You are on page 1of 130

-)

CSDL-T-1062 TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZATION FOR AN ASYMMETRIC LAUNCH VEHICLE by Jeanne Marie Sullivan

June 1990

Master of Science Thesis Massachusetts Institute of Technology

i:_R 125

Aq p

ASV_'_

T_,_tC

LAUh_CH

V_ICL_]

M._.

[h_qis C_,CL 2Z_ HZ/' 5

The Charles

Stark Draper
02139

Laboratory,

Inc.

555 Technology Square Cambridge, Massachusetts

TRAJECTORY ASYMMETRIC

OPTIMIZATION FOR LAUNCH VEHICLE by

AN

Jeanne
B.S. Physics, Carnegie

Marie
Mellon

Sullivan
University, (1988)

Submitted to in Partial

the Department of Mechanical Fulfillment of the Requirements Degree of

Engineering for the

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING


at the

MASSACHUSETTS

INSTITUTE June 1990

OF TECHNOLOGY

The author hereby permission to reproduce grants and

Jeanne

Marie

Sullivan,

1990 Laboratory, document Inc. in whole

to M.I.T. and the C.S. Draper distribute copies of this thesis or in part.

Signature

of

Author Department of Mechanical Engineering September 1989

Certified

by Thesis Advisor, Department Professor of Kamal Mechanical Youcef-Toumi Engineering

Approved

by CSDL Richard D. Goss Technical Supervisor

Accepted

by Ain Chairman, Department Graduate A. Sonin Committee

Table
Chapter

of Contents
Page

1:

Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3

............................................................... and Problem .........................................

3 3 4

Background. Method

..............................................................

Ovcrvicw

............................................................ 5 and Modeling ......................................... 7 Vehicle .......................... 7

2: Vehicle Description 2. I 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Physical Dcscription Mass

of A.L.S.

Properties .................................................... 11 Charactcristics ...................................... 12 Conditions ......................................... 12 and Kincmatics ............................... 13

Aerodynamic Environmcntal Coordinatc Dynamics 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3

Framcs

and Rigid Body Orientation and Body Torques Equations

Equations .............................17 Parameters ............................ 18 19 23 25 Concepts ................. 28 28 29

Flight Forces Rigid

....................................... of Motion ........................

2.7 3:

Constraints Design,

........................................................ Guidance, and Control

Trajectory 3.1 3.2

Introduction Mission and

....................................................... Flight Phases .......................................

J_

Chapter 3.3 In-Flight 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4 Sensing 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.5 Pre-Launch 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.6
4"

Page Guidance Phase Phase and Sensed Angular Angle Dynamic Acceleration Trajectory Introduction Phase Phase Phase Phase of 1 and and Control .................................. and Control Control ................... 31 32 35 38 38 39 40 43 43 45 45 46 46 47 50 50 54 54 54 58 ....................... 62 73

2 Guidance and

3 Guidance Estimation Signals

..........................

.......................................... ...........................................

Rate ............................................. Attack Pressure .......................................... ....................................... .................................. ..................................

Direction Design

.............................................. Rise ................................... Maneuver of Attack Explicit Design ............................. Profile ....................... ...................

1: Vertical 2: Launch 3: Angle 4: Powered of Trajectory

Guidance

Automation Simulation

...............................

Predictive 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

................................................... ......................................................

Introduction Reduced Idealized Predictive Conclusions

Order Control

Model

............................................

................................................. Flow and Results

Simulation

......................................................

Chapter

Page

5:

Numerical 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Optimization Introduction Comparison Conjugate Minimization Gradient Conclusions and Evaluation

................................................. ................................................. of Numerical Gradient Along Approximation Method Search Optimization Methods ........

74 74 75 78 83 93 94 96 96 Qo_ Limit ................ 97 101 108 111 111 113

................................ Direction .....................

...................................

................................................ ............................................... ................................................. Process for Choice.of Optimization Design

6:

Simulation 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Introduction Decision Pre-Launch In-Flight and

Trajectory Trajectory

.....................

..............................

7:

Conclusions 7.1 7.2

Recommendations

...................................

Conclusions Recommendations

............................................... ........................................

iii

List
Figure

of Figures
Page

2.1 2.2 2.3

A.L.S. Thrust

Configuration Model

...................................................

8 10

............................................................ Between Body and Local Geographic

Relationship Frames

................................................................... and Rates Orientation Free Body Body Frame Relationship Frame With Pitch Plane .............

14 15 17 19 20 27 30 Diagram ................ 33 34 37 ..... 40 41 42 48 49 52 56 60 63

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.1 4.2 4.3

Inertial Angular Flight Vehicle Typical A.L.S. Phase Phase Phase

In Body

......................................... .......................................... in Pitch Plane ............................

Parameters Diagram Pressure Phases

Dynamic Flight 1 and

Profile

.....................................

................................................... and Profile Control Control Block

2 Guidance Rate and

2 Attitude 3 Guidance Signal Signal

.......................................... Block Diagram ...................... Rate of Attack Estimator Design Estimator

Continuous Continuous Alternate Phase Phase

Representation Representation of Angle Profile for Design Coordinate Parameters Flow for

of Angular of Angle of Attack Trajectory Design

Estimator... .............. ..............

Representation 3 Angle 3 Control of Attack System

Trajectory Process

.......................

Automated Predictive Flight Predictive

Trajectory Simulation

................................ .............................

Frames

Orientation Simulation

.......................................... Chart .....................................

iV

Figure

Page

4.4

Relationship Predictive

Between Simulation

Inertial

Reference

Frames

of Full

and 64

.................................................. Between Full and Predictive

4.5

Angle

of Attack for Angle for

Comparison Entire Boost

Simulations 4.6 Flight Path

.......................................... Between Full and Predictive

66

Comparison Entire Boost

Simulations 4.7 Height for 4.8

.......................................... Full and Predictive Simulations

66

Comparison Boost

Between

Entire

........................................................ Comparison Entire Boost Between Full and Predictive

67

Nozzle

Deflection for

Simulations 4.9 Angle

.......................................... Between Full and Predictive

67

of Attack for Angle for

Comparison Partial Boost

Simulations 4.10 Flight Path

......................................... Between Full and Predictive

70

Comparison Partial Boost

Simulations 4.11 Height for 4.12

......................................... Full and Predictive Simulations

71

Comparison Boost

Between

Partial

....................................................... Comparison Partial Path Path Boost for for Between Full and Predictive

71

Nozzle

Deflection for Descent Descent

Simulations 5.1 5.2 5.3 Steepest Steepest Polak-Ribiere Minimization 5.4 Bracketing by Triplet

......................................... Function Function Algorithm Contours Contours for Function .............. ............

72 79 80

Circular Elliptical Gradient

Conjugate

.......................................................... Interval for Function Minimum not Bracketed

84

of Abscissas

..............................................

86

Figure

Page

5.5

Bracketing by Triplet

Interval

for

Function

Minimum

Bracketed 86 Interval Interval Extrapolation 92 98 ..... 100 103 of 104 Solutions of 104 ....................... Solutions of 107 107 ...... ....... 88 88

of Abscissas Curve Curve Fit Fit

.............................................. Outside Inside Bracketing Bracketing by

5.6 5.7 5.8

Parabolic Parabolic Estimating (or

- Minimum - Minimum of Function of Slopes Decision a Headwind for Alpha Old Alpha Plots

Location

Minimum to Zero Process

Interpolation) Made Process Mass

............................... ........................... Measurement ......................... Solutions

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Assumptions Decision On-Orbit Old 60% Alpha Van69 Alpha

by for

Pre-Launch Profile for Optimal

Plot

Profile:

Headwinds Profile: Alpha

............................................ Plots for Optimal

6.5

Old

100% 6.6 6.7 On-Orbit New 60% 6.8 New 100% 6.9 A. 1 A. 2 In-Flight

Van69 Mass

Headwinds Plot for

.......................................... New Alpha Plots for Profile Optimal

Alpha Van69 Alpha Van69

Profile:

Alpha

......................................................... Profile: Alpha Plots for Optimal Solutions of

....................................................... Update and #70 for Wind #69 and Stronger Profiles #70 Wind Winds In Flight .....

108 110 115 ............. 116

Trajectory #69

Vandenberg Linearized

......................... Profiles

Vandenberg

List
Table

of Tables
Page

2.1 2.2 4.1

A.L.S. Dry End Mass

Engine

Characteristics (Datum

.......................................... at base Between Boost of core) Full ......................... Predictive

9 11

Properties Error

State

Comparison Entire

and

Simulations 4.2 End State

After Error

....................................... Full and Predictive

69

Comparison Partial Pre-Launch

Between Boost

Simulations 6.1 Old Alpha

After Profile

...................................... Optimization Results for 60%

72

Van69 6.2 Old Alpha

Headwinds Profile Headwinds in Qo_ at End

.................................................... Pre-Launch Optimization Results for 100%

102

Van69 6.3 Error the 6.4 New

.................................................... of Phase Design Pre-Launch 2 for Different Method Simulations of

102

New Alpha

Trajectory Profile

................................. Results for 60%

105

Optimization

Van69 6.5 New

Headwinds Profile

................................................... Pre-Launch Optimization Results for 100%

106

Alpha

Van69

Headwinds

..................................................

106

vii

ABSTRACT
A numerical process (A.L.S.). vehicle for optimization technique configuration is used of the to fully automate the trajectory Launch design system of the

an asymmetric

proposed process

Advanced

The objective

of the A.L.S. the desired

trajectory orbit.

design

is the maximization

mass when it reaches

The trajectories

used in this thesis were

based on a simple trajectory

shape model

that could

be described reduce

by a small set of parameters. the computation A predictive vehicle state, time required simulation

The use of a simple for trajectory was developed

can significantly

optimization. to determine the on-orbit parameters. mass given an initial utilizes

wind control

information, system gradient

and a set of trajectory

This simulation

an idealized

to speed computation method

by increasing

the integration optimization function

time step. mass.

The conjugate The method simulation, parameters. Prelaunch the trajectory initial modified guess. The trajectory head winds. predictive deviations guess

is used for the numerical of the on-orbit mass mass

of on-orbit using

requires and

only the evaluation

the predictive

the gradient

of the on-orbit

function

with respect

to the trajectory

The gradient trajectory shape

is approximated designs were used, solution.

with finite differencing. carried out using the optimization to be highly procedure. sensitive shape choice For to the was of the

originally

the procedure To rectify

proved

of the optimal

this problem, that was robust

the trajectory to the initial

and this change

resulted

in a procedure

simulation produced

is used

in flight

to redesign conditions

the trajectory -- e.g., stronger

to account than

for

by off-nominal only a single loading

expected of

For this purpose,

trajectory portion

parameter

is modified

-- the value

Qot used in the constant

aerodynamic

of the trajectory.

-1-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I received like to thank assistance. I would study Diane, Kamala, buddy. Camille, Kelly, much help and support Richard Goss, Frederick me much while Boelitz, working on my masters thesis. I would first and

and Gilbert Stubbs for all of their advice in my two years at Draper. for being Mike (since such a great friend

They have taught especially I would

about engineering Monique Gaffney

like to thank also

and

like to thank Akhil, Chris,

my friends Fred (op.cit.),

fLrSt grade!), Ore, Bob,

Chavela, Duncan,

Mariano, Pete, Dave,

Carde,

Kris,

and Cathy. my family for all of their encouragement to be when and support. play left

Finally, My parents tackle

I would always

like to thank said I could

be anything

I wanted

I grew up, except

for the 'Skins. was prepared the National Contract Johnson at the Charles Space Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Langley and under Task

This report Order Center # 74 from under

and Aeronautics with the

Administration National Space

Research

NAS9-18147 Space Center.

Aeronautics

Administration Publishing sponsoring exchange I hereby Inc.,

of this report does not constitute agency of the findings of ideas. of this thesis or conclusions

approval contained

by the Draper herein.

Laboratory

or the for the

It is published

and stimulation assign

my copyright

to the Charles

Stark

Draper

Laboratory,

Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Jeanne

M. Sullivan

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Both planning manned to design system

and Problem
and unmanned trajectories launch vehicles currently require a large amount of

for each mission to last minute

flown.

This leads to high costs and causes or orbital changes. wind averages from those In addition, rather than expected for orbit

the launch trajectories

to be inflexible vehicles

payload

for these

are designed

based on monthly differ

wind data measured the design,

the day of launch. might reach

If winds orbit

too widely fuel

the vehicle

with insufficient

left for required

maneuvers. A new launch vehicle the Advanced associated wind Launch is being developed System (A.L.S.), by NASA to alleviate vehicle these problems. decrease Called the costs

the proposed

should

with mission The

preparation vehicle

while allowing will have wind

the vehicle velocity

to be robust to unpredicted data available to it from design it has mass."

variations.

measurements

taken a half hour before by NASA orbit.

launch.

The goal of the A.L.S. of the mass

trajectory once

has been established reached a desired

as the maximization will be referred design

of the vehicle

This mass

to in this thesis as the "on-orbit aerodynamic

The primary vehicle

constraint design

on trajectory limits.

is that the normal

loads on the

not exceed vehicle

Several asymmetrical

models

of the A.L.S.

have

been proposed. in 1988.

This thesis This vehicle The booster

focuses consists contains

on an of a seven

version

submitted the payload

by General attached

Dynamics

core stage containing engines while

to a single booster.

the core contains requiring

only three such engines. angles of attack.

The resulting

asymmetry

in thrust

leads to trajectories

large pitch

-3-

An earlier study was conductedby Boelitz1.


developed motion are included n the full simulation

The guidance

and control Boelitz

concepts

he

used for this study.

restricted

vehicle

to the pitch plane by nulling both yaw and roll torques. so that comparisons in ascent guidance between

This thesis

will be based on

the same assumption A previous same goals thesis

the two studies can be made. thesis had the

was done by Corvin 2 . Corvin's vehicle mode, the single

as this study but utilized

a different

stage-to-orbit by a

(SSTO)

Shuttle II. Corvin developed Boelitz

a simple trajectory

shape that could be described

small set of parameters. shape.

used this trajectory

shape and this thesis

will also use this

1.2 Method

To reduce trajectory payload,

costly

prelaunch should

preparation be fully

time

and to enhance Given

system

flexibility, vehicle

the mode, be

design

process

automated. before

a specific

and wind information program

acquired

shortly

launch, a mission tolerance

planner should on on-orbit

able to use a computer the set of trajectory program trajectory flight.

that determines

to within some the on-orbit

mass, That

parameters

which will maximize a trajectory

mass of the vehicle.

should then be able to design in the flight computer's have

based on these parameters system

and save the during

memory

for the guidance

to command

If the flight computers

the computational in flight.

capability, This redesign

then this same program would allow the vehicle

could be used to redesign trajectory

the trajectory

to adapt to winds that differ significantly algorithm utilizes has been developed simulation

from the prelaunch

measurements. outlined on-orbit above. mass

A computer The algorithm

which meets the objectives which calculates the vehicle's

a predictive

1 Boelitz, 1989. 2 Corvin,

F.W.,

MGuidance,

Steering,

Load Relief

and Conffol

of an Asymmetric

Launch Vehicle H.

Massachusetts M.A.,

Institute of Technology

Master of Science Thesis, Boost Vehicle. _ 1988.

CSDL Report T-1036. Massachusetts Institute of

"Ascent Guidance

for a Winged

Technology

Master of Science

Thesis, CSDL Report T-1002.

-4-

anda numerical
function. The predictive simulation system

optimization

scheme

which uses the on-orbit

mass to define

ifs objective

simulation

is a simplified mass.

simulation

that is used in place simulation system idealizes reduces

of the full the control the total of

to calculate used in the full

on-orbit

The predictive This idealized

simulation.

greatly

computation motion predictive

time for the on-orbit using

mass

calculation larger vehicle

because

the vehicle's step.

equations

can be integrated simulation

a much

integration stage,

time

The inputs

to the

include

the current

the prelaunch

wind measurement,

and a set of trajectory The numerical objective Whenever function

shape parameters. scheme uses the negative is equivalent to evaluate of the on-orbit to maximizing its objective mass on-orbit function as the mass.

optimization

it will minimize. scheme it utilizes method

This is required

the optimization

at a given

set of trajectory parameters, A conjugate because while it requires showing gradient

the predictive was chosen

simulation. optimization of the objective scheme function the is

for the numerical and the gradient The gradient

only the objective

function

a high speed of convergence. mass function

of the objective trajectory

function, parameters

derivatives approximated

of the on-orbit

with

respect

to the

with finite differencing.

1.3 Overview

The vehicle thrust modelling, environmental discussed. needed

model

used in this thesis

is discussed

in Chapter characteristics

2.

The

configuration, The is

mass properties, modeling, including

and aerodynamic atmospheric

are all presented. and wind velocity

pressure,

density,

The chapter to simulate

also describes motion

the kinematics in a pitch

and dynamic

equations Earth.

of motion Finally, by the

the vehicle's

plane about a spherical placed

the chapter describes vehicle designers.

the normal aerodynamic

load constraint

upon the A.L.S.

Chapter Boelitz

3 describes

the trajectory

design,

guidance, used

and control

concepts

developed

by

and implemented

in the full simulation

for this thesis.

At the end of the

-5-

chapter,the

proposed

trajectory

optimization

procedure

is presented

and the requirements

for such a procedure The predictive dynamics simulation accuracy

are described. simulation along is discussed in Chapter 4. The simplified approximation. different time kinematics and

are presented was compared

with the idealized

control

The predictive steps and the

to the full simulation

for several

was very good. 5 justifies of on-orbit the choice of the conjugate theory gradient method for the numerical

Chapter optimization The procedure modification initial guesses Chapter research.

mass. are

The underlying presented

and procedure 6.

is also presente_. optimization but a small

simulation worked

results for the

in Chapter shape initially

The numerical by Corvin

trajectory was made

defined

of the shape of the optimal 7 presents

to improve

the procedure's

robustness

to arbitrary

set of trajectory drawn

parameters. from the thesis and suggestions for future

conclusions

-6-

Chapter

Two

VEHICLE

DESCRIPTION

AND MODELING

2.1 Physical

Description

of A.L.S.

