Optimal
Guidance
Advanced
Launch
Anthony
Georgia
S. K. Leung
Atlanta,
Contractor
Law Development
System
Report
4667
for an
Georgia
Prepared
April
1995
Printed
copies
NASA
Center
800 Elkridge
Linthicum
(301)
available
for AeroSpace
Landing
Heights,
6210390
from
the following:
Information
Road
MD 210902934
National
Technical
Information
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield,
(703)
VA 221612171
4874650
Service
(NTIS)
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
S tion
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1.2
Research
1.3
Report
1
Contributions
Organization
SYMBOLS
AND
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
ABBREVIATIONS
2.1
Equations
2.2
Assumptions
and Simplifications
2.3
Aerodynamic
Model
2.4
Atmospheric
Singular
and Launch
Vehicle
Configuration
11
15
Perturbations
state
model
c) Manifold
solution
Regular
17
approximation
b) Twostate
17
23
and eigenvalue
analysis
23
Perturbations
29
a) Regular
perturbations
b) Launch
vehicle
in optimal
Introduction
4.2
The Method
4.3
Regular
4.4
Duff'rag's
control
29
application
33
COLLOCATION/REGULAR
4.1
THE
APPROACHES
A HYBRID
4.5
Model
a) Energy
3.2
of Motion
ANALYTICAL
3.1
PERTURBATION
ANALYSIS
43
of Collocation
Perturbation
Equation
44
Formulation
45
Example
47
a) Level
0 formulation
48
b) Level
1 formulation
52
c) Level
2 formulation
57
d) Level
3 formulation
60
Conclusion
HYBRID
64
APPROACH
TO NEAR
OPTIMAL
LAUNCH
VEHICLE
GUIDANCE
5.1
Zero
5.2
5.3
Order
Solution
65
First order
Solution
71
Numerical
Results
73
,*
111
Table
of Contents
(cont.)
Section
5.4
Remarks
5.5
Wind
on the Numerical
Shear
Results
79
Investigation
CONCLUSIONS
AND
6.1
Conclusions
6.2
Recommendations
81
RECOMMENDATIONS
83
for Future
Work
83
APPENDIX
Derivation
APPENDIX
State Transition
Matrix
Expression
in Eq. 3.44
APPENDIX
State Transition
Matrix
Expression
of Level
86
of Eq. 3.32
87
1 Formulation
in
Sec. 4.3
APPENDIX
System
89
matrix
First Order
and State
Formulation
Transition
in Sec. 5.2
REFERENCES
Matrix
Expression
for the
91
94
iv
LIST
Coordinate
Systems:
and Wind
OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Earthfixed
Frame OXYZ,
Local Horizontal
Cijk,
Frame.
2.2
Generic
2.3
C L Profile.
12
2.4
C D Profile.
12
2.5
C L Profile
(continued).
13
2.6
C D Profile
(continued).
13
2.7
ALS
Second
Stage
C L Profile.
14
2.8
ALS
Second
Stage
C D Profile.
14
2.9
Jump
2.10
Standard
2.11
KSC
3.1
Reduced
3.2
Angle
3.3
Reduced
3.4
Alpha
3.5
Flightpath
3.6
Angle
3.7
Typical
3.8
Eigenvalue
Analysis
3.9
Eigenvalue
Separation
3.10
Hightpath
Angle
3.11
Evaluation
of the Singular
3.12
Perturbation
Results
in v with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
38
3.13
Perturbation
Results
in u with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
39
3.14
Perturbation
Results
in h with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
39
3.15
Perturbation
Results
in X v with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
40
3.16
Perturbation
Results
in k u with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
40
3.17
Perturbation
Results
in _r with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
41
3.18
Perturbation
Results
in tx with Spherical
Earth
and Backpressure
Effects.
41
3.19
Perturbation
Results
in tx Including
3.20
Aerodynamic
4.1
Level
Advanced
in Control
Launch
Wind
Solution
of Attack
of Attack
11
Hamiltonian.
15
16
Profile.
16
with _/= 0.
20
along
Using
and Gamma
Angle
Model
Model.
Profile
Solution
the Reduced
Estimated
Estimate
Profile
20
Angle.
22
Profiles.
for Various
Layer
Solution.
Flightpath
22
Boundary
0 Result
(ALS)
due to Nonconvex
Atmospheric
Mean
System
Reference
Reference
Trajectories.
24
Trajectories.
24
Characteristics.
along
the Reference
by Relative
Prof'fle
to Propulsive
of _'o = 75
26
26
Solution.
26
Perturbation
in x.
Trajectory
Magnitude.
of Guided
Force
25
Parameter
Aerodynamic
Ratios
along
Effects.
Optimal
28
42
Trajectory.
42
50
List of Illustrations
(cont.)
FAgam
4.2
Level
0 Result
in v.
50
4.3
Level
0 Result
in E x.
51
4.4
Level
0 Result
in k v.
51
4.5
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
in x for Different
N.
54
4.6
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
in v for Different
N.
54
4.7
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
in L x for Different
N.
55
4.8
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
N.
55
4.9
Level
1 Higher
Order
Results
in x for N=3.
56
4.10
Level
1 Higher
Order
Results
in v for N=3.
56
4.11
Level
1 Higher
Order
Results
in k x for N=3.
57
4.12
Level
1 Higher
Order
Results
57
4.13
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in x for N=2.
59
4.14
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in v for N=2.
59
4.15
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in Ex for N=2
60
4.16
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in ;v for N=2.
60
4.17
Level
3 Higher
Order
Results
inx
for N=I.
62
4.18
Level
3 Higher
Order
Results
inv
for N=I.
62
4.19
Level
3 Higher
Order
Results
in _
for N=I.
63
4.20
Level
3 Higher
Order
Results
63
5.1
Open
Loop
v Profiles
for Various
N.
68
5.2
Open
Loop
u Profiles
for Various
N.
68
5.3
Open
Loop
h Profiles
for Various
N.
70
5.4
Open
Loop
2_v Profiles
for Various
N.
70
5.5
Open
Loop
2_u Profiles
for Various
N.
71
5.6
Open
Loop
_ Profiles
for Various
N.
71
5.7
Closed
Loop
Velocity
5.8
Closed
Loop
Flightpath
5.9
Closed
Loop
Altitude
5.10
Closed
Loop
Angle
5.11
Convexized
5.12
Closed
Loop
Velocity
5.13
Closed
Loop
Flightpath
5.14
Closed
Loop
Altitude
5.15
Closed
Loop
Angle
First
Profile
Angle
Profile
of Attack
Stage
for N=8.
Profile
74
for N=8.
74
for N=8.
75
75
76
C D Profile.
Profile
Angle
Profile
of Attack
Under
Wind
Profile
Under
Profile
Shear
and _
Under Wind
Wind
Under
vi
Shear
Wind
Shear
Constraint.
and _x t Constraint.
76
77
78
78
Closed
Loop
Angle
5.16
Closed
Loop
5.17
A Hypothetical
5.18
Comparison
of the Thrustvector
5.19
Comparison
of the o_ 1 Profiles
under
Wind
5.20
Experienced
Horizontal
Speed
of Attack
Profile
Wind
Profile
Under
Shear
Under
Wind
Shear
Wind
Shear
and _
Constraint.
79
Prof'tle.
Wind
80
Angle
LIST
78
Profiles
under
Wind
Shear.
Shear.
80
82
Simulations.
82
OF TABLES
v_ae
Table
15
2.1
ALS Vehicle
Physical
5.1
Performance
Comparison
5.2
Performance
Comparison
under Wind
Data.
vii
Shear.
Guidance.
77
81
OPTIMAL
FOR
GUIDANCE
LAW
AN ADVANCED
Anthony
J. Calise*
Georgia
Institute
DEVELOPMENT
LAUNCH
SYSTEM
GA 30332
SUMMARY
The objective
for launch
with
vehicles
a variety
Singular
of model
approach
falls
large
ascent
perturbation
second
also
of this research
to be treated
methods
alone
developing
regular
order
vehicle
problem.
and
results
nonlinear
atmospheric
reliability
are
approach
delivers
the control
shear
effects
* Professor,
** Graduate
reduce
example.
demonstrated
over
99.9%
computation
and a control
flight
is completed
constraint
School of Aerospace
Research
Assistant.
entire
loop
flight
simulations.
vln
intelligent
sacrificing
a powerful
applied
to the
tangent
that
in a
launch
steering
includes
of performance
The
hybrid
law,
both
and
guidance
accuracy
on a SPARCstation
the
tool for
are illustrated
of a second
Engineering.
forms
analysis
and
without
of
of choosing
perturbation
regime,
in
method
The concept
is then
use
analytic/numerical
solution,
Assessment
performance
in tenths
vehicle.
from a bilinear
phases.
closed
of a launch
of the approach
is derived
the
for
Regular
method
are too
inadequate
the numerical
perturbations.
approach
solution)
It
that perturbation
a hybrid
the combined
for
of optimal
phase
combines
Details
order
are
The
investigated.
demonstrates
of elements
hybrid
through
zero
the number
solution
exoatmospheric
effort,
investigated.
to be unsatisfactory.
The
solution
flight
introduced.
problems.
The collocation
and
research
is also
control
in a guidance
the study
of regular
As a result,
optimal
in the
approach
combined
been
was subsequently
perturbations)
representation
further
accuracy.
