)
CSDLT1062 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 YoucefToumi 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 InFlight 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 PreLaunch 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 PreLaunch InFlight 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 PolakRibiere 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 OnOrbit Old 60% Alpha Van69 Alpha
by for
PreLaunch Profile for Optimal
Plot
Profile:
Headwinds Profile: Alpha
............................................ Plots for Optimal
6.5
Old
100% 6.6 6.7 OnOrbit New 60% 6.8 New 100% 6.9 A. 1 A. 2 InFlight
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 PreLaunch
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
.................................................... PreLaunch Optimization Results for 100%
102
Van69 6.3 Error the 6.4 New
.................................................... of Phase Design PreLaunch 2 for Different Method Simulations of
102
New Alpha
Trajectory Profile
................................. Results for 60%
105
Optimization
Van69 6.5 New
Headwinds Profile
................................................... PreLaunch 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 onorbit 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 onorbit mass mass
of onorbit using
requires and
only the evaluation
the predictive
the gradient
of the onorbit
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 offnominal 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
NAS918147 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 "onorbit 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
stagetoorbit 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 onorbit
able to use a computer the set of trajectory program trajectory flight.
that determines
to within some the onorbit
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 onorbit 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 T1036. Massachusetts Institute of
"Ascent Guidance
for a Winged
Technology
Master of Science
Thesis, CSDL Report T1002.
4
anda numerical
function. The predictive simulation system
optimization
scheme
which uses the onorbit
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
onorbit
The predictive This idealized
simulation.
greatly
computation motion predictive
time for the onorbit 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 onorbit to maximizing its objective mass onorbit 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 onorbit
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 onorbit 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 lowEarth
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 nonthrotfleable (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
InterTank 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 nonthrottleable, 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 timevarying
(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 liftoff. 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 timevarying 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. radartracked 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 inflight
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 Earthrelative 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
EarthCentered
Reference
Frame:
(X, Y, Z)
All equations origin
of motion
are referred
to this nonrotating 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 righthanded
(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 righthanded within
and all earthrelative
are calculated
this reference
13
(3) BodyFixed 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 righthanded 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 Earthrelative
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 Earthrelative
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 bodyfixed
and viceversa.
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 bodyfixed
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 bodyfixed
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 pitchplane
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 = earthrelative or = angle of attack
pitch attitude with respect to the airrelative velocity velocity atr
aE = angle of attack with respect aW = angle of attack contribution
to the Earthrelative from winds = a
y= flight path angle VE = Earthrelative Vw = wind velocity VA = airrelative velocity = VE  Vw velocity
The
airrelative The
velocity angle
is the difference of attack
between
the Earthrelative velocity produced if the cross
velocity
and the
wind velocity.
with respect
to the airrelative
is equal to the by winds. product The of V,,,
sum of the Earthrelative 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 bodyfixed 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 bodyfixed
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 airrelative of aerodynamic of aerodynamic in zdirection in xdirection velocity normal force C/v (a, Mach) Mach) area = constant pressure  p VA2/2
axial force = Ca(a, of bodyf'Lxed of bodyfLxed 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 (Icpxxcg) + 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 bodyfixed 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
xaxis zaxis
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 bodyfixed
frame
to give
the
force in bodyf'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 bodyfixed
flame
M 
(2.19)
and co is the angular
velocity
of the body expressed
in the bodyfixed
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 bodyfixed 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 nonorthogonal
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 airrelative 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 airrelative during of these flight effects velocity, while VA. the The
air density,
p, and the square monotonically decreases from zero
of
airrelative
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 "onorbit
of the guidance
commands
to achieve the designer when
high an "onorbit 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.
onorbit 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 onorbit 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 prelaunch designed is made simulation mass. before
measurement flight might the trajectory mass,
or if an engineout for onorbit
occurs,
not be optimal during flight
In this thesis, current state, a
to update
using the vehicle's optimization scheme
for onorbit 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 prelaunch
phase. design
3.6 introduces
the method
for automating
the prelaunch
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 leadtime
payloads
through
the
atmosphere
to a lowEarth 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 Predictiveadaptive Powered Explicit Guidance (PEG) T = 120 sec.
Maximum Q a
Phase
Three
Constrained endoatmospheric flight phase Accelerationdirection 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 accelerationdirection the accelerationdirection to a Qo_ limiting
trajectory. profile control mode
A dualmode 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 InFlight
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 openloop,
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 openloop 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 fedforward by proportionalintegral 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 addon acting
load relief to the
employs vehicle's
proportional axis.
to the
measured
normal
longitudinal of attack. airrelative addon control winds.