Vehicle

The vehicle the Advanced A.L.S. vehicle is under capable

model Launch

used for this ascent System (A.L.S.) by NASA

guidance proposed

study is based by General

upon a configuration in 1988.

of The boost

Dynamics

development of delivering arrangement stage

and the Air Force to low-Earth

to provide

an unmanned

large payloads of vehicle

orbit. by Figure 2.1. The vehicle parallel

The basic consists

components booster

is illustrated stage arranged

of a core

and

a single

in an asymmetric

configuration. Both the core and booster mixture thrust of liquid hydrogen stages (LH) have identical, and liquid lbs. oxygen non-throtfleable (LOX). Each engines engine fueled by a 6:1

has a vacuum while the

level of approximately

612,000

The booster in each

has seven

such engines The engine

core has only three engines. are gimballed the booster When

The fuel tanks

stage are identical.

nozzles Since core.

in both the pitch and yaw directions has more engines, its fuel is separated tanks

to provide

thrust direction before those

control. of the

will be depleted

this occurs,

the booster

from the core. the payload The lower The inertial bay. section The diameter of this section is

The upper larger

portion

of the core contains section of the core. stage.

than the lower dimensions

of the core has approximately unit (IMU) is located

the same

as the booster

measurement

at the base of the core. The Module from core. booster's (BRM). engines, This occurs servos, and fuel lines are contained in a Booster Separation Recovery of the BRM from the

is the only recoverable approximately twenty to return

part of the A.L.S. seconds

the booster Parachutes

after the booster

separates

are then deployed

the BRM to Earth

and recovery

is made

at sea.

-7-

Fairing Core Length Booster Length


Gross

293 ft.

161 ft. 3,782,000 Ibs. Payload Bay

Liftoff Weight Dry Weight

331,000

Ibs.

Liquid Oxygen

Tank

Inter-Tank Adapter

Liquid Hydrogen tank

Booster Recovery Module

l_\,,...._j./_\,..,__._/'_-'_

IMU

7 LH/LOX

Engines

***_**"*_

3 LH/LO

Engines

Figure 2.1: A.L.S. Configuration

-8-

The A.L.S. vehicle uses a total of 10 gas generator engines. Several important features
of the engines are presented in Table 2.1. The engines are non-throttleable, meaning that

the thrust level cannot be changed during flight. both assumed to be constant.

The mass flow rate and vacuum thrust are of each engine within the atmosphere

The thrust magnitude pressure alone.

will therefore vary with atmospheric

NAME Cycle Propellants Throttling Rage Propellant Flow Rate


i

SPECIFICATION
I I I

Gas Generator LOX/LH Fixed 1,427 Lbs/sec 612 KLbs 6,744 Lbs 88.0 in 150 in

Vacuum Thrust Weight Inside Diameter Length

Table 2.1: A.L.S. Engine Characteristics

The thrust direction gimballed

is the only available control input to the system.

Each engine is

in both the pitch and yaw planes so that the deflection

angle of the engine nozzles of each engine is + 9". with a 5" cant angle in capability

can be changed during flight. The limit on the gimballing Because of the asymmetry the pitch plane.

capability

of the vehicle, the engines were installed

This design feature allows the vehicle to have a large gimballing angle.

to prevent limiting of the engine nozzle deflection deflection is limited to 10"/see.

The rate of change of the nozzle

-9-

For this study, it was assumed be represented be controlling thrust vectors by a resultant the vehicle. are limited

that the thrust for the set of engines such that two thrust vectors, is described by Figure

in each stage could Tb and To, would As shown, of 5". both

thrust vector This assumption

2.2.

to a deflection

of 9" from the installed

cant angle

Booster,

Core,

nes

o/i i
_ Thrust ..-'''--._:." .o I_ i _I deflection cant Installed

.:"

..

"_----_ i 9

/__

Gimballing

capability

J
NOTES 1) All 10 engines are installed

/
with a 5 cant. gimballing capability of

2) All 10 engines have the same :t: 9 from installed cant. 3) Resultant 4) Resultant

thrust vector of core, Tc, acts through point A. thrust vector of booster, Tb, acts through point B.

Figure

2.2:

Thrust

Model

It was further assumed This angle is computed

that both thrust vectors system

will be deflected so that the vehicle system.

by the same can maintain

angle,

8.

by the flight control commanded

control

while steering

to the trajectory

by the guidance

- lO-

2.2 Mass

Properties

To simulate is required inertia.

the linear

and angular mass

acceleration properties:

of the vehicle mass

during

flight, and

knowledge moment of

of the time-varying

(m), cg position,

The mass decreases of inertia

as fuel is expended.

As the mass is decreased, in this thesis Therefore,

the cg position of the plane about

and moment ALS vehicle

change.

It has been assumed plane.

that the motion only the pitch of inertia

is constrained of cg location

to lie in the pitch

components the pitch

(xcs and Zcs) are required

and only the moment

axis (lyy) is required. of the dry mass fuel mass properties mass properties properties is computed before launch and is combined calculation flight since before mass

A calculation with the initial lift-off. The

to give a total vehicle be updated

mass property during

can then

continuously

flow rate is assumed The dry model

to be constant. used is the same as that developed by Boelitz, geometric based solids upon and

recommendations shells.

from

NASA.

The vehicle

is separated

into various mass density.

All components

were assumed

to have uniform were

The fuel tanks fuel inside payload Table modeled were

in both the core and the booster as a solid cylinder modeled as solid

modelled length.

as hollow The engine properties

shells

with the and in

with time-varying cylinders.

modules

bay

The dry mass

are presented

2.2 below:

Vehicle Component: Core Booster TOTAL:

Xcg

?.cg

lyy

(slu_s) 10,924 5,781 16,705

fit)
138.0 63.5 112.2

(ft) 0 0 -11.1

(slu_

ft 2)

56,872,200 16,945,000 9.8,671,000

Table

2.2:

Dry Mass

Properties

(Datum

at base of core)

-11-

2.3 Aerodynamic

Characteristics

In order necessary coefficients attack. moment and +14".

to compute to know

the aerodynamic

forces

and moment normal

in the pitch and axial number

plane,

it is These

the coefficients dependent CSDL

of aerodynamic and are functions

force.

are vehicle provided

of both Mach

and angle of Lift, drag, and between -14"

NASA

with updated

aerodynamic

dam in 1989. of attack

coefficients The vehicle

were provided simulations for the current numbers

for 0<Mach<8

and for angles

used in this study interpolated vehicle spline state.

between

these data points was used between consecutive

to obtain coefficients consecutive Mach

Linear interpolation

and cubic

interpolation

was used between

angle of attack values.

2.4 Environmental

Conditions

In addition the atmospheric determine

to the aerodynamic model (pressure, forces.

coefficients density,

described and speed

above,

knowledge

is required

of to

of sound)

and of the winds

the aerodynamic for atmospheric

The vehicle density,

simulations and speed

used in this study implement of sound given in the 1976 US with a to

the equations Standard

pressure,

Atmosphere.

These feet.

parameters

are all defined

as functions and pressure

of altitude

range of 0 to 282,000

Above

this range, the air density

are assumed speed of sound. of sensing

be zero and the speed of sound It is assumed during flight. radar-tracked in this thesis

is assumed

to be the same as the vacuum vehicle will not be capable

that the A.L.S.

winds

The winds will be measured balloon system. design, NASA It is assumed

one half hour before

launch using the Jimsphere that can

that this is the only wind information

be used in trajectory For this study, percentage percentage

both before launch and during flight. provided a wind profile from design Vandenberg before AFB. A certain

of the wind profile of the wind profile

is used for trajectory is used for the in-flight

launch,

and a different

simulation.

The goal of this variation

- 12-

is to test disturbances. Because pitch plane the wind

the

guidance

system

for robustness

in the

presence

of unexpected

wind

this study

is limited

to the pitch that is parallel using used

plane,

the winds

were

assumed

to lie in the Also, a finite is

and act in a direction profiles were points. linearized

to the local Earth-relative line approximations and its linearized above 66,000

horizontal. between

straight

number shown

of data

The profile

by this study

approximation ft.

in Appendix

A. In this prof'de,

the winds

dissipated

2.5 Coordinate

Frames

and

Kinematics

Three

reference

frames

are used

in this study as:

to simulate

the motion

of the vehicle

about a spherical

Earth.

They are defined

(1) Inertial

Earth-Centered

Reference

Frame:

(X, Y, Z)

All equations origin

of motion

are referred

to this non-rotating through

reference the North

frame. Pole.

The The

is at the center through

of the earth.

The Z axis points

X axis points set.

zero longitude

and the Y axis completes

the right-handed

(2) Local

Geographic

Frame:

(ON,

liE,

liG)

The origin towards

is at the center

of gravity

of the vehicle.

The positive formed

ut; axis

points

the center

of the earth. north.

The us axis lies on the plane

by the Z axis set. The wind frame.

and uG and points directions

The UE axis completes angles

the right-handed within

and all earth-relative

are calculated

this reference

-13-

(3) Body-Fixed The origin there thesis parallel

Frame:

(xB, YB, ZB) is fixed to the vehicle's center of gravity As stated plane. and assumes earlier, this

of this frame

will be no rotation constrains

of the vehicle to unrolled

about the XB axis. motion in the pitch towards

the vehicle

The xB axis is The YB

to the centerline

of the vehicle of the cross All forces

and points

the nose cone.

axis is in the direction the right-handed frame. set.

product

of u6 and xB. The zn axis completes on the vehicle are computed in this

and torques

XB roll

UN

Headin

uE

Earth
z

Relative

Horizontal

yaw
B pitch

UG

Figure

2.3:

Relationship

Between

Body

and Local

Geographic

Frames

-14-

Pitch Plane Trajectory

t.OEarth

Z
North Pole

Longitude = 0 at time = O)

Figure

2.4:

Inertial

and Body Frame

Relationship

With Pitch

Plane

-15-

The relationship Figure heading zero. 2.3. Again,

between because solely

the body

and local geographic

reference

frames plane

is shown

in the

this study is concerned

only with the pitch azimuth

dynamics, angle

is determined The Earth-relative

from the initial launch

and the bank

is set to

pitch attitude

is the only variable

of interest. frames and the pitch plane velocity,

The relationship is illustrated

between

the inertial

and the body reference

in Figure 2.4. angle,

The angle of attack with respect _, are also depicted in this figure.

to the Earth-relative

and the sideslip The rotation

of the inertial

frame into the body frame was described azimuth, elevation, matrix

by an Euler angle This

set, (9", O, O) representing u'ansformation


is"

a sequential in Etkin.

and bank transformation.

is described

The rotation

obtained

using this transformation

cos O cos

9" 9"

cos O sin 9" sin sin @ sin 9" + cos Ocos 9" 9"

-sin O sin cos O

[C]=

sin sin @ cos - cos sin 9" cos sin O cos + sin sin 9"

cos sin 0 sin 9' - sin cos 9"

cos cos O (2.1)

The rotation frame

matrix

is used to resolve frame

the components If a vector

of a vector B is known

known

in the inertial frame

into the body-fixed

and vice-versa.

in the inertial

such that:

B =XlUXI

+yluyI

+ZlUTl'

=XB

UXB

+yBuyB

+ZBUZB

(2.2)

but

the

components

xa, YB, and ZB are not relation:

known,

then

these

components

can

be

determined

from the following

{x,}{x,}
YB
zB

=[C]

Yl

Zl

(2.3)

-16-

The rotation
known

matrix,

[C], is orthogonal flame

so that [C] q

= [C] T.

Therefore,

a vector

which

is

in the body-fixed

can be expressed

in the inertial

frame with the relation:

=[c] r yB
Zl ZB

(2.4)

2.6 Dynamics

and

Rigid

Body

Equations

Figure where:

2.5 shows

the angular

rate and moment

notation

used for the body-fixed

frame

L = rolling M = pitching N = yawing

moment moment moment

t.0r= rate of roll ra t, = rate of pitch o_ = rate of yaw

XB

\
L, fo r

YB M, fop

N, COy z B

Figure

2.5:

Angular

Rates

in Body Frame

- 17-

Since experiences

this study is limited

to the pitch-plane

motion,

it was assumed

that the vehicle

no roll or yaw torques:

L -N - 0
The rolland yaw rates are therefore also zero:

(2.5)

o_r = toy = 0

(2.6)

and the sideslip

angle, fl, is zero.

2.6.1 Flight Orientation

Parameters

The following

flight orientation in the trajectory

parameters, plane:

pictured

in Figure

2.6, are used to describe

the state of the vehicle

0 = earth-relative or = angle of attack

pitch attitude with respect to the air-relative velocity velocity atr

aE = angle of attack with respect aW = angle of attack contribution

to the Earth-relative from winds = a-

y= flight path angle VE = Earth-relative Vw = wind velocity VA = air-relative velocity = VE - Vw velocity

The

air-relative The

velocity angle

is the difference of attack

between

the Earth-relative velocity produced if the cross

velocity

and the

wind velocity.

with respect

to the air-relative

is equal to the by winds. product The of V,,,

sum of the Earth-relative angle with of attack VE points velocity contribution

angle of attack from winds

and the angle of attack is defined The as positive angle

in the positive

YB direction.

of attack

with respect

to the air-

relative

is used in the calculation

of the aerodynamic

coefficients.

-18-

+X B

V A

cg

Earth

Relative

Horizontal

Figure

2.6:

Flight

Orientation

Parameters

2.6.2 Forces

and Torques

The forces

that act on the vehicle forces

during

endoatmospheric

flight

are: the thrust (Fg).

forces A free

(Tb and To), the aerodynamic body diagram of the vehicle

(FN and FA), and

the force 2.7.

of gravity

in the pitch plane

is given in Figure center of pressure

The aerodynamic body-fixed aerodynamic direction. coordinate force These

force acts at the vehicle frame. For an unrolled

and can be resolved angle, force

into the

vehicle

with zero sideslip aerodynamic as:

the normal acts in -XB

acts in the -zB direction can be written

and the axial

forces

in the body-fixed

frame

FN =- S Q CN uzs

(2.7)

FA =- S Q CA UXB

(2.8)

-19-

where:
S = reference Q = dynamic p = air density "CA = magnitude CN --"coefficient CA = coefficient uzB = unit vector uxB = unit vector of air-relative of aerodynamic of aerodynamic in z-direction in x-direction velocity normal force C/v (a, Mach) Mach) area = constant pressure -- p VA2/2

axial force = Ca(a, of body-f'Lxed of body-fLxed frame frame

+XB/.

F.

Earth Relative Horizontal

datum

Figure

2.7:

Vehicle

Free Body Diagram

in the Pitch Plane

- 20 -

Theaerodynamic

pitching

moment

is expressed

in a similar form:

MaERO= S O Cu (Icpx-xcg) + S Q Ca (-l_p, + z_g)


where:

(2.9)

lcpx = location lct,z = location

of center

of pressure

with respect with respect

to datum to eenterline of core

of center of pressure

For this study,

both lcpx and lcpz were assumed forces,

to be constants. in the body-fixed frame as:

The two thrust

Tb and To are expressed

Tb = Tb cos t5 uxB + Tb sin t5 uz8

(2.10)

Tc = Tc cos _ uxB + Tc sin 8 uzs

(2.11)

where:

Tb = booster

thrust

Tc = core thrust S = nozzle deflection

The thrust contribution

to the pitching

moment

exerted

on the vehicle

is:

MrtRUST

= Tt, Xcg sin _ + Tc Xcg sin t_ - TI, (D + zcg) cos 6 - Tc zcg cos

t5

(2.12)

where:

Xcg = body zc8 = body D = distance

x-axis z-axis

cg position cg position

(measured (measured

from datum

at base of core) > 0 of core) < 0

from centerline

between

centerlines

of core and booster

= constant

-21

The expressed

force

of gravity

points as:

toward

the

center

of the

Earth

along

UG and

can be

in the inertial

frame

Fg = - m g (R/R)

(2.13)

where:

R = position R = magnitude

vector of vehicle of inertial

expressed vector

in inertial

coordinates

position

m = re(t) = vehicle

mass at time t

2.6.3 Rigid Body Equations

of Motion

The forces resultant

acting

on the vehicle coordinates:

can be summed

in the body-fixed

frame

to give

the

force in body-f'Lxed

FNET = FN + F A + T b + Tc + Fg

(2.14)

This

force

can

be resolved

into

the

inertial

frame

by the

use

of equation

2.4.

The

Iranslational

equations dR= dt V

of motion

are then:

(2.15)

dV=(1)F dt

(2.16)

The principle:

rotational

equations

of motion

are

calculated

using

the

angular

momentum

M -

d([/]o dt

acrll _t

)
relative to
body frame

x [/]0,)

(2.17)

- 22 -

This setof

equations

can be expanded

into the following:

+[i

_9c0
(2.18)

where
as:

M is the total moment

acting on the vehicle

and is expressed

in the body-fixed

flame

M --

(2.19)

and co is the angular

velocity

of the body expressed

in the body-fixed

frame

as:

(2.20)

and [/] = [l(t)] = vehicle

inertia

at time t

To simplify are assumed diagonal. angular therefore


as:

equation

2.18,

two assumptions axes

can be made. so that

First,

the body-fixed matrix, of inertia and

axes [/], is with was form

to form Second,

a principal

set for the vehicle of the product small

the inertia

the term that consists found to form these a very

of the time derivative to the total

rate

was

contribution equation

moment

neglected.

Using

assumptions,

2.18 can be written

in scalar

d_ L = I_-_-

_paXj

(lyy

lzz)

(2.21)

M = 6y aco.

oyo._ ([zz- Ixx)

(2.22)

N = Iz_ _-

_a b {l_x- lyy)

(2.23)

- 23 -

Theseequationsare known as
that: the rolling moment, yawing

Euler's moment,

equations

of motion.