(ignored
The approach
method
functions
functions
fourth
of the
and evaluated.
of a crude
realtime
analysis
singular
have
and found
phase
interpolating
solving
and
algorithm
intelligent
approximation
perturbation
guidance
approaches
reduction
first attempted,
Therefore,
interpolating
were
a realtime
analytical
complexity
as perturbations.
a second
use
Various
effects
was developed
the
injection.
model
on regular
collocation
allows
was to develop
the aerodynamic
(both
During
and
methods
a guidance
approach
order
based
because
to orbit
effort
while
1. Wind
A second
Dr. Dewey
has been
effort
Hodges,
documented
that paralleled
of the School
under
this work
of Aerospace
a separate
contractor
ix
under
Engineering
report.
at Georgia
number
Tech.
was lead
by
This work
SECTION
INTRODUCTION
The
objective
unmanned,
allweather
launch
algorithm
System
for placing
of present
for solving
(ALS)
large
cost.
program
payloads
is to develop
(100,0001b
the launch
vehicle
ascent
 150,0001b)
requirement
trajectory
an
is to
problem.
Background
To date,
typically
forces
first stage
guided
as a part
by using
and from
attack
guidance
zero angle
to avoid
to the product
second
and
Saturn
employs
any
Powered
the guidance
position
commands
and velocity
Trafliti0n_l
t_uidance
[ 1  3].
The
first
typically
closed
loop guidance
solution
Numerical
programming
pressure.
stages
Guidance
vehicle
coefficients
of typically
discretely
the parameterized
the
These
aerodynamic
Near
zero
Guidance
various
are retargeting
cycle
using
flying
angle
of
which
is
for the
approaches.
Shuttle
schemes
because
the current
vehicle's
phase
piecewise
Then
orbital
through
conditions
process.
linear attitude
control
linear
the differential
So the original
portion
profile
is parameterized
polynomials.
typically
infinite
The
dimensional
states
number
problem
either
formulation
of dynamics.
at a finite
is a
required
orbit injection.
method
is transformed
of flight
The second
is possibly
employ
problem
phases
loop phase
In a direct
equations
portion
of flight.
typically
different
program.
[10].
optimization
two or three
guidance
shooting
the trajectory,
either
a third closed
to optimal
piecewise
along
is calculated
moments,
employing
(IGM)
may involve
guidance
The unknown
control.
[3].
[4  9] or multiple
problem.
Mode
at each update
guidance
loop
approaches
optimization
loop,
is
Methods
is approaching
of the control
is closed
(PEG)
assumptions.
programming,
are enforced
and dynamic
phase
certain
functions
of attack
under
nonlinear
of angle
vehicle
it involves
[1].
bending
is an open
which
turn
aerodynamic
are recalculated
launch
a gravity
from
Typically
excessive
Solution
Traditional
loads
shear.
The
program
creating
Guidance
vectors
The steering
such as wind
uses an Iterative
Explicit
loop form.
for structural
and performing
subsequent
V vehicle
in open
program.
to account
disturbances
of attack,
proportional
stage
steering
preparation
atmospheric
is employed
a prestored
of prelaunched
with nearly
The
Launch
system
orbit at a fraction
an efficient
1.1
of the Advanced
into
nonlinear
such
as
a parametric
with undetermined
are
considered
Constraints,
of nodal
as
if any,
points
is approximated
of
by
Simplified
MQ_I_I$
In [2], Chandler
based
steering
2
on a flat
guidance.
Earth
noatmosphere
The guidance
model,
solution
and
requires
simplified
V vehicle.
with linear
equations.
It is
angle
Methods
of Analysis
Perturbation
spacecraft
solve
methods
guidance
design.
a low thrust
feedback
control
is solved
Powers
space
flight
developed
a retargeting
constant
acceleration
on
applied
it to the launch
requires
the
flight.
an analytic
again based
on a flat Earth,
introduced
higher
costates
are
equation.
order
obtained
also developed
quadrature
found
to be inadequate
1.2
Research
which
and/or
singular
contributions
demonstrates
phase
perturbation
The
Jacobson
space
used
(HJB)
and
flight.
equation,
pertur
solution
dynamics
series
expansion
solution
are
for the
to the
HJB
and costates
was
is
In this
corrections
of state
have
The approach
order
and
and
The analytic
and higher
It is
fixed
regular
flight.
evaluation.
that online
later
are included.
individual
methods.
intelligent
choices
portion
vehicle
the numerical
it suitable
approach
The
retains
collocation
of the interpolation
of the necessary
that perturbation
are inadequate
to make
hybrid
of this research
of a launch
that combines
alone.
In [13],
[14] have
This approach
A linear
of the power
effects
conclusively
perturbations)
the atmospheric
approach,
matrix.
solution
aerodynamic
trajectory
by expanding
on regular
[15].
technique.
Contributions
The major
effort
based
However,
when
extremal
approximation,
differentiation
and Calise
can be avoided.
to
and quadrature
approach
by Leung
perturbation
for exoatmospheric
is obtained
histories
An alternative
and Speyer
problem
solution
by partial
to
HamiltonJacobiBellman
Solution
state
approaches
transition
scheme
Feeley
noatmosphere
as perturbations.
method,
state
guidance
zero order
to be powerful
the reference
of the
vehicle
[12]
about
guidance
Recently,
expansion
shown
It is a neighboring
determined
an explicit
been
and Rauch
by linearizing
procedure
bations
have
problem.
is formulated
basically
tractable
Breakwell
with a numerically
have
regular
of analysis
method
guidance,
desirable
and
method
is further
functions,
which
conditions
and simulation
alone
(both
a guidance
for optimality.
complimentary
improved
are derived
When
regular
algorithm
of collocation
for realtime
the
methods
study
for
of a hybrid
method
to either
of
method
features
of the
by providing
more
from
applied
the analytically
to the launch
Report
Organization
Sec.
problem,
which
propulsion
purely
2 presents
includes
models
analytical
approach
using
the
that
approaches
an energy
assumption.
Sec. 4 details
perturbation
analysis
both regular
launch
zero
vehicle
and
the
shooting.
Sec.
research.
the development
to demonstrate
first
guided
on the zero
order
solution
the
trajectory
vehicle
of the ALS.
and a 2state
order
solution
of a hybrid
analysis
and purely
problem
is presented
6 is the conclusions
and
model
of collocation.
model.
optimization
aerodynamic
The
results
approach
order
using
solution
of this research
and
the hybrid
their
obtained
noatmosphere
both regular
nonlinear
it to solutions
collocation
solutions,
is
by
In Sec. 5, the
It includes
the
compares
the
and
by the method
system
obtained
methods.
approach.
for two
is a regular
that employs
A fourth
numerical
Earth
and
perturbation
The second
for a flat
and to compare
formulations
vehicle
its application,
correction
launch
of motion
on a generic
guidance
resulting
equations
are documented
based
perturbation
of the
state approximation
approach
in depth
the
are based
perturbation
treated
formulation
of multiple
for future
SYMBOLS
AND
ABBREVIATIONS
Symbol
 airspeed
Wijk
 wind
 heading
 flightpath
 vehicle
mass
ts
 staging
time (158.5s
 magnitude
re
 Earth
mean
_e
 Earth
gravitational
 Earth's
 altitude,
 thrust
throttle
0t
 angle
of attack,
speed components
angle
angle
of radius
radius
vector
(6.378
measured
(3.9906
x 1014m3s 2)
h = r  re
 sideslip
control
angle,
variable
control
Mach
number
 sound
speed
ce
 reference
CD
 aerodynamic
drag coefficient
cL
 aerodynamic
lift coefficient
 amaospheric
Pe
 reference
 atmospheric
Pe
 reference
 dynamic
Tv_
 vacuum
sound
variable
 engine
center
x 106m)
constant
rotational
speed
on Earth's
surface
(340.3ms
1)
C D = CD(Ot, M, _)
C L = CL(Ot, M, [3)
density
atmospheric
density
on Earth's
surface
(1.225kgrn3)
pressure
atmospheric
pressure
on Earth's
surface
(101330Nm
2)
pressure
thrust
exit nozzle
area
 aerodynamic
2A
 state transition
 local vertical
 local horizontal
 thrustvector
angle relative
ge
 gravitational
acceleration
reference
area
matrix
velocity
component
velocity
component
to local horizon,
on Earth's
surface
SymbolsandAbbreviations(cont.)
Symbol
gi
 small
nonlinear
terms
(i = 1, 2)
Px
 interpolated
state dynamics
qx
 interpolated
costate
in the collocation
dynamics
in the collocation
Abreviations
ALS
 Advanced
HJB
 HamiltonJacobiBeUman
IGM
 Iterative
KSC
 Kennedy
LEO
PEG
 Powered
TPBVP
 TwoPoint
MPBVP
 MultiPoint
Launch
Guidance
System
Mode
Space Center
Explicit
Guidance
Boundary
Boundary
Value Problems
Value
Problems
formulation
formulation
SECTION
PROBLEM
In this section,
which
includes
subsequent
analyses
sion models
2.1
of motion
are applied
the optimal
for a point
launch
mass
vehicle
model
guidance
of a launch
aerodynamic,
Equations
of
vehicle
atmospheric
that the
and propul
Motion
over a spherical,
rotating
mass
'_i cost
sin Z
equations
of motion
for a multistage
atmosphere
_'iCjcsTcsx
launch
are:
; V (t o) = Vo
_'=
problem,
Referring
vehicle
FORMULATION
we first formulate
the equations
_e
(_
V2
r )cosy
/ (VcosT)
; Z(t o) = Zo
 Wk cosy
+2o) e [W i (cos T cos)t + sin T sin)t cos Z)  sin T(Wj sin )t Wk cos)t)sin
Z]} / V
= VcsTsinz+Wi
rcos)t
7_ = VcosTcosz+Wj
= VsinT
rh = f(rl,
where
= To
; _(to)
= _bo
; )t(to)
= )t o
; r(to)
+ Wk
r, t)
; T(to)
; m(t o) = m o
= ro
(i)3 = m (i)
; m(ts+_
s
(2.1)
_
Earthfixed
reference
system_
North
N_''.
