinates. Coordinate Transformations Due to the fact that the spacecraft equations of motion are given in inertial coordinates (SCS).Design of Mars Missions 79 5. while the spacecraft boundary conditions are given in relative-to-planet coordinates (ECS) or (MCS). coordinate transformations are needed to pass from one system to another at the terminal points of the outgoing and return trips. For the outgoing trip. In Cartesian coordinates. For the return trip. 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.

Outgoing Trip. Performance Index. . 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. The optimization of a LEO-to-LMO transfer can be reduced to a mathematical programming problem involving the following performance index. (ii) determination of the optimal trajectory for the return trip. 6. Wang (iv) SCS-to-ECS Transformation. Mathematical Programming Problems In this section.80 A. 6. this transformation is to be employed to convert spacecraft conditions at the arrival to LEO from inertial coordinates to relative-to-Earth coordinates. In Cartesian coordinates. we formulate the problem of the optimal round-trip trajectory as a mathematical programming problem. constraints. Miele and T.1. and parameters. The most obvious performance is the characteristic velocity. (iii) determination of the waiting time in the low Mars orbit. For the return trip.

implying that there are only two independent parameters. constraints (11)].c denote the following vector parameters: The 7 × 1 vector a includes the major parameters governing a LEO-toLMO trajectory. (9c). Problem P1.r. decircularization condition (11b). Constraints. given the vector parameter b [see (26b)]. which include the radius condition (14a). hence. and tangency condition (14c) [for brevity. and The solution of Problem P1 is called the baseline optimal trajectory and yields . subject to the constraints (14). For the outgoing trip. the radii of the terminal orbits and the 5 × 1 vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. The departure conditions include the radius condition (11a). Problem P1 is characterized by n = 5 variables and q = 3 constraints. and tangency condition (11c) [for brevity. The only constraints to be enforced are the final conditions. Parameters. Satisfaction of the departure conditions is trivial for any choice of the parameters and By the same token. minimize the performance index (25) w. 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.t. the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 2. namely. (9a). the vector parameter c [see (26c)].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 differential system (7) is never violated if a forward integration is performed with SCS initial conditions consistent with (11) and (21). (12c).b. constraints (14)]. circularization condition (14b). the 2 × 1 vector b includes the components of x that are fixed. Let a. namely. for instance. (12a).

which include the radius condition (20a). The most obvious performance is the characteristic velocity. and tangency condition (17c) [for brevity. (18c). constraints (20)]. circularization condition (20b). Wang the smallest value of the characteristic velocity (25) compatible with a given pair 6.82 A. The optimization of a LMO-to-LEO transfer can be reduced to a mathematical programming problem involving the following performance index. 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). Performance Index. Parameters. namely. the terminal velocity impulses and transfer time .2. c denote the following vector parameters: The 7 × 1 vector a includes the major parameters governing a LMO-toLEO trajectory. (18a). constraints. Satisfaction of the departure conditions is trivial for any choice of the parameters and By the same token. constraints (17)]. the 2 × 1 vector b includes the components of a that are fixed. The only constraints to be enforced are the final conditions. Return Trip. b. namely. and tangency condition (20c) [for brevity. and parameters. decircularization condition (17b). Miele and T. the radii of the terminal orbits and the 5 × 1 vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. (15c). Let a. the differential system (7) is never violated if a forward integration is performed with SCS initial conditions consistent with (17) and (23). The departure conditions include the radius condition (17a). Constraints. (15a).

hence. hence. celestial mechanics requires also that Mars be ahead of Earth at departure from LMO. but behind Earth at arrival to LMO. but behind Earth at arrival to LEO. the vector parameter c [see (28c)]. Problem P2 is characterized by n = 5 variables and q = 3 constraints. minimize the performance index (27) w. hence.r. This implies that there is a further delay time in LMO. Delay Time. For the outgoing trip.4. For the return trip. for instance. due to technical difficulties.t. 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. Problem P2. subject to the constraints (20). given the vector parameter b [see (28b)]. 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). 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. celestial mechanics requires that Mars be ahead of Earth at departure from LEO.3.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. for Problem P1. For the optimal trajectory. which can be computed with the relation . 6. implying that there are only two independent parameters. Waiting Time. for Problem P2. the number of degrees of freedom is n – q = 2. Assume now that. and For the return trip. the waiting time on LMO can be computed with the relation 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. while avoiding excessive change in the problem variables. see Refs. Algorithm. the augmented performance index (performance index augmented by the constraints weighted via appropriate Lagrange multipliers) is decreased. 25-27 for recent versions. Miele and T.84 A. an industrial version of SGRA has been developed by McDonnell-Douglas Technical Service Company under the code name SEGRAM (Ref. Integration Scheme. a succession of feasible suboptimal solutions is generated. Computational Information 7. In the gradient phase.2. each new solution being an improvement over the previous one from the point of view of the performance index (25) or (27). Also for optimal control problems. The sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA) in mathematical programming format is used to solve the mathematical programming problems of Section 6. For optimal control problems. Note that SGRA is available in both mathematical programming format and optimal control format. the performance index is decreased. Several variations of SGRA were also developed. In the restoration phase. while the constraints are satisfied to a preselected accuracy.1. each cycle including a gradient phase and a restoration phase. 28) and is being used at NASA-Johnson Space Center. For mathematical programming problems. 7. 7. The integration process is computationally expensive and it is difficult to achieve the . SGRA was developed by Miele at al in both ordinary-gradient version and conjugate-gradient version (Ref. the constraint error is decreased. The achievement of constraint satisfaction and optimality condition satisfaction requires multiple integrations of the system equations of the restricted four-body model. SGRA is an iterative technique which involves a sequence of two-phase cycles. 22-24 for early versions and Refs. but the basic form proved to be the more reliable. 21). while avoiding excessive constraint violation. because of its robustness and stability properties (Ref. Wang with angles measured in degrees and time in days. In a complete gradient-restoration cycle. 20). Thus.

The above difficulties can be overcome by properly designing a variable-stepsize integration scheme. but of order one year if the Sun gravity is dominant. The computations reported here were done on a Unix Sun Workstation using the C++ programming language. owing to the fact that the total gravitational acceleration changes rapidly in near-Earth space and near-Mars space. 7. 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. orbital periods are of order one hour if the Earth gravity or Mars gravity is dominant. the angular velocity difference between Earth and Mars is . the integrations were executed via a fifth-order Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg scheme. In particular. Numerical experiments show that good results can be obtained by linking the integration stepsize to the total gravitational acceleration. but slowly in deep interplanetary space. Planetary and Mission Data The gravitational constants for the Sun. Earth. and viceversa. 8. Indeed.3. Remark.Design of Mars Missions 85 desired accuracy. with the stepsize increasing whenever the total gravitational acceleration decreases.

the spacecraft is to be transferred from a low Mars orbit to a low Earth orbit. Wang For the outgoing trip.86 A. 9. 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 9.1. the spacecraft is to be transferred from a low Earth orbit to a low Mars orbit. Miele and T. for the return trip. Baseline Optimal Trajectory Results In this section. 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. The optimal LEO-to-LMO trajectory is shown in Figs. . 2-3. Outgoing Trip.

but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory. due to the disturbing influence of the gravitational fields of Earth and Mars on the terminal portions of the trajectory. .Design of Mars Missions 87 Figure 2a refers to deep interplanetary space (Sun coordinates).

r. 3a) is reached toward the end of the first day (Earth gravitational attraction negligible w. but not shown in Fig. . 18. Miele and T. 3a. See Ref. Wang Figure 3a refers to near-Earth space (relative-to-Earth coordinates. Sun gravitational attraction). tending to become parallel to the Earth trajectory at the end of near-Earth space.t. The baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Earth gravitational field. first hour).88 A. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig.

the baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Mars gravitational field. 3b) is reached at the beginning of the last day (Mars gravitational attraction negligible w. (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. but not shown in Fig. tending to become parallel to the Mars trajectory at the beginning of near-Mars space. last hour). while the decelerating velocity impulse at arrival must be applied nearly 141 deg before the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Mars direction.t.r. 3b.Design of Mars Missions 89 Figure 3b refers to near-Mars space (relative-to-Mars coordinates. 18. See Ref. In reverse time. (iii) The characteristic velocity components are implying that the total characteristic velocity is (iv) The terminal values of the spacecraft inertial phase angle are . The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. Sun gravitational attraction). 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.

due to the disturbing influence of the gravitational fields of Mars and Earth on the terminal portions of the trajectory. The optimal LMO-to-LEO trajectory is shown in Figs. . Miele and T. The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory. 2 and 4. the value characterizing a Hohmann transfer trajectory.90 A. (v) The transfer time is 9.2. Figure 2b refers to deep interplanetary space (Sun coordinates). Return Trip. but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. Wang implying that the angular travel of the spacecraft is which is within one degree of 180 deg.

See Ref. tending to become parallel to the Mars trajectory at the end of near-Mars space. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. but not shown in Fig. 4b) is reached at the beginning of the last day (Earth gravitational attraction negligible w.r.t.Design of Mars Missions 91 Figure 4a refers to near-Mars space (relative-to-Mars coordinates.t. Sun gravitational attraction). 4a) is reached toward the end of the first day (Mars gravitational attraction negligible w.r. first hour). The baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Mars gravitational field. 18. 18. 4a. In reverse time. tending to become parallel to the Earth trajectory at the beginning of near-Earth space. The asymptotic parallelism condition (hinted by Fig. last hour). Major numerical results are given below: (i) The terminal values of the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference are . Figure 4b refers to near-Earth space (relative-to-Earth coordinates. See Ref. the baseline optimal trajectory bends under the influence of the Earth gravitational field. 4b. Sun gravitational attraction). but not shown in Fig.

Wang meaning that Mars is ahead of Earth by nearly 75 deg at departure and behind Earth by nearly 44 deg at arrival. (v) The transfer time is .92 A. Miele and T. the value characterizing a Hohmann transfer trajectory. while the decelerating velocity impulse at arrival must be applied nearly 62 deg after the spacecraft becomes aligned with the Sun/Earth direction. (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. (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.

Design of Mars Missions 93 9. 9.2. the total time for a round-trip LEO-to-LMO mission with delay time becomes and on account of (40b) and (41).5. the waiting time on Mars is Therefore. 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. (30) and (34) yield the delay time Therefore.3. Delay Time. the optimal trajectories of the .1 and 9. Near-Mirror Property. the total time for a round-trip LEO-to-LMO mission without delay time becomes and on account of the previous results. 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). 9.4. Waiting Time. In addition to the asymptotic parallelism property noted in Sections 9. In light of the previous results. Eqs.