However,

we stated

earlier

rate of roll, and rate of yaw are all equal to zero:

L =N

=o_

=o_

=0

(2.24)

Therefore,

equations

2.21 and 2.23 are both trivial

and equation

2.22 simplifies

to:

dt

I;_M

(2.25)

where

the pitching forces

moment,

M, acting

on the vehicle forces:

is the sum of the contributions

from

the thrust

and from the aerodynamic

= MAERO

+ MTHRUST

(2.26)

The Euler non-orthogonal

angle rates

are then calculated matrix:

from the body rates

by the use of the following

rate transformation 1

sin @ tan @ cos @ sin@sec@

cos @ tan O -sin @ cos@secO (2.27)

[W] =

0 0

Using describes

this transformation the attitude

matrix,

the time rate of change to the inertial

of the Euler angle frame is given by:

set which

of the vehicle

with respect

o =[w]
L_yJ (2.28)

where:

oh = oXj = 0 for all time t o r, = body pitchrate

(assumption

made

for pitch plane

analysis)

= dO/dt

- 24 -

In summary, the equationsof motion implemented in the six degreeof freedom simulationusedfor this thesisare: Translational:
dR= dt V (2.29)

av=(_)F dt
Rotational:

_Er

(2.30)

(2.31)

o =[w]
L_yJ (2.32)

2.7 Constraints

The normal the vehicle of the necessary

aerodynamic through moment

force can produce the atmosphere.

a large bending there without flight.

moment

on the vehicle.as

moves

Structurally, can sustain

is a limit on the magnitude failure. Therefore, it is

bending

that

the vehicle aerodynamic magnitude

to constrain equation

the normal 2.7, the

force during of the normal

Recalling expressed as:

aerodynamic

force

can

be

FN

= S Q c_v

(2.33)

- 25 -

where:
S = reference Q = dynamic p = air density Va = magnitude CN = coefficient of air-relative of normal velocity force = C_/(og Mach) area = constant pressure - p VA2/2

aerodynamic

For small values approximated coefficient

of angle

of attack,

the coefficient

of normal Given

aerodynamic

force can be the

as a linear can be expressed

function as:

of angle

of attack.

this approximation,

CN = CNa Ot

(2.34)

where:

(2.35)

The normal

aerodynamic

force can then be approximated

by:

FN

= S Q Qua ot

(2.36)

Since

is a constant force or.

and

CNais

approximately

equal

to

a constant, pressure, force,

the

normal

aerodynamic angle usually designers trajectory

is roughly Therefore,

proportional to control

to the product the normal

of dynamic aerodynamic

Q, and the is

of attack, controlled

the vehicle

to limit the product vehicle.

of Q and a. limit

A limit on Qa has been specified primary constraint

by the

of the A.L.S. during

This flight.

is the

on the vehicle's

endoatmospheric

- 26 -

The dynamicpressure is proportionalto theproductof


the magnitude increases altitude. maximum the Earth's from The of the zero result air-relative during of these flight effects velocity, while VA. the The

air density,

p, and the square monotonically decreases from zero

of

air-relative

velocity

air density the dynamic

monotonically pressure rises

with to a

is that

within

the atmosphere

and then decreases dynamic

back to zero when profile showing

the vehicle this

has left is

atmosphere. in Figure are several 2.8.

A typical

pressure

behavior

illustrated There

methods

which

have

been developed force

to control

the Qu product

so that II

the constraint study, dynamic mode shaping

on normal

aerodynamic capability

is not exceeded. engines used found

Corvin, to control an angle

in his Shuttle velocity of attack

used the throttling pressure.

of that vehicle's A.L.S.

and thus limiting trajectory

Boelitz,

in the initial Both

study,

within could

the control

system.

Corvin

and Boelitz below

that appropriate limit.

also help to keep the Qa product

the specified

800

" 700 6O0

500

400 300

200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time

(sec)

Figure

2.8:

Typical

Dynamic

Pressure

Profile

- 27 -

Chapter Three

TRAJECTORY

DESIGN, GUIDANCE, CONCEPTS

AND CONTROL

3.1 Introduction

The

new

trajectory

design by Boelitz.

and

guidance Trajectory

concepts design

developed

in this

study are based a trajectory, during flight. as

upon those based upon

developed objectives

is the process system

of choosing to command was

and constraints,

for the guidance design

Boelitz's

objective

for the trajectory mass" The as possible "on-orbit

of the guidance

commands

to achieve the designer when

high an "on-orbit specified just been mass

while mass"

constraining is defined orbit.

the vehicle as the mass An advantage for any post

to fly within of the vehicle

Qo_ limit. inserted

it has

into the desired, more fuel

elliptical

of maximizing boost maneuvers.

on-orbit Also,

is that

it allows

to be available

minimizing payloads

the fuel needed into orbit.

for endoatmospheric

boost

will allow

the A.L.S.

to carry larger

A disadvantage loop manner dispersions the trajectory an attempt predictive for on-orbit those

of the Boelitz

study was that the guidance was not updated occur during

was implemented flight. Consequently, failure mass.

in an openif wind then

such that the trajectory from the pre-launch designed is made simulation mass. before

measurement flight might the trajectory mass,

or if an engine-out for on-orbit

occurs,

not be optimal during flight

In this thesis, current state, a

to update

using the vehicle's optimization scheme

for on-orbit The control study. the work design

and a numerical concepts

to maximize as

and estimation

used in this thesis

are the same

used in the previous reviews

This chapter are made vehicle

done

by Boelitz

and introduces

the improvements the mission necessitates

that of the the use

in trajectory

and

guidance. into separate

Section phases.

3.2 describes Each phase

and how its flight

is divided

- 28 -

of

different

guidance

and control

schemes.

Section

3.3 describes

which

signals

can be that

sensed Boelitz direction. Section Finally,

and which used

signals

must be estimated. velocity, and control angle

This section of attack,

then reviews pressure,

the estimators

for angular

dynamic

and acceleration in Section for each trajectory 3.4.

The guidance 3.5 reviews Section

concepts trajectory

used in flight are discussed design profiles and methods

the pre-launch

phase. design

3.6 introduces

the method

for automating

the pre-launch

and updating

the trajectory

in flight.

3.2 Mission

and

Flight

Phases

The A.L.S. parking minimum. launch orbit.

must The

be able to carry amount of lead-time

payloads

through

the

atmosphere

to a low-Earth must be kept to a

and planning

for the mission to tolerate wind

The vehicle

must also have the capability and still have orbit. of the A.L.S. and can be divided thus different 3.1. enough

dispersions ascent

from preto maneuver

measurements parking trajectory

fuel left after atmospheric

into the desired The ascent involves schematic Phase tower. Attitude Phase

into four distinct guidance

phases.

Each schemes.

phase A

different

constraints is shown

and control

of the ascent 1 is a vertical

in Figure

rise from

the launch

pad so that the vehicle this phase must

can clear

the launch at 90*.

The pitch control

attitude

of the vehicle

during

be held

constant

is thus used to meet this objective. by a rapid pitchover designed to orient the vehicle to the initial from the

2 is characterized by Phase

state required the state vehicle well based

3. The state required

at the start of Phase Phase 2 must

3 is very different quickly pitch over

achieved while

at the end of Phase pressure, specified

1. Therefore,

the dynamic the designer

Q, is still small enough Qcx limit. The guidance function

so that the Qcx product profile of time. used

remains is

below

in this phase

on pitch attitude

rate calculated

as an analytical

- 29 -

Phase

Four

Exoatmospheric Flight Phase Predictive-adaptive Powered Explicit Guidance (PEG) T = 120 sec.

Maximum Q a

Phase

Three

Constrained endoatmospheric flight phase Acceleration-direction steering, guidance, and control, subject to a Q (x limit.

T _--30 - 40 sec. Phase Two

Relatively unconstrained rapid launch maneuver Attitude control unimpaired by Q a constraint. T _=8 sec.
m

Phase

One

Vertical rise to clear tower Attitude control !

Figure

3.1"

A.L.S.

Flight

Phases

- 30-

Phase 3 is the endoatmospheric by the Qtt limit. above the specified profile The Qa product

phase during which reaches its maximum

the trajectory during During

may be constrained and could rise

this stage this phase,

Qt_ limit if it were

not constrained.

the guidance control system the the

command

is a stored acceleration-direction the acceleration-direction to a Qo_ limiting

trajectory. profile control mode

A dual-mode ff the Qtx product

is used that will follow specified limit. Phase that 4 begins when pressure flight

is below is above

limit, but will switch

if the Qa product

the atmospheric is low once during system

density again. this phase.

has fallen The

to a sufficiently from

small value

so to

the dynamic

transition

endoatmospheric of the Space

exoatmospheric Powered starts Explicit

occurs

A modification

Shuttle Phase 4

Guidance

(PEG)

is used to guide neglects orbit.

the vehicle. aerodynamic

Because forces. parameters

in the upper atmosphere, the vehicle

the PEG algorithm into low Earth

At the end for this

of this phase, orbit are:

is inserted

The specified

(1) Radius (2) Radius

of perigee of apogee velocity

= rpe = 80 nautical = rap = 150 nautical at perigee:

miles miles

(3) Horizontal

_rpeJ

where

I.t = gravitational

constant

3.3 In-Flight

Guidance and Control

This section Boelitz

presents

a review A.L.S. study.

of the guidance This thesis

and involves

control

concepts

developed

by

in the previous

modifications The control study. loops

of the guidance and estimators

but does not attempt

to improve

on the control

concepts.

used in this study are therefore

the same as used in the previous

-31

3.3.1Phase

I and 2 Guidance

and Control

Figure 3.2 shows a generalblock diagram describing the guidance and controlfor both Phase I (vertical rise) and Phase 2 (launch maneuver). The guidance commands of both

Phase I and Phase 2 are based on pitchattitude rate, COo For Phase 1 the vehicle must risevertically to clearthetower and so:

_(0= 0
8cmrr= 90" (3.1)

Oc(t) = Ocmr r = 90"

For Phase itself pitch

2, the vehicle

must

start at the final for Phase whose

conditions

for Phase

1 and

then orient

to meet the starting attitude

conditions

3. Corvin

and Boelitz

both used a sinusoidal relation:

rate for this purpose

form is given

by the following

= o{ 1 cost [TKiclc (/zv,,,)]}[ Tv,.


where:

<-t <_T_a + Tv..

(3.2)

= half the maximum


Tvert = duration

pitch rate 1 (time required 2 for vehicle to clear launch tower)

of Phase of Phase

TKick = duration

The

shape

of this maneuver by the function, trajectory

is shown design

in Figure process

3.3.

Both

,.(2 and TKick are section.

constants With this

determined analytical giving

discussed in Figure

in the next

the integration relation

of tOc shown

3.2 can be performed

analytically

the following

for commanded

pitch attitude:

<33,

- 32 -

Figure

3.2:

Phase

1 and 2 Guidance

and Control

Block

Diagram

33

2t_{deg 0 ,_,

Ih,

0 Phase Two Start Time (sec)

TKick = (Tphase Three Start "Tphase Two Start )

Figure 3.3: Phase 2 Attitude Rate Profile

Referring open-loop,

again to Figure 3.2, the guidance

employed

in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 is

meaning that the guidance commands

to the control system are designed prior to

launch and are not updated during flight.

This study did not attempt to close the guidance

loop during Phase 1 and 2 because it was decided that the altitude of the vehicle during both of these phases was sufficiently The attitude commands low so that wind dispersions by the open-loop were not a serious problem. system are fed directly attitude and the control. The

generated

guidance

into the control system which tries to null the error between the commanded sensed attitude, e0. The attitude error is compensated resulting signal is then summed with the fed-forward by proportional-integral commanded

pitch rate, (oc, to produce

a net pitch rate command,

(.oc'. This signal is compared

to the estimated pitch rate resulting

in a pitch rate error signal, e_. This error signal is multiplied nozzle angle command by a proportional nozzle gain, KNKv, Boelitz to provide linearized an engine the vehicle

to the engine

servos.

dynamics,

using the assumption

of a planar trajectory,

to find a transfer function between

engine nozzle deflection, of this vehicle dynamics

_, and pitch attitude, O. On the basis of this linearization, the gain transfer function is approximately Kv where:

Kv = T Xc...._._g
lyy

(3.4)

- 34 -

This is a quantity denominator

which

monotonically

increases

with time.

Therefore,

Kv, is used in the gain constant. nozzle

of the proportional the engine

gain to keep nozzle servos

the total inner loop forward were idealized

For this thesis, deflection

such that the commanded

was perfectly

achieved:

8=

(3.5)

3.3.2 Phase 3 Guidance

and Control

Traditionally, of flight. acceleration acceleration the nominal control signal loop,

launch

vehicles

have used "acceleration is the inertial The attitude control command

direction"

steering

for this phase excluding either the an to

The "acceleration caused direction

direction"

acceleration

of the vehicle

by gravity. or a pitch

loop

is commanded

to follow system. feedback

from the guidance and attitude rate

In addition signals

acceleration a parallel

direction "load relief"

(or attitude) signal AV

in the a

is added. component

This add-on acting

load relief to the

employs vehicle's

proportional axis.

to the

measured

normal

longitudinal of attack. air-relative add-on control winds.

At low frequencies, of the add-on vector concept

this signal load relief reduce

is approximately

proportional

to the angle of the of the direction of

The effect velocity

is to rotate

the vehicle

in the direction The disadvantage

and thereby

the angle of attack. is in conflict from the desired is one

load relief

is that the load relief significant deviations

with the acceleration trajectory

and can produce The control of the

in the presence some

concept traditional guidance the concept diagram

used

in this thesis load-relief

which

overcomes mode,

of the

disadvantages

concept. scheme vehicle

It is a dual

acceleration by Bushnell.

direction/QoMimiting Boelitz later applied block

and control to the A.L.S.

that was fast in his study.

developed

A general control

for Phase 3.4.

3 acceleration system

directiort/Qtz-limiting has two modes.

guidance

and mode,

is shown

in Figure

The control

In the primary acceleration

the vehicle's profile. thrust

"sensed"

acceleration acceleration forces.

is commanded includes Gravity

to follow

a stored

direction from (the

The sensed

only the contributions forces are not included.

to vehicle

acceleration mode

and aerodynamic

The secondary

- 35-

Q_z limiting These loads

mode)

is only activated monitored

when the vehicle by comparing

experiences the predicted

large a_'odynamic angle

loads.

are constantly

of attack, Y.prea,to dynamic

an angle pressure,

of attack _):

limit defined

by the division

of the Qiz limit by the estimated

o.t,,.ea = _ + ea I Qalti,n Ottim = --

(3.6)

(3.7)

where:

_t = estimated

angle of attack error

eA = accelerafion-directon

If the predicted system signals. unimpaired load relief,

angle

of attack

is greater mode concept,

than the angle

of attack limit,

then

the control the two is

will switch Using

to the secondary this dual-mode

and thus null out any difference acceleration-direction and the vehicle trajectory autopilot

between

following

by an add-on

load relief

function

will only perform

in the form of Qct -limiting, for either For closed-loop

when needed. or open-loop guidance is shown on the block profile diagram can be of in

The option in Figure provided attack section 3.4.

closed-loop design

guidance, in flight

a new

acceleration

direction can be used

by trajectory limit 3.6. calculation.

and a new Qot -limit guidance concept

for the angle further

This closed-loop

will be discussed

- 36-

_E

t--

"i
_T
,_ 8,0-

I_loI
8 J g _ 8^

(T+

_T
I

_J_-

_j
Figure 3.4:

t_oj
Phase 3 Guidance and Control Block Diagram

- 37 -

The control form

system

shown

to the right of the mode The switch error, provides

switch either

in Figure

3.4 is similar direction

in

to that used for Phase Ca, or an angle

1 and 2. of attack

an acceleration system. The

error signal, used attitude will

ea, to the control control to the estimated

error signal pitch resulting to provide the nozzle

be modified tac"

by proportional-integral is compared

producing pitch

a commanded rate, to. The

rate,

This signal

error in pitch an engine servos

rate, eo is multiplied deflection

by a time-varying

proportional nozzle

gain, KdKv, servos. Again,

nozzle

command,

8c, to the engine nozzle

are idealized

such that the commanded modes The

deflection

is perfectly

achieved. different sets of two using

Because control different a linear dynamics nozzle gains

the two control must be used.

have different alternative

dynamic sets

characteristics, are

of gains

designated 3.,*.

by the Boelitz,

subscripts approximations

in the gains

Kt'l.2, Ktl.2, and K81.2 shown showed how

in Figure

for the system, analysis

the two modes

involved error

different so that the

and did a stability would

for each. when

He also reset the integrator switching between modes.

command

be continuous

3.4 Sensing

and

Estimation

3.4.1

Sensed

Signals

It is assumed attitude frame. contains measuring The

for this thesis device

that

the Inertial vehicle

Measurement

Unit

(IMU)

contains

an

that measures is defined

attitude

with respect angles. inertial

to an inertial In addition, velocity.

reference the IMU

measured

attitude

by a set of Euler "sensed"

an integrating of sensed

accelerometer acceleration-

that measures i.e. acceleration

This velocity

is the integral forces required

produced

by thrust

and aerodynamic signals

and excluding for guidance

gravity.

The IMU signals

are processed

to yield the following

and control:

1) Vehicle 2) Inertial

pitch attitude velocity

relative

to a local earth AV

horizontal:

increments:

- 38 -

3) Inertialvelocity: V
- this signal where 4) Inertial gravity R of inertial velocity is the sum of the sensed is specified by a gravity inertial model velocity and the integral of gravity,

position:

- the integral

In addition nozzle

to these

four processed

signals,

the nozzle

deflection,

8, is determined

from

actuator measurements. are several signals directly needed during for the guidance These velocity excluding and the control of the vehicle that

There cannot attack

be measured with respect direction during

flight.

are the pitch angular (o0, gravity the dynamic

rate (w), the angle of pressure (Q), signals and the must be

to the air-relative of the vehicle

acceleration estimated

(OA). All of these

flight.

3.4.2 Angular

Rate

The pitch angular flight phases

rate estimate,

_, is used

as the inner

loop feedback of angle

variable

during

1, 2, and 3. It is also used for the estimation of tangential and and centripetal intrinsic noise acceleration in the IMU

of attack, Because measurement,

a to account there can be it is not and

for the effects significant sufficient

at the IMU. attitude

quantization to use a derived period.

rate signal based noise

only on the quotient signal

of pitch attitude change

the sampling attitude

The

in the attitude period

will be magnified

in the derived

rate, especially

if the sampling

is small. on a first order digital over a sampling representation through In the complementary interval) is shown f'tlter

Boeltiz which angular Derived rate

used an angular

rate estimator

based

has both derived acceleration

rate (change as inputs.

in pitch attitude

and estimated in Figure 3.5. a

A continuous-time input and is passed at low frequencies.

rate is the low frequency that path, is accurate an equivalent through

a low-pass

filter to produce of the high

estimate

implementation an estimate

frequency acceleration

representation a low-pass filter.

is used

in which

of angular as

is passed

This procedure

gives

the same results

- 39-

high-pass acceleration. velocity, thrust

filtering The

a high angular

frequency acceleration

rate

signal

based

upon

integration

of angular inertial of the

estimate

is based

upon

the IMU-measured errors in the modelling

the engine

deflections, forces.

and corrections

for any small

and aerodynamic

low-pass

filter

o_lowfr_u=%-y

'cs + 1
+

_-_h_h _quency

xs + 1 high-pass filter

Figure

3.5: Continuous

Signal Representation

of Angular

Rate Estimator

3.4.3 Angle of Attack

The switching the Qa estimator.

angle

of attack

estimate,

_, is employed outer-loop a second

in Phase feedback

3.