At low frequencies, of the addon 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 loadrelief
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/Qtzlimiting 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 = accelerafiondirecton
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 dualmode
and thus null out any difference accelerationdirection and the vehicle trajectory autopilot
between
following
by an addon
load relief
function
will only perform
in the form of Qct limiting, for either For closedloop
when needed. or openloop guidance is shown on the block profile diagram can be of in
The option in Figure provided attack section 3.4.
closedloop 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 closedloop
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 proportionalintegral 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 timevarying
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 airrelative 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 continuoustime input and is passed at low frequencies.
rate is the low frequency that path, is accurate an equivalent through
a lowpass
filter to produce of the high
estimate
implementation an estimate
frequency acceleration
representation a lowpass filter.
is used
in which
of angular as
is passed
This procedure
gives
the same results
 39
highpass 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 IMUmeasured errors in the modelling
the engine
deflections, forces.
and corrections
for any small
and aerodynamic
lowpass
filter
o_lowfr_u=%y
'cs + 1
+
__h_h _quency
xs + 1 highpass 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 outerloop 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
continuoustime 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.
lowpass
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
highpass
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 discretetime as:
..:.. Othigh frequency. AS
shown
in
2, the angle of attack can be expressed
a = 0 y+ C_w
(3.8)
41
lowpass
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
highpass
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 discretetime
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 airrelative 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 airrelative from winds
must be estimated. along
the earthrelative 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 lowpass filter
Therefore,
the pitch
are each
sent through
with the following
continuoustime
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 PreLaunch
3.5.1 Introduction
Trajectory
Design
A guidance commands previous for Phase (PEG) effects
system
which
is implemented prior
in an openloop
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 openloop.
The guidance Guidance neglects the
calculated used in the forces
closedloop 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 onorbit that also
onorbit
for any
postboost
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 prelaunch 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
prelaunch
automated
 45 
numericaloptimization technique. The automationof the prelaunchtrajectory design processis discussedin Section3.6. Section3.7 discusses how this sametechniqueis appliedto inflight 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 closedloop 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 onorbit
to the overall The primary
mass of the vehicle. a high onorbit 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 onorbit
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 onorbit
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 onorbit 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 onorbit
is timeconsuming 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
onorbit
upon it seeks
optimization
scheme
which
uses onorbit
mass
as the objective the onorbit 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 prelaunch parameters.
measurement. The predictive
optimization
algorithm
supplies
set of trajectory from
simulation PEG
will integrate to predict search onorbit
the equations onorbit 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.
onorbit
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 onorbit numerical mass. mass
3, a procedure for specified
was described values
for selecting
trajectory
parameters
to maximize this process, is the onorbit the vehicle's end the the of a
of the Qa limit. for which
In order
to automate function because
optimization
scheme of onorbit
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 onorbit
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
reducedorder
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 ReducedOrder
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) BodyFixed The origin roll motion. the nose cone.
toward
the center
and the x axis points
the righthanded 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 righthanded set.
the same direction
as the inertial
y axis.
The zB axis completes
The motion translation vector, rotation attitude. given by:
of the bodyfixed
frame
with respect
to the inertial the inertial
frame
is constrained The position
to
in the inertial the origin
xz plane
and rotation frame frame
about
y axis.
R, locates
of the bodyfixed 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 bodyfixed 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 bodyfixed 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 outplaneforces 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 outofplane equal to zero:
forces,
the ycomponent
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 prelaunch 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)
oo: {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 = earthrelative a = angle of attack
pitch attitude with respect contribution with respect to the airrelative from winds velocity = aas velocity (VA)
aW = angle of attack as = angle of attack
to the Earthrelative
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
+yaW
(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 onorbit 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 fourthorder calculations
in the inertial RungeKutta 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_+'yotw
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.
proportionalintegral 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 airrelative 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 airrelative can thus enter will always
in airrelative 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 airrelative
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
onorbit
is presented is calculated
error of fuel left in the core onorbit.
This quantity
as follows:
% fuel.: error = mfiDF " m/3t'r fueI r,oof
(4.28)
where: fuelf,6DOF = core fuel onorbit
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 onorbit 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 onorbit
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,theonorbit mass isdctcrrnincd by using thepredictive simulation described in the previous chapter. The simulation approach is requiredbccausc itisnot practical to develop a closedform solution for the onorbitmass. Consequently, the onorbitmass functionisnot analytical. Any optimizationprocedure which seeks to maximize onorbitmass must, therefore, bc numerical in form. For the approach used in thisthesis, the onorbitmass function ismultidimensional because as many used to definethetrajectory shape. This chapter firstcompares in Section 5.2 several multidimensional 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 theonorbitmass function was optimized along a specific searchdirection. Section5.5 describeshow the gradientof theonorbit mass functionwas approximated using finite differencing.