_
..""_
/
\
_
wi
k__aa/M'%,
\_i
_._____..._7al
r_
X"_
horizon=plane
Zw
refe_nc
Mc_di=
_\
/ .,,<._<
,Zw
k
4 T (along
L__
longitudinal
Figure
2.1.
System
Equator
Coordinate
Wind
* Here
axis)
x_
Coordinate
vehicle
Systems:
Earthfixed
Frame OXYZ,
Local
Horizontal
Frame*.
in the opposite
convention.
Cijk, and
Wx
Wx
D (i) = qS(i)cg
q = pV 2 / 2
Here,
(3.9906
oblateness
sufficient
% longitude
variables
a and
radius
angle
altitude
parameters,
density
and
are given
independent
above
V, heading
center
air.
model
and
To simplify
Analytic
thrust
employs
maximum
The
here.
mass
components
are throttle
fuel
force
rate
m(ts+),
Standard
c are given
X, flightpath
r, and vehicle
C D, side
stage mass
which
angle
Cy
are interpolated
of h.
operated
and r e is
of attack
lift C L are
of throttle
properties
The
as smooth
such
coefficients
functions
as
and
of the
thrust
Simplifications
the analysis,
expression
the following
 As mentioned
throttle
_ = 1.0 during
can be adequately
represents
m. The
atmospheric
functions
and
f is a function
staging
angle
W i, Wj, W k
rl, angle
modeled
assumptions
in the previous
the ascent
are exercised:
section,
phase.
a typical
For most
launch
trajectory
the
inside
thrust
backpressure
vehicle
analysis
as
(2.3)
T max
(i) = T vac
(i) _ A_i)p
where
provides
h = r  r e is the altitude
variables
of drag
The afterjettison
forms
The superscript
complex
M = V/c.
speed
expression.
are airspeed
fixed
to account
variables.
Assumptions
purposes,
The
The control
number
in tabular
model
gravitational
purposes.
coefficients
p, and sound
harmonic
of {, k, h }, where
x 106m).
p, pressure
properties
vector
(2.2)
values.
analysis
as functions
and time.
order
to the moving
Mach
is assumed
stage
in this model
13. The
' 11 e [0, 1]
different
(6.378
of a, 13 and
se_ng,
A higher
_,, radius
to be given
sideslip
field
, latitude
Earth
functions
2.2
n} indicates
V, y, X are relative
the mean
_ qS<i)c(_>
by replacing
state variables
are assumed
; L(i) = qS<i)c(_)
x 1014m3s2).
details
The
; y(i)
gravitational
can be used
(i) = { 1, 2 .....
; x = {i, j, k}
(i)
, T (i) = _T
", max
an inversesquare
constant
+gg
that
causes
a drop
nozzle
of thrust
exit area.
level
as the engine
is
the atmosphere.
Constant
proportional
to the vacuum
rocket
propulsion
system
thrust
(2.4)
rh = T(i)vac / (geI_))
where
rocket
engines
Nonrotating
which
have
Earth
represents
the
values
ranging
 The Earth's
represents
the
toe is small
was
may
at the Earth's
surface.
sharply
Modem
acceleration
acceleration
apparent
a measure
acceleration,
gravitational
near
impulse,
rotation,
transport
Coriolis
is
phase.
of time,
reach
0.1g e at orbital
However,
Therefore,
and setting
The
2toeV
speed.
the vehicle
the dominant
term
Here
reaches
effect
which
ge is the
orbital
of this term
any
speed
is only
significant
error.
Planar
motion
 In actual
on the launch
site which
of orbit inclination
required
airspeed,
is selected
flight
it is assumed
considering
Cy(_l
angle
the vehicle
 D (i)
m(t)
_' =
= Vcos),
amount
can be achieved
assumptions
from those
to those
associated
as possible
motion
in the flight.
by setting
angle,
with motion
system
Hence
the dynamics
longitude
for
in the vertical
is a 4state
of
and latitude,
The resultant
not
13 = Wj = 0 and
us to decouple
of heading
is dependent
maneuver
very early
allow
to be launched
set to zero.
This magnitude
of lateral
is no outofplane
These
is assumed
= T (i) cost_
azimuth
is short.
to the equator
A large
and altitude
are reduced
maneuver
as close
that there
= 0) = 0.
_ghtpath
convenience,
the lateral
can be achieved.
simplicity,
flight,
plane.
For
i.e. Zo = 90
model:
I1_
; V(to)
= Vo
r
I.te
( "_
r
V2
r )cos)'
+ Wi
; )'(to)
= )'o
; 0(t o) = 0
f = Vsin),
+ Wk
; r(to)
= h o + re
where
* For comparison,
10
specific
impulse
of tubojet
engine
is over 5000s.
(2.5)
a vertical
launch
and clearing
injection
at the perigee
chosen
/ s
; hf = 148160m
and
can be deleted
performed
to the constraints
Model
The aerodynamic
to a generic
model
vehicle
mounted
has
speeds
during
attack
and
model
body.
the C D exhibits
from
Launch
capacity
2stage
The booster
flight.
a nonconvex
direct
(2.7)
to minimizing
the fuel
Also,
the optimization
in Eq.
must
be
Configuration
from
launch vehicle
as shown
produces
This shadow
represent
Vehicle
configuration
following
; t o = 15s
is equivalent
the analysis.
states
constraints
an asymmetric
n 1
orbit.
is no constraint
and
of a heavylift
which
Since there
Aerodynamic
transfer
; 7f = 0
the final time,
the vehicle
The terminal
; ho = 400m
subject
represent
; To = 89.5
is to minimize
consumption
tower.
Vf = 7858.2m
objective
of the launch
Vo = 64.49m/s
The
t_ n) = tf ,'j = 1, ...,
(2.6)
conditions
2.3
= T(i)vac/ (geI_))
The initial
The
.(1)
s
; to <t<t
behavior
) are nearly
in Fig.
reduces
2.2 with
effect
the
above
in a above
and linear
booster
supersonic
the C D at positive
It corresponds
a shadowing
effect
[27].
angle
Mach
respectively
of
1.3.
at all
numbers.
L
k
T
V
i
mlMr 2
Figure
2.2.
Generic
Advanced
Launch
System
(ALS)
Model
11
0.6
0.4
M=0.2;
M=0.4
M=0.6;
M=O.8_a.=.M=
1. 0
.,41
B,II
.411
0.2
.J
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
15
"
10
"
5
"
2.3.
ALS
F_st
"
alpha
Figure
10
15
(deg)
Stage
C L Profde.
1.1
M=1.0
0.9
0.7'
\
N'';_._
0.5'
/
....,.
....
_,._
0.3
"_.
0.1
10
'
....
"
5
12
2.4.
ALS
/.o:;"
"
0
alpha
Figure
_..,....s
First
M=0.8
s'/
S_;
M=0.6
M=0.4
._.
'
10
(deg)
Stage CD
/"
Profile.
M=0.2
15
0.6
0.3
0.0
.J
M=1.2
0.3
..........
M=1.5
M=2.0
0.6
  'v 
M=2.5
..... ....
M=3.0
,
0.9
10
5
0
alpha
M=4.0
I
"
10
15
(deg)
1.3
M=1.2
..........
M=1.5
M=2.0
1.1
,_
  "P 
M=2.5
.........
"
M=3.0
"
M=4.0
\N,
s
//
t.)
0.9
4.X_\ ?."
."
::_'_,.
o,
0.5
15
i _
_ ,,, ,,=
o,P
_t'_._
,
10
...
.........
,
5
,
0
alpha
_'_ ," ,
,
5
,
10
15
(deg)
13
1.0
M=8
...........
M=I 0
M=12
0,5'
._
0,0'
7 7
0.5
1.0
10
"
5
alpha
Figure 2.7.
ALS
"
Second
10
15
(deg)
Stage
C L Profile.
0.45
M=12
M=IO
M=8
0.35
tO
0.25'
0.15
l
."
10
"
'
5
alpha
Figure
14
2.8.
ALS
"
Second
"
10
15
(deg)
Stage
C D Profile.
Due
control
peaks
to the nonconvexity
is expected
(using
to jump
Maximum
The phenomenon
the hodograph
and the angle
and
simply
in Fig. 2.9.
switches
nonconvex
region.
at tAt
when
bank
2.9.
is used
control
in Control
Table
2.1.
due to Nonconvex
Physical
Since
splines
sideslip
derivatives.
2.4
The
Profiles
values
at the Earth's
(158.5s)
430s
65.67m
11.25m 2
2
167,580de_Nm
the aerodynamic
nil
2
nil
coefficients
scheme
provides
can be interpolated
up to second
are given
order
in Table
as bicubic
continuous
2.1.
Model
atmospheric
of normalized
the
546,600kg
40698.2Nm
parameters
within
7,744,000N
37.5 lm 2
Other physical
Atmospheric
(15s)
The interpolation
by the
Hamiltonian.
430s
[28] in o_ and M.
will
2ndsta_e
131.34m
is not considered,
o_.
Data
25,813,000N
positive
is observed
activity
that
variable,
control
(ctq)ma
C D at small
4Hmax_
1,523,400kg
qmax
control
is consolidated
lststa_e
Isp
has shown
at t+At
ALS Vehicle
Tva c
the two
progresses.