It is used

in the

mode of

logic and it is the primary limiting The mode. Boeltiz used

variable

in the control

system

order

digital

complementary is shown estimate

filter

for this 3.6. from The the

continuous-time input,

representation

of the filter of attack

in Figure determined

low frequency following

_qow frequency, is an angle

procedure:

1) Estimate velocity 2) Subtract component 3) Estimate normal

the normal increments the thrust produced

acceleration and estimated contribution by normal

at the angular

center

of gravity

from

the IMU

sensed

rate and angular normal force.

acceleration. acceleration to isolate the

to the estimated aerodynamic

the magnitude acceleration

of the normal produced

aerodynamic

force by multiplying mass.

the estimated

by this force with the vehicle

- 40 -

4) Determinethenormal
aerodynamic pressure. 5) Use the normal the aerodynamic force

aerodynamic by the product

force coefficient of the reference

by dividing

the estimated

normal dynamic

area and the estimated

aerodynamic data tables

force coefficient

and Math

number

to search

through

to find a corresponding

value of angle of attack.

low-pass
2_0)nS

filter
2 + COn

fraqu_ey

2 S2 + 2_0)nS + COn
-I-

-t-

O_high frequency

S2 + 2_0)nS

+ 0) 2

high-pass

filter

Figure

3.6:

Continuous

Signal

Representation

of Angle

of Attack

Estimator

The Referring _high order

high back

frequency to Figure
is

input

to the complementary

filter

is based

upon

pitch

attitude. input,

3.6, it can be seen that an s multiplying to using


(Xhig h

the high frequency input

frequency,

equivalent

frequency as the high frequency in Figure 3.7.

into a lower

filter.

The equivalent now

filter is shown

The Chapter

problem

lies in estimating

a discrete-time as:

..:.. Othigh frequency. AS

shown

in

2, the angle of attack can be expressed

a = 0- y+ C_w

(3.8)

-41

low-pass

filter 2

2_cons + co n
O_w Ir_u_mey 2 S2 + 2_C0nS + O)n

ahlgh lr=qu_=y

S2 + 2_(OnS + (02

high-pass

filter

Figure

3.7:

Alternate

Representation

of Angle

of Attack

Estimator

Taking

the derivative

of both sides yields:

_=o-_'+_w

(3.9)

This equation

can be expressed

in the discrete-time

domain

as:

Aa = A0 - AT+

Aew

(3.10)

The

incremental Because

change

AO_w is cause cannot

by variations be measured,

in the winds this quantity to yield

normal

to the velocity in the angle

vector.

these variations The quantity

is neglected

of attack estimation.

A7 is also neglected

the relationship:

Ao_= za0

(3.1])

The varying

omission

of the incremental of Aa.

change

in flight order

path

angle

can cause

a small

time-

bias in the estimation estimation

A second

complementary

filter is used for the

angle of attack

so that this bias can be attenuated.

- 42 -

3.4.4 Dynamic

Pressure

Phase 3 utilizes in the Qa limiting estimator. The dynamic the air-relative during no wind

estimated mode.

dynamic

pressure, pressure

_), in both the mode estimate

swRching

logic

and

The dynamic

is also used in the angle

of attack

pressure velocity upon

is a function of the vehicle. a standard

of both atmospheric The atmospheric model. velocity the IMU

density density

and the magnitude

of

is assumed because

to be known the vehicle Boelitz has used of

flight based sensors,

atmospheric

However,

the magnitude velocity

of the air-relative from winds

must be estimated. along

the earth-relative attack

measurement of horizontal

with the estimated this task.

angle

and the assumption

to accomplish

3.4.5 Acceleration

Direction

The estimated direction mode

acceleration of Phase

direction,

OA, is used as a feedback

signal in the acceleration this quantity measurements. frame as:

3. The increments

only measurements processed from

that are used to estimate the IMU accelerometer in the body

are the inertial Each control

velocity cycle,

the inertial

velocity

increments

are expressed

AV 1 = increment AV 2 = increment AV 3 = increment

in velocity in velocity in velocity

along along along

the vehicle the vehicle the vehicle

x (roll) axis y (pitch) z (yaw) axis. axis.

The direction angles, fit, and _:

of the acceleration

vector

is then computed

in terms

of the pitch

and yaw

(3.12) (3.13)

- 43 -

The AV
and yaw

measurements acceleration form:

are noisy angles

signals

because

of IMU quantization. a low-pass filter

Therefore,

the pitch

are each

sent through

with the following

continuous-time

fl(s)

zlfl + 1

(3.14)

where

Xl_ is the filter time constant. direction in body

The unit vector, as:

U ^, representing

the estimated

filtered

acceleration

axes is calculated

UA = Unit value

of

tan (fly) (3.15)

The estimated

acceleration

direction

angle in the pitch plane is then:

OA = tan -1 "._.._3 _ Ua, ]

(3.16)

In the simulation the commanded determined acceleration

of the acceleration direction, procedure. and

direction OAc, and

control the

system,

the error acceleration

signal

between is

acceleration

estimated

direction

by the following direction

The cross product U A is calculated:

between

UAe (the commanded

unit vector)

C = UA x U_

(3.17)

The angle,

I_A, between

the two vectors

is:

flA = sin11C

(3.18)

The vector

composed

of the error angles

in roll, pitch,

and yaw is then:

UE=

fla[ unit(C)]

(3.19)

-44-

The pitch

component

of this vector

is the error

signal,

CA, shown

in Figure

3.4.

3.5 Pre-Launch
3.5.1 Introduction

Trajectory

Design

A guidance commands previous for Phase (PEG) effects

system

which

is implemented prior

in an open-loop

manner

in flight will utilize scheme. In the

that were A.L.S. 4 was study,

determined the guidance

to launch

by a trajectory

design

for phases

1 through

3 was open-loop.

The guidance Guidance neglects the

calculated used in the forces

closed-loop current

by a version Space Shuttle

of the Powered system. This

Explicit

program

program

of aerodynamic

and can only be used

after the vehicle

has reached

the upper

atmosphere. Suitable constraints. orbit m/_,ua. needed. heavier trajectories must meet the desired the primary The objectives objective vehicle while satisfying the specified is to reach mass, be for is

For the A.L.S. fuel

vehicle,

of trajectory have

design

with as much A large

left as possible. mass will needed into orbit. during allow

should

a high on-orbit that also

on-orbit

for any

post-boost

maneuvers boost would

might allow design

Minimizing payloads

the fuel

for endoatmospheric The primary flight constraint

to be carried experienced

on the trajectory specified

that the Qc_ product all times. The specified trajectory

must be within

the designer

limit at

design

process

is greatly shapes

simplified

if a trajectory

shape

or form by:

is

for each phase.

The trajectory

for the f'trst three phases

are described

Phase Phase Phase

1: The altitude 2: The sinusoidal

the vehicle function

must reach of pitch

at the end of the vertical rate versus profile. time.

rise.

attitude

3: The three parameters

of an angle of attack

The remainder pre-launch study, the

of this section design

is devoted concepts trajectory

to the explanation developed procedure

of the trajectory in his thesis. has been

shapes

and the

trajectory entire

that Boelitz design

For the present using a

pre-launch

automated

- 45 -

numericaloptimization technique. The automationof the pre-launchtrajectory design processis discussedin Section3.6. Section3.7 discusses how this sametechniqueis appliedto in-flight trajectorydesign. 3.5.2Phase
1: Vertical Rise

The only parameter to reach affecting at the end

that can be varied rise.

for this phase is the altitude Although this parameter

the vehicle has the constant

is required of

of the vertical

possibility

the rest of the trajectory,

it was decided

to hold this parameter

at 400 feet.

3.5.3 Phase 2: Launch

Maneuver

This phase is very important take the vehicle launch maneuver

to the overall

trajectory

of the vehicle. state required remains

It must be able to for Phase 3. The the

from the Final state of Phase must accomplish

1 to the initial while

this quickly

the vehicle

well below

Q_x limit. As discussed a sinusoidal earlier in this chapter, the trajectory shape used for this phase is based on

function

of pitch angular

rate:

TKick

Tv,,, <-t <_T,,r_a + T,,,,.,,

(3.20)

where:

.O = half the maximum


TVert = duration TKick = duration

commanded 1 2

pitch rate

of Phase of Phase

Integration

of this equadon

yields:

oi
ZKick

(3.21)

- 46 -

where:

Of = final pitch attitude Oi = initial pitch attitude

of the vehicle of the vehicle

at the end of the launch at the start of the launch

maneuver maneuver = 90"

It should Oi will always to change

be noted be 90".

that because With

phase 1 involves

a vertical

rise from

the launch tower,

this knowledge, rate prof'de

the only two parameters are Of and Txick.

that can be adjusted

the shape

of the pitch

A constraint end of the launch Phase design 3. With

on the choice maneuver, this constraint

of these parameters txf, must match in mind,

is that the angle of attack desired

reached

by the of the to the the

the angle of attack developed

for the beginning that automated two inputs

Boelitz

a procedure t_f as the

of this phase

of the trajectory. used a reduced

He chose

Of and

procedure. vehicle vehicle's between

The procedure

order/idealized Using

control

simulation

to predict

state at the end of the launch motion, the desired tolerance. he iterated

maneuver.

this simplified the magnitude

simulation

of the

on the value

of TKick until

of the difference was less

final angle of attack, The golden section

txf, and the predicted search

final angle of attack

than a small

in one dimension

was used for this task.

3.5.4 Phase 3: Angle of Attack

Profile

In Phase

3, the trajectory design direction

design

process

is based the vehicle

upon a simple following

angle of attack profile. profile,

As the trajectory the acceleration loop during The angle phase. attitude value, achieved dividing

program

simulates

this angle of attack

of the vehicle

is calculated

and stored

away for use in the guidance

flight. of this angle guidance of attack profile system is shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.9 shows the

shape

of attack

and control of attack

used for the trajectory control

design system

simulation

of this

The error control al. This

in angle

is sent into the same

that was used for to be a constant of attack, monitored of, by

in phases value

1 and 2. The angle of attack of angle 2. of attack The angle must

is f'trst commanded to the final angle is continuously

be equal limit

at the end of Phase a specified

of attack Q. When

Qot limit by the current

this limit becomes

less than oq, the

- 47 -

vehicleis commanded
the angle of attack "bucket" shape

to fly along

the limit. proportional limit.

Because

the specified

Oa limit is a constant, This results in a the

limit is inversely of attack

to the dynamic

pressure.

for the angle larger

The vehicle angle

can move a2.

off of the limit once There are therefore Oa

limit becomes parameters This profile

than a second the shape in several

constant

of attack, al,

three limit.

which

define

of this trajectory: ways:

a2, and the specified

is constrained

1) The

Qa

limit

used

must

be less loads

than the designer on the vehicle

specified

Qt_ limit than

by a finite structural

amount limits. 2) Phase 3) The

so that the normal

will not be larger

2 must need

be able to meet

al. with Phase 4 requirements so that a "smooth"

for a2 to be compatible to Phase 4 can occur.

transition

0_

Qoc limiting
OC1 I I I I I I I ! I I ! ! I I

begins Qoc = constant = Q(Zlimi t

Qtz limiting

ends

a 2

! I !

End o! Phase Two Time (sec)

Start of Phase Four

Figure

3.8:

Phase

3 Angle

of Attack

Profile

for Trajectory

Design

-48

.=_ca

Figure

3.9:

Phase

3 Control

System

For Trajectory

Desgin

- 49 -

3.5.5Phase
Phase

4: Powered

Explicit

Guidance

4 is initiated

when For

the vehicle

is in the upper

atmosphere

and aerodynamic Guidance orbit.

forces (PEG) This

are at a minimum. program guidance It is not However, to predict design

this phase, Shuttle

a version

of the Powered the vehicle

Explicit

used on the Space program necessary

is used to guide in that it produces

into the desired commands

is closed-loop to do any is very

its own guidance to launch trajectory objective

in flight. of flight. it is used trajectory

trajectory important

design

prior

for this phase design because

this program the on-orbit

to the overall The primary

mass of the vehicle. a high on-orbit mass.

of the overall

is to produce

The method seconds

updates

the commanded tangent guidance

acceleration

direction

angle

in pitch

every

six

using a "linear

law" of the form:

tan

OA = Ko + (t -to) K1

(3.22)

where

0a is the commanded which

acceleration the program

direction adjusts on-orbit

angle

in the pitch

plane

and Ko, to, and to bring

K1 are parameters the vehicle

to minimize mass.

the propellant

required

into orbit,

thus maximizing

This program and the model only variable and acceleration of the vehicle.

treats the vehicle is reduced from

as a point mass

so that rotational to three

dynamics degrees

are neglected The

six degrees

of freedom

of freedom.

inputs

to this program vectors.

are the vehicle's The program

inertial

position,

velocity,

acceleration mass

of gravity

is then used to predict

the on-orbit

3.6 Automation

of Trajectory

Design

The trajectory defined portion trajectory in terms of flight,

of the vehicle of a simple phases

has been "shape".

segmented Using these

into distinct shapes,

phases

with each

phase boost set of

the endoatmospheric with the following

1 through

3, can be completely

described

parameters:

- 50 -

1) Of

= final pitch attitude

of the vehicle for phase

at the end of Phase

2 for Phase 3

2) cq = final angle of attack 3) tz2 = final angle

2 = initial angle of attack 3 < vehicle designer

of attack for Phase Qot limit

4) Qa limit = specified

for mission

specified

Qtz limit

This trajectory.

is a very

simple

shape because is then how the vehicle

only four

parameters four

are needed

to describe

the

The problem while

to choose flies within

these

parameters

so that the on-orbit considered in Section

mass is maximized 3.5. Boelitz freedom method tuned simulation

all of the constraints

each

of these

parameters

by trial and error mass had

using reached

the full six degree an maximum. has been reached. determine is based function

of This

until

it seemed

that on-orbit

is time-consuming a method parameters

and does not guarantee has been which developed

that an maximum which

In this thesis, set of trajectory numerical to maximize. schematic

will "automatically" mass. This method

the a

maximize

on-orbit

upon it seeks

optimization

scheme

which

uses on-orbit

mass

as the objective the on-orbit in Figure

A predictive

simulation trajectory

is used to calculate design process

mass. 3.10.

A simplified

of the automated simulation

is shown

The predictive disturbance The

is initialized

with the current

state

of the vehicle. wind

The only

information

available

to the simulation the

is the pre-launch parameters.

measurement. The predictive

optimization

algorithm

supplies

set of trajectory from

simulation PEG

will integrate to predict search on-orbit

the equations on-orbit mass.

of motion The parameters

the current

time to the time when will continue mass until a a

is used

optimization which

algorithm optimize

multivariable maximum

for the trajectory mass has been found.

on-orbit

-51

&
ffl

Figure 3.10:

Automated

Trajectory

Design

Process

- 52-

This unexpected

scheme

is used

before

launch to reduce weight. However,

launch preparation because

time and to allow is "automatic" from

for it

changes

in payload

this scheme

can be used in flight to update launch new measurement. acceleration

the trajectory

in the event stores

of wind

dispersions

the preso that a are no

The predictive direction profile

simulation can be used

the complete

state history In flight, there

for guidance. is assumed these

aerodynamic prior to launch.

sensors

so the disturbance

information dispersions,

to be the same will affect

as it was state set of

However, This updated

if there are wind state information

the current a new

of the vehicle. flight parameters

can then be used to determine acceleration direction profile.

for the calculation two chapters

of an updated

The following 4 discusses to speed numerical used

describe

the components

of this scheme control Chapter

in detail. simulation

Chapter is used the is

the predictive computation optimization the problem

simulation. by increasing scheme chosen

A reduced

order/idealized time step.

the integration

5 discusses method with

for this problem. The

A conjugate

gradient

because

is highly

nonlinear.

gradient

is approximated

finite

differencing.

- 53-

Chapter Four

PREDICTIVE

SIMULATION

4.1 Introduction

In Chapter on-orbit numerical mass. mass

3, a procedure for specified

was described values

for selecting

trajectory

parameters

to maximize this process, is the on-orbit the vehicle's end the the of a

of the Qa limit. for which

In order

to automate function because

optimization

scheme of on-orbit

is employed

the objective expensive initial

The prediction of motion

mass is computationally from the given has been

equations conditions. amount

must be integrated predictive needed

conditions which

to the desired greatly reduces describes

A simplified of computation

simulation

written mass.

to calculate

the on-orbit

This chapter

characteristics freedom

of this simulation (which

and compares the control the

its performance systems described model

with the full six degree in Chapter used for 3). the predictive an idealized 4.3. Section Remarks

simulation

includes and details

Section simulation. control

4.2 justifies In order

reduced-order

to increase

the integration

time step of the simulation, is described for various in Section wind conditions.

system

was developed. the program are given

This approximation results

4.4 describes and conclusions

flow and presents in Section 4.5.

4.2 Reduced-Order

Model

The vehicle's study inertial since

pitch dynamics motion

can be reduced is restricted

to only three

degrees plane.

of freedom

for this the

the vehicle

to the trajectory to the trajectory In addition, center

pitch plane,

By choosing

y axis such that it is perpendicular the orientation of the vehicle.

only one angle

is needed are of

to specify needed

only two translational of gravity with respect

variables to the origin

to describe frame.

the location

of the vehicle

the inertial

For the predictive

simulation,

it is still necessary

to calculate

mass

- 54 -

properties, the 6DOF vehicle

aerodynamic simulation,

data, environmental but the coordinate by choosing

conditions, frame kinematics the inertial frame

and thrust

in the same way as for of motion of the

and equations in this manner. arc shown

are greatly

simplified frames

The two reference arc defined as:

used in the predictive

simulation

in Figure 4. I and

(I) Inertial The reference

Reference

Frame: of motion

(x,y, z) used is fixed in the predictive to the surface of the Earth set. simulation of the fiat Earth are referred to this site. The

equations frame.

The

origin

at the launch downrange.

The z axis points y axis completes (2) Body-Fixed The origin roll motion. the nose cone.

toward

the center

and the x axis points

the right-handed Frame:

(xs, YB, za) is fixed to the vehicle's to the centerline is restricted center of gravity and assumes no

of this frame The

xB axis is parallel the vehicle

of the vehicle rotation

and points

towards

Because

to pitch

only, the YB axis is in the right-handed set.

the same direction

as the inertial

y axis.

The zB axis completes

The motion translation vector, rotation attitude. given by:

of the body-fixed

frame

with respect

to the inertial the inertial

frame

is constrained The position

to

in the inertial the origin

x-z plane

and rotation frame frame

about

y axis.

R, locates

of the body-fixed into the body that transforms

with respect

to the inertial angle

origin.