 74 
5.2 Comparison
of Numerical
Optimization
Methods
There developed problem
are many multidimensional 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 multidimensional 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 onorbit
the maximization
of onorbit function
is equivalent
of the negative
of onorbit
mass, the objective
will be defined
F(x) = mf
(5.1)
where
mf
is the There
onorbit 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. 1106. 4 Press, W.H., Flannery, Cambrdige:
to NonLinear O_timization.
1985.
London:
MacMillan
Education
B.P., Teukolsky,
S.A., Vetterling,
W.T., Numerical
Recipes.
1986.
Cambridge University Press., pp. 274311.
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 onorbit
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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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 nonanalytical 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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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 onedimensional
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 zigzag
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
nvector
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)kl,
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 PtI
(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
"PolakRibiere"
flk is given
by the expression:
,Ok =(gk
gkl)Tgk
gk_lZgk_ 1
(5.20)
The PolakRibiere and stability It should
algorithm
was recommended
by both Scales function.
and Press
for its efficiency
in finding be noted
the minimum
of a nonquadratic 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 onorbit 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/kl, that minimizes
algorithm vector
(line minimization) direction, Pkt.
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 onedimensional over r/k for each kiteration
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 onedimensional 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 onedimensional
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
Xk1, Pk1, gk1
_,,_Po
x_
of f(x)from direction
_Lf (Xk)
Do 1D minimization along conjugate
_'
Xk1 Pk1
''(
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 = (gkgk1 )Tgk gk1 Tgk1 Pk = "gk + _kPk1
Xk, Pk, gk
Figure
5.3 PolakRibiere
Conjugate Gradient Minimization
Algorithm
for Function
 84 
The onedimensional 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+(2Gr)(BA)
(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 onorbit
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 onedimensional 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 onedimensional 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 fastorder
can be used
approximate
of n variables
F(x + _ej) = F(x) + _ggx)
(5.40)
where: ej = unit vector gj =jth in thejth coordinate direction vector
component
of the gradient
Thejth
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 onorbit
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 onorbit given mass. utilizes conjugate onorbit 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 onorbit 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
onedimensional
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 onorbit 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 onorbit wind
with a prelaunch in Section
wind velocity
This chapter for prelaunch 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 inflight
wind dispersions
from the
prelaunch 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
Prelaunch
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 prelaunch
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 prelaunch onorbit
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 onorbit
the prelaunch 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 prelaunch 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
onorbit
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 onorbit 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 onorbit the onorbit
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 inflight 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 onorbit
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
prelaunch
are (100S)%
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 prelaunch 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 onorbit
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
_(RS)% 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] ] lD ] (TO max] [in flight] (design spec]
Figure 6.2: Decision Process for a Headwind
PreLaunch
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 inflight
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 PreLaunch
Trajectory
Optimization
Four sets of prelaunch 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 onorbit column
1D iterations"
refers
to the average
number of iterations
for the oneFor set of mass
dimensional
optimization
routine onorbit
to find the scalar weighting mass is given
of each search direction. of the optimal onorbit
each run, the maximum trajectory achieved shape
along with the values a plot of the the maximum onorbit
parameters.
Figure
6.3 shows As expected,
maximum onorbit
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
PreLaunch
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
PreLaunch
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 QAlpha
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
Limit (lbs deg/ft**2)
Figure
6.3:
OnOrbit
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 onedimensional 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 onorbit
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 onorbit 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
PreLaunch
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
PreLaunch
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 QAlpha
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
Limit (lbs deg/ft**2)
6.6:
OnOrbit
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 inflight 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 
theonorbit
the vehicle As
mass would meets
increase
with increasing
Qct limit. fp(t).
This can be used to ensure
that
its timevarying of this, a run than those mass was
fuel pad requirement, was made where
an example stronger onorbit
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 onorbit
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 lbdeg/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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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
onorbit
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: InFlight 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 onorbit
the objective
of the A.L.S.
trajectory
a numerical
optimization trajectory which
scheme shape, could
was employed which accurately
to determine onorbit
the set of trajectory mass. A predictive mass given the
parameters, simulation vehicle
for a given was developed
maximize calculate
the onorbit
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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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 onorbit 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 inflight 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 engineout to achieve
that might provide failure the desired
capabilities. that
The impact
was considered onorbit 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 throttleup be investigated thrust
capability in which
for the nonfailed nominally thrust For It should this be jet the This case.
should then
full thrust the onorbit
increase requirements
in the event could more mass
of an engineout. easily be met.
assumption, determined that is failed.
mass
to what extent A failed
the trajectory
and onorbit
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 engineout produced control gains
also be investigated. the engineout 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
retune
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