This hypothesis
Jump
rno(to); ms(ts+)
as a second
Hmax
when
as time
in [22]
The
Hmax
si
documented
nonconvex.
value
equal
no high frequency
at t
to higher
become
angle
where
also becomes
value
The study
of a chattering
Figure
a lower
from 0 to n to make
that a chattering
here,
from
of the Hamiltonian
analysis
Principle)
can be convexized
numerical
as tx switches
is displayed
in C D, the Hamiltonian
model
density,
surface
is based
on the
1975
pressure
and sound
U. S. Standard
speed
with respect
Atmosphere
to their
Ce = 3403ms1)
[29].
reference
are
15
given
over
profile
in Fig.
2.10.
Kennedy
is shown
To investigate
Space
Center
the effect
(KSC)
in Fig. 2.11.
and horizontal
of wind
is used to model
It indicates
(north)
a headon
wind
shear,
a mean
winter
the nonstationary
wind
for vehicle
speed components
launched
...........
p/101330
c/340.3
o
I
/
I
1.2'
/
/
/
"D
0.g'
="
o
Z
0.6'
0.3
i.
0.0
40000
altitude
Figure 2.10.
80000
Standard
120000
160000
(m)
Atmospheric
Model.
10
0
A
E
v
10
o
o
D.
20
wi
IIII
W j, Wk
30'
40
10000
20000
Altitude
Figure
16
2.11.
KSC
Mean
(m)
Wind
Profile.
30000
The
due east,
to be zero.
1.8
15'
profile
atmosphere.
are assumed
rho/1.225
wind
SECTION
ANALYTICAL
Two
optimal
analytical
guidance
summarized
problem
in this
formulation,
3.1
chapter.
with
in Sec. 2.
The
analysis
perturbation
The
the objective
analytical
results
are
for:
of simplifying
and numerical
the
results
(1) a singular
are
perturbation
formulation.
Perturbations
Singular
singularly
APPROACHES
are presented
described
Singular
series
approaches
III
Perturbation
perturbed
systems
representation
theory
is related
of O. D. E's and
of the exact
solution.
to the
study
of a reduced
the construction
For example,
solution
of a matched
consider
of
asymptotic
the following
initial
value problem
dx
 = f(x,y,t)
dt
e dy = g(x,y,t)
dt
where
have
not
one.
system.
= Yo
problem
advantages
Basically,
of y.
The
will be quite
the
system
is separated
of higher
order
of the method
that of the
solution
does
of singular
into
the
problems
Applications
we
conditions
from
y) is a characteristic
reduction
E to zero,
initial
different
for
of numerically
of the method.
Setting
on y (meaning
approximation
variables
parameter.
solution
solution
conditions
formulations.
order
the reduced
of the reduced
valid
(3.1)
Generally
a uniformly
perturbation
lower
; y(e,0)
provide
variables
= xo
functions
; x(e,0)
slow
into
time scales
are detailed
in [30, 31].
energy
state approximation
optimization,
to minimum
A third analytical
and sometimes
timetoclimb,
First we replace
attempt
is the most
referred
minimum
the velocity
used approximation
to as energy
fueltoclimb
using matched
widely
asymptotic
specific
methods
management.
and minimum
in aircraft
It has been
time intercept
energy
is documented
in [25].
17
E = V2 / 2
 ge[
(3.2)
Differentiating
to the system
 D (i) V
m(t)
/, = Vsin T
T (i) sin _ + L(i)
"i' = {
where
earlier
I.te
m(t)
V = _/2(E
studies
( r2
+ ge / r).
aircraft
and altitude
)cosy}
At the moment,
on supersonic
slow variables
V2
(3.3)
the wind
shear
and flightpath
perturbation
/ V
form,
angle
energy
are lreated
we artificially
effects
and
are regarded
as fast variables.
in_oduce
In
a bookkeeping
as
So to put Eq.
parameter
 D (i)
m(t)
ef = Vsin T
The performance
V2
(_
r
objective
is to minimize
The necessary
the differential
ge
m(t)
conditions
equations,
 ) cos T} / V
r
The costate
18
V 2
(r 2
OH
_'E =
0"E
by fhst
l.te
dynamics
tf.
axe formulated
(3. 4)
side of
as
sin7 + _'3'__{T(i)
8
) cosT} / V + constraint
moving
sino_ + L (i)
m(t)
(3.5)
satisfy:
"
;_Lr
OH
= '_
;_T
OH

0T
(3.6)
Note
OH
. ej_r =
OH
"e_,
results
in
OH
(3.7)
The optimality
condition
is given by
OH / 0o_ = 0
In the reduced
consequence
(3.8)
problem
of
setting
e = 0 in Eq.
substituted
constraints
that result
Reduced
(outer)
or outer
e is set to zero.
setting
The
necessary
the final
may be written
solution
as Lagrange's
corresponds
0H/0r
condition
time).
costates
multipliers
to the solution
= 0 (which
for a minimum
Since
problem,
is a
used
to enforce
the
the costate
results
setting
of the Hamiltonian
_.E may
a stronger
3.8
e = 0 in Eq.
in Eq. 3.5 (we
be interpreted
as 0tf/OE(to),
statement
it
as
r* = max IT(i)cst_r L
m(t)
subject
transformed
which
e = 0 in Eq. 3.5.
condition
condition
The
variables,
solution
The reduced
when
from
3.7.
as controllike
D(i)V}I
(3.9)
E,m
to the conditions:
_/=0
T (i) sinct + L(i)
m(t)
( r2
q < 40698.2Nm
last
Starting
performed.
two
conditions
at an initial
V2
r
)cos_
2
The
_te
are the
energy
The energy
(3.10)
2
level
dynamic
pressure
and initial
mass,
and
aerodynamic
a onedimensional
load
search
change
constraints.
in altitude
in mass
is
is
19
50000
'!
'!
Energy
II
in
Contour
I
I
I f
'1
40000
I
1
I
,.c
',
*.
I.
l
l
30000
t
l
I
1
l
l
II
I
I
I
!
I
l
I
20000
500
t
.i
1000
"
1500
V
II
I
!
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
2000
2500
3000
(m/s)
Solution with 7 = 0.
22
19
A
o
"o
(o
16
t,_
Io
13
1o
500
1000
1500
V
2000
2500
3000
(m/s)
2O
Since
sistent
the optimal
with
estimated
the reduced
through
problem
result
solution
level of 6.09
Since
with
estimate
is obtained.
another
of flightpath
calculation
angle
scheme
sin3'e
By perturbing
is used
range
a reference
values
of angle
and therefore
guidance
3.2 show
the
results
a central
the optimal
solution
optimal
trajectory.
the reduced
solution
the reduced
flight.
The initial
The solutions
not be considered
at low
the
feasible.
flightpath
solution.
Assuming
the change
Ah
(AE/_)V
the energy
the vehicle
in altitude
value
another
angle according
a large
approximation),
The
up to an energy
along
calculation
the effect
is already
of flightpath
scheme
of a nonzero
solution
solution
gives
difference
to
angle
and is to
an estimate
of
(3.12)
}*
scheme
is used to estimate
3.4.
The inclusion
of 3'e gives
However,
(incon
is used
flightpath
on the reduced
the reduced
angle
to
is recalculated
reasonably.
the
should
stays
also exhibits
3.10
vehicle
to
by sweeping
for
of attack
Hence
feedback
3.1 and
along
solution.
(incon
x 107Jkg 1.
the trajectory,
the flightpath
a reduced
Figs.
in very large
model
on the reduced
is unrealistic
a nonzero
in the reduced
follow
evaluation
of interest,
the optimization
aerodynamic
sistent
value
(3.11)
levels
given
levels
profile
when
conditions
reduced
approximation),
'*' denotes
altitude
energy
solution
a large
= k(i)(AE / I_*)
the superscript
best
also exhibits
as
Am
where
solution
a slightly
this calculation
y.
Then
the solution
of Eqs.
3.9 and
are given
in Figs.
3.3 and
profiles
behave
value
becomes
numerically
unstable
once
the
boundary.
21
30000
2000
1500
1000
4O
...........
gamma
alpha
30
6
U
2=.
O=
Q
2O
10
22
b) Twostate
model
Since
reasonable
model
the energy
flight
trajectory,
corresponds
I_=
state
approximation
a more
to a 2state
T (i) _ D (i)
accurate
model
a solution
is employed.
that resembles
The new
reducedorder
approximation:
m(t)
f = Vsiny
= {
where
T(i)o_ + K(_)o_
m(t)
we adopt
angle
angle
the assumptions
proportional
_te
m
(r 2
V2
r
is assumed
re(t)
la e
V2
r2
. (,
T (i) +K 0)
In [23]
mass)
it is shown
that
is nonconvex,
interpretation
energy
here
and mass),
while
maximizing
totally
then
up of ve_cal
c) Manifold
solution
state
approximation
comparison
implies
reduced
chatters
of energy
climb
rate.
model
between
its optimum
is able to maintain
value
y = :!_/2.
Therefore
The
the optimum
altitude
rate
this formulation
in that it produces
by chattering
(including
a reduced
is
solution
arcs.
analysis
inherent
in treating
to the constraints
parameter
the reduced
solution
rate to energy
perturbation
y = 0 along
reaches
relates
to energy
on the singular
of the mass
problem
of flightpath
(3.15)
solution
and eigenvalue
The fundamental
for optimality
; _r >0
the altitude
,; _r
_'r <0 0
hodograph
a chattering
the ratio
to ot is negligible
tractable,
.)cosy
the velocity
is that when
are:
inappropriate
made
solution
Ire/2
To make
conditions
singular
rc/2
by
(3.14)
drag due
The necessary
on the reduced
_,r V sin 7 =_
/ V
fast.
to ot (L(i) = KL(i)cz).