The

of the inertial The rotation

frame matrix

is described from

by a single inertial

0, the pitch is

a vector

to body

coordinates

[C]prexlictiv

sim

cos 0 sin 0

0 0

-sin 0 cos 0

(4.1)

- 55 -

+x B 0 Earth Relative Horizontal

R Flat +z B +x

Launch

Site

+z

NOTES: Launch site = origin of inertial frame Vehicle cg = origin of body-fixed frame

Figure 4.1: Predictive

Simulation

Coordinate

Frames

The aerodynamic

and thrust

forces

are defined

the same

way in the predictive

simulation as they were in the full 6DOF simulation:

FN =- S Q C,v UZB

(4.2)

F A = - S Q CA .XB

(4.3)

Tb = Tb COS c$ UXB+ Tb sin d_ UZB

(4.4)

Tc = Tc cos & UXB+ Tc sin _ UZB

(4.5)

-56-

The angle is possible the gravity

that the vehicle

subtends

around as being

the Earth during boost is very small and so it flat during boost. Using inertial this approximation, z axis:

to approximate vector

the Earth point

will always

in the direction

of the positive

Fg -- m g uz

(4.6)

The inertial forces acting

aerodynamic frame axe then by using summed

and thrust the inverse

forces

are resolved

from matrix

the body-fixed defined

frame 4.2.

into

the

of the rotation force

in equation

These

with the gravity coordinates:

in the inertial

frame

to give the net force

on the vehicle

in inertial

FNET = FN + FA 4- Tb 4- T 4- Fg

(4.7)

Since

it is assumed

that

there

are

no out-plane-forces equal to zero:

acting

on

the

vehicle,

the

y-

component

of the net force is always

Fr_'ET= FNErx ux + (0) Uy + FNETz UZ

(4.8)

The translational

equations

of motion

have the same form as for the 6DOF

simulation:

dR=
dt

(4.9)

dV=(1 dt

) F

(4.10)

where

V = inertial

velocity

= VE

Because always

there are no out-of-plane equal to zero:

forces,

the y-component

of both position

and velocity

is

R = Rx ux + (0) uv + Rz uz

(4.11)

V = Vxux + (0) uv + Vzuz

(4.12)

- 57 -

Thetotal momentactingon thevehicleis thesameaswasderivedin Chapter 2:


M = {Tb + Tc)Xcg sin t_ - Tb (D + zcg) cos 8 - Tc zcg cos + S Q CN (lcpx- Xcg) + S Q CA (-lcpz + zcg) 8 (4.13)

The rate of pitch is then derived

from:

dt

Gy -1 M

(4.14)

The pitch defined by:

attitude,

0, is the only angle

needed

to specify

the attitude

of the vehicle

and is

d_a dt= mp

(4.15)

4.3 Idealized Control

Boelitz

used the full 6DOF

simulation When

for pre-launch the full 6DOF for phases

trajectory simulation

design

and tuned

the

flight parameters design,

by trial and error. control

was used for trajectory control (described was in

pitch attitude

was utilized

1 and 2 and angle of attack of attack controller

used for phase Chapter seconds. A larger a faster control attitude

3. The pitch attitude implemented

controller

and angle

3) were digitally

in the 6DOF

simulation

with a sampling

time of 0.1

integration

time step is desired speed than the 6DOF

for the predictive simulation.

simulation

so that it will have an idealized the pitch to

computational system and

To achieve

this goal,

was developed angle of attack

for the predictive control systems.

simulation The

that replaces system systems. computation a very required

both

idealized control reduce allows

is designed The idealized time.

approximate control system

the low frequency has several

response that

of the actual significantly control

benefits systems

The

replacement

of the control

with idealized Also,

large

integration the

time step to be used for the simulation.

the computations

to determine

- 58 -

actuator

commands

for the

actual system.

control

systems since

are replaced the 6DOF

by much system

simpler always pitch the

computations commands attitude rotational

for the idealized

Finally,

control

either pitch attitude or angle to either equation be specified of motion simulation used

of attack the use of idealized directly from angle

control of attack.

allows Thus,

or calculated

need not be integrated is used for trajectory simulation

twice to solve for pitch attitude. design purposes so it must mimic design. the

The predictive control systems

by the full 6DOF design is used procedure

for trajectory control

For the full 1 and 2. are

simulation, Angle idealized achieved:

the trajectory

uses pitch attitude design.

for phases

of attack control

for phase 3 trajectory that the commanded

If the control variable

systems

then the assumption

is made

control

will be perfectly

Phase 1" O= Ph_ 2: Oc = 90" (4.16)

o--o:-- {I,Ph_ 3:

LTKick

{,.

+o:,,,,.,

(4.17)

(4.18)

Using been known

the idealized

control

assumption, However, Pitch

at least both pitch

one

flight orientation and angle

parameter must

has be

specified

for each phase. during flight.

attitude

of attack

at all times

attitude frame

is needed

to specify

the kinematics is needed

of the

body frame

with respect

to the inertial

and the angle of attack acting on the vehicle. parameters pitch

to determine

the aerodynamic Using it is possible

coefficients

and thus the forces between the flight

the relationships to calculate

orientation

shown attitude

in Figure

4.2,

the angle of attack from the idealized

and vice versa.

- 59 -

+x B

VW V A

cg

Earth

Relative

Horizontal

Figure

4.2:

Flight

Orientation

Parameters

The following

equation

can be derived

from Figure

4.2:

0=0_

+ )' - OrW

(4.19)

where:

O = earth-relative a = angle of attack

pitch attitude with respect contribution with respect to the air-relative from winds velocity = aas velocity (VA)

aW = angle of attack as = angle of attack

to the Earth-relative

y= flight path angle

- 60 -

Both the flight path angle, be determined Only time, one flight either from

and the angle of attack wind model is specified of attack.

contribution

from winds, equations control

aw, can

the assumed

and the translational by the idealized flight

of motion. at a be

orientation

parameter or angle

assumption can always

pitch attitude from equation

The unkown 4.21:

parameter

determined

4.20 or equation

Phase

1 & 2:0

= Oc therefore

a = 0 - 7 + aW

(4.20)

Phase3:

a=acthereforeO=a

+y-aW

(4.21)

The 6DOF deflection, of attack. engine

control

systems to rotate

of phases the vehicle

1, 2, and 3 were to meet either

used

to determine

the nozzle or angle the

t_, necessary With

the commanded becomes

attitude

these control

systems

idealized, given

the question

how to deflect

nozzles

to meet the assumptions to solve for the nozzle

in equations

4.17 and 4.18. the pitch angle moment given by

It is possible equation sin(6) 4.14.

deflection using

angle from the small

This equation

can be rewritten

approximation

where

= t_ and cos(b') = 1:

M = I0 = (Tb + Tc) Xcgt_- Tb D-

(Tb + Tc) Zcg + SQCN (lcpx - Xcg) (4.22)

+ SQCa (-lcpz + zcg)

The above equation

can now be solved

for nozzle

deflection:

= Tb D + T Zcg- SQCIv (lcpx - Xcg) - SQCA T Xcg

(-lcpz + Zcg) + I0 (4.23)

The pitch moment, in flight from knowledge analytically assumption: for the fast

I0, is the only term in the above of the current and second vehicle

equation

that cannot

be computed is known control

state. The vehicle's

pitch moment pitch attitude

phases

of flight using the idealized

Phase

1:I0

= IOc = 0

(4.24)

-61

,.

Phase2:

lO=lOc=

.0

__211_ (Trick}Sin[

(t2rtLZKick Zvert) ]

(4.25)

The because purpose

vehicle's

pitch

moment

during

the third

phase

has

a very maneuver.

small

average

value for the moment

the pitchrate of determining

is only slowly nozzle

varying

after the launch it was decided

Therefore, the pitch

deflection, 3:

to approximate

of the vehicle

as zero during

phase

Phase

3:I0

= 0

(4.26)

4.4 Predictive

Simulation

Flow and Results

A flowchart simulation launch pad

of the

predictive

simulation vehicle The profile

is shown state.

in Figure The vehicle

4.3. can

The

predictive on the

is initialized or somewhere will always calculations variables coefficients,

with the current in flight. wind

be either to the The

wind

information prior

given to launch.

predictive vehicle and These pressure,

simulation environmental computed aerodynamic The attack

be the

measured as those used

are the same mass

in the 6DOF

simulation. and

include winds,

properties,

atmospheric transformations.

density

and kinematic pitch

guidance during phase

procedure

commands

attitude routine

during

phases

1 and 2 and angle control

of

3. The idealized attitude

control or angle

then assumes

perfect

of one of flight 2) net are

the two flight parameter. and is used acceleration integrated guidance continues on-orbit comparison

parameters,

of attack, (zero

and computes

the unknown

The

pitch moment

is specified deflection

for phases

1 and 3, nonzero perfect

for phase The

to calculate

the nozzle

needed reference method.

to achieve frame

control.

is then calculated using the fourth-order calculations

in the inertial Runge-Kutta are updated

and the equations

of motion environmental,

All of the vehicle, of the time step. is called upon

and control

in the middle (PEG)

The simulation to predict are small the in

until the Powered mass,

Explicit

Guidance

routine the

mr, at 120 seconds. forces.

At this time,

aerodynamic

forces

to the thrust

- 62 -

INBALIZE with current vehicle state

Vehicle end Environmental Calculations

Phases

Guidance 1 & 2: 9c

no

Phase 3: (Xc

0 = 9c = 90 Phase 1" o_= 90 - 3' + otw 0=0 Integrate Equations of Motion:


dV = ANET

e = ec(t)
Phase 2: o_= 9- 3'+ aW
.

0 = f(_,

TKick, t)

dt

(x = _c(t) Phase 3: 0=
,,

dR=v
, dt

o_+'y-otw

0=0
.=

'

t
Compute Acceleration:

= _(e, I F AERO I, I

F_HRUSTI,

FGRAV, cg, cp)

ANET = --_ (FAERO + FGRAV + FTHRUS1)

Convert Forces From Body to Inertial Frame

Figure 4.3: Predictive

Simulation

Flow Chart

- 63 -

To facilitate equatorial transformation inclined relationship 6DOF

the comparison in the 6DOF

between

the two This

simulations, eliminated velocity,

it was

decided

to use kinematic

an

trajectory

simulation. simulation's

a complicated and acceleration

of the predictive plane which

position, required

into an The and the the

trajectory between

would reference

have been frames 4.4.

for comparison

of results. simulation are

the inertial is shown

of the 3DOF predictive Because both frames velocity,

simulation

in Figure

inertial,

transformation vectors

between

the two frames simulation to PEG.

is constant.

The position, in the inertial

and acceleration of the 6DOF

of the predictive at the transition

are expressed

coordinates

simulation

.Z6D North Pole

06 D

(3.

Figure

4.4:

Relationship

Between Predictive

Inertial (3DOF)

Reference

Frames

of Full (6DOF)

and

Simulations

- 64 -

The objective of the predictive


vehicle's flight while keeping

simulation

is to give

an accurate To illustrate to those

prediction

of the of

computation

to a minimum. states

the performance produced

the predictive 6 DOF

simulation,

the following

were compared

by the full

simulation: (1) angle (2) flight (3) height (4) nozzle of attack path angle (H) deflection angle were (6) run. 3DOF The first set corresponded to starting both the (o0 (_)

Two 6DOF

sets

of comparisons

simulation

and the predictive

simulation

at t = 0 (i.e. at launch) to as the "entire" boost

and running the

both until t = 120 seconds. predictive simulation

This set will be referred trajectory.

set because

flies the entire simulation

The second

set of comparisons by the 6DOF

was made simulation Thus, was done the to with

by initializing

the predictive The

with the vehicle then flew boost

state given until

at t = 60 seconds. predictive demonstrate the vehicle simulation

predictive flew only

simulation a "partial"

t = 120 seconds. This when test

trajectory. simulation

improvement

in accuracy

of the predictive

it is initialized

state at a later time in flight. a value of integration was greatly time step for the predictive enhanced by using a small simulation. time step, dt, of the vehicle For phase 3,

A study was made to select It was observed of 0.1 seconds during

that the performance for phases maneuver

1 and 2. This is due to the fact that the dynamics are much faster than during the rest of the flight.

the launch

four different

time steps were considered:

dt = {0.1,

0.3, 0.5,

1.0} seconds

(4.27)

The

first

set of comparison The entire computed

runs corresponding is shown. simulation.

to "entire" plot,

boost

is shown

in Figures the

4.5 to 4.8. state variable variable

state history by the 6DOF

For each

the solid line represents lines represent given

The four dashed

the state above.

computed

by the 3DOF

simulation

for the four different

time steps

- 65 -

12 _ _

.......................... t ! i i i

LEGEND

"

I...........

,o I.............. \ ..........................
,,1=

Solid Une: Full Sim J Dashed Lines: Pred. Sim I

<

81 .............................. if ............. ............................. _. il ............... ii ............... _ i ,............... ;.F=i


6 ............... - ........
.

_.--'_ ............
:

! ...............
:

':.........
; _

_. -: _-.-_.;_ ........

4 ............... 20

i ............... 20

.!............ _iii_asing_J":" ...............


i ,,

! 80

_'"_'

:
i

"" 120

40 Time

6'0 (sec) Between Boost

100

Figure 4.5:

Angle

of Attack

Comparison

Full and Predictive

Simulations

For Entire

8O 7O ............ _ ............. ."x_ .-_----. :-.... .i i .... "LEGEND -

i 60 ....................................

Solid Une: Full Sire Dashed Lines: Pred. Sim

50

_ 40
30 20 10 0
..............

..............................

_dt=

0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 sec)

i................

'- ..............

: - ..............

2. , -

_"

-% ......

_...............

Increasing (:It i

"." - -.

20

40 Time

60 (sec) Between Boost

80

100

120

Figure 4.6:

Flight Path Angle

Comparison For Entire

Full and Predictive

Simulations

- 66 -

12 x104

10

................. :
:

LEG':NO I.................................. .'_ i ." ' I.


Full Sim I : _ /_I

Solid Une:

....... ! O,,,e,,,ne, P,e_ S,n_ I


6

_: ....... 1

0 0 20 40 Time Figure 4.7: Height Comparison 60 (sec) Full and Predictive Boost Simulations 80 100 120

Between

For Entire

6 5.5 ................ ) _'_ 4.5 4 LEGEND .............................. : ...........

5 ................ Dashed Lines: Pred. Sim ............ Increasing dt ........ (dt = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 sec :. i i_l_ ! z _

So, ,,oe: Fu,,S,

:,

Z 3 2.5 0 20 40 Time Figure 4.8: Nozzle Deflection Comparison For Entire 60 (sec) Between Boost Full and Predictive Simulations 80 100 120

- 67 -

The arrowon theplots represents the directionof increasingintegrationtime step


the predictive Figure simulations. 4.5 shows between good. the comparison the predictive in angle simulation of attack between the simulations. during

for

The phases

correspondence 1 and 2 was very control control because dynamic for angle

and the 6DOF simulation idealized errors

simulation

During phase 3, the 6DOF while the 3DOF

utilizes control.

proportional-integral Even though the

of attack

utilizes

is idealized the angle pressure,

for the predictive of attack

simulations,

occur

during

the Qcx limiting limit and Q. The

limit is computed

as the quotient velocity

of the Qa

Q, is a function

of the air-relative equations errors dynamic

and this variable Increasing

is calculated

from the integration predictive errors simulation

of the _-anslational causes velocity, limit. integration through The

of motion. to build pressure,

the time step of the velocity. The

in the air-relative can thus enter will always

in air-relative of attack

into the calculation perfectly to the because

of the angle

predictive

simulation

steer

angle of attack

limit, but this limit may not be the same as for the 6DOF velocity. 4.5 that the angle predicted of attack given

simulation

of the error in air-relative

It can also be seen in Figure falls in between

by the 6DOF

simulation

the angle of attack Thus, accurate

by the 3DOF predicted of attack

simulations by the 3DOF

for time steps of dt= simulation with dt = simulation of error tend to

0.3 and 0.5 seconds. 0.5 seconds is more

the angle

of attack

than the angle

predicted

by the 3DOF

with dt = 0.1 seconds. resulting produce error steps from angle

This is a result

of the fact that there 3DOF sign. simulation. The idealized

are two main These control error

sources sources

the use of the predictive of attack of attack errors of opposite

produces error.

a negative For time

in angle between Figures

and the use of large the errors the errors

time steps produces tend to be offsetting. in flight path angle generated simulation

a positive

.3 and .5 seconds 4.6 and 4.7 illustrate

and height.

The

height

for

the 6DOF The errors because

simulation between

also falls within the 3DOF errors

the height

curves

by the 3DOF build

simulations. with time

simulations

and the 6DOF of motion.

steadily

of integration

in the equations

- 68 -

Figure 4.8 illustrates includes the initial

the error in engine nozzle The nozzle

deflection.

The nozzle

deflection

shown

cant of 5".

deflection

of the 6DOF

simulation

has distinct these has a

spikes whereas spikes. The

the nozzle spikes

deflections

of all of the 3DOF simulation occur around the times when

runs are missing the wind profile

in the 6DOF The vehicle

discontinuity pitching result, 3DOF over.

in slope.

must compensate during these times

for these

discontinuities than

by rapidly normal. control As a in the in

The pitch moment

is thus larger

the zero pitch moment simulation

approximation

used for phase 3 of the idealized The average error of the nozzle

is not valid at these times.

deflection

the 3DOF Table

simulations 4.1 shows

grows with time yet is stiff very small. the absolute The absolute errors in the final error in predicted states of the predictive mass simulations along at with

time = 120 seconds. the percentage

on-orbit

is presented is calculated

error of fuel left in the core on-orbit.

This quantity

as follows:

% fuel.: error = mfiDF " m/3t'r fueI r,oof

(4.28)

where: fuelf,6DOF = core fuel on-orbit


mDR Y = dry mass

for 6DOF

sim = mf,6DOF - mDR r

of core

3DOF dt

O__ll'or

_elTor

H_T0f

t_tmror

mferrof

(sec)
0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0

(deg) 0.61 0.25 0.06 0.60

(deg) 1.55 0.83 0.15 1.43

(feet) 2,850 1,390 20 3,260

(deg) 0.16 0.07 0.01 0.17

(slugs) 7.0 2.8 6.9 15.3 5.0 2.0 4.9 10.9

Table 4.1:

End State Error Comparison Simulations

Between After

Full (6DOF) Boost

and Predictive

(3DOF)

Entire

- 69 -

The second
Figures predictive accuracy have where height. are 4.9

set of comparison As stated

runs above,

corresponding this set of runs

to "partial" was made

boost

is shown

in the The

to 4.12.

by initializing

simulation

at the state given simulations

by the 6DOF is improved

simulation

at time - 60 seconds. and control in Figure

of the predictive to grow.

because

the modeling is demonstrated

errors 4.11 of

less time

This improvement simulations in end The those states

in accuracy cannot

the difference The absolute in Table smaller

between errors 4.2. than

even be observed

over the time history mass

for this set of runs in the end states for

and the on-orbit the partial boost

errors are the

shown

errors that

boost runs.

runs Also,

significantly percentage

were

produced is improved

in "entire"

error of the core fuel left on-orbit

for most of the time steps.