Wang outgoing and return trips have a near-mirror property. 2. (37b). The vector a includes the major parameters governing the transfer. the vector b includes the components of a that are fixed. the radii of the terminal orbits.r.94 A. 3. the characteristic velocity components. Departure Windows for the Outgoing and Return Trips In Section 6. Thus. In this section. the vectors a.b. total characteristic velocity. The implication is that the optimal return trajectory can be obtained from the optimal outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation. namely. . For the return trip.(38c).(37c) with Eqs. 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. Problem P4. (38b). 19 for details. spacecraft/planet relative phase angle at departure.t the parameters subject to the constraints (14). transfer time. and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. given the triplet minimize the performance index (25) w.r. hence by assuming that is given. c have dimensions 7. namely. (25) and (28) have dimensions 7. In these problems. the parameters subject to the constraints (20).c appearing in Eqs. reflection. These angular quantities can be grouped in pairs having nearly the same modulus but opposite sign for the outgoing and return trips. we modify the previous problems by assuming that the departure date is fixed.t. the vectors a. Also. (37a). Miele and T. For the outgoing trip. spacecraft angular travel. one can formulate the following new problems: Problem P3. and transfer time are the same or nearly the same for the outgoing and return trips. b. and inversion. 10. (38a). which emerges from the comparison of Eqs. see Ref. the vector c includes the components of a that must be optimized. 5 respectively. given the triplet minimize the performance index (27) w. the terminal velocity impulses. 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. 29). we formulated the problems of minimizing the characteristic velocity for the outgoing trip (Problem P1) and return trip (Problem P2). In the new problems.

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. (45b). the solution of Problem P3 reduces to that of Problem P1. . hence by varying the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. one generates a one-parameter family of mathematical programming problems. Equations (45) establish a one-to-one correspondence between the departure date and the Mars/Earth inertial angle difference at departure. if in Eq. For the outgoing and return trips. Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. 10. By varying the departure date. if in Eq. (45a). Problems P3 and P4 have one degree of freedom. (43) become with in days and in degrees.1. the solution of Problem P4 reduces to that of Problem P2. Note that. For the outgoing trip. Eqs.Design of Mars Missions 95 While Problems P1 and P2 have two degrees of freedom. Tables 1 and 2 list the departure date. whose solutions form the so-called departure windows for the outgoing and return trips. the true independent variable is the spacecraft/Earth relative phase angle at departure for the return trip. if one sets and accounts for the baseline optimal trajectory results of Section 9. also note that. Results.

characteristic velocity components at departure and arrival. the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure increases with early departure and decreases with late departure. On the other hand. and Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at arrival. the asymptotic parallelism property no longer holds for the departure branch. for the suboptimal trajectories of both the outgoing and return trips. In these tables. it must be noted that. Major comments are as follows. the left column refers to the suboptimal trajectory generated via anticipated departure by nearly 6 weeks. the central column refers to the baseline optimal trajectory. . For the suboptimal trajectories. spacecraft angular travel. Wang spacecraft/planet relative phase angle at departure. Finally. the characteristic velocity components and total characteristic velocity increase with both early and late departures. the angular travel and flight time increase with early departure and decrease with late departure. flight time. the near-mirror property no longer holds. Miele and T. the right column refers to the suboptimal trajectory generated via delayed departure by nearly 3 weeks.96 A. The above statements hold for both the outgoing and return trips. total characteristic velocity. but still holds for the arrival branch.

1.71 years for the return trip. the spacecraft/Earth distance becomes larger than the Earth/Sun distance. the curvilinear distance traveled along the trajectory exceeds one billion kilometers. namely.24 years waiting in LMO. The total round-trip time is 2. Comments and Conclusions From the previous analysis. 0.13 years if the spacecraft is unable to fire the rocket engines within the departure window tolerance for return. the following comments and conclusions emerge. In a round-trip LEO-LMO-LEO mission. (i) The Mars mission is difficult because of the large distances involved. plus a delay time of 2. (ii) The extremely long journey requires a long flight time. (iii) If one converts the characteristic velocity results into mass ratios .71 years for the outgoing trip.79 years with time delay. At some point of the trajectory. 0.Design of Mars Missions 97 11.66 years without time delay and 4.

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. For the outgoing trip. If one further includes the ascent from the Mars surface to LMO. we need the mass of 1000 kg at the departure from Earth. For .98 A. but is not a Hohmann transfer trajectory. 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. (vii) An important property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the asymptotic parallelism property: For optimal transfer. (vi) The baseline optimal trajectory resembles a Hohmann transfer trajectory. The return trajectory can be obtained from the outgoing trajectory via a sequential procedure of rotation. (v) The best trajectory is the baseline optimal trajectory. (ix) Departure window trajectories are next-to-best trajectories. it can be seen that the required mass ratio for a round-trip LEOLMO-LEO mission is about 20. See Refs. and inversion. the required mass ratio becomes of order 1000. 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. hence changing the Mars/Earth inertial phase angle difference at departure. For the return trip. 29). (viii) Another property of the baseline optimal trajectory is the nearmirror property. reflection. to return the mass of 1 kg to LEO. If one includes the ascent from the Earth surface to LEO. Wang using typical values of the spacecraft structural factor and engine specific impulse. owing to the disturbing influence exerted by the gravity fields of Earth and Mars on the terminal branches of the trajectory. (iv) With reference to (iii). also called aerobraking maneuvers. They are suboptimal trajectories obtained by changing the departure date. 30-33 for recent work on these special maneuvers. to return the mass of 1 kg to Earth. the required mass ratios can be decreased via the use of aeroassisted orbital transfer maneuvers. the required mass ratio becomes of order 300. This means that. Miele and T. 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. This means that. 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. we need the mass of 20 kg at the departure from LEO.

San Diego. Univelt. (xi) While the present analysis is valid for both robotic and manned missions. pp. 1975. LECOMPTE. G. 4. NASA Mars Conference. San Diego.. C. pp... ANONYMOUS. and MOYER. robotic missions should be preferred for the time being. J. Reiber. Colorado. Edited by D. M. delayed departure yields shorter flight time and narrower angular travel.. Denver. pp. Boston. B. on account of the extremely long flight times [see (ii)]. ARS Journal. Edited by P. California. New Approaches to Space Exploration. the near-mirror property no longer holds. anticipated departure yields longer flight time and wider angular travel. Pathways to Mars: New Trajectory Opportunities. Also. H. (xii) It must be emphasized that the present study is preliminary. 1962. NIEHOFF. The Viking Mission to Mars. J. Vol. 3537. 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. 1988. Martin Marietta Corporation. Further studies are under way to account for the fact that the Earth and Mars orbital planes are not identical. LINDORFER. the asymptotic parallelism property no longer holds in the departure branch. but still holds in the arrival branch. 3. W. 32. this author believes that. Univelt. (x) For the departure window trajectories.Design of Mars Missions 99 the departure window trajectories. References 1. 381-401. 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. The Case for Mars. On the other hand. Application of a Low Thrust Trajectory Optimization Scheme to Planar Earth-Mars Transfer. 30-33). 260-262. California. . 2. Additional studies are under way to account for the ellipticity of the motion of Earth and Mars around Sun. 1984.

426-430. POWELL. Bristol.. Aerobrake Preliminary Design Study. and MUNK. Vol. Spaceflight Mechanics 1996. 11. E. 44. M. R. 9. pp. Mars Pathfinder Six-Degree-of-Freedom Entry Analysis. GURZADYAN. Edited by G. A. K. Mission Plan for Mars Global Surveyor.. 6. Gordon and Breach Publishers.. pp. pp. D.. 13. L. No. R. P. and DESAI. and MITCHELTREE.. M.6. Smith.. Bishop.. 1993. C HARGIN. WERCINSKI.. pp. 381385. and HAMM.. California. K. ENGELUND. H ENLINE. San Diego.4. 14. 993-1000. SPENCER. No.. G. 670-676. W. San Diego. J. and FOWLER. CHEN. ROY.. Piloted Mars Missions Using Cryogenic and Storable Propellants. Amsterdam. B. Influence of Interplanetary Trajectory Selection on Mars Atmospheric Entry Velocity. S. Univelt. E. Lundberg. 1993. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. A. 33..207-222. Smith. 10. C. Vol. No. MISR Interplanetary Trajectory Design. M. England.. Edited by G. 431-437. STRIEPE. W. H. pp.. Mars Sample Return: A Direct and Minimum-Risk Design. H. 1988. D.. 2.3. 839-858. 1996. R. R. R. 12.. J. N. A. Bishop.. Vol. STRIEPE.. A. F. 5. W. Netherlands.. and BRAUN. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. GNOFFO. Theory of Interplanetary Flights. H. Vol. W. 30. pp. WEILMUENSTER. 859-876. E. Vol. A. Miele and T. P. Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. M.. 33. YANG. B. P. Vol. 1995. R. Powell. WAGNER. 4. Adam Hilger. and R. 8. POWELL. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 1996. No.100 A. and R. D. L. W... Univelt. J. T AUBER. 7. LEE. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 1996. D. H. Powell. pp. Mars Environmental Survey Probe.. W. 30.. pp.. A. BRAUN. Y.. Wang 5. Spaceflight Mechanics 1996. 1996. P. Lundberg. 1996.. R. A. . Jr. Orbital Motion.. and SIDNEY. No. S. R. T. Mars Pathfinder Atmospheric Entry: Trajectory Design and Dispersion Analysis. BRAUN. 1996. No. 32.. California. A. P APADOPOULOS. W.

pp. Vol. Sivasundaram. Mars-Jupiter Aerogravity Assist Trajectories for High-Energy Missions. pp. and MATEESCU. 507-539. and WANG. 6.. Italy. 1999. 20. J. MIELE. R. 4. 381-403... MIELE. Vol. pp. Torino. 1997.Design of Mars Missions 101 15. Cambridge. PRITCHARD...4. pp. No. pp. T. H. pp. Vol. V.. A... Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. 3. T IETZE. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Nonlinear Problems in Aviation and Aerospace. and HEIDEMAN. M IELE. J. MIELE. Vol. 45. J. 213-243. 1999. Optimal Trajectories and Mirror Properties for Round-Trip Mars Missions. 235-282. Vol. A. K. 1969. Edited by G. Vol. pp. J.. A. Summary and Comparison of Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. 1970. 21. 11. and WANG.. 1997. Libreria Editrice Universitaria Levrotto e Bella. 17. No.. 1974.. and LEVY.. MIELE. E. No.. C. Vol. HUANG. T. and WANG. A. Acta Astronautica. England. 16-21. 16.119-133. No. V. Comparison of Several Gradient Algorithms for Mathematical Programming Problems. MIELE. 45. 23. L. A. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. No. Omaggio a Carlo Ferrari. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. No. and WANG. TIETZE. 34. Optimal Trajectories and Asymptotic Parallelism Property for Round-Trip Mars Missions. 5.Y. and L EVY .. 95.. Vol. MIELE. Jarre. European Conference Publications.. Acta Astronautica. Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for the Minimization of Constrained Functions: Ordinary and Conjugate Gradient Versions. 1. 521-536. A. A. 19. Optimal Transfers from an Earth Orbit to a Mars Orbit. 4. pp.. A. 655-668. 10.. N. 1972. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. L. 18.. Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Optimal Control Problems. A. . Optimal Trajectories for Earth-Mars Flight. J. 467-499. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. LOHAR.. and DAMOULAKIS. MIELE. T. D.. 2. A. pp. Edited by S. 1999. MISRA. 3. T. A. A. 22. F. No.