OH
)cosy]
solution,
vehicle
dynamics
and without
e. For instance,
which
launch
taking
into account
the constraint
is an extremely
crude
They
by energy
are fast
in
the dependency
on altitude
approximation
dynamics
for the
23
lO0
go=89.5
\
..........
go=80
go=70
go=65
o
"o
v
60
e=
E
E
m
40
20
50
100
Time
Figure
3.5.
Flightpath
Angle
Profile
150
200
(s)
for Various
Reference
Trajectories.
20
go=89.5
"
A
go=80
go=75
*_
10
==
@
"D
m
in
m
..........
go=70
go=65
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
10
0
50
1 O0
Time
24
of Attack
Profile
150
200
(s)
for Various
Reference
Trajectories.
launch
vehicle
in place
case.
This problem
can be alleviated
solution,
amounts
of the reduced
flightpath
separate
angle
chosen
boundary
condition
to suppress
layer
exact
condition)
by visual
initial
of the states
are numerically
inspection
condition
worsen
above
deteriorates.
This hypothesis
corresponds
L r are absent
and costates
(with
the control
layer
estimated
like behavior
of dynamics
value
boundary
This allows
initial
it is found
supersonic
speed,
is consolidated
to determining
in the exact
eliminated
in _/and
solution.
using
First
Ly..
the more
The
closer
accurate
and the
the optimality
the equilibrium
the initial
us to identify
of fast transients
in _' becomes.
the actual
out, however
a nominal
in T about
in the solution.
carried
in _/and
integrated.
[32]
manifold
transients
solution
below.
of the equilibrium
on _t so that rapid
dynamics
described
then perform
approximation
investigation
Computation
condition
could
the separation
model
by the eigenvalues
to solving
This approach
regarding
sweep
analysis
which
manifold
the actual
the subsequent
is no apparent
is
boundarylayer
or.
initial
terminal
boundary
layer
solution
t
Figure
To shed insight
launch
vehicle
obtained,
about
linearized
an eigenvalue
the equilibrium
the separation
system
and costates)
magnitudes
possibility
whose
Boundary
test is carried
manifold,
Characteristics.
By linearizing
the eigenvalues
characterize
at discrete
A Hamiltonian
the full order
provide
matrix
system
of the
the dynamics
of the linearized
of the equilibrium
calculated
Layer
phenomenon
of the dynamics.
eigenvalues
in the vicinity
Eigenvalues
Typical
on the separation
problem,
3.7.
of E,
system
are
information
appears
of dynamics
in the
(states
manifold.
points
along
are shown).
the trajectory
are shown
At the beginning
in Figs.
3.8
the results
variables.
clearly
show
a separation
of up to 4 in this interval
configuration
are real.
of 2 slow and
The relative
As the energy
magnitude
1 fast state
is separated
level increases,
two of the
101
mm
10.2
iA%A&
&
max
2nd largest
min
J
m
II
o
&
&&
I)
_>
10
3,
A_
II
0
Q.
O
"
1 0.4,
C
0
O,
nO
D
>
c
e
'"
10.5.
0
100
200
300
Time
Figure 3.8.
Eigenvalue
Analysis
along
400
(s)
the Reference
Trajectory
of 1'o = 75.
lOO
"'0
.............................
....
o
..................
A
W
....
e
"ID
lO
..............................
,,,
L
..........
.....
m
D__
m v
0_
'
.............
100
200
Time
max/_ _in
300
400
(s)
by
eigenvalues
join
magnitude
larger
fast state
variables.
energy
levels
specific
to form
An eigenvector
pair,
analysis
corresponds
levels,
rapidly
in Figs
3.8 and
to being
of which
is an order
a decomposition
indicates
to the flightpath
transitions
This suggests
energy
of 1 slow and 2
angle,
Altitude,
whereas
which
a fast variable
feedback
control
solution
variable
at low
at high energy
levels
at low
at approximately
angle dynamics,
t = 50s as shown
can be formulated
based
layer
as follows:
h o , mo,
on a boundary
h o, m o , o0 = 0
Ha = 0
where
and
(3.16)
constant
function
in the boundary
of energy,
control
update
unknowns
to form
a guided
Ly.
The
as slow variables*
analysis.
layer
solution.
guided
The
problem
Note
solution
solution
The
optimal
solution
is f'l_rst attracted
almost
exactly
with
altitude
state
in Fig.
boundary
layer
Recalling
analysis
performance
to the manifold,
the transition
3.8.
analysis
clearly
zero
dimensional
variable
inherent
aircraft
order
along
role
boundary
layer
at about
variable
reduced
in the launch
the reduced
solution
a zero or even
the guided
This correlates
with
the
but
the
to zeroorder
in
changed,
as slow (constant
in
is attributed
vehicle
problem.
is plotted
scale
solution
even
The
vehicle
though
behavior,
to the
in Fig. 3.10.
a first order
manifold
associated
has
at each
is plotted
t = 25s.
variable
of a twotime
solution
slow
However
in the eigenvalue
as a
correction
solution.
of altitude
approach
existence
precomputed
the
solution,
is stored
using
state approximation
the
solution
place
the altitude
indicates
load factor
transport
is, the
energy
defined
of the manifold
the previous
manifold
the manifold
that takes
has treated
longitudinal
a subsonic
That
the failure
of the
approaches
in the manifold
that there
Fig. 3.10.
values
layer
in o_ and
(chosen
of
3.9.
A nonlinear
correction
conjugate
indeed
energy
a complex
the
large
value
eigen
value
of
of this non
In comparison
averages
is not expected
poor
with
above
to provide
any
approximation.
by Eq. 2.6.
27
lOO
.........
8O
optimal
manifold
guided
o
'ID
v
60
E
E
m
40
20
25
Time
Figure 3.10.
50
Flightpath
75
100
(s)
c
O
m
O.
o
500
1000
1500
V
Figure
3.11.
2500
3000
(m/s)
28
2000
3.2
Regular
Perturbations
The unsuccessful
another
the
analytic
regular
attempt
approach
analysis.
formulation
for
optimal
formulations
is that higher
developed
horizontal
speed
order
atmospheric
here.
to account
led to consideration
on low thrust
spaceflight
the
regular
general
is discussed.
An
zero order
perturbation
extension
in a constant
gravity
solution
over
earlier
gravitational
by an attempt
field,
spherical
in the
on the maximum
for a central
based
of
problems,
an analytic
rocket.
analysis
[33] is extended
to compute
Earth
a first
effects.
a) Re_malar perturbations
The
mance
Then
problem
section,
problems
order corrections
multistage
correction
In this
control
transfer
to a massvarying
perturbation
perturbation
formulation
by singular
optimal
index
m optimal
control
which
conn'ol
problem
formulation
is a function
of the
consider
terminal
here
states
and
is to maximize
time,
subject
a perforto dynamic
constraints:
J =
max
u
{_)(x, t
(3.17)
)}[ tf
/_ = f(x,u,t)+eg(x,u,t)
and
the terminal
dimensional
expansion
state
effects,
Hamiltonian
constraints
vector
parameter
nonlinear
The
time
_gi(x(tf))
E is sometimes
artificially
condition
equations
and associated
the
constraints,
subscript
the optimal
is used
to denote
control
inserted
In Eq. 3.18,
vector.
to signify
x is an n
In applications,
the presence
expansion
the
of small
analysis.
boundary
; _(tf)
p < n.
control
parameter
"' H(tf)
= H x
where
= 0, i = 1.....
and u is an mdimensional
H = _T{f+_g}
The costate
(3.18)
; X(to) = x o ; t _ [to,t f]
=_t
Itf ; _ =(_+vT_
conditions
(3.19)
are:
(3.20)
= *xltfl
partial
differentiation.
In the
absence
of control
satisfies
(3.21)
29
assumingthat
Huu > 0.
In the above
(t  to)/T where
following
T = tf toand
equivalent
rewrite
Thus,
we introduce
the necessary
a new independent
conditions
of Eqs.
3.18
variable
 3.20
x" = H_T
; x(x = 0) = x o ; _(x('t
X' = HxT
; X(x = 1) = Cx[,_ = 1
= 1)) = 0
(3.22)
(3.23)
(3.24)
H = xT{f(x,u,'cT
mate
()' denotes
the solution
x=x
Assume
2+
l+E2u2+
T O +ET 1 +E2T2
the functions
 3.25
the objective
is to approxi
(3.26)
continuous
of approximation.
is constructed
_Okl_
necessary
analysis,
+ ...
f, g, 0, _g have piecewise
K is the order
3.22
perturbation
(3.25)
...
...
0+Eu
)=F(o0)+e
Using
according
.__I
o = {x, X, v, u, T}.
in Eqs.
In a regular
u=u
K
k=l
30
1+2x
approximation
where
0+Ex
F(o0+
order
d()/d'c.
...
K+ 1 where
series
+ to) + eg(x,u,
_L = x 0 + E_, 1 + E2_L2 +
T=
in the
form:
Tt=0
where
x =
and equating
the Taylor
up to order at least
series
formula,
a finite
to
Ol+E2{_I
do IO0
Substituting
derivatives
the series
like powers
conditions.
To zero order
ax0/_t
= all0/_'0
; x0(to)
c)_'0/igi
1324
(3.27)
d2FJo002}
21 ! do
2 +1
do IO0
representation
in e, we obtain
for each
the zero
"'"
of the variables
order
we have:
= Xo ; V(x0(to
+To))
= (I)(x0,i)
= 0
/ _)x0li = to +To
and
higher
/)H 0 /Du o = 0
I
H 0 = ETf(x0,u0,i
In Eq. 3.28,
noted
' H0(t
the higher
order
(3.28)
= to +To)
variable
linear
= (x0't)
t = fib
has been
/ 3tltl =to+T
introduced,
where
it should
be
T = T 0.
problems,
by a set of nonhomogeneous
rn,,,x0A12(x0,
0T0, I T'0,T0)I[Xk
r l'X0 0T0'
diLZ.kJ
LA21(x0,_,0,T0)
A22(x0,_.0,T0)J
+[ Plk (x0';L0'
LP2k (x0'
TO .....