7 I Solid Line: Full Sire I I Dashed Lines: Pred Sim I 6 i i i i "f // i i

_" <

...............

3 60

70

80 Time

90 (sec)

1O0

110

120

Figure

4.9:

Angle

of Attack

Comparison Between Partial Boost

FuU and Predictive

SimuIations

For

- 70 -

55

50_ ....... ! ............... ! ............ I ' ,E_E.o


451 ..... --'_-----i ...............
I "_.

i..............
.i ..............
i

i ............
i

I SolidUne:

FuUSire

I Dashed Unes: Pred. Sim

,o ............... ......................... ................ i.............. !1


15 60 70 80 ' 90 Time (see) ' 100 1l0 120

Figure 4.10: Right Path Angle xl0,l

Comparison For Partial

Between Boost

Full and Predictive

Simulations

12

10

..............

LEGEND Solid Une: Full Sim Dashed Lines: Pred. Sim

.............

: ............... ! _'_

: .... __"

..............
xO

............ !............. i..............

2 6O

70

80

90 Time (sec)

100

110

120

Figure

4.11"

Height

Comparison Between Full and Predictive For Partial Boost

Simulations

-71 -

LEGEND
o5 ................

Solid Line: Full Sim Dashed Lines: Pred. Sire


................

(dt = 0.1,0.3, 0.5, 1.0 sec)

4.5 ............... 4
"'_ .......

!...............

! .......

1
,..,

3.5

6(

70

80 Time

90 (sec)

100

110

120

Figure 4.12:

Nozzle

Deflection

Comparison For Partial

Between Boost

Full and Predictive

Simulations

3DOF (sec) 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.0

tit

ot error (deg) 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.17

yen_ (deg) 1.48 0.38 0.22 1.11

H error (feet) 630 240 140 460

8re'or (deg) 0.0277 0.0035 0.0002 0.0328

mt m'or (slugs) 3. I 4.3 5.4

%fuel I error 2.2 3.1 3.9 5.8

Table

4.2:

End State Error

Comparison Simulations

Between

Full (tDOF) Boost

and Predictive

(3DOF)

After Partial

- 72 -

4.5 Conclusions

The predictive and dynamics significantly These

(3DOF)

simulation complete

developed simulation.

for this thesis The idealized

eliminates control

the kinematics assumption also

for the more reduces

computation and

time and allows greatly

the use of a larger reduce

integration

time step. load of the

simplifications simulation.

assumptions

the computational has been shown

predictive good

The accuracy to the 6DOF

of the predictive

simulation

to be very

in comparison

simulation.

- 73 -

Chapter Five

NUMERICAL

OPTIMIZATION

5.1 Introduction

The primary objectiveof trajectory design for the A.L.S. is the maximization of onorbit mass. An optimization procedure isdescribedin this chapterwhich willmaximize onorbitmass. This mass is determined by the trajectory thatis flown and is,therefore, a functionof theparticular parameters chosen to specifythetrajectory shape. For a given set of trajectory parameters,theon-orbit mass isdctcrrnincd by using thepredictive simulation described in the previous chapter. The simulation approach is requiredbccausc itisnot practical to develop a closed-form solution for the on-orbitmass. Consequently, the onorbitmass functionisnot analytical. Any optimizationprocedure which seeks to maximize on-orbitmass must, therefore, bc numerical in form. For the approach used in thisthesis, the on-orbitmass function ismultidimensional because as many used to definethetrajectory shape. This chapter firstcompares in Section 5.2 several multi-dimensional numerical as threeparameters are

optimizationalgorithms thatarcdescribedin the currentliterature. The particular method chosen was a version of the conjugate gradientmethod. The overall procedure for

implementing the conjugate method and some of the underlying theory is described in Section 5.3. Sections5.4 and 5.5 describeseparatesubroutinesthathad to bc pcfforrncd in conjunction with the algorithm. Section 5.4 describeshow theon-orbitmass function was optimized along a specific searchdirection. Section5.5 describeshow the gradientof theon-orbit mass functionwas approximated using finite differencing.

- 74 -

5.2 Comparison

of Numerical

Optimization

Methods

There developed problem

are many multi-dimensional over the years.

numerical

optimization most

algorithms suitable

that have been

To determine

the method was studied.

for the optimization sources were used:

of this thesis,

the current literature

Two primary

Scales 3 and Press All derivative is important numerical

et. al.4. optimization schemes these rely on function information and sometimes them, it

information. to provide

To understand some background

methods

and the differences and notation relating

between

information

to the def'mition function, form designed F(x), the to

of a multi-dimensional which column minimize maximization the minimization a function vector the

function

and its derivative variables

information. be defined. methods of A.L.S.

An objective These studied trajectory mass

of n independent x of length objective n.

must

variables were

All of the optimization The Since objective

function. mass.

design

is the to as:

of on-orbit

the maximization

of on-orbit function

is equivalent

of the negative

of on-orbit

mass, the objective

will be defined

F(x) =- mf

(5.1)

where

mf

is the There

on-orbit are

mass three

of the

A.L.S. that

and define

is determined the x is: shape

from of the

the

predictive in the

simulation. predictive

parameters

trajectory

simulation

(Of, al, and a2) and so the vector

x = [Of o[ 1 a2] r

(5.2)

3 Scales, L.E., Introductign LTD., pp. 1-106. 4 Press, W.H., Flannery, Cambrdige:

to Non-Linear O_timization.

1985.

London:

MacMillan

Education

B.P., Teukolsky,

S.A., Vetterling,

W.T., Numerical

Recipes.

1986.

Cambridge University Press., pp. 274-311.

-75

The gradientvector of an objective function, g, is comprisedof


derivatives of the objective function evaluated at x:

the n first

partial

g = VF(x)

(5.3)

and provides upon on-orbit

information mass,

on the shape

of the function.

For the objective and must 5.5. by a matrix matrix:

function

based

this gradient

is not available is discussed

analytically in Section is provided the Hessian

be approximated

with finite Further n 2 second

differencing. information partial

This procedure on the shape of F(x)

of a function which is called

composed

of the

derivatives

G(x) = V2F(x)

(5.4)

and can be represented _2 F Gij=_

by the following

tensor

notation:

_xi_xj

(5.5)

This matrix

is also not analytical this matrix and would function matrix about with

if on-orbit finite

mass

is used to define would

the objective a large

function. number of

To approximate function The vector provide numerical of function evaluations objective

differencing

require

be computationally in all numerical be used

expensive. optimization schemes. process The gradient they

is used can

and Hessian information optimization information

also

in the optimization function.

because

the shape

of the objective

It was found based

that the current upon the kind

schemes

can be divided

into three

main groups

they utilize. are commonly called "direct about search the methods". gradient These vector or

The members methods Hessian methods use matrix only

of the first group function

evaluations. Without

No information any knowledge

is utilized.

of the shape to a minimum.

of the

function,

these

may take an excessively

long time to converge

-76-

An improvement algorithms Specifically, the method methods. that utilize

to the direct

search methods information

is provided

by a second

group

of

first derivative

in addition to function

evaluations.

they require knowledge of steepest descent,

of the gradient vector, g. Included in this category are the conjugate gradient methods and variable metric

Using the derivative

information,

these algorithms the objective

are able to change the vector x function. The first derivative because these Direct

in a direction information methods

that will tend to minimize

makes these methods more efficient than direct search methods any points that would increase

tend to avoid examining

function value.

search methods be singular. discontinuous

are useful for highly discontinuous for the trajectory For continuous

functions where the gradient vector can

However, function.

problem in this thesis, the on-orbit mass is not a functions, with continuous f'u:st derivatives, the

gradient methods

show faster convergence

than direct search methods. about the Hessian matrix of the objective function

The third group requires information in addition to the gradient vector. is utilized. This group includes

Thus, more information Newton's method

about the shape of the function of Newton's method.

and variations

These methods cost

show fast convergence time

for functions with a known Hessian a non-analytical Hessian

matrix, but the matrix and the

in computer

of approximating

inaccuracies impractical

that could be introduced for the optimization

through such an approximation

makes this method

of on-orbit mass. to

A member of the second group has been chosen for this study because it is possible approximate the gradient group, the method of the on-orbit mass function using finite differencing. descent was eliminated from consideration method. section.

Of this its

of steepest slower

because

convergence between gradient variable gradient methods,

is usually

than the conjugate

gradient

The comparison Both the conjugate information. matrix The with

these two methods

is presented

in the following

method and the variable metric methods metric methods information the conjugate construct a rough

require only gradient

approximation number

to the Hessian of iterations.

collected gradient

over a successive

Of these two for

method was chosen over the variable

metric methods

its simplicity.

- 77 -

5.3

Conjugate

Gradient

Method

Gradient

methods,

like other search

methods, a minimum some

are all iterative: of the objective

they begin function,

with an initial and iterate on x by

guess of the vector until the function the following

x that will produce is minimized

to within

tolerance.

The iteration

on x is achieved

relationship:

xk+l = xk + 0kPk

(5.6)

where xk is the previous and xk+l is the updated a positive F(x), along scalar

estimate estimate. which

of the state which The vector is chosen

will minimize

the objective vector",

function and r/k is

Pk is defined to give

as the "search decrease

weighting

the greatest

in the function one-dimensional

the search procedure

vector. described

The quantity, in Section

Ok, is found 5.3. vector

by a separate

optimization

In the method

of steepest

descent,

the search

is defined

as:

Pk = - gk

(5.7)

where where

gk is the gradient vector

vector. always

The

steepest

descent

method

is useful

for a function Such a function around the

the gradient in Figure

points

in the direction contours

of the minimum.

is shown minimum. iteration


occur.

5.1 where

the function

are circular would

in the region find

In this case, since all gradient

the method vectors

of steepest point toward

descent

the minimum

in one not

the minimum.

In general,

this does

Using found

the steepest minimizes

descent F(x)

method, along pj,.

a new

point,

Xk+l, is computed at this point,

when

an r/k is is then also be to be

which

The gradient search Pk.

VF(xk+l),

calculated orthogonal elliptical, converging

and is orthogonal to the previous as illustrated zig-zag

to Pk. The new search vector,

vector,

Pk+l, will therefore contours descent happen

If the function of steepest

in Figure 5.2, then the method

leads in a slowly

pattern to the minimum.

-78

Figure

5.1 Steepest

Descent

Path for Circular Function

Contours

The conjugate vector most where variables: direction cases.

gradient

method

makes

an improvement

on the definition

of the search descent in

and thus shows

faster

convergence

than the method it is useful

of steepest to examine

To understand function

the properties

of this method,

the case

the objective

to be minimized

is a quadratic

function

of n independent

F(x)

=IxTAx

+ bTx +C

(5.8)

where

A is a constant

symmetric is:

n by n matrix,

b is a constant

n-vector

and c is a scalar.

The gradient

of this function

g(x) = Ax + b

(5.9)

The Hessian

matrix

for the quadratic

function

is simply:

G(x) = A = a constant

matrix

(5.1o)

- 79 -

x0

Figure

5.2

Steepest

Descent

Path for Elliptical

Function

Contours

If A, and thus G, is positive global assumed matrix. A unique point xl: property minimum

definite,

then the quadratic or saddle points.

function

will be convex

and have

with no local minima function

For the rest of the discussion, 5.8 does have a positive definite

it is A

that the quadratic

defined

in equation

of quadratic

functions

can be developed

by taking

the gradient

at a

g(xl)

= Axl

+ b

(5.11)

and again at a point x2:

g(x2) = Ax2 + b

(5.12)

- 80-

Subtracting equation 5.11from equation5.10yields:


g(xl) - g(x2) = Axl - Ax2 = A (Xl - x2)

(5.13)
results in the following property which

Substituting is unique

equation

5.10 into the above functions:

equation

to quadratic

g(xl)

- g(x2) = G (Xl - x2)

(5.14)
it now possible to describe the conjugacy gradient property method or

Having

defined

the above property, method function

of the conjugate will minimize less.

gradient a quadratic

for a quadratic with a positive the search matrix:

function. definite directions

The conjugate Hessian matrix

in n iterations

This is accomplished conjugate

by choosing to the Hessian

used in equation

5.6 such that

they are mutually

pi T G Pk = 0 for j _ k

(5.15)

This conjugacy first multiplying

condition

can be changed

into a more r/j:

physically

meaningful

form by

both sides of the equation

by the scalar

r/y piT Gpk = 0

(5.16)

Using

equation

5.6, this is equivalent

to:

(xj+l - xj)ZGpk

= 0

(5.17)

Substituting

the transpose

of equation

5.13 results

in:

(gj+l - gj)r Pt = 0

(5.18)

The above

equation

means

that the current (g/+l - g/) forj

search

direction, that

Pk, must be orthogonal were defined previously.

to

all of the changes

in gradients,

= 0(1)k-l,

-81

This propertyassures that the minimum of a quadraticfunction with a positive definite Hessianmatrix will befoundin at mostn
iterations. A proof of this is given in Scales.

Scales

also derives

the following

definition

of a search vector

which

satisfies

the conjugacy

condition:

Pk -- - gk + fit Pt-I

(5.19)

where the initial search

vector

is:

Po " - go

(5.21)

There

are several of ilk. where

versions The

of the conjugate version

gradient chosen

method

and they thesis is the

differ

only

in the

definition method

particular

for this

"Polak-Ribiere"

flk is given

by the expression:

,Ok =(gk-

gk-l)Tgk

gk_lZgk_ 1

(5.20)

The Polak-Ribiere and stability It should

algorithm

was recommended

by both Scales function.

and Press

for its efficiency

in finding be noted

the minimum

of a non-quadratic gradient

that the conjugate function

method's

definition approximations stored

of the search

vector

does not require descent method. search

any more

evaluations vectors

or gradient are simply

than the steepest

The previous vector. gradient converge

gradient

and used in the calculation

of the new The conjugate quadratic nttmerical

conjugate and with will

method

will only calculate

search

vectors

that are mutually function used is in

to a minimum definite Hessian including

in n iterations matrix. the on-orbit definite Most

if the objective objective function functions

a positive

optimization

procedures,

mass

used in this thesis, Saddle points

are not quadratic and local minima

functions could

with a known Therefore,

positive

Hessian

matrix.

occur.

the gradient

algorithm

will generally

go through

- 82 -

more than n
function, The guess

iterations

for convergence.

If local

minima

are present

in the objective

then convergence algorithm flow

to the local minimum is shown in Figure 5.3.

is not guaranteed. The routine is supplied with an initial using the is in

of the minimum, simulation,

x0. The routine at this initial point. gradient

then computes

the function gradient

and gradient, direction

predictive the direction The routine search

The first conjugate no previous loop.

chosen

of the negative then begins

because iteration finds Equation

gradient

information

is available. a separate along to xk. is then

the main

At the start of each iteration, r/k-l, that minimizes

algorithm vector

(line minimization) direction, Pk-t.

the scalar,

VF(xk.j)

the search The method calculated

5.6 is then is described

used to update in section 5.3.

the estimate The gradient

used for this search at this new point check The

algorithm

and the information is made between

is used to establish the line minimization on the difference difference

a new search block

direction,

Pk. A convergence calculation between tolerance, block. separate

and the gradient values

convergence directions. returns

is based

of the function than

conjugate

If this

is smaller

a specified

then the algorithm

with the most recent

estimate

of the minimum.

5.4 Minimization

Along

Search

Direction

The one-dimensional over r/k for each k-iteration

minimization may require

of the objective many iterations.

function Recalling

that must be carded equation 5.6:

out

xk+l = xk + r/k Pk

(5.22)

The scalar along the

r/k must

be chosen Pk.

so that the value This is accomplished

of the function as follows:

at xk+l is minimized the one-dimensional routine takes this

search

direction

minimization value

algorithm

computes

a value

for the scalar

r/k and a separate estimate,

and substitutes

it into equation

5.22 along xj,+l.

with the current The function

xk, and search is then

direction, evaluated

Pk. This defines and returned

a new estimate

of this new estimate

to the one-dimensional

minimization

algorithm.

- 83 -

XO

Compute

value of Xo

function at

_,f(xo)
of functiongradient at Xo Compute ,_ Vf(xo) Initialize direction gradient
,.,.*,,,,_,*,o,,4,,,.,.*..,,,,,t

_i-

negative gradient _) and conjugate direction


,,,,.,,.**.,,**'O*,.O..''O

_)):
....... ",*'

go = vf (Xo)
Po =-go

Xk-1, Pk-1, gk-1

_,,_Po

x_
of f(x)from direction
_Lf (Xk)

Do 1D minimization along conjugate


_'

Xk-1 Pk-1
''(

gradient
Xk

Iteration loop for k= 1 to k= KMAX


,,o.oo...,o=.,,.oo,.oo,,.,.,,. ..............

of functiongradient at Xk Compute _' _'f (Xk)

k =_k+l

s!...
gk = Vf (Xk) _k = (gkgk-1 )Tgk gk-1 Tgk-1 Pk = "gk + _kPk-1

Xk, Pk, gk

Figure

5.3 Polak-Ribiere

Conjugate Gradient Minimization

Algorithm

for Function

- 84 -

The one-dimensional separate programs

minimization

algorithm in Press.

used in this thesis The first program

was comprised brackets

of two

that are described

the minimum

with the triplet

of abscissas:

A, B, and C such that:

A < B < C

(5.23)

and:

F(B)

< F(A)

(5.24)

and:

F(B)

< F(C)

(5.25)

Equations the lowest minimum

5.24 and 5.25 state that, of the three points value, ff the bracketing conditions within

which

bracket

a function,

B has then a

function

shown

above

are achieved, [A, C]. meet first the two

of the function that

must exist somewhere whether or not 5.5.

the interval points 5.4,

Examples condition conditions points. are

illustrate

a set of three In Figure

bracketing bracketing by the three

shown

in Figures but F(B)

5.4 and and

the

are met,

< F(C)

so the minimum

is not bracketed alone

Note that the minimum bracketing is located method condition. within

is in between In Figure [A,C].