10. pp. pp. S. Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. .. Recent Advances in the Optimization and Guidance of Aeroassisted Orbital Transfers. H. DC. Integral Methods in Science and Engineering. Wang 24. pp. Control. Theorem of Image Trajectories in the Earth-Moon Space. and BASAPUR. 1986. 294. MIELE.. Nos. Vol. Vol. 5. No. Part 2: General Problem. A. MIELE. 1-2. 119. Washington. Payne et al. No. Breakwell Memorial Lecture.. pp. and WANG.102 A. A. 32. J. and WANG. pp. 1996. No.. 27. A. T.. 1986. 26. 1996. V. Acta Astronautica. K. 28. No. Vol. 577-607.. The 1st John V. and WANG. A. and Dynamics. McCORMICK. and WANG. Robust Predictor-Corrector Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer. MIELE. Nos.. 491-505. N. A. 139-163. No. 747-768. pp. 1960. Acta Astronautica. 1993. J. 25. Vol. R. No. Miele and T. B. 1134-1141. 19. MIELE. Nominal Trajectories for the Aeroassisted Flight Experiment. Vol. SEGRAM: A Practical and Versatile Tool for Spacecraft Trajectory Optimization. Part 1: Basic Problem. MIELE. MIELE. 5. 1.. T.. 41. 23-42. PRITCHARD. 8-10. 13. pp.. Vol. B. WANG.2. 31. Acta Astronautica. 1972. 599-609. Journal of the Franklin Institute. 21-54. 30. 38. R. 1986... Edited by F. T.. Modifications and Extensions of the Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Optimal Control Theory. T. and DAMOULAKIS. E. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. A.. pp.. Vol. Astronautica Acta. 29. Primal and Dual Formulations of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Trajectory Optimization Problems. R.. 1992. MIELE.. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. MIELE. RISHIKOF. pp. and SPONAUGLE. 225-232. Journal of Guidance. A.4. A. 8. T. 26. Vol. Primal-Dual Properties of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithms for Optimal Control Problems.

A. and WANG. pp.3.. Control. 1996. 549-556. and Dynamics.. Near-Optimal Highly Robust Guidance for Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer.Design of Mars Missions 103 33. Journal of Guidance. Vol. T. . 19. No. MIELE.

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. 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. supplemented by other guidance elements. The imagery is generated by a computer in real time with an adequate update rate. Design issues are described for achieving a predictor aircraft system requiring minimum pilot compensation. 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. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Flight Control. SACHS1 Abstract. 85747 Garching. Results from pilot-in-theloop simulation experiments are presented which provide a verification of the design considerations. A basic concept of such a synthetic vision system is described. Professor and Director. 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. using attitude and position data from a precision navigation system. Furthermore. 105 . yielding an integrated presentation of the command flight path and the terrain. This basic synthetic vision system was flight tested in an experimental program consisting of several test series. Germany. Technische Universität München.

flight path predictor. gain. which are known as tunnel or highway-in-the-sky displays. effective time delay. roll moment due to roll control input. Such displays. time constant. Sachs Key Words. synthetic vision. acceleration of gravity. azimuth angle. manual flight path control. Nomenclature = = = = = s T = Y(s) = = y = = = = = = = e g K error. perturbation of y. roll angle. transfer function. damping ratio. 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. Furthermore. roll control. perspective flight path displays present the . Perspective flight path display. frequency. lateral coordinate. aircraft guidance. Laplace operator. Introduction Innovative approaches for the cockpit instrumentation of aircraft are displays which present guidance information in a 3-dimensional format to the pilot.106 G. 1. They show the future flight path in a perspective form and may additionally depict a terrain imagery.

The other control mode is pursuit/preview control which is possible because of command information and preview. Indication of the command flight path provides the pilot with a preview of the future trajectory. As a result. Such a display featuring synthetic vision includes the following constituents (Fig. precision navigation. 15). the mental effort for reconstructing the spatial and temporal situation may be reduced substantially when compared with current instrumentation. Further guidance elements of primary significance are displayed in an integrated manner. 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. Central element of the 3-dimensional guidance information is the perspective flight path presentation in the form of a tunnel (Fig. 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. 2. 1): 3-dimensional guidance information. one of which is compensatory control applied as a closed-loop control for regulation tasks. 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. 1-18). 3. 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. The visual information can be perceived intuitively and directly by the pilot and the scanning workload decreased. pictorial presentation of outside world. This is illustrated in Fig. 2). the pilot can use this preview to structure a control feedforward. Different control modes are possible. supplemented by other guidance elements. which shows a simplified model for describing general pathways of the human controller operating on visually sensed inputs and exerting manual control outputs. With command information and preview available. . 14.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 107 information in a descriptive format and allow holistic perception.

Sachs .108 G.

a high-precision navigation system was applied using . The precision navigation system provides the synthetic vision computer with position and attitude data (Fig. etc. etc. This is necessary for generating an image according to the actual field of view of the pilot. rivers. In the flight tests. railways. bridges. 1). 4. Three data groups are applied for describing the terrain features (Fig. including all relevant information about its elevation and features. 5). linear features (roads. Two groups of data are used for generating the outside world image: terrain elevation and feature analysis data.). objects. A special treatment of terrain elevation and features is applied for areas where the aircraft operates close to the ground. The terrain elevation data are referenced to a grid structure the elements of which have a size of 3" × 3" or 1" × 1" (Fig.). 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. like airports. elevation. This is illustrated in Fig. It yields a precise modeling as regards location. dimensions. 6): point features (buildings. etc. which shows the integrated presentation of the outside world image and the guidance tunnel.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 109 The pictorial presentation of the outside world comprises an image of the terrain.). forests. etc. lakes. areal features (cities. power line pylons.

110 G. Sachs .

The navigation system was operated in local and wide area DGPS modes for transmitting the differential correction data (Fig. 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. 19). Because of the lowfrequency transmitting technique. 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. 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. . 7).Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 111 differential global positioning and inertial sensor navigation data. Germany (Ref.

July 31 . (iv) curved/steep/short approaches and low-level and terrain-following flights in a mountainous area. 1995. Braunschweig Airport.112 G. 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. Germany. The test program consisted of five flight test series: (i) precision approach and landing flight tests. narrow river valley. Sachs 3. Switzerland. 1994. Altmühl river. March 18-22. (v) curved/steep approaches and curved trajectory-following flights in a mountainous area. (iii) curved and steep approaches in mountainous area. October 10-14. (ii) low-level flight tests in a highly curved. Freiburg/Schwarzwald. Demanding control tasks were specified and investigated. Germany. December 12-16. Germany. Germany. . 1996. featuring the above guidance information and terrain imagery. July 7-10.August 4. Lugano airport. 1997. 1994. Offenburg/Schwarzwald.

20). The aircraft is equipped with a high precision navigation system which was developed by this Institute. computer and filter algorithms including error modeling are applied. The place of the ground reference station for the wide area DGPS mode is also depicted. The high navigation performance is achieved by coupling differential global positioning and inertial sensor systems to yield an integrated precision navigation system (Ref. The vehicle which is used in the flight test program is a twin engine Dornier 128. it is operated by the Institute of Flight Guidance and Control of the Technische Universität Braunschweig as a research aircraft (Fig. Thus.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 113 An overview of the flight test areas is provided by Fig. In addition. 8. it is possible to achieve a high precision for static as well as dynamic behavior. . 9). which shows the locations in Germany and Switzerland.

11 and 12. The command trajectory was indicated in the 3-dimensional guidance display by a tunnel image. Sachs Results representative for the flight tests are presented in the following. For the motion in the vertical direction. 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. In two sections. They are from the low-level flight tests in the Altmühl river valley. there is a river bend . electrical power lines intersect the river valley. and particularly for those sections where the control tasks were very demanding in the vertical or lateral direction. 11). In a third section. 4 for a flight condition of the tests in the Altmühl river valley. with only small deviations in both the vertical and lateral directions. at an height of 100 m above the river as authorized by the flight safety agency. The flight test results presented in Figs. which was referenced to the course of the river. 11 and 12 show that the pilot followed precisely the command trajectory. as shown in Fig. This holds generally for the whole of the flight test course of about 70 km. From the results presented in Figs. with a corresponding change in the course of the tunnel. The test course depicted in Fig. This was shown in the 3-dimensional guidance display. it follows that the aircraft stayed well within the tunnel. 10 shows that the Altmühl river area represents a demanding test environment because of the highly curved and narrow river valley with steep banks.

an evasive maneuver was specified according to which the pilot left the river valley. 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. . For this part of the trajectory.

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. 21. For achieving this objective. The tunnel and the predictor present command and status information about the present and the future. 13..e. . In general. the overall predictive system consists of the 3-dimensional guidance display with the tunnel and the predictor. with the objective to achieve an overall predictive system requiring minimum pilot compensation. As shown in Fig. This is because the pilot is provided with precise information about the future aircraft position in relation to the command flight path. the predictoraircraft system approximates a pure integration over an adequately broad region centered around the pilot-predictor-aircraft crossover (Refs.22).116 G. i. 13). There are pilot-centered requirements which result from the presence of the human operator in the control loop. 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. The pilot can act in response to this error for minimizing flight path deviations in compensatory control mode. Sachs 4. 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. the pilot and the aircraft. This requirement can be met when the equalizations and gains are selected so that the effective transfer characteristic of the controlled element.