_,k
Xk_l,kkl,
Tk1) ]
Xk1,
Zk1)_l
_'0' TO .....
_'k1,
+_00LC2(x0,Z'0,T0)
(3.29)
where
All
= fx  fu[(fT_')ull(fT_')x
A12 = fut(fTX,)ullf
A21 =(fxT_,)x
A2 2 =_fT
+ (fxT),)ut(fT_,)ul'(ff;_)x
+ (fxT_,)ut(fT_,)u]lfuT
C 1 = f + (t
C2 = _fT_,
to){f i fu[(fT_,)u]l(fT_,)i}
_ (__
to){(fTk)i_
(fT)Qut(fTk)u
(3.30)
]l(fT_.)i}
fu[(fu
T
P21 =gx_,+(fx
order
_')u]
T
I
T
gu _"
_,)u[(fu
_,)u]
1
T
gu _.
conditions,
condition
corrections
it is also
to the fial
required
in Eq. 3.28.
(3.31)
Note
to expand
that
values.
To complete
the
boundary
conditions
Eq. 3.29
explicitly
shows
process
is terminated
the
and
the
the effect
of
at say,
31
= 1, then
constructed
control
a realtime
sampled
as follows.
is obtained
treating
as function
the present
data
implementation
system
of the control
condition
_l(to)
This process
is repeated
state.
Therefore,
the estimate
The
state transition
in terms
matrix
with respect
ordinary
of a convolution
conditions
solution.
the above
performed
In Appendix
Since
at t = T O along
In a discrete
zero
the
order
quadrature
and
the zero
 3.31
matrix.
The
solution
computed
at
given
can be expressed
process
time.
of solving
can be handled
we would
term
x0(to)
changes
update
solution
solution
have
modification
if the current
satisfies
computed
it would
the
that must
be
state is regarded
as
order
be possible
as might
of Eq. 3.32.
arise
epoch
state,
it is
between
time,
to precompute
the trajectory.
on the
corrections.
as the deviation
along
condition
of the initial
higher
xk(to)
variable
such
Thus
the initial
for the
condi
equations.
and treat
of a monotonic
dynamics,
of the boundary
at each update
by a simple
"^ "FPIk(X)I"
order
In this form
case of discontinuous
/ +
at each
order
32
it is easily
time implementation,
solution
quadrature
representation
3.29
it['_o(t)1' '_ _
at the present
vehicle,
in
The
in Eqs.
J___
"[Xk(t)+T
evaluated
realtime
solutions
a state transition
hence
A it is shown
to repeat
the current
equations
derivative
and L0(to),
state variable.
Alternatively,
order
"^
of the computation
state
necessary
of the state as
^ ._Tk['CI('C)
]
[Plk(_)]_d.
flA(t":)L'oLC2('C)J
L 2k()JJ C
in Eq. 3.32.
the initial
and
conditions.
^ to)[_,kx k (t)4 + _t
(to)J to
expression
differential
the partial
x0(to)
major
by using
k0(to)
necessary
the value
Then,
form
[Xk(t)]=,A(t,
[_k(t)J
Using
where
by first obtaining
zero order
order
time by regarding
to repeat
is obtained
the control,
be
variable.
linear
to the initial
in the following
update
it is necessary
of the costate
nonhomogeneous
may be expressed
an analytic
would
in Eq. 3.21.
approximation
solution
but
the
Thus
the
can be avoided.
in a multistage
For example,
launch
in a twostage
Fpfl)(,ol_ _
(3.33)
ts
The
superscripts
interior
point
b) Launch
JLP2(2)(,c)_"
vehicle
should
orbit.
is to maximize
= 7858.2ms
to direct
it is necessary
but accurate
enough
and ts is the
a closed
time)
subject
= 148160m,
open
(tf).
of an 80nm
x 150nm
form,
fial
zero
order
dynamics
to the
These
elliptical
solution
which
can be corrected
in
term.
is made
the problem,
spherical
Earth
when
the vehicle
only apparent
atmosphere
at the perigee
to derive
is similar
sets of dynamics
injection
Assuming
attempt
to the maximum
situation.
dynamics
are
unknown
final
format
V(tf)
First,
be simple,
a first order
for different
occurs.
objective
correspond
transfer
ts
application
conditions
conditions
the expressions
discontinuity
The performance
terminal
; t>
effects
We now
Tv(_ sin0
";' = m(i) _ k(i) t
ge
+ge_
ge + _
the
transfer
terminal
i) sin0
effect.
and gravity,
To further
(these
boundary
the dynamics
(PA(e
simplify
effects
The
are
result
conditions
are
no
is varying,
specified
an
the
at an
perturbation
approximations:
u2
+_)
i"= v
speed
are thrust
as perturbations
recast
orbital
speed
The differences
vehicle
as a perturbation
reaches
and
on the launch
effects
horizontal
discontinuous
time.
forces
; V(to)=
Vo;
cos0 rn(Ok_t
D(i) cosy
; r(t o) = r o
i= 1, 2
 L(i) sinT
uv
 1 ; u(t)
= u
(3.34)
33
where
Here
m(1)= mo + k(1)to
v = Vsin T
; u = VcosT
e has
been
artificially
dynamics
are expressed
derivation
horizontal
velocity
from
the local
introduced
as an arbitrary
in a rectangular
solution.
components.
; 0 = tx+y
coordinate
The control
bookkeeping
system
(3.35)
to facilitate
parameter.
The
the closed
form
is 0, the thrustvector
angle
and
measured
horizon.
The necessary
_,v = _,r
conditions
+ (_Lv
_r = g(_Lv
_g_
_gl_
0 = (Xv cos0
of optimality
_Lu _'_
formulation
are:
_Lu__)
Xu sm 0) mt _
?(ix t
I
0 = {Z,v, + Z,uia + Xri'_l
JI
where
pA(i)
g2 =
order
 D (i) cosy
 L (i) sinT
m (i)  k(i)t
conditions
__te.
r2
I ge
respectively,
and
_ u2
r
uv
(3.37)
solution
Setting
e = 0, the costate
some license
taken
solutions
and
the optimal
control
(3.36)
(with
 1
gl =
Zero
tf
; 2Lu0(t) = Cu0
; _,r0(t)
= Cr0
are given
as follows
tan(00(t)) = p = qt
The
control
equations
initial
satisfies
a linear
can be integrated
conditions
superscript
; P  Cv0/Cu0
tangent
in closed
is presented
(1) would
simply
form.
below
and
T(_
k'_G(
Eq. 3.38
The solution
that relates
involving
+ Tv(la) F(m(1),k(1),.0
_
u0(t)=u
Substituting
(3. 38)
the
state
at t > ts to the
variables
with
be deleted.
v0(t ) = v o ge(tto)+
r0(t)
law.
; q = Cr0 / Cu0
) k(2) "0
= t
,, It_=ts
= ro+Vo(tto)2ge(tto)
2 (,tto)
"
.Tv(_,,,_(1)
k__,m
,r,,.(1) , t o/
T (2)
(t 
ts)/#G(m(2)'k(2)'ts)L
w(1)
'vac K(m(1),k(1),x)
qk (1)
 k"_"
T(_ c:,...(1)
_'"
, k(1) ,ts)}
[:=ts
to
T(.2) K(m(2),k
+ q_
2
(),x)
[_=t
'c = t s ; t > t s
(3. 39)
where
F(m(i),k(i),,
0 =
sinhl[tan(00('0
1_+
+ ts + T O where
enforce
condition
Eqs.
T O represents
; tanTl = _
(_))  [ tan(00
; A =
k(i)
(_))]
(3.40)
qm (i)  pk (i)
second
of the terminal
boundary
open flight
conditions
final
time tf0 = to
time,
and used
to
below:
v(tf0 )=vf
2LvO(
A2
(i),
k (i),'c)
 sinh1 [tan(00
G(m (i),
k(i),'_)
= AF(m
To solve
 TI)]
;u(tf0
)=uf
)t ge)+_uO
;r(tf0)=hf+r
"vac cos
m('_'k(2)t +_,rOVO
tfo = 1
(3.41)
35
order
solution
Using
Eqs.
3.29 to 3.31,
correction
dynamics
vehicle
pmb_mbecome
dt
with vl(to)
a_
Vl
c_i)(t)
o(i)
Ul
c(2i)(t)
"0
a_i4)
Ul
"vl
a(_
rl
Xvx
Xul
.2grl.
"25
(i)
T_a c
a14 = m(iSk(i)
.Xrl J
= Ul(tf 0) = rl(tf0)
Pl = gl  (m(i)
36
= 0, where
t (Xv0 sin00
_k(i)t)(kvSin0+_.uCOSO)
+Xu0COS00
v 20
ac
_'v
Tv(i) sin0
_ k(i)t)(Xv sin 0 + Xu cosO)[
P4 =_'v_gl
_.