B and C, but two points 5.5, the full bracketing

cannot

satisfy

the defined minimum The guess

equation

is met and the

the interval

that this routine

uses is based

upon

parabolic If F(B)

curve

fitting.

Two

initial A and

points

for A and B are supplied so that F(B) between < F(A).

to the routine. The routine

> F(A),

then the values

B are switched relative section, distance G, :

then calculates

a guess

for C such that the

A and B compared

to the distance

between

A and C is the golden

C =B+(2-Gr)(B-A)

(5.26)

- 85-

Minimum

of function

not bracketed:

F(B) > F(C)

Figure

5.4

Bracketing

Interval for Function Minimum by Triplet of Abscissas

not Bracketed

Minimum

of function

bracketed:

F(B) < F(C) F(A)

F(C) F(B)

Figure

5.5 Bracketing

Interval for Function by Triplet of Abscissas

Minimum

Bracketed

- 86 -

where:
Gr=3-_

(5.27)

After C is calculated, The routine this point. Examples not bracket 5.6, of this procedure the function fit results solves

the routine

does a parabolic of this parabola

curve

fit between

the three

points. at

for the minimum

and examines

the function

evaluated

are shown

in Figures

5.6 and 5.7 where of the parabolic

points

A, B, and C do is U. In Figure to be at C. The

minimum. in U being

The abscissa located value

minimum

the curve

to the right of C. If the function

minimized minimum

is F1, then the function is not bracketed

at U is less than than the function If F2 is the objective function,

value

in this case.

then the function

value at U is greater conditions Figure and C.

than the function

value at C. In this case, is bracketed

all of the bracketing

are met and the minimum 5.7 shows what would is defined

by B, C, and U. minimum value was located between B the

happen

if the parabolic

If the function value

by F1, then is bracketed

the function

at U is less than

function

at C. The minimum of the function

by B, U, and C. If the function

is defined

by F2 then the value of F2 is not bracketed. If the function another the three

at U is less than B but still greater

at C. The minimum

is not bracketed section

on the first iteration, magnification continues

then

the procedure parabolic

recalculates curve fit with

U based on golden lowest points.

and does another until the minimum

The routine

has been bracketed. to give this routine will be For

At this point, discussed. Press

the method proposed of on-orbit

for choosing the points

the initial

points

using mass,

A = 0 and B = 1 as the initial for B was frequently

test points.

the optimization

this initial guess

unsuitable.

- 87 -

Minimum

of parabolic

fit, U, outside

[A,B,C]"

F 2 minimum F1 : minimum F(A)


r.r....... _ m_

bracketed:

[B,C,U]

not bracketed

F(B)

F2(U)
F(C)
s

F_iu/ AB c u
Outside Bracketing Interval

Figure 5.6 Parabolic Curve Fit - Minimum

Minimum

of parabolic

fit, U, inside [A,B,C]:

F 1 minimum F(A) ......... _ F 2 :minimum

bracketed:

[B,U,C]

not bracketed

i
F(B)

F2(U)
F(C)

FI(U)

Figure 5.7 Parabolic

Curve Fit - Minimum Inside Bracketing

Interval

- 88 -

As stated find the value current along because being entire estimate

previously, of r/k which

the purpose when

of the one-dimensional by the search minimize xk+l.

minimization direction,

procedure

is to

multiplied xk, would

Pk, and added onto the of the objective A = 0 poses function

estimate the search

of the minimum, direction

the value The point

at the new estimate,

no problem xk+l, the

it translates

into a test point for r/k that will result estimate, xk. However, estimate.

in the current

estimate, to adding then

set to the previous search vector

the point B - 1 corresponds If the search vector is large,

onto the current result

the new of

that would

from this addition the attitude

could lie outside

of the physical maneuver

constraints

the trajectory. than 90". To correct initial

For example,

at the end of launch

cannot

be larger

for this problem,

the following the constraints and a lower

procedure

was developed x are specified

to find a suitable such that each

guess for r/k. Suppose

on the estimate bound:

component

of x has both an upper

li<xi

< Ui

for i = l:n

(5.28)

where:

li = lower ui = upper

bound bound

on xi on xi

A value components To find

of r/j, is desired

such

that xk+l,

when

it is used

in equation given

5.22,

none

of the 5.28. of the

of the new estimate,

will violate

the condition

by equation take one

such a r/b, 2n cases of the current removed. to their lower

of equation estimate

5.22 can be set up which

would

components has been estimate

to one of its constraints. can be defined

For simplicity, to take

the k subscript of the

A set of n equations bounds:

the components

li = xi + 77Pi

for i = 1 :n

(5.29)

- 89 C_JJ

7-

'c

and another estimate

set of n equations bounds:

can be defined

which

would

take the components

of the

to their upper

ui = xi + rlpi

for i = l:n

(5.30)

Each equation

will yield a unique

value of r/. There

exist 2n values

of 7/:

_Tdesi_ee _ {r/j } forj

= 1: 2n

(5.31)

Of the 2n possible positive upper negative because values or lower values exist. bound of 7/can

values

of 77 that could

be found

from

the above will point

equations, towards none

only either of the routine

n the n

This is because for each be chosen

the search

direction estimate.

component

of the

Therefore

as the initial

test point

given

to the bracketing

the optimal

r/ used in equation

5.22 must be positive:

rldesired e

{r/j > 0} forj

= I: 2n

(5.32)

The

value

of

17desired

must

finally procedure interval,

equal

the

minimum

of the

above

set divided the first guess of the quantity,

by the of the C, is

quantity

that the bracketing of the bracketing 5.26 as:

will magnify C: IfA

it by to calculate

third point defined

= 0, then the first guess

by equation

C = B + (2 - Gr )B = (3-

Gr )B

(5.33)

Since

the initial

guess

for B could

be magnified

by (3 - Gr ):

rldesired

minimum {r/j > 0 } = 3 - Gr for j = 1: 2n

(5.34)

This value routine A.L.S.

of 1/guarantees

that the initial imposed

triplet

of abscissas

used

in the bracketing For the

will not violate trajectory,

the constraints

on the estimate parameters

of the minimum. as:

the constraints

on the trajectory

were chosen

- 90 -

75" < Of<

90"

(5.35)

7" < al < 17"

(5.36)

1" < a2 < 17"

(5.37)

After the bracketing constraints, variation search routine. minimum utilizes

routine

has found

a triplet

values

of 7"/which

satisfy

the bracketing is a

the set is input of Brent's method.

into a one-dimensional Brent's fitting method procedure uses

minimization a combination

routine. of the

This routine golden

section

and the parabolic Brent's method, within

curve

described to narrow The

previously the bracketing

for the bracketing interval until the used

however, a specified

continues tolerance. function 5.8. B.

is found the derivative

variation to r/k.

on Brent's

method

of the objective

with respect

An example at the middle will likely

of this is shown point

in Figure triplet,

The derivative If the derivative in the figure, B and C.

of the function is positive, the derivative derivative

is evaluated the minimum is negative at C is then to zero.

of the bracketing A and B.

lie between

In the case shown lies between

and the minimum evaluated. The abscissa The DF(rlD

of the function values

The

The two derivative where

DF(B) occurs

and DF(C)

arc linearly

extrapolated

the zero derivative

is used as the next trial point. of the objective is calculated: function with respect to r/k,

method is defined

for calculating as follows:

the derivative

A new state estimate

Xk+l = Xk + r/k Pk

(5.38)

The gradient

at this estimate

is calculated:

gk+l =VF(xk+l)

(5.39)

-91

Based

on slope

information, [B,C]:

next point

to try should F(A) _............ _ -- .....

be within

F(B) ........................

_,J/'-

DF(B)
A B C

DF(C)

........... i"9inverse linear interpolation


I

abscissa DF(B) point

of next

to try

Figure 5.8 Estimating Location of Function Minimum by Extrapolation (or Interpolation) of Slopes to Zero

The derivative

of the objective

function

with respect

to Ok is approximated

as:

OF(FIK)

_-_xl _-_/

gLlPk

(5.40)

- 92 -

5.5 Gradient

Approximation

The difference

gradient

vector

of the objective For a sufficiently a function

function small

can be approximated scalar as: 6), the Taylor Series

using

the

"finite to

technique". to fast-order

can be used

approximate

of n variables

F(x + _ej) = F(x) + _ggx)

(5.40)

where: ej = unit vector gj =j-th in thej-th coordinate direction vector

component

of the gradient

Thej-th

component

of the gradient

can then be approximated

as:

gj(x)

F(x + _e./) - F(x) _) (5.41)

This form function.

is called Another

the "forward

difference

approximation"

and is exact

only for a linear

form can be derived

by defining:

FCx- _ej) - F(x)- _gjCx)

(5.42)

Subtracting

of equation

5.42 from 5.40 yields:

F(x

+ _ej)2_j

F(x-

_e i) (5.43)

This form is called function. forward However, difference

the "central this form

difference" twice

approximation" as many the number

and is exact

for a quadratic as for the in the

requires

function

evaluations

approximation.

To reduce

of computations the gradient using

involved

optimization difference

procedure, approximation.

it was decided

to approximate

the forward-

- 93 -

When computing the forward difference approximation of


objective gradient amount, Thus, function, vector is first evaluated is found at the current state estimate

the

gradient

vector,

the of the

x. Each

component

by first perturbing

the corresponding

x component

by a small

subtracting

the function function

value at x, and dividing is defined by n independent

the difference variables, vector.

by the perturbation. then n + 1 function

if an objective

evaluations

will have to be performed of the values

to approximate

the gradient 8 must

The choice accuracy chosen mass Many machine calculate

to use for the perturbation simulation and

take into consideration it uses. the value over the If a value

the is

of the predictive which is smaller is returned including

all of the subprograms of the simulation, then

than from

the precision the predictive

of on-orbit

which

simulation

will not vary using

the perturbation. root of the used to

sources, precision

Scales

and

Press, value.

recommend

square

as the perturbation function as:

This will only work

if the procedure

the objective

has as high an accuracy

as the machine.

The perturbation

used this study

was chosen

& = 0.001"

(5.44)

5.6 Conclusions

This chapter automate of on-orbit given mass. utilizes conjugate on-orbit matrix. A.L.S. mass.

compared trajectory Because function,

various design.

numerical

optimization

methods design

that could

be used to

The objective

of trajectory studied

is the maximization to minimize of the on-orbit because it The for the a

the optimization the objective method

methods

are designed

objective

function

is defined over faster

as the negative direct search

The conjugate first derivative

gradient

was chosen and thus has

methods

information was found problem

convergence than Newton's knowledge

properties. methods

gradient mass

method

to be more because

practical

optimization would

it did not require function evaluations

of the Hessian with finite

This matrix

be take too many

to approximate

differencing.

- 94 -

The chapter flow.

then outlined gradient function

the conjugate method takes

gradient an initial

method guess

and described

the algorithm that will directions

The conjugate the objective

for the state vector weighted tolerance. conjugate search

minimize

and iterates

on this guess some

using

until the minimum function minimum The Two triplet value

has been these

located search

to within directions

specified

For a quadratic and will locate the

of n variables, within

are mutually

n iterations. minimization in Press along were value each search direction was also discussed. with a

one-dimensional

routines of points

that are given

used.

The

f'trst brackets point

the minimum

such that the function

at the central routine

is less than

the function

at both of the other points. the bracketing interval

The second

takes this bracketing is found to within

set and continues tolerance. points,

to narrow

until the minimum for making to the current for the search constraints technique

some

A procedure i.e. the weight estimate. being Too

was developed that is applied large outside a weight

an initial guess search vector vector would

for one of the bracketing in the calculation result in the updated

of the new estimate

located

the physical difference difference

of the problem. used to approximate was chosen function the gradient over the central vector was

Finally, discussed. approximation function evaluations.

the finite The forward because

approximation as many

difference

it did not require the forward

evaluations. requires

For an objective n + 1 function

of n

variables,

difference

approximation

- 95 -

Chapter

Six

SIMULATION

AND EVALUATION

6.1 Introduction

The optimization the predictive on-orbit vehicle mass

scheme

described

in the preceding

chapter is used in conjunction which

with

simulation for a given

to f'md the set of trajectory Qcx limit. The predictive

shape parameters simulation

will maximize with the current

is initialized measurement. used

state and is provided first describes trajectory on-orbit wind

with a pre-launch in Section

wind velocity

This chapter for pre-launch achieve measured Section prior a desired

6.2 a decision The chosen

process Qo_ limit

to define

a Qo_ limit to

optimization.

will allow

the vehicle

mass in the presence profile.

of large in-flight

wind dispersions

from the

pre-launch 6.3 shows

the ability

of the optimization shape described process

procedure in Chapter

to def'me optimal 3. However, guess

trajectories

to launch shape shape

for the trajectory made

the use of this of the optimal

trajectory trajectory

the optimization

sensitive

to the initial

parameters. lead to the definition trajectory of a new trajectory shape which is described in

This problem Section shape. 6.4. The

Pre-launch

optimization shape results

results

are presented

for the new trajectory process which is much

use of this trajectory to the initial 6.5 over shape, discusses the flight the only guess the

in an optimization solution.

less sensitive Section optimization trajectory different

of the optimal problems

encountered in flight.

in attempting It was found

to do that,

trajectory either a

shape option

parameters

using was

for redesigning

the trajectory trajectory

in flight

to use

value

of the Qot limit than was used in pre-launch

optimization.

- 96-

6.2

Decision

Process

for Choice

of Qa

Limit

The objective designmeet from mass stage,

of this decision

process

is to establish

a Qalimit

to be used for trajectory so that the vehicle wind will

both pre-launch on-orbit

and in flight. mass,

This Qa limit must be chosen

a baseline

mf baseline' in the presence that could occur and should

of the largest in flight. include The

dispersions on-orbit

the pre-launch will be specified the payload,

wind

measurement

baseline

by mission

planning needed

the dry mass

of the core the payload, into the

the fuel mass

for any maneuvers any problems

in orbit to deliver

and enough desired account mission flight orbit.

fuel mass

to accommodate

with the vehicle's this objective

insertion

The vehicle

will be able to accomplish wind dispersions. process

by carrying

a fuel pad to is defined by in-

for the maximum planning.

The amount assumes

of fuel pad needed exists

This decision

that a bound

for the maximum

wind dispersions other

from the pre-launch made

wind measurement. are shown in Figure 6.1. This mass, figure mr, that

The shows

assumptions

by this process corresponding optimization wind

a hypothetical

set of curves (using a trajectory The

to the maximum procedure) shown NoW. go from and

on-orbit

could be obtained different HWmax, that wind

for a specified are for a strong amount head

Q_ limit for headwind, mass

profiles. tailwind, will

different

profiles

a strong

TWmax, increase the

and no winds, as the winds

The

of on-orbit winds

can be obtained Headwinds

strong degrade

to strong while

tailwinds. tailwinds The because Qa limit.

oppose

vehicle's

motion

performance

tend to improve loci of m.f points there is an upper

performance. are shown bound as curves that flatten out with increasing Qa limit

on the on-orbit the on-orbit

mass that can be achieved will approach a constant

with increasing value because

For a large

Qa limit,

mass

the normal

force constraint

will, in effect,

be removed.

- 97 -

mf baseline

\
|

i
= C}o_ lira C}or,lira rid max] Q_ lira [in flight]

i
: Qo_ lim [design spec]

[TD min]

Figure

6.1:

Assumptions

Made

by Decision

Process

The abscissas

of the Qct limit

axis shown

in Figure

6.1 are:

Q atim [design spec] = Qa limit specified The value damage. Qa

by vehicle

design in flight could cannot cause exceed this

experienced loads

by the vehicle on the

or normal

vehicle

structural

aalim

[in flight]

Qot limit to be used in flight for Qa limiting This limit certain must be less than the limit

mode

switch

in Phase design

3 by a

set by vehicle

factor

of safety.

QOtlim [TD max] = maximum

Qtz limit to be used for trajectory must be less than the limit

design used for the in-flight in angle spikes, Qoc

This limit limiting caused

mode

switch

to accommodate performance,

excursions noise, wind

of attack etc.

by the estimator

-98 -

Qat_

[TD rain] = minimum

Q/z limit to be used for trajectory bond

design for

This limit sets a lower trajectory the vehicle design.

on the Qo_ limit that can be used Qo_ limit than this value

A smaller

will not allow in the direction

to reach orbit. to headwinds.

This value

will increase

from tailwinds

Having decision

explained

the above

concepts,

it is now possible

to outline

the steps

for the

process:

1. For the family orbit mass equal assumed objectives.

of curves

of on-orbit

mass vs Qatim,

one of these

achieves

an onprofile mission where must

to mf baseline for a Q(xti m equal is the maximum measured headwind

to Qotwn [rD raax]. The headwind that is acceptable to accomplish or higher,

for this curve If the winds

pre-launch

are (100-S)%

of this value in flight,

S% = percentage be cancelled.

of HWraax

that bounds

wind dispersions

then the mission

2. R%

The reader

is now referred the maximum

to Figure head

6.2. winds

If the pre-launch that could

wind

measurement in flight

is is

of HWma x, then of HWmax.

be experienced

(R+S)%

3. Locate limit where assumed

the intersection this occurs

of the (R+S)%

curve

and mf basetine horizontal to be used for trajectory

line. design

The Q(x for an

(QlxlimrD)

is the Qoc limit

wind

of R% of HWmax.

4.
Qottimr

The
D

value

of the on-orbit

mass

that can be achieved

by the R%

wind

profile

at

is mf

TDinit"

5. The initial fuel pad to account HWmax is then

for the maximum

headwind

wind

disturbance,

S% of

fPi

= mf

TDinit

"mf

baseline

(6.1)

- 99 -

mf

l
/ j...4__ ue_ Pad:I i

!
!

!_ow
_(R-S)% HWmax

!
i
"

mf
TD init

_._
_.

h___.:,,v,
_

""i
i

r (R+S)% HWmax

HWmax

mf
baseline

"

,,, !

\i

,,,

'
i
i

! !

Q(/" li

Qot lim
['FD min] ] l-D ] (TO max] [in flight] (design spec]

Figure 6.2: Decision Process for a Headwind

Pre-Launch

Measurement

The fuel pad to be used during endoatmospheric

flight should decrease

linearly with

time to be zero when an altitude is reached where the wind velocity is zero: _ __L__ t/winas}

fp(t) = fpi(a

(6.2)

where t$ w/has = the approximate this function for the in-flight

time when the wind velocity has decreased fuel pad defined,

to zero.