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. geometric and kinematic relations come into consideration for describing the continuation of the flight path to which the predicted position can be referenced. . It can be used as key requirement for designing the predictor to achieve appropriate dynamic characteristics of the closed-loop pilot-predictor-aircraft system. there is another point which is concerned with the role of the predictor as an indicator of the future aircraft position. Thus.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. which shows a model for describing the continuation of the flight path in the lateral direction. with particular reference to the situation at the prediction time ahead. This is illustrated in Fig. 14. Besides this manual control-related predictor issue.

118

G. Sachs

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

119

the following relation for the predictor-aircraft transfer function is obtained:

where

120

G. Sachs

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:

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.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 121 Basically. Fig. Fig. 17 shows that there are basically two closed-loop modes. Five pilots with different professional background (airline pilots. The tasks of the pilot . one primarily related to path and the other to attitude motions. 5. The layout of the 3dimensional guidance display developed for the experimental program corresponds to the configuration shown in 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. private pilot. Furthermore.

a nonlinear six degree-offreedom aircraft model was used. Sachs was to follow a curved trajectory (Fig. showing a decrease of the predictor error as is decreased and vice versa. Concerning the prediction time it turns out that it has a substantial effect on the predictor position control. it follows as a basic result that the predictor position is controlled effectively by the pilot.122 G. Simulation results on predictor position control are presented in Fig. 19. 95 % confidence interval). 18). In the simulation experiments. 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. which can be regarded as representative of a small twin jet engine aircraft. 20 which shows the correcting aileron . 19 (box plot technique. The sequence of the turns was altered in order to avoid familiarization of the pilots with a fixed trajectory. with rather small deviations from the command flight path. From Fig. indicated as command flight path in the 3-dimensional guidance display. Control activity results are depicted in Fig.

Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 123 .

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. the pilot control activity is increased. For loop closure. showing now an increase of the control activity as is decreased. is basically related to a future state. The described effects of the prediction time on the predictor position error and control activity can be attributed to pilot-loop closure behavior. Reference is made to Fig. both errors approach zero in steady-state reference conditions. Sachs commands given by the pilot. the predictor position deviations are reduced when is decreased. The predictor. 21. But it is also an efficient means for controlling the current position y(t). The effect of the prediction time is again significant. which indicates the position at the prediction time ahead. As a consequence.124 G. the downward shift of the K / s frequency region requires an increase of the pilot gain. Furthermore. This is because . which shows that a decrease of yields a downward shift of the K / s frequency region.

19. Conclusions A guidance display is considered providing the pilot with status and command information in a 3-dimensional format for current and future . 22.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 125 These results were confirmed by pilot-in-the-loop simulation experiments. which shows that the deviations of the current position are smaller than those of the predictor position as depicted in Fig. 6. This is illustrated in Fig.

The flight test results show that the pilot controlled precisely the aircraft and held it on the command trajectory. Sachs flight situations. low-level flights in highly curved. A series of flight tests aiming at a wide range of applications of the 3D-guidance display were performed. 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. curved/steep/short approaches and low-level and terrainfollowing flights in mountainous areas.126 G. other guidance information. 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. The basic concept features a computer-generated imagery of the command flight path. with demanding control tasks for the pilots like precision approach and landing. narrow river valleys. For best results in terms . and the outside world.

Tunnel Display for Four-Dimensional FixedWing Aircraft Approaches. Control. 7. pp. No. and Dynamics. Improved Tunnel Display for Curved Trajectory Following: Control Considerations. 7. 5. 6. 1997. Control. 2. pp.. Results from pilot-in-the-loop simulation experiments concerning significant predictor law parameters were performed. A. No. and Dynamics. and Dynamics. Vol. Experimental Evaluation of a Perspective Tunnel Display for ThreeDimensional Helicopter Approaches. Predictor Laws for Pictorial Flight Displays. 3. 19. Control. 1985. A predictor control law is developed for achieving this objective. Journal of Guidance. . 4. Integrated Design of a Man-Machine Interface for 4D-Navigation. Delft. 2. Journal of Guidance. and MULDER. PhD Thesis. No. 378-384. J. and HATFIELD. GRUNWALD. Journal of Guidance.J.J. 1996.J. and Dynamics. ROBERTSON. Vol. Control. 2.. THEUNISSEN. A. Vol. Journal of Guidance. No.. GRUNWALD. pp.. A. Delft University of Technology. Availability and Use of Information in Perspective FlightPath Displays. 6. A. 1984. Vol. the predictive system should be designed such that the controlled predictor-aircraft element requires minimum pilot compensation. 1981. No. 1995. M. E. 137-147. pp. Netherlands. 1996.. 370-377. Vol. and Dynamics.B.J. pp.J. J. 545552. References 1. A. Control. GRUNWALD. 8.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 127 of performance and workload. Proceedings of the AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference. yielding verification of the design considerations. Journal of Guidance... 369-377. GRUNWALD. 19. 4. GRUNWALD. E. Improved Tunnel Display for Curved Trajectory Following: Experimental Evaluation.J. pp. 623-631.. 3... 5. THEUNISSEN.

. and VON VIEHBAHN. 1999. D. Vol.D. Navigation. 1997. M. Improvement of Perception and Cognition in Spatial Synthetic Environment. 87-109. DOBLER. TERUI. PURPUS. P. Synthetic Vision Flight Tests for Precision Approach and Landing. International Journal of Aviation Psychology. Delft.. Proceedings of the 17th AIAA/IEEE/SAE Digital Avionics Systems Conference. 14. K. 707713. MULDER. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. .. 1210-1219.... 2.M. pp. HARIGAE. 1998. HELMETAG. 13. H ASKELL . SACHS. 0-7803-50863/98... Sachs 8. SACHS.. pp. Pilot-Vehicle System Control Issues for Predictive Flight Path Displays. pp. pp. No. T. MERWIN. and W ICKENS .. 1995. 9. Flight Testing of Cockpit Displays with Sinthetic Vision.. SACHS. Flight Testing Synthetic Vision for Precise Guidance Close to the Ground.. DOBLER. MAYER. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. P. In-Flight Evaluation of Tunnel-in-the Sky Display and Curved Approach Pattern. P. 1459-1466.. WICKENS. and KAUFHOLD. 1999. Delft University Press. M. H. K. G.. and Control Conference... LENHART. 15. Navigation. 12. Netherlands.. A. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. Two. 11. Bellevue. and ONO.D. FUNABIKI. 1993. 207-214.. Valenciennes.. and MÖLLER. 3. 14-16 December 1998. 10. S. 31 October – 6 November 1998. K. C. and Control Conference. K. M. France.. R.. Yearbook 1998-I.. and Control Conference. MURAOKA. FADDEN. C. U. Navigation.M. E. 1998 (in German). Cybernetics of Tunnel-in-the-Sky Displays. 108-114. pp. 1998. pp.and ThreeDimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison. G. German Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. G. Washington.. and HERMLE. H. and THEUNISSEN.128 G. I.. Proceedings of the 17th European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control. 16. Cognitive Factors in Aviation Display Design. and VERVERS..D. Y..

AGARD Publication LS-157..T. NY. 1988. 2000. 420-429. Chapter 2.. E.. Edited by G. K ÜHMSTEDT . New York. Vol. Navigation. G. pp. 1992. Perspective Predictor/Flight Path Display with Minimum Pilot Compensation. 4. 18.. D. 22. 20. Germany: Results and Experiences. and SCHÄNZER. 14-16 June. and Dynamics. pp. Germany. S. No. G. pp. Experiments with Real Time Differential GPS Using a Low Frequency Transmitter in Mainflingen. R. HESS. Control. SACHS. 3. Journal of Guidance. pp. et al. 1999. 19. Salvendy. German Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. pp. Feedback Control Models: Manual Control and Tracking. L ECHNER .. Precise Flight Navigation by Integration of Satellite Navigation Systems with Inertial Sensors. 574-582. 2nd Edition. 1997.. A. No. Aerospace Science and Technology. J. Yearbook 1992-I. Flight Path Predictor for Minimum Pilot Compensation. G. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. VIEWEG. Paper Presented at EURNAV-94 Land Vehicle Navigation. 1999. 247-257. 1-30. 171-177.Experimental Guidance System with Perspective Flight Path Display 129 Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. 1994. MCRUER. 3. W. 17.. .. D ITTRICH . pp. SACHS. Dresden. Wiley. Vol.. 1249-1294. 21. 23. and Control Conference. Pilot Modeling.

launch vehicles. Trajectory optimization. 1 2 The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the European Space Technology Center (ESTEC) through its Contract Monitor Klaus Mehlem. 131 . Professor and Director. It is shown that an overall increase of the vehicle liftoff mass of about 4% will result in a payload increase of about 11%. concurrent engineering. WELL2 Abstract. 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. Besides the trajectory design. University of Stuttgart. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. H. Using these models. 70550 Stuttgart. Germany. Key Words.5 Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage LaunchVehicle1 K. it is shown how the example vehicle should be modified in order to carry a higher payload into an Earth escape orbit. 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.

the design process must take into consideration that. It generates an initial estimate for the solution automatically. vehicle design is mostly separated from atmospheric trajectory optimization. At most.132 K. the trajectory is frozen. more or less sophisticated aerodynamic codes have to be used which may lead easily to rather large amounts of computing times. the trajectory optimization is performed in an inner loop. In the outer loop. In this paper. Therefore. However. 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 optimization is organized hierarchically: The design optimization is performed in an outer loop. the design is frozen. In principle. Among many other features. Well 1. This software enables a user to specify a particular launch or reentry vehicle and a particular mission solely by data. it is assumed that the modifications from a reference design are small enough such that a recalculation of the aerodynamic coefficients is not needed. In addition. 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. once a particular change in geometry has occurred. 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. Traditionally. attempts have been made to link the task of finding the best ascent trajectory to the task of designing the vehicle size. while simultaneously answering the question of how the nominal vehicle should be modified in order to increase the payload in that orbit. in the inner loop. Reference 2 presents a design tool to this end. appropriate aerodynamic methods have to be used to recalculate the aerodynamic coefficients. atmospheric trajectories are simulated using particular guidance laws during the design process. in recent years. the diameter of the cylindrical vehicle stages is kept constant. and it assists the user in the solution process via a user interface. Depending on the required accuracy. not only the mass data change but in particular the aerodynamic data do. when changing the geometry of the vehicle. There. This leads to the assumption that the drag . H. 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.

Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 133 forces will not be affected by the modifications. it is conjectured that the results are realistic and can serve as guidelines for eventual modifications. Reference Vehicle Figure 1 shows the reference vehicle. The essential design modifications are changes in the engine masses and tank sizes for the two stages. It consists of two main stages. 2. By limiting the modifications to 20% from the nominal values. .

Figure 1 shows the version of the vehicle carrying two payloads. Table 1 contains the mass flow for a P230 booster and the drag coefficient of the vehicle (see also Fig. . 2). SPELTRA is the device which holds and separates the two payloads once orbital target conditions have been achieved by the upper stage. H.134 K. Well the lower cryogenic stage with the H155 engine and the two boosters P230 and the upper stage with the L9 engine.

the x designating that these data are for experimental engines. 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. About 0.8% 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. .Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 135 Table 2 contains the masses of the various vehicle stages. Table 3 gives the engine data.

Equations of Motion. The equations of motion of the center of mass over an oblate.136 K. 3). H. The state variables are: Inertial velocity components (see Fig.1. Mathematical Model of the Rocket Vehicle 3. Well 3. position variables and appropriate equations for the mass change of the vehicle during the ascent . rotating Earth are taken from Ref. 3.

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 .

is the gravitational acceleration at sea level. a special pressure profile for the launch site Kourou (French Guyana) is taken. no aerodynamic normal forces or side forces are computed in the model. In this paper. but the model of the US Standard atmosphere might be taken as well. (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. p is the ambient pressure as a function of altitude. H. and engine exit areas of the various propulsion systems as given in Table 3.138 K. mass flows. and are the specific impulses. in Ref. 3. The two components in Eq. The symbols are the Earth gravitational constant and the oblateness and triaxiality constant of the Earth gravitational potential. the transformation relations . their values are given. Well and the gravitational forces The thrust force for the boosters is a function of time as given in Table 1. q and are the dynamic pressure and reference area for the aerodynamic forces. The subscripts B in equations (2) and (3) describe the forces in body axes. To transform them into the local horizontal axes. for example. Therefore. is the equatorial radius of the Earth.

Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 139 are to be applied where are the azimuth. 3. the engine mass can be calculated as . By scaling the engine up. 4. pitch. the mass flow. therefore. is set. Given a sizing parameter the mass flow is modeled as where is the reference mass flow and setting (an additional control). The transformation matrices are It is assumed that the vehicle will not roll during launch and. The same transformation applies to the aerodynamic forces in (3). nozzle area. Modifiable are the two rocket engines and the size of the tanks for the fuel of the main and the upper stages. of course. Simple models describing the interrelation of these data are taken from Ref. an increase in the engine mass. Mass Models for Engine and Tank Sizing. it is assumed that the boosters are given and are not to be modified. the controls for the ascent problem are the pitch and yaw angles. and thrust of a particular engine can be increased causing.2. The nozzle exit area is is the throttle the maximum thrust is the actual thrust itself is With these definitions. With these definitions. and roll angles describing the launchers attitude with respect to the local horizontal system. For the task at hand.

the propellant mass and the structural mass are Here. is the reference value for the propellant mass and is the reference value for the structural mass. Well where a. Figure 4 shows how the dry engine masses change with increasing fuel flow and how the tank masses change with increasing amounts of fuel. Then. . Assuming a cylindrical shape of the tank. Tables 4 and 5 present the data used in the subsequent calculations.140 K. As mentioned in the introduction. this results in a change in length of the tank. H. Similarly for tank sizing. the change in tank volume is computed from with as mean density of the fuel. Altogether there are four design parameters to be chosen in the optimization. b is another correlation coefficient.b are correlation coefficients. the tank size is to be varied assuming a constant diameter.

Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 141 .

so is the overall burn time of the main engine. The vehicle is supposed to be launched from Kourou (French Guyana). where is the fuel flow in the ith phase. The first phase consists of the simultaneous burn of the main engine and the two boosters. the subscripts s. 4. H. i = 1. 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. P230. and engine masses. the second and third phase are with the main engine only. VEB stands for vehicle equipment bay. By defining a sizing parameter . L9 identify the stage association. and the fourth phase is the burning of the upper stage engine. The booster burn time is fixed. Initial Conditions.4.. The times for the fairing jettisoning and for the L9 engine cut-off are kept free in the optimization process.. The initial velocity components are taken to be The liftoff mass is computed according to Here.1.p. the subscripts H155.142 K. The initial values for the position are altitude geographical longitude and latitude of Kourou.e designate structural. propellant. Well 4. Table 6 contains the mass flow data for each phase.

there are altogether five parameters to be optimized. Cost Function. 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. Target and Intermediate Conditions. and velocity are computed as Furthermore. 4. The inertial path inclination. it is known that the true anomaly can be computed from .2.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 143 according to Section 3.2 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. inertial azimuth. In order to define the final boundary conditions. From orbital mechanics. 3). the initial mass is a function of these five parameters. a few auxiliary variables need to be defined (see Ref. the fifth being the payload mass In this way.

H. Well The orbital elements can be calculated by applying the laws of spherical trigonometry to the triangle with the sides in Fig. It can be defined as where is the geocentric longitude at the time of launch. is the inertial longitude of the vehicle at a particular time. From this figure. one obtains .144 K. 5. Here.

The design parameters are with the subscripted notation as described above. 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.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 145 Since the true anomaly is known from (23). these three equations can be used to determine the unknown orbital elements. As intermediate conditions. and are computed from (29). the integrals over the mass flow for each vehicle stage must satisfy the conditions . Finally. the semimajor axis and the inclination are defined via (28) and (25) for a given velocity vector. and (27). (26). Of course. the cost function for the optimal control problem is to maximize Table 7 summarizes the trajectory optimization problem. the perigee altitude and the heat flux are needed. the parameter f and the eccentricity are calculated from (19) for a given value of R.

two methods are implemented. 7) and a sparse nonlinear optimization solver (SNOPT. the other method is based on direct collocation. In order to generate the initial time histories for the controls and the states. two nonlinear programming solvers are implemented: A sequential linear least squares quadratic program solver (SLLSQP.1. Inside ASTOS. first suggested in Ref. a guidance law based on the required velocity . Inside the software. Ref. Solving the Trajectory Optimization Problem The ASTOS software has been used to solve the above described problem.146 K. Initial Guess. H. one is a direct multiple shooting method. Well 5. 5. see Ref. Both methods transcribe the continuous optimal control problem into high parametric nonlinear programming problems which are solved by standard software. 5. 8). 6. Ref.

The difference between the required velocity vector and the actual velocity vector is . 9) is used. that is. it can be used for the above problem as an approximation by choosing a sufficiently large apogee altitude for the makeshift target orbit. one computes the reference velocity. For given orbital parameters of such a highly eccentric target orbit. 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. Although in principle only applicable for elliptical target orbits. see Fig.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 147 concept (Ref. 3. that particular velocity which the vehicle should have in the desired orbit at that radius vector.

10) that. by accelerating the vehicle in the direction of this goal can be achieved. Ref. one gets and after some manipulations.g. One can show (see e.148 K. Well This velocity difference must ultimately be zero. with From the figure. the vehicle acceleration is The direction and magnitude of are obtained from where is the effective gravitational acceleration. 6. H. as the solution of the quadratic equation with . According to Fig.

Step 2: Gravity turn. a nominal trajectory can be obtained by integrating the equations of motion from the initial state. flight with zero angle of attack until some user specified event or time. that is. inertial speed. the solution with fixed values of the design parameters. and osculating perigee altitude of the H155x stage. The complete initial guess is obtained in the following three major steps. ground track. Guidance steering according to the above procedure until a specified time or until the desired orbit has been reached. Both altitude and speed are somewhat smaller for a given time. Optimal Solutions. due to the fact that the vehicle is heavier initially. that is.2. 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. The yaw direction of the thrust vector is simply With this guidance law. These as well as other state and control time histories of the nominal case do not differ much from those of the optimal case. usually until the burnout of the major stage.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 149 where the appropriate sign has to be chosen. Step 3: 5. Flight with this attitude until the angle of attack is zero. Figure 8 shows the altitude. Step 1: Vertical ascent followed by a constant pitch rate until a prescribed pitch attitude is obtained. Both trajectories have to satisfy the intermediate . These nominal values are given in Table 8 together with the optimal values.

Well . H.150 K.

The five design parameter values are given and can be compared to the nominal values. the increase in payload is about 11%. The overall flight time is approximately the same. The order of magnitude of the changes is between 15 to 20% for each stage. since the booster mass contributes significantly to the overall mass of the vehicle. The upper part of the table contains the structural. The overall increase in engine mass is 17% with respect to the engine masses without boosters. The increase in liftoff mass is about 4%. while the geometric modifications of the upper stage are small.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 151 boundary condition on the osculating perigee altitude at 580 sec. the changes are rather small for the vehicle altogether. . and engine masses for both the nominal case and the optimal case. the main stage needs to be extended by approximately 5m. The VEB mass and fairing mass are included in the overall structural mass. The lower part of the table gives the resulting changes in percent compared to the nominal design. propulsive. Due to the increased engine and fuel mass. The main difference between the nominal and the optimal case is shown in Table 8.