Og2
P6 = _.v 3gl
_r
X 3g2
U;gr
.,.(2) cos0
'vac _;u='_'0 rl
k(2)(t"c2
= _
,
 k(2)t " + m_k(_
P2 = g2 + (re(i)
u _v
ok"(t)
_1
sin 2 0
k(2)( t ts)
m (2) _ k(2)t J ge
_v
D_'(t)
+ Xu0 cosOo)
; a25 = m(i_k(i)
vac
r,(2) sin00
c 1 = mlvac
(2) _ k(2)t [1+
p(2)(t)
T (i)
a24 = a15
(3.42)
+
 cos 00 sin 00
t (Xv0 sin00
Xr0
_ul
)
p(i)(t)
v0(t)
Xvl I
2
cos 0
t (Xv0 sin00 + Xu0 cos00
Tv(i2c
a15 = m(iSk(i)
1
p_i)(t
, P5 =
ts) ]
t
_O
t)gl + _'u ;
_}
20
"
"
__Lv_gl
_u
_'u Og2
0u
(3.43)
are evaluated
to be fixed,
term
versality
condition
0=
matrix
(o_i4)
co_ )
eo_i6
)
,,(i)
w24
,.,(i)
'"25
e0(i)
26
0
0
1
0
_(_
1
w35
,.,(i)
0
"36
,.,(i)
t1  t 2
in Appendix
_'vl(
ge+gl0)+_,ul
vac
T(2)k(2)
(m(2S_k'_)t)
2 (;Lv0Sin00
I xl(tf0)]
Xl(tf0)J
+_'u0CS00)
Eq.
3.46
the unknown
accurate
results,
of the trans
costate
and final
algebraic
by setting
cede
effects
at to by
dz
to
Lr:z2[J
and using
time
the boundary
corrections
conditions
Xvl(to),
Xul(to),
defined
_l(to),
in Eq.
T1 can be
equations.
the reference
area S = 0).
especially
(3.45)
}1t = tf0
(3.46)
shooting
backpressure
(3.44)
I"t)(2)"l
tfo
multiple
of
z)
(obtained
has a structure
to
0 +g20)+
k(2)t
L 1( oJJ
Figures
t < ts,
corresponding
/ _vac
'm(2)
+j
L .q2)(te0)t s
case
dynamics
= n(A2)(tf0,ts)
Tl[X_:)(tf0)"
found
describing
time
Wl
3.42,
Substituting
Since
t2t
0
expression
solution.
T = tf  t s. Consequently,
In this example,
f_(_)(t2,tl)
Complete
The optimal
for comparison.
the regular
perturbation
solution
obtained
As far as spherical
approach
force
effect
from
Earth
produces
and
very
is included,
37
is found
forces.
The
value
of angle
these
results
zero
order
has been
solution.
40%
over
amount
some
is shown
in the region
solution
of attack
along
profile
at low altitudes
f'n'st order
components
attack
overcorrects
Figure
3.20
the optimal
time interval
of aerodynamics
effects
show
solution.
during
in Fig.
No
of high dynamic
reasonable
pressure
the zero
order
feasible.
The conclusion
forces
the ratios
are simply
result
The magnitude
and
gives
too large
of lift to thrust
flight
large
that is drawn
from
to be ignored
forces
+%
optimal

1st
4D
E
v
+oo
X7
V.,
200
',
100
Time
Figure 3.12.
300
400
(s)
38
200
almost
that a significant
8OO
in the
to the thrust
ratio reaches
order
a very
and indicates
first
and aerodynamic
of the aerodynamic
exist
3.19.
Effects.
8000
1st
.....
60O0
Oth
optimal
4000
2000
100
200
Time
Figure
3.13.
Regular
Spherical
160000 I
120000
300
($)
Perturbation
Earth
Results
in u with
and Backpressure
optimal
1st
.....
400
Effects.
/,_"
Oth
/"
g oooo
t
_
"
100
Time
Figure
3.14.
200
Regular
Spherical
300
(s)
Perturbation
Earth
400
Results
in h with
and Backpressure
Effects.
39
0.04
optimal
1st
0.03'
.....
Oth
E
Q
0.02
ca
"o
0.01
m
,.I
0.00
o0.01
100
200
Time
Figure
3.15.
Regular
300
(s)
Perturbation
Spherical
400
Earth
Results
in Xv with
and Backpressure
Effects.
0.030
optimal
1st
.....
Oth
0.025
,=
t,
0.020
""
0.015
,
100
I
200
Time
Figure
3.16.
Regular
Spherical
40
,
300
400
(s)
Perturbation
Results
in _a with
Effects.
8.0e4
optimal
1st
.....
6.0e4
0th
E
W
v
4.0e4 '
"O
E
IB
,I
2.0e4.
Aid%=
=A
..............
..................
0.0e+0
_
100
,
200
Time
Figure
Regular
3.17.
Spherical
,
300
400
(s)
Perturbation
Results
in k r with
Effects.
4O
.
;" .... ".... .
, AA&,,_
"..
20
A
_
.....
optimal
1st
Oth
.............
6
"13
0
m
D.
m
20
40
100
200
300
Time
Figure
3.18.
Regular
Spherical
400
(s)
Perturbation
Results
in o_ with
Effects.
41
10
optimal
o
"o
v
m
/D.
m
10
100
Time
Figure
3.19.
200
Regular
300
400
(s)
Perturbation
Aerodynamic
Results
in _ Including
Effects.
0.4
O
D/lcos(alpha)
L/Tsin(alpha)
0.3'
2
I
0.2'
,I
0.1
=11
/\\
.=
a
0.0
200
Time
Figure
3.20.
100
Aerodynamic
300
(s)
to Propulsive
42
4O0
Trajectory.
Force
Ratios
SECTION IV
A HYBRID
COLLOCATION/REGULAR
PERTURBATION
This chapter
seeks to combine
simplified
finite
the desirable
models,
elements
regular
develops
perturbation
system
a solution
approach
for nonlinear
features
of analytical
methods
and numerical
to represent
is used
methods
The
and collocation
to illustrate
the
optimization
which
the solution.
analysis
ANALYSIS
are based
is developed
technique.
A simple
approach
for
that
on the use of
interpolation
approach
conceptual
problems
functions
and
for a combination
of
fourth
several
order
nonlinear
possible
levels
of
approximation.
4.1
Introduction
Among
the proposed
analysis
by regular
crucial
to the success
perturbation
solution
approach
has had
so that
transition
matrix
facilitating
problem
may
even
zero order
problem
to diverge
even
drawback
control
when
the
unknown
associated
process.
The major
limitation
close
order
in any attempt
is required
coefficients.
It involves
Thus
when
even
terms
applications
a state
corrections,
further
appears
to be
in the zero
problem,
which
(cf.
by model
a minor
is
Sec.
3.2b).
A second
simplification
change
begins
is that
in the optimal
is made.
constraints
problem
is attempted
nonlinear
be neglected
It turns
to the
in accuracy.
applications
must
effects.
of analysis
However,
approximated
small
order
3, the
corrections
to the original
correction
with
in certain
effects
of aerodynamic
order
in guidance
solution
appealing.
is reasonably
and higher
such as aerodynamic
a first
formulation
Also,
the first
in Chapter
in an improvement
to systems
is linear.
an analytic
solution
results
for
to obtain
is most
of f'trst or higher
applied
problem
of reanalysis
equations.
interpolatory
when
be determined
is inherent
Collocation
differential
order
in the absence
amount
problem
success
is not sufficiently
which
significant
is not convergent)
nonlinearities,
in order
also nonlinear
great
of the solution
usually
the zero
the solution
that significant
order
solution,
approaches
expansion
of the method
(which
[34, 35]
analytical
method
choosing
at specific
when
applied
value problem
for obtaining
simple
points
an approximate
interpolating
within
to an optimal
functions
finite
elements
control
to a set of coupled
problem,
nonlinear
solution
of
and enforcing
to evaluate
it reduces
algebraic
the
the
equat43
ions. Collocation methodshave the advantagesthat they are simple to use for a wide
variety of optimization problems,andtheir accuracycanbe improvedby increasingthe
numberof elementsusedin theapproximation.The major disadvantages
arethatthereis
no generalguaranteethat the numericalmethodsemployedwill successfullysolve the
nonlinearprogrammingproblemunderall circumstances,
andthedimensionof theproblem
increasesproportionatelywith thenumberof elements.
It is apparentfrom the above discussionthat the advantagesof analytical and
numericalmethodsarein manyrespectscomplementaryin the sensethatif the advantages
can becombinedin someway, thenmostof the importantdisadvantages(from the viewpoint of realtime applications)canbereduced.In this chapter,two of possiblymanyways
to obtain such a hybrid methodology are presented,with the potential for use in the
developmentof realtime optimal guidancealgorithms. Thefin'stapproach uses the method
of regular
expansion
a given
number
regular
expansion
to improve
of elements.
method,
without
the number
increasing
The
Method
Collocation
ential
equations
functions.
The
unperturbed
simplicity,
are enforced
qj 
x(i)
to identify
with
unknown
finite
for constructing
elements
coefficients
points
are determined
each
the level
solution
or simple
by enforcing
functions
element.
for
both
functions
of accuracy
We consider
satisfy
approximation
These
constraints
interpolating
continuity
at the nodes
the differential
an optimization
where
to a set of differ
analytic
j_ 1
an approximate
of the interpolating
within
equations
problem
H = _Tf.
the derivative
can be expressed
with
For
constraints
as:
OH

0_,
[=([j+ij_l)/2
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
_'j  _'j1
OH
^
ij  t j_ 1
0x [=([j+ij_l)/2
= xj_ 1 + pj(i
tj1)
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
; J = 1.....