With design

the target mass of any trajectory

updating in flight should be:

m/ _,,eti,_+ fp(t)

(6.3)

- 100 -

6.3 Pre-Launch

Trajectory

Optimization

Four sets of pre-launch conjugate second trajectory angle runs gradient integration design method time

trajectory

optimization

runs were carried out. simulation to the

They utilized

the

in conjunction step. The first

with the predictive two sets corresponded

run with a 1.0 angle of attack to a new

profile described

in Chapter

3. The second two sets correponded of this study.

of attack profile will be referred

that was developed to as the

in the course

The first two sets of two sets will be

"old alpha profile"

runs and the

second

referred

to as the "new alpha profile" runs. used 60% of the Vandenburg Tables of the 69 (Van69) the

The first set of runs for the old alpha profile headwind optimization iterations" were "avg. profile and the second of these set used

100% of Van69. values conjugate to within

6.1 and 6.2 show The

results column

runs

for different

Q0_ limit.

"major that The

refers to the number of different mass to converge

gradient search directions a tolerance of 0.5 slugs. required

required

for the on-orbit column

1D iterations"

refers

to the average

number of iterations

for the oneFor set of mass

dimensional

optimization

routine on-orbit

to find the scalar weighting mass is given

of each search direction. of the optimal on-orbit

each run, the maximum trajectory achieved shape

along with the values a plot of the the maximum on-orbit

parameters.

Figure

6.3 shows As expected,

maximum on-orbit

on each run vs. the Qot limit. Qot limit. In addition, wind

mass increases Qot limit the range is of

for increasing smaller for the

the maximum

mass

at each Within

100% Van69

profile

than for the 60% Van 69. linear.

Qot limits tested,

the plots are both approximately

- 101 -

Q a Lin_t

Major

Iterations

Avg.

1D

Maximum

mf

Optimum 01",al, 88.3, 87.0, 85.4, 84.6, 0_2 (deg) 14.5, 13.6, 14.0, 13.8, 8.3 8.6 8.8 10.2

Iterations 2250 2500 2750 30O0 3 7 4 8 3 4 2 5

(slu[s)
11061.5 11068.3 11075.8 11082.1

Table

6.1:

Old Alpha

Profile

Pre-Launch

Optimization

Results

for 60% Van69

Headwinds

||

QaLimit

Major

Iterations

Avg.

1D

Maximum

mf

Optimum
0[, al, 89.1, 88.5, I 88.0, or2 (deg) 15.5, 15.1, 14.9, 9.0 8.9 9.9

Iterations 2500 2750 3000 3 5 3 5 3 4

(slugs)
11052.9 11059.5 11066.8

Table

6.2:

Old Alpha

Profile

Pre-Launch

Optimization

Results

for 100%

Van69

Headwinds

- 102 -

xlO4 1.109

1.108

........ 6 :):v:ni9 ......... i...........

:-L-

.106 _ 1.105 1.104

iiii
J

1.103 2200

2300

2400

2500 Q-Alpha

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

Limit (lbs deg/ft**2)

Figure

6.3:

On-Orbit

Mass

Plot for Old Alpha

Profile

Figure trajectory in Figure difficulty trajectory region

6.4 shows parameters

the plots

of angle

of attack

versus headwind.

time for the optimal A similar

solutions

of

for the case of 60% Van69 Van69 headwind case.

set of plots is shown an unforseen guess for the to a

6.5 for the 100%

This condition procedure.

introduced If the initial

in the implementation parameters

of the optimization judicially,

was not chosen

the procedure approached

could

drive

the solution

in which

the time spent

in the a, region

zero.

At this point

the gradient underlying

component

corresponding become

to a, becomes invalid.

identically required

zero and the assumptions that several different

the optimization for the parameters the tr., region

It sometimes before

initial guesses the time spent in

be considered

a solution

was obtained

in which

was greater

than zero.

- 103 -

16 : 14 12 "_ lO Q_ Limits Used: 2250 2500 2750 3000 .......................................

.......................................

.......

: ...............

:...............

-"
<
.............. . ...............

i..... I
2'0 40 Time 6.4: Old Alpha Profile: Alpha

Increasing

Qo Limit

i......... ............
l()O 120 of 60% Van69

20

60 (sec)

80

Figure

Plots for Optimal

Solutions

Headwinds 16 14 12 10
t_ d_

Qcc Limits 2500 2750 3000

Used:

8 6 4 2 0

.<

i iiiiiiii!iiiiiii,,ncrea .... ....... ............


20 40 Time 60 (sec) 80 100 120 Profile: Alpha Plots for Optimal Solutions of 100% Van69 Headwinds - 104-

Figure 6.5: Old Alpha

To counteract thisproblem,a newtrajectoryshape


difference (Phase attack design between the new alpha profile design.

(alpha

profile)

was developed.

The

and the old alpha profile Instead of steering

is in the launch to a constant maneuver

maneuver angle of trajectory by

2) part of the trajectory at the end of the launch was changed to steering

the vehicle of the launch

maneuver, the vehicle

the objective to the angle launch Table

of attack limit that was defined maneuver 6.3 shows percentage optimization

the Qa limit. based

The error for the one-dimensional of the angle of attack.

was simply

on Qct limit instead maneuver.

the error in the Qot at the of the Qot limit for each alpha mode, the was shape the In of

end of the launch run. vehicle reduced made Instead

The error is a very small a very small amount limit.

of spending

of time in the constant The number of trajectory

went directly from three

to the angle

of attack

parameters

to two because to input and almost have

Vtl was eliminated. any realistic mass

This change of to within

in trajectory 0fand the a2into tolerance.

it possible

combination converge

optimization addition, independent

scheme the reduction variables

the on-orbit

in the number

of trajectory scheme.

parameters

reduces

the number

used in the optimization

% Van69

Winds

Qo_Limit (lbs deg/ft**2)

Error

in Q_z

(lbs deg/ft**2) 4.0 6.3 0.7 1.7 6.9 4.6 5.2

60 60 60 60 100 100 100

2250 2500 2750 3000 2500 2750 3000

Table

6.3:

Error

in Qa at End of Phase the New Trajectory

2 for Different Method

Simulations

of

Design

- 105 -

The resultsfor the newalphaprofile arepresented in the sameway asfor theold


profile for comparison alpha on-orbit between the two. Van69 Tables 6.4 and 6.5 show and 100% the optimization Van69 to those headwinds. values alpha

alpha results The

for the new maximum

profile

for 60%

headwinds

mass obtained

for each Qtx limit is very close 6.6.

obtained for

for the old alpha profile. the optimal solutions

This can be seen in Figure in Figures

The resulting

profiles

are shown

6.7 and 6.8.

Qo_Limit

Major

Iterations

Avg.

ID

Maximum (slugs) 11060.7 11067.5 11075.0 11082.0

mf

Optimum Of, a2 (deg) 88.2,7.8 186.8,9.6


!

Iterations 2250 2500 2750 3000 .... 7 3 5 3 I 5 6 6 4

185.3,11.3
I 83.7,9.6

Table

6.4:

New Alpha

Profile

Pre-Launch

Optimization

Results

for 60% Van69

Headwinds

Qct Limit

Major

Iterations

Avg.

1D

Maximum (slugs) I 1052.7 11060.3 11066.6

my

Optimum 0[, a2 (deg) 89.1, 87.5, 86.0, I 0. I 10.0 9.2

Iterations 2500 2750 3000 7 6 5 5 3 4

Table

6.5:

New

Alpha

Profile

Pre-Launch

Optimization

Results

for 100%

Van69

Headwinds

- 106-

1.109

X104

1.108

__=_1.107
t_

1.106 _, 1.105

8
1.104 .................................................................................................

1.1

O_,oo2300
Figure

2400

2500 Q-Alpha

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

Limit (lbs deg/ft**2)

6.6:

On-Orbit

Mass

Plot for New Alpha

Profile

14 _. Qtz Limits Used:

12

..... _0
_. 3000

..... i ............... i! ........... /


i i...._

10

8 .......................
< 6

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time (sec)
Figure 6.7: New Alpha Profile: Alpha Plots for Optimal Solutions of 60% Van69

- 107 -

16
14 12 10 8 < 6 4 2 Q Limits Used: 2500 2750 3000

.............. i............ i....

I.......... i............
!

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill
o zo 4'0
Time

6'0
(sec)

8'0

_oo

12o

Figure

6.8: New Alpha

Profile:

Alpha

Plots for Optimal

Solutions

of 100%

Van69

6.4 In Flight

Trajectory

Design

It was decided completed enough trajectory

that any

trajectory

design

in flight

should

occur

after

the vehicle is still

has low

the launch

maneuver.

During

the launch

maneuver,

the altitude

such that the winds by a significant

have not built up enough amount. optimization results

to cause

the vehicle

to deviate

from its

Examining optimal the

the prelaunch

presented

in the previous the angle over

section,

the

trajectories Qa

of both shapes phase. Thus,

spent most of their time flying in-flight trajectory independent in flight, optimization

of attack
O_1 and

limit in

constant

a: 2 is not as a2

practical

because

the trajectory

is almost later

of both parameters. even 4. with less time is spent

In addition, within the

the predictive portion of flight.

simulation

is begun

This trend was illustrated the only redesign that

in Chapter

Therefore, defined, is based

can occur

in flight

the trajectory results

shapes proved

as that

on varying

the Qa

limit.

The prelaunch

optimization

- 10S -

theon-orbit
the vehicle As

mass would meets

increase

with increasing

Qct limit. fp(t).

This can be used to ensure

that

its time-varying of this, a run than those mass was

fuel pad requirement, was made where

an example stronger on-orbit

the winds

experienced again

in flight to Figure taken assumed Van69

were 6.3, a before to be curve

headwinds baseline launch

measured

before

launch. slugs.

Referring A wind

specified

as 11060 wind The

measurement were 100%

was assumed as much

to be the 60% Van69 as 40% of Van69.

profile. Qt_ limit

The winds where mass the

able to vary crosses

the baseline

mass was 2750 slugs.

lbs/ft 2. The on-orbit

of the 60% Van69 as 16 slugs.

curve

at

this Qt_ limit is 11076 The set of optimal was using then used

The initial fuel pad is therefore parameters for 60% Van69

defined

trajectory

at a Qcx limit of 2750 lb-deg/ft The 100% full simulation Van69. slugs. was run any

to design

a trajectory The

for the full simulation. used in flight were

all of the estimators. redesign full in flight, simulation

winds

Without

trajectory Another trajectory current

the on-orbit was run

mass of the vehicle under the same

was 11052

conditions, simulation

but at 60 seconds was called

the

was redesigned. vehicle state,

At 60 seconds, wind

the predictive profile,

with the

the prelaunch an on-orbit mass

and a Qt_ limit of 2750. At 60 seconds, mass

The predictive

simulation decreased slugs.

returned linearly

of 11063

slugs.

the fuel pad will have 11068

to 8 slugs. a search

The baseline

on-orbit

plus this fuel pad equals

Therefore,

was made to find the Qo_ limit that would to satisfy the requirements

meet this requirement. was redesigned The onof the full

A Qct limit of 2875 was found using orbit this Qa limit. mass resulting The vehicle from

and the trajectory

flew from 60 seconds was design 11055

on with the new trajectory. slugs. The performance 6.9.

this change trajectory

simulation

with and without

is shown

in Figure

An engine

out case was attempted, design

but the vehicle

was not able to achieve Qoc limit.

the desired

orbit, even with trajectory

in flight at a higher

- 109-

16

14

....... ! ............... i ............... ! ............... i ............... :: ...............

,oI ........ \\ ....................... _! ...........


I < \\ :. o_ withitrajectory dpdate, i /

.... ...... , .....


without trajectory Ul:_late i_'

=I ........... .k._ ............... ! ............... _ ......... _-..../._" ...............

6 .................. !..i ....... i


4 .............. 2 20 ; ............ : ......... . ' .......... 40 60 Time 80 (see) Figure 6.9: In-Flight Trajectory Update

...... ...... i..............


:............... 120 140 Winds In Flight

; ...............

100

for Stronger

- 110-

Chapter Seven

CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

One automate (A.L.S.).

of the objectives the prelaunch

of this thesis trajectory

was

to develop process

a computer Advanced

program Launch

that

would System in

design

of the

The other objective for wind

was to explore dispersions

the possibility

of redesigning

the trajectory

flight to compensate Since mass,

or an engine design

out failure. was the maximization of on-orbit

the objective

of the A.L.S.

trajectory

a numerical

optimization trajectory which

scheme shape, could

was employed which accurately

to determine on-orbit

the set of trajectory mass. A predictive mass given the

parameters, simulation vehicle

for a given was developed

maximize calculate

the on-orbit

state,

wind information, control perfectly assumption achieved

and a set of trajectory that the control within a given

parameters. either time

This simulation pitch step. attitude

utilized of

an idealized attack, was

variable, integration

or angle

Because

of this attitude of the

assumption, and a larger

the rotational integration simulation

equation time

of motion

did not have to be solved Thus, shown

to find pitch speed

step could

be used. was

the computational to be close

predictive simulation, After other only defined on-orbit trajectory

over

the full simulation

to that of the full

even with integration reviewing the current

time steps as large literature,

as one second. gradient method gradient The objective was chosen over

a conjugate

types

of numerical

optimization

schemes.

The conjugate

method

requires was of the to the

knowledge

of the objective of on-orbit calculated The gradient

function mass. using

and its gradient. The gradient

function

as the negative mass function,

is the vector simulation,

of derivatives with respect

the predictive

parameters.

is approximated

with finite differencing.

-111

Theoptimizationprocedure wasappliedto the problemof prelaunchtrajectorydesign. Using the trajectoryshape asoriginally proposed, it wasdiscovered thatoptimal solutions producedtrajectoriesin which the time spentin the constantangleof attackportionsof Phase 3 wasvery small.
dependent guess was As a consequence, for the trajectory solution the solution of attack it was found parameters. that optimal In some solutions cases, when were very the initial could the time In this

on the initial guess not close

to the optimal cases, angle

then convergence was driven of Phase process

to a realistic

solution

not be obtained. spent case, in the lust

In these constant

to a condition

in which zero.

portion

3 was identically became invalid

the assumptions

underlying

the optimization

and a correct

solution

was not obtained. this problem, that instead a new trajectory of having shape was defined maneuver was taken neither which was similar to the

To correct old shape angle defined became able

except

the launch

take the vehicle directly component The

to a constant of attack ever

of attack

at the start of Phase

3, the vehicle shape,

to the angle

by the Qo_ limit. identically

With this trajectory convergence solution. set from problem.

of the gradient

zero before to the optimal of the parameter

was obtained. In addition, three

procedure

was therefore shape the

to converge the size

the change

of trajectory reduced

reduced dimensions

to two and, consequently

of the optimization on-orbit masses

Even

with the modification solutions were

in trajectory

shape, as

the predicted those obtained

for the optimal shape. results

approximately

the same

using the old trajectory optimization

Both showed portion during trajectory predictive determined needed

sets of prelaunch the vehicle of Phase flight. after spending

from

the old and the new trajectory constant

shapes

a small amount

of time in the second

angle of attack

3. As a consequence, Since the optimum phase,

it was impractical solution the only tended practical based

to re,optimize

for this parameter constant was to use Qc the

to approach redesign

a simple in flight

the launch

simulation from

to design

a new

trajectory

on a different mass would

Qo limit. be lower

If it was than that would be

the predictive

simulation

that the on-orbit at the redesign

to meet the fuel pad requirement

time, then the trajectory

-112-

redesignedwith a higher Qotlimit. If it wasfoundfrom the predictivesimulationthatthe masswould be higher thanneeded to meetthe fuel padrequirements, then the trajectory couldberedesigned with a lower Qa limit to reducestress on thevehicle.
7.2 Recommendations

Further parameters particular, a parameter Phase (PEG).

study could

should

be made

to determine

if more

effective

trajectory

optimization of Phase 3. In by

be substituted

for the constant parameter

angle of attack parameters at the end of Phase

the constant

angle of attack a more

3 might be replaced Explicit could Guidance improve

that provides The choice of the in-flight maneuver which the

efficient

transition

to the Powered phase

of a new parameter trajectory design vehicle

for this transition

the

effectiveness The sinusoidal profiles

optimization. for this thesis uses a specified pitch rate profile maneuver of

launch form should

is commanded

to follow. improvements

Other in payload

launch

be investigated of an engine-out to achieve

that might provide failure the desired

capabilities. that

The impact

was considered on-orbit mass

in this thesis,

but it was found jet model.

it was not feasible assumed, engines. at less however, Alternative than

for the assumed existed the engines

It was

in this thesis designs and

that no throttle-up be investigated thrust

capability in which

for the non-failed nominally thrust For It should this be jet the This case.

should then

full thrust the on-orbit

increase requirements

in the event could more mass

of an engine-out. easily be met.

assumption, determined that is failed.

mass

to what extent A failed

the trajectory

and on-orbit

are affected

by the particular axis through moment.

jet with a large moment bias of the remaining a different angle

arm from the longitudinal jets to reduce of attack of the should by profile the average

cg might require could This

a cant angle

in turn tend to produce occurrence problems might require

than in the nominal optimization

modification

trajectory

algorithm. In particular, be studied.

Control the

associated

with an engine-out produced control gains

also be investigated. the engine-out stability should margins

ability

to respond should be made

to transients to modify

Provision thrust

to maintain

for the new

model.

- 113-

Anotheroptimizationprocedurecould alsobe developedto automatically


gains used in the vehicle's or mission from mission desired control objective. stability systems given last minute function changes could

re-tune

the

in payload,

vehicle of

configuration, the deviation of prelaunch

The objective margins.

be described save much

in terms

This automation

would

in the way

preparation. the steering should be method made employed to compare methods for Phase the 3 was acceleration of the steering. direction trajectory

For this thesis, steering. optimization A study

effectiveness

procedure

with other

steering

e.g., flight path angle

- 114-

APPENDIX
NASA Vandenburg altitude. the profile Langley AFB, The profile as linearized Research CA. The Center wind provided this study was with wind given measurements plotted taken versus at

information

as velocity A.I.

used in this thesis as shown

is #69, shown A.2.

in Figure

For simplification,

in Figure

Profile

#70
151

E
v

Profile 10000

_.

__/

"ID .,..,

<

5000

0 0 10 20 30 Wind Speed 40 (rn/sec) 50 6o 7o

Figure

A. I

Vandenberg

#69 an #70 wind

profiles.

- 115-

2xlO 4

_i

Vandenberg #70

...i.........

0. 0 10 20 30 Wind Speed 40 (m/s) 50 60 70

Figure

A.2

Linearized

Vandenberg

#69 and #70 wind

profiles.

- 116-