152 K. Institute for Space Systems.. By removing these restrictions. Technical Report 2. H.. H. 48th International Astronautical Congress. 4. Turin. Netherlands. Conclusions The paper addresses the simultaneous optimization of both the ascent trajectory and some typical vehicle design parameters of a two-stage launch vehicle. Washington. M. Germany. ASTOS: A Trajectory Analysis and Optimization Software for Launch and Reentry Vehicles. A.. a greater interdependence between design and trajectory is conjectured to be observed. U. Fahrzeugmodelle für Sensitivitätsstudien konventioneller Trägerraketen (Vehicle Modelling of Conventional Launch Vehicles for Sensitivity Analysis). U. USA.. 3. 1992. U. It is shown that the modified vehicle does not influence the ascent trajectory to a great extent. 1996. K. 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. EBERT. and M ESSERSCHMID. K.. Multidisciplinary Design Tool for System and Mission Optimization of Launch Vehicles. 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization... S CHÖTTLE . Italy. . K. M ARKL.. Paper IAF-97-V4. Nordwijk. and WOLFF. W ELL. Contract 8046-88-NL-MAC. Stuttgart. M. European Space Technology and Research Center. University of Stuttgart. and M EHLEM. 1997. which is not surprising.. R AHN. Well 6. S CHOETTLE.. E.04. 1995 (in German). and R AHN . References 1. W. Modelling: Advanced Launcher Trajectory Optimization Software Technical Documentation. H. 2. 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. BUHL. since for rocket propelled conventional launch vehicles the performance of the propulsion system depends weakly on the atmospheric conditions through the back pressure. Report IRS 95-IB-11.. Bellevue.

GILL. Guidance. 6. NY. K. A Multiple Shooting Algorithm for Direct Solution of Optimal Control Problems. and PARIS.. No. HARGRAVES. KRAFT. 1987.3: A Fortran Package for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming.H.. 1991. Volume 8. 1964.. E. Direct Trajectory Optimization Using Nonlinear Programming and Collocation.. K. New York. S. San Diego. MURRAY. C. 1994 (in German). University of California. Report NA 97-5-4. BOCK. and SAUNDERS.Neighboring Vehicle Design for a Two-Stage Launch Vehicle 153 5. . and WELL. 7.. H. D. R. M. Budapest.FORTRAN Modules for Optimal Control Calculations. 243-247.. Journal of Guidance. J. and Dynamics. University of Stuttgart. 1997.. E. Vol. P. McGraw-Hill. W. 10.. G. 10. 9. Astronautical Guidance. VDI Fortschrittsberichte. pp. 1984.. 338-342. Hungary. TOMP .. 8. R. Control. Proceedings of the 9th IFAC World Congress. BATTIN. and PLITT.. 254. Department of Mathematics. Users Guide for SNOPT 5. W. Institute for Flight Mechanics and Control. W. pp. GRIMM. Lecture Notes.

Here. HANEL1 and K. flexible aircraft. Germany. University of Stuttgart. The first part describes how to build an integral model. WELL2 Abstract. 155 . 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. 70550 Stuttgart. The result is a system of nonlinear equations of motion. H. which can be used for simulating the rigid motion as well as the flexible motion of the aircraft. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. 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. (ii) an output feedback controller. University of Stuttgart. Key Words.6 Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft M. using an integral controller. Professor and Director. It is concluded that. which does not influence actively the elastic behavior. Flight control. Research Scientist. 70550 Stuttgart. three options for control system design are discussed: (i) a conventional SAS controller. Institute of Flight Mechanics and Control. it is shown how the eigenfrequencies of the rigid body and the elastic motion change with the load and flight conditions. Germany. aeroservoelasticity. certain flying quality criteria can be met and damping of all the elastic modes can be improved. In the third part. and (iii) a robust controller.

some modern aircraft are equipped with additional control loops to improve the ride comfort (Ref.156 M. Model reduction techniques (Ref. Here. While in Ref. here symmetric inner and outer aileron activity is restricted to low authority aeroelastic control purposes. Control is based on conventionally available control surfaces for primary flight control. which influence also the rigid-body flight mechanics. Stability augmentation and aeroelastic control loops are separated by dynamic filters. 6) are employed to generate separate control design models for the longitudinal motion. H. As rigid body dynamics and low frequency elastic modes get closer with increasing structural flexibility. Therefore. Well 1. 4. while efforts to reduce the structural weight reduce the structural stiffness. a simulation model with nonlinear rigid-body dynamics is used for flight maneuver verification. with mode shapes and frequencies changing with the flight conditions and loading. rudder and inner and outer ailerons. Hanel and K. Emphasis in this paper is put on the . Both effects lead to more flexible aircraft structures with significant aeroelastic coupling between flight mechanics and structural dynamics. This means that flight maneuvers and gusts may incite strong elastic reactions. high altitude cruise. Introduction The evolution of large transport aircraft is characterized by fuselages getting longer and wing spans getting wider. i. a realistic aircraft model has to be generated. 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.e. accelerometers placed along the aircraft structure are used. especially for flight in a turbulent atmosphere. are influenced strongly by the vibrations of the aircraft structure.. 2-5) have investigated the integration of flight mechanics and aeroelastic control design. elevator. In addition to the sensor information obtained from an inertial platform. Since these vibrations cannot be controlled by conventional stability augmentation systems (SAS). Ride comfort and structural loads. the separate design of stability augmentation system and aeroelastic control loops becomes more difficult. In addition. 1). especially at high speed. linearized integrated flight mechanics and aeroelastics models are generated as outlined in Ref. As the aircraft rigid-body motion and the elastic degrees of freedom are highly coupled. several recent studies (Refs. 2 symmetrically deflected inner ailerons are available as means of direct lift control.

r. and yaw rates around the bodyfixed axes. 2. To arrive at such a model. 7) or may be even more elaborate with various autopilot functions. For this paper. it is assumed that the outer loop produces essentially a reference command for the desired C* command. see e. This outer-loop controller may be based on the concept of total energy control (TECS.q.z for the position of the aircraft center of mass. and roll angles to describe the attitude with respect to an Earth-fixed reference coordinate system. The second approach is based on output feedback and does influence the rigid body as well as the aeroelastic dynamic behavior of the aircraft. 3 states p. 3 states that is.g. A detailed description of these equations is given for instance in Ref. As a third approach. This gives a robust design with respect to the different operating points of the aircraft. and aileron angles and the power setting. 9). the structure is assumed to consist of many geometrically simple parts. 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. The controls are the elevator. azimuth. 3 states u. that is roll. The structural dynamics for the static and dynamic deformations of the aircraft is described by linear differential equations. pitch.w for the velocity components in a body-fixed reference coordinate system. Ref. Three alternatives are discussed for the inner-loop control system design. First. Ref.v. Modeling the Dynamic Aircraft Behavior In general. pitch. which are generated using the finite-element method (FEM. where C* is a combination of the vertical acceleration at the pilot position and pitch rate. describing the displacement behavior of .y. the finite elements. optimization is used to design the controller for the inner loop. 8. Structural Dynamics. rudder.1. 2. which is assumed to be embedded in an outer-loop structure. In every element.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 157 inner-loop control. which improves the flying qualities of the aircraft without any active aeroelastic control. a space-dependent displacement function is approximated by a fixed number of interpolation functions. a conventional cascaded single-input-single-output (SISO) design is presented.

The corresponding eigenvectors can be chosen to represent the unit displacements in the direction of the axes of the center-of-mass-based. representing the rigid body motion are obtained. For a free-flying aircraft structure. and external forces is expressed as a function of the nodal displacements and the external nodal point forces. a system of second-order differential equations for the nodal displacements is obtained.158 M. the stiffness matrix and the load matrix of the aircraft. H. Assembling the results for the individual elements. The eigenvectors describe the mode shapes (normal modes) of the undamped structure. For the dynamic deformation. 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. For the determination of the static deformation of the structure the algebraic equation has to be solved. any small arbitrary . Well the element as a function of the displacement z of the discrete nodes. elastic stiffness. 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. body-fixed reference frame and the unit rotations about these axes. The corresponding eigenmotions of the undamped structure are harmonic oscillations with eigenfrequency Now. Hanel and K. denotes the mass matrix. 6 zero eigenvalues. They are normalized with respect to the mass matrix. Integrating over the element volume (and the known interpolation functions). is the vector of nodal displacements and is the vector of external point forces. In equation (1). the work done by the inertial.

the doublet-lattice-method (DLM) for . 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. a transfer function representing the actuator dynamics is added. A good approximation can be achieved by retaining only a small number of modes at the low-frequency end of the set. For the purpose of aeroelastic calculations. Aerodynamic Forces and Moments. is the matrix of the eigenvectors for the elastic motion. with Here is the matrix of the eigenvectors for the rigid body motion. the control modes describing the unit deflections of the control surfaces. 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. The air flow around a flexible aircraft is modeled as an inviscid compressible flow.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. The inertial coupling of the control surface motion and elastic deformation is neglected. 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. In a later step. and q is a vector of generalized coordinates. For the flightmechanical and aeroelastic analyses addressed in this paper.2.

the so-called panels. the surface of the aircraft structure is discretized by means of trapezoidal boxes arranged in columns parallel to the free stream. The influence of the fuselage can be treated approximately. is the dynamic pressure. Introducing this into equation (1) yields the relation where is a transformation matrix from aerodynamic to body-fixed axes. 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. G is a matrix that provides an interpolation between the structural noding and the boxes used for the aerodynamic calculations. Then.160 M. of uniform but unknown strength. To extend the use of the DLM to the transonic flight regime. The result of the aerodynamic force and moment calculations using this method is Here. 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. 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. The 1/4-chord line of each box is taken to contain a distribution of acceleration potential doublets. Using the above technique. 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. In this approach. 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. and the free stream velocity. Transforming equation (8) to the frequency domain using the . 10). 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. H. c the wingspan or the mean chord.

State Space Description. Having obtained the deformation vector a coordinate transformation to the stability axes at a particular Mach number is performed. To this end. 2. Flutter occurs if for any eigenvalue . Flutter calculations are described in Ref. 9. With the aerodynamic forces available. Aerodynamic forces based on the generalized DLM aerodynamic force coefficient can be evaluated only for . The corresponding eigenvector determines the flutter shape.3. The complex eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the nonlinear eigenvalue problem have to be determined iteratively. a steady-state trim solution of the flexible aircraft can be computed. 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. With the definition the generalized aerodynamic forces in the new coordinate system can be expressed as Here.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. the term represents the steady-state aerodynamic force corresponding to the trim angle of attack at a particular Mach number.

Instead. While the lag states are a common feature of all rational function approximations. As a large number of lag states means higher model complexity and increased calculation effort. The minimum-state method of Ref. 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. the number of lag states required for different methods varies considerably. that is. Up to 3 constraints for every element of can be introduced to enforce perfect data fit at specific frequencies (for example at k=0). Weights are used to improve data fitting for selected elements at specific frequencies. The major difficulty associated with rational function approximation is the matching of phase responses dominated by phase lags due to dead times. Hanel and K. . 11 formulates a general rational transfer function matrix. E are determined from a nonlinear weighted least-square solution minimizing. under some constraints. where The diagonal matrix R in equation (13) is used to define the aerodynamic lag states. H. Usually. The elements of the matrices D. Well harmonic oscillations at given discrete reduced frequencies k. in the reduced Laplace variable to match the tabulated coefficient matrix on the imaginary axis. Dead times occur frequently in unsteady aerodynamic responses. the unsteady aerodynamic forces have to be represented in the time domain. a large number of additional lag states is required to provide the necessary phase lag. the total weighted least-square approximation error.162 M. roots with absolute values spread within the range of the tabulated reduced frequencies are chosen. rational transfer functions and continuous-time state-space representations allow no exact representation of dead times and delays. To realize a time domain simulation model. representing for example the transit time from the wing to the tailplane. methods requiring a lower number of lag states are preferable for industrial-size problems. However. or simply for normalizing the tabulated data.

it is possible to complete the translational equation of motion in the body-fixed x-direction by adding thrust and ram drag. With an approximation of induced drag in place. while the ram drag depends on the local flow condition. After summing up the forces of the powerplants and generalizing. E (R is assumed constant) scheduled with Mach number is given in equations (15)-(16). and denote the linearized thrust forces depending on aircraft motion and deformation. For the scheduling. the thrust vector moves with the powerplant during vibrations. Therefore. an interpolation scheme based on third-order Hermite polynomials and the (evidently false) assumption of zero tangent at the Mach grids is used. when the Mach number changes. A time-domain representation of the aerodynamic forces. the coupled flight mechanics and aeroelastic equation can finally be described as . where the vector representing the aerodynamic lag states is introduced. 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. the thrust forces can be described by where denotes the thrust forces at the trim condition. and denotes the thrust forces due to changes in the throttle position (throttle position vector In stability axes. with coefficient matrices D. 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. the simulation of a flight trajectory. In a flexible aircraft. requires an interpolation between different sets of matrices.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 163 From the transfer function matrix in equation (13).

changing mass. a heavy four-engine transport aircraft is chosen as an example. B is the input matrix obtained from a partitioning of the doublet lattice matrix. Well Here. is the generalized stiffness matrix.g. Analysis of the Aircraft Dynamics In this paper. see e. 4. Flight condition 1 represents the cruise condition and is chosen . The cruise condition is set at a speed of Mach 0. H is a generalized matrix that contains the Coriolis terms due to the moving coordinate system. For a detailed derivation of these equations.g. is the gravitational acceleration.164 M. position). Although they represent only a small part of the flight envelope. they allow us to develop an understanding of the basic phenomena related to changes in the flight condition (speed. and elevator. and has been described above. M is the generalized mass matrix.86 and an altitude of 30000ft. 3. see Table 1. and correspondingly Mach number and dynamic pressure) and the load condition (tank loading. Ref. and e. Hanel and K. moments of inertia. Three additional flight and load conditions are chosen for detailed analysis. rudder. altitude. H. is the control input consisting of the inner ailerons and outer ailerons. is a transformation matrix from geodetic coordinates to stability axes.

and at the engines are chosen. Fig. For the example aircraft. especially wing bending. Higher-frequency . The analysis is based on individual single-input-single-output (SISO) transfer functions. In the 1-10 Hz frequency range however. Flight conditions 2 and 3 are encountered during climb and flight condition 4 is encountered during descent. engine and fuselage modes.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 165 as the control design flight condition. 2 shows the transfer function from symmetric inner aileron deflection on midwing vertical acceleration. on the wing. In order to analyze the dynamic response of the flexible structure as a function of various input signals. at the center and aft fuselage positions. It is the most challenging from an aeroelastic point of view. the frequency responses are investigated. Figure 1 shows the transfer functions from elevator deflection on cockpit vertical acceleration. the aircraft response is dominated by weakly damped elastic modes. measurements at the cockpit. The rigid-body modes (phugoid and short period mode) can be identified easily in the low-frequency domain. The main results are discussed using only a limited number of transfer functions from the longitudinal motion.

a steep descent to cut off those elastic modes that are to remain unaffected by the control law is required. The load distribution (fuel and payload) influences strongly the dynamic behavior of the elastic structure and consequently the aeroelastic . It is less severe for an integrated flight and aeroelastic control law. From the gain amplitudes in the aeroelastic frequency range. This restriction limits severely the achievable handling qualities. H. Hanel and K. but are more difficult to identify on the basis of these transfer functions. it can be concluded that the control bandwidth for a flight mechanics stability augmentation system that does not affect aeroelastics must not exceed 1Hz. 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. Well modes also have considerable influence. But even then. it can be noticed that the first (symmetric) wing bending mode is not perceived in the cockpit but dominates the response at the wing. Comparing the two transfer functions of the longitudinal motion.166 M. the outer engine vertical vibration mode (together with the fuselage bending) is the most critical with respect to flutter. For the given configuration.

While changes in the elastic mode shapes and frequencies are not unexpected (wing bending frequency should increase with fuel consumption). comparatively more control power is available. strong changes in the damping (maximum amplitudes) and phase response are also observed. IET-70 and 000-70) at constant flight condition. With mass and moments of inertia reduced. the low-fuel configuration (000-70) turns out to be the least critical with respect to aeroelastics. the analysis described in this paper is concentrated on the highload cases. 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. Therefore. Figure 4 shows the time response to the same elevator pulse for different flight conditions. As expected. It can be seen that the amplitude varies differently with the flight condition for the pitch rate and cockpit vertical . Although frequency responses are the preferred means of analysis. the curves represent the basic lowfrequency response felt by the pilot and the passengers and targeted by the flight and aeroelastic control effort. Therefore. Figure 3 shows the frequency response for three different load conditions (IE0-70.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 167 coupling. 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.

a larger angle of attack is required to generate the same amount of lift and consequently vertical acceleration. an integrated flight and aeroelastic control law is envisaged in this paper. Well acceleration. 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.168 M. Figure 5 compares the frequency responses of these models to the response of the nominal model. Hanel and K. it is interesting to investigate the influence of the frequency neighborhood between rigid-body motion and aeroelastic modes on aeroelastic coupling. . This is due to the fact that. coupling between these two modes is strong and intensifies with increasing speed and dynamic pressure. The acceleration response at different positions of the structure is dominated by the fuselage bending and outer engine mode vibrations. further. To that end. As said before. As a consequence. It has been argued above that aeroelastic coupling would increase as rigid-body motion and aeroelastic modes get closer in frequency. integrated models for flight mechanics and aeroelastics were deemed necessary. at lower speed. In this context. This relationship should be kept in mind for control design. H.

the pole positions loose some significance. Due to the long period of approximately five minutes. which is the first wing bending mode. Due to the lag states. as the frequency and damping of the aeroelastic modes are not determined uniquely by the dominant (2nd order) poles. Table 2 contains the modes of a reference aircraft for One can see easily that the phugoid is unstable. For the aircraft model with reduced stiffness. that is. its frequency is about one fourth of the frequency of the lowest elastic mode. the frequency response of the stiffer aircraft tends toward the response of the models with fewer or no elastic modes. they have low damping. All elastic modes are close to the imaginary axis. 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.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 169 It can be seen that aeroelastic coupling indeed increases with decreasing stiffness and vice versa. with phugoid frequency decreasing and short-period frequency increasing with the stiffness. . The short period mode is rather well damped. this would be controllable easily by a pilot. The rigid-body mode frequencies are also strongly affected by the elastic stiffness. As could be expected. which are used to approximate the aeroelastic phase lags.

Well 4.170 M. or a speed hold controller. Here. a C* command is the reference command for the inner loop with . Hanel and K. This controller may be a flight path angle controller. the controller design of the outer loop is not considered. Controller Design As mentioned above. or an altitude hold controller. H.

see Table 1. In addition. with the structural motion. here operating point 1. the function is computed in the feedback loop in Fig. if possible without scheduling the controller. the other variables are explained below. The state vector is defined as Here. and are the lag .Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 171 where is position of the pilot with respect to the center of gravity. (iii) to increase the damping of the aeroelastic modes up to about four Hz. are associated with the rigid-body motion. At the core of the model is the state space system describing the linearized equations of motion at a particular operating point. 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. For the control system design. (ii) to reduce structural vibrations as well as to increase passenger comfort. The time history of C* is supposed to be between the lower and upper time history bounds. it is required that the closed-loop system is robust with respect to various operating points. Figure 6 shows a possible architecture for the inner-loop control. This function is commonly used to specify the flying qualities of an aircraft.

which can be used with low authority for longitudinal control. These measurements can be used for the control system design. D in Fig. there is a measurement box which selects those output signals to be fedback to the controller. in front of the controller.5 degrees magnitude after four seconds. on the right side of the figure. and the lateral accelerations of the inner and outer engines. attitude rate at the center of mass. but there is no artificial damping. the design goal (i) can be achieved. Considerable vibrations with low . at the rear fuselage. the output signals are recorded. The low-pass filter 1 avoids the excitation of the elastic modes. H. C* is fedback. the third component is the acceleration at the center of mass. Between the controller.172 M. there is an additional low-pass filter which filters out any high frequency commands in Below the plant dynamics box. the actuator signals are recorded in the simulation of the closed-loop system (CLS). Hanel and K. The aircraft is controlled by where the components are the elevator and the inner and outer symmetric ailerons. C. In the order of appearance. With this signal. The box entitled “test signals” generates perturbations while simulating the CLS. like in conventional SAS controllers.1. the following components are the vertical accelerations at the forward fuselage. It is assumed that the following measurements are available: where the first two components are attitude. If one disregards the aeroelastic behavior in the control system design. Stability Augmentation. 4. On top of the figure. B. The matrices A. the midwing acceleration at the wings. the acceleration at the winglets. Well states. 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. there is a low-pass filter which filters out any higher-frequency signals which the controller might produce. 6 are the results of the linearization process.

Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft

173

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

174

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

175

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

In a similar way. the modeling errors can be formulated.176 M. H. Ref. If all the design goals are formulated in this way. then the design task consists of finding a controller K(s). Alternatively. Figure 10 shows the time histories for the same . The transfer matrix can be viewed as a frequency dependent weighting function. which minimizes the infinity norm of a transfer matrix describing the influence of the external inputs on the external output z. This approach has been used here and details about the design procedure are given in Ref. The approach can be extended to multivariable problems. then the criterion should be with a specified weight.g. 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. Hanel and K. should the influence of a gust with gust velocity on the pitch rate q be minimized. 4. see e. s being the Laplace variable. 12.

Figure 12 (in two parts) demonstrates that the controller is robust indeed. It can be observed that the robust controller shows actuator activity at the inner and outer ailerons. Here. It is rather difficult to increase the damping of the engine modes.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 177 variables as presented in Fig. is the flight path inclination. 8. The aircraft response is quite similar for all flight conditions shown and the elastic mode damping is satisfactory. 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. It can be observed that damping is increased for all modes. The variables shown are defined in equation (20). . like in the output feedback controller design. Figure 11 shows the pole migration.

Well . Hanel and K. H.178 M.

M. HANEL. Ottawa.. Scottsdale. Integrated Flight Mechanics and Aeroelastic Modelling and Control of a Flexible Aircraft Considering Multidimensional Gust Input. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance. France. Dissertation.. Stuttgart.Controller Design for a Flexible Aircraft 179 5. 4. and LIVET. Comfort in Turbulence for a Large Civil Transport Aircraft. 2. . Navigation and Control Conference. Specialist Meeting on Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control. NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO). 1994. M. et al. TEUFEL. K. Conclusions Based on an integral model describing the dynamic behavior of the rigid motion as well as the elastic motion of a flexible aircraft. 1993. H. SCHULER.. Universität Stuttgart. T. and vertical acceleration at the center of gravity. 2000. K. SEYFFARTH. J.. 1997... F. P.3630. Flight Control Law Synthesis for a Flexible Aircraft. 5.. The least damped eigenmode is a symmetric vibration of both the outer engines. pitch rate. but in addition.. 1999. Germany. KUBICA. HANEL. References 1. Strasbourg. This is achieved by feeding back to the control system not only pitch attitude. 3. Dissertation. it has been shown that an integral controller can achieve desired flying qualities as well as dampen the elastic vibrations considerably. Canada. 775-783. Paper AIAA 94 . Germany. which can only be improved marginally through the control system. and WELL. Robust Flight and Aeroelastic Control System Design for a Large Transport Aircraft. pp. various accelerations measured at certain positions of the aircraft. University of Stuttgart.. Arizona. Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics. in the y-direction of the lateral aircraft axis. Flugregelung und aktive Schwingungsdämpfung für flexible Großraumflugzeuge.

Observability and Model Reduction. E. Minimum-State Unsteady Aerodynamic Approximations with Flexible Constraints. No... P. E. A Doublet-Lattice Method for Calculating Lift Distributions on Oscillating Surfaces in Subsonic Flows. 1983. 33. K ARPEL. and S TRUL. 9. Vertical Flight Path and Speed Control Autopilot Design Using Total Energy Principles. H. LAMBREGTS.. F.. 7.. Dordrecht. Vol. 8. AIAA Journal. 1190-1196. Hanel and K. and LEWIS. B.180 M.. 1995. 831-847. 1992. No. Paper AIAA 83-2239. 2. 1969. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. A. Vol. Kluwer Academic Publishers. A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity. C. DOWELL. 17-32. Holland. Journal of Aircraft. et al. H. Aircraft Control and Simulation.. pp. John Wiley and Sons. L. 10. pp. 279 – 285.. D OYLE . E. 1989. pp. NY.. MOORE. Vol. Well 6. 12. New York... 1996. State-Space Solutions to Standard and Control Problems. pp. . 1. L.. 26. 11. and RODDEN W. No. Principal Component Analysis in Linear Systems: Controllability. 34. B. STEVENS. 1981.. 6.. No. K HARGONEKAR . 7. K. M. J. G LOVER . B. and FRANCIS. Vol. ALBANO. 8.

105 Mirror property. 1 Synthetic vision. 31. 1. 105 Launch vehicles. 65 Asymptotic parallelism property. 31 Earth-Moon-Earth flight. 31. 65. 65 Rocket-powered spacecraft. 155 Flight control. 105 Round-trip Mars missions. 155 Aircraft guidance. 1 Perspective flight path display. 31 Manual flight path control. 31 Optimal trajectories. 65 Concurrent engineering. 131 181 . 1. 131 Earth-to-Mars missions. 1. 65 Suborbital spacecraft. 131 Lunar trajectories. 1 Sequential gradient-restoration algorithm. 65 Moon-Earth flight. 66 Flight path predictor. 65 Optimization. 65 Celestial mechanics. 105 Trajectory optimization. 1. 155 Flight mechanics. 31.General Index Aeroservoelasticity. 31. 1. 1. 1 Astrodynamics. 65 Orbital spacecraft. 31 Flexible aircraft. 31. 31. 31. 105 Ascent trajectories. 65 Earth-Moon flight.

40–44 arrival conditions. types. 172–173 state space description. 156–157. 94 mission alternatives. 24. see also Flexible aircraft. 83. departure. controller design Flight path predictor. 76–77 characteristic velocity. 85–86 Low Moon orbit (LMO). 161–164 structural dynamics. 67 Flexible aircraft. see also Guidance display Mars coordinate system (MCS). 82. 65. 157 stability augmentation. 36. 66. 90. 142–143 target and intermediate conditions. 90. 15 experimental guidance system. modeling Aircraft. 33. 94–97 waiting time. 93 Low Mars orbit (LMO) data. 92 Launch vehicles. 74–80 Earth-Moon-Earth flight. 164–169. 152 mathematical model of rocket vehicle equations of motion. 131 Differential global positioning system (DGPS). 143–146 reference vehicle. 2 ASTOS software. see also Guidance display Global positioning system. 82. 45–46 Low Moon orbit (LMO) data. 170–172 integral controller using control. 90. 133–136 trajectory optimization problem. 65 Moon mission. arrival. 112–116 with predictor. 86 delay time. three-dimensional. 92. 1 two-stage launch vehicle. 84–85 coordinate transformation. 159–161 analysis of aircraft dynamics. 84 integration scheme. 75–77 Mars missions. 146 initial guess. 116–118. 132–136. 107–112 flight test results. 36. 156. 132. 45–47. 143–146 initial conditions. 146–149 optimal solutions. 69.Subject Index Aeroservoelasticity. 70–71. 31 perspective flight path display. 111–113 Drag. 98 Low Earth orbit (LEO) data. 69. 136–139 mass models for engine and tank sizing. 142 cost function. 116–121 results of simulation experiments. 75–76 outgoing trip. departure. 39 Earth-to-Mars missions: see Mars missions Exploratory Mars missions. 121–125 Hohmann transfer trajectory. 139–141 multiphase optimal control problem. 93 boundary conditions outgoing trip. 83. 67 computational information algorithm. 48–52. 94–96 return trip. 93 near-mirror property. 97–99 baseline optimal trajectory results. 86–88. 32 Manual control. arrival. 173–174 modeling aircraft dynamic behavior. 79–80 delay time. 90–92. 164–170 controller design. 74–75 return trip. 149–151 Low Earth orbit (LEO). see also Flexible aircraft. 156. and objectives. 70–71. 80 mirror property. 35–36. 105 rocket-powered orbital spacecraft. 86–88. 68 mathematical programming problems. 53–62 Earth-Moon flight. 111–113 Guidance display. 86–90. 54–62 Lunar trajectories. 67 Design controller for a flexible aircraft. 67 183 . 83–84 four-body model. 146 Astrodynamics. flexible: see Flexible aircraft Aircraft guidance: see Guidance display Ascent trajectories. 77–78 return trip. 116–127. 174–178 integral controller using output feedback. 51. 157–159 Flight path control. 56–58 Low Mars orbit (LMO). 31. 36–37 optimization problem. 105 Mars mission. 33. 106–107. 105. 37–39 departure conditions. 125–127 basic concept. 26 Earth coordinate system (ECS). 93–94 outgoing trip. 45. 40–44. 179 aerodynamic forces and moments.

2. 32–33. 2. 3 Sample taking (sample return) Mars missions. 67 Predictor-aircraft transfer function. 116–117 Planned Mars missions. 27–28 boundary conditions. 19–21 . 82–83 system description. 14–15 zero-payload line. 7 zero-payload line. 83 Moon-Earth flight. 26. 27 inequality constraints. 57–58 system description. 21 Stability augmentation systems (SAS). 13. 53 Patched conics model. 21 system description. 57–58 fixed-time trajectories. 45 arrival conditions. 79–80 Survey missions to Mars. 48–52 Moon missions. 10. 117. 3–5 SSSO vs. 69 return trip. 67 outgoing trip. 2–3. 7–8 optimization problem. 46–47 departure conditions. 2 Optimal trajectories. 107. 47–49 trajectories. 71–72 Mars. 12–13. 21 structural factor. 116. 5–6 mathematical model. 12. 10–11 weight distribution. 172–173 Suborbital spacecraft: see SSSO spacecraft Sun coordinate system (SCS). 10 zero-payload line. SSTO configurations. 32–33. 32–33. 24. 67 Synthetic vision. 68–69 planetary and mission data. 68–69 Perspective flight path display. 53 Optimization. 33–34 Multi-stage-to-orbit (MSTO) spacecraft. 73–74 waiting time.184 Mars missions (continued) optimal trajectories. 67 Rocket-powered orbital spacecraft. 14 optimization problem. 58–62. 16–17. 16. 106–107. 70–74. 156. 119–120 Robotic Mars missions. 34–35 feasibility problem. 67 Sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA). 72–73 spacecraft. 6. 85–86 restricted four-body model. 11–12 optimization problem. 22–26 Subject Index Rocket-powered orbital spacecraft (continued) specific impulse. 109–111 Trajectory optimization. 7 weight distribution. 27. 11. 2. 13–14 computer runs. 39. TSTO configurations. see also Guidance display Terrain elevation modeling. 15–16 weight distribution. 26–28 design considerations. 28 boundary conditions. 16–21 interface conditions. 80–82 patched conics model. 21–22 SSTO vs. 45–46 optimization problem. 32–33. 2. 48. 69–71 Earth. 84 Single-stage orbital spacecraft: see SSTO spacecraft Single-stage-suborbital (SSSO) spacecraft. 10 computer runs. see also EarthMoon flight differential system. see also Guidance display Pilot-predictor-aircraft crossover. 21 drag effects. 26–28 boundary conditions. 2. 8–9 Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. 2. 7. 6–7 computer runs. 53 Two-stage orbital spacecraft: see TSTO spacecraft Two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) spacecraft.