^
the error
interpolating
of improving
of polynomials
i ji
upon
more intelligent
the objective
improves
reducing
of elements.
is a method
xj  x j_ 1
P J=
methods
thereby
of Collocation
by using
specified
solution,
approach
again
a collocation
The second
and analytical
in the collocation
4.2
upon
; i _[tjl,tj]
; _,=(_.j+kj_l)/2
; _,=(_.j+_,j_l)/2
N
^
; to =to;iN
=to+TO
(4.1)
Regular
Perturbation
A regular
dynamics
Formulation
perturbation
in the following
formulation
may
be introduced
by rewriting
the
actual
form:
= pj + e(HTt  p j)
_. = qj + e(H
x  qj)
^
Hu = 0
Note
been
introduced
terms
; _ _ [tj_l,tj]
cannot
as a bookkeeping
solution
derivatives,
which
is actually
explicitly
The justification
approximates
as having
a small
condition
formulation
(for which
the true
perturbing
in the collocation
u) can be extracted
parameter.
alone accurately
be eliminated
portion
(4.2)
solution,
effects
4.2.
it is possible
to eliminate
functions
possible
ficant decrease
Now
As presented
solution
by example
can be identified
the analytically
tractable
in the computational
we can
improve
the
problems
defined
H is the Hamiltonian
parameter.
as will be shown
interpolating
extent
(4.3)
equations
a perturbation
Also,
If
such that
viewed
on
of the elements.
0 = H + e(H u  H)
without
for
apply
approximate
portions
solution
to the original
a collocation
perturbation
section,
requirements
order
above,
in the next
the perturbation
zero
corresponding
problem
more
may
formulated
intelligent
conditions,
of the solution.
solution
system
in Eq.
choices
by utilizing
This results
be
of
to the
in a signi
described
collocation.
in the
For the
Section
higher
3.2
to
order
we have:
45
All j
_PJ
a2H[
= a"_ = axa_ [t=(tj+tjl)/2
apj
h12j
; x=(xj+xj_
I)/2 ; _=(_.j+_.ji
)/2
a2H[
= _
= a2"_[t=(tj+tj1
)/2 ; x=(xj+xj1)/2
; _'=(_'j+_'j1)/2
_:"1
A21 j = _qxj =
_ aqj
A22j
Clj
a2 x [t=(tj+tj_l)/2
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
; Z=(_.j+_.j_I)/2
a2H
a_
a;_:rnx [=(tj+tj_l)/2
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
; _.=(Zj+kj_l)/2
= pj + (i  i j_ l)ptj
.all
.^
a2H[
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
; B.=(kj+_.j_I)/2
C2j = qj + (t  tj1)qtj
aH
,.
= {ff
and
Pllj
= "_
P%
costate
; x=(xj+xj_l)/2
;_.=(B.j+B,j_I)/2
(4.4)
) PJ
dynamics
which
; _,=_,j.l+qj(_[j_l
(4.5)
_. =xj.1+Pj(L_j_1)
_.=_.j.1+qj(L_j.1)
qj
solution.
The
evaluated
now corresponds
_.k ([)j
46
_=(ij+_j_l)/2
i ; x=xj.l+Pj([ij_l)
collocation
_tj_l)_.x}
for k = 1,
where
3.32,
a2H
= f_A(t,
matrix
within
Aj is simply
at the constraint
to a piecewise
to)[B.k (to) j
an element,
the perturbation
point
constant
of the original
of each element.
system
Tk,t
i FCl
ToJtO . A('Z)Lc2Ad'+
using
the
state
and
The expression
matrix
_u "A ([,x)[P_:
in Eq.
system
as
]dx (4. 6)
will be a
system
matrix
'
[Xk(_) j
1
LXk(t)
f Aj(i,ij,
is not the
transition
same
matrix
as in Eqs.
3.32
and
is not necessarily
analytic.
sensitivity
functions
assigning
a unit vector
to to to + T 0. Thus
sensitivity
(t'
matrix
and
"_
3.33
because
an analytic
superposition
we can
functions
the position
are obtained.
solve
[PIj]
of linear
4.4
and
systems.
that _Aj
The
state
solution
4.5 using
This
integrates
element
can be done
Note
Eqs.
and numerically
This process
differently.
because
of the nonzero
..
as in Eq. 4.4.
A is defined
expression
property
[tj,tj1]
If this is true,
by changing
/[_i
Tkf2A(t'tj1)Ayl
J) "tj+
as
.[Xk(_j_l)],
+AT/qt
where
the
is done
the system
from
in parallel
by
the
for different
unit
vector.
In the zero order
collocation
solving
constraints
4.4
equations.
as explained
A Duffing's
section.
Then first
in the earlier
Equation
This investigation
preceding
the algebraic
by quadrature
solution,
means
and an approximate
and higher
section
solution
order corrections
on regular
by
may be computed
perturbation.
Example
is carded
The example
out to demonstrate
is based
on Duffing's
the hybrid
equation
approach
presented
outlined
in the
form:
=v
, x(0) = xo
_, = x  ax 3 + u
; v(0)
is to
with
S x, S v being
converted
(4.8)
= vo
the weights
to the Mayer's
tf }
+ ] (1 +
0
on the terminal
(4.9)
)dt
values
and tf is free.
through
the usual
The
problem
method
can be
of introdu47
the problem
in different
levels
of complexity
according
Eq. 4.9.
We
of
are treated.
a) Level 0 formulation
This
therefore
is the degenerate
collocation
Sec. 3.2).
case
is not required
(solely
necessary
conditions
in which
there
is an analytic
a regular
perturbation
the hardening
effect
zero
order
approach
solution,
and
as discussed
ax 3 in the original
problem.
in
The
are:
X=V
; x(0) = xo
_, = x + u  x 3
; v(0) = Vo
; _,x(tf)
= 2Sxx(tf)
v = Xx
; 2Lv(tf)
= 2Svv(tf)
H u = u+_, v =0
H = _,xV + _.v(X
problem
+ uex3)
+ 1 + u2/21
tf
x0(! lF
xo(t)[
v0(t)
sint
(sin t  tcost)
/ 2
sint
sint
/2
(sin t + tcost)
COSt
0
cos
ZvO(bJ
/ 2
isini/2
(4.10)
=0
cost
be solved
xo([o)
vo(to)
XxO(io)
__vo(to).
as
(4.11)
where
t = t  to
The above
order
state transition
correction.
2Sxx0(T0),
; [o,t
Given
48
condition
(4.12)
the boundary
2Lv0(T 0) = 2Svv0(T0),
matrix
_ [0,T 01
the
with a Newton's
__A(t,'to)
matrix
conditions
of x0(0)
= x o, v0(0)
remaining
unknowns
_,x0(0),
method
using
Eq. 4.11
Xv0(0 ), _Lx0(T0),
{H 0 =
From
dynamics
(4.13)
Eq. 3.29,
the differential
equations
governing
the higher
order
correction
are
E
1]Ixk]
r ,, t,3k
d v_ = _ o o
00 0
l_.vkJ
01
_vk
= 0 ; _.xk(T0)
we have
[P4k(t)J
; _,vk(T0)
(4.15)
= 2SvVk(T0)
for k = 1, 2:
;P21
P12= vlT1/T0
; P22 = (Xl
= x3
;P31
= 3_'v0X_
;P41
= 0
; P42 = _'xlT1
/ TO + 3)_vlX_ + 3_'v0X0Xl
(4.16)
/ TO
conditions:
 _xlV0
)_x0 (_)
= 2SxXk(T0)
Pll=0
(Ul
l_
conditions
Xk(0 ) = Vk(0)
In this case,
v_ T_/xo(_)_vO(_)/+/P=_(!)
/
(4.14)
_ +Too/ _vO(_)
= ;Lx2V0  )_v2(X0
_'x0Vl
_'v0(Xl
+ x3)}IT0_I
3
2
_l
_.vl (Xl + _.vl + x0) + _vl / 2lIT0
which
are needed
to compute
results
are shown
in Figs.
and costate
second
is also
order
solution.
included
convergent,
solution.
histories
and
(4.17)
order
corrections
by quadrature.
are stored
The optimal
for
comparison.
that
the most
If we regard
=0
this level
solution
generated
These
accurate
by linear
results
using
clearly
approximation
of accuracy
interpolation
a multiple
show
that
is obtained
as insufficient,
The
f'n'st order
state
to construct
shooting
the
using
the
technique
series
is not
a first
The
order
must
be
solution.
49
2.0
Oth
1st
2nd
optimal
0.5
'_,,
0.0
,
0
\_
I"_'_
Time
Figure
4.1.
Level
0 Result
in x.
Oth
1st
2nd
optimal
>
1
2
0
Time
Figure
50
4.2.
Level
0 Result
in v.
4
Oth
1st
2nd
optimal
2
x
'13
J:
E
m
..i
'_.
2
0
Time
Figure 4.3.
3
Oth
..........
1st
2nd
optimal
m
"o
.Q
E
IO
.J
0
1
\\\
2
'
Time
51
b) Level
1 formulation
This case
using
illustrates
a piecewise
zero
order
linear
solution.
the hybrid
approach
representation
The
as outlined
to approximate
interpolatory
constraints
in the section
the states
on collocation,
for an N equally
spaced
for the
segmentation
are:
x0j
 x0j_
v0j
+ v0j_ 1
T0/N
v0j
 v0j1
x0j + x0j1
T0/N
_'x0j
 _'v0j1
_x0NV0N
_'x0j
conditions
Pvj
; v00 = Vo
equations
nonlinear
system
The higher
/
L_.vkj
order
condition
 _'v0N  ax3N)
to solve
improves
=qxj
(4.18)
given
; _.x0N = 2SxX0N
+2xj1 )2
=qvj
and transversality
+ _'v0N (XON
are 4N+5
a large
3 =
 _'x0j1
x00 = Xo
Note
x0j + x0j1)
4.8.
a(
+ _'v0j1
 _'x0j1
To/N
There
_'v0j
T0/N
_'v0j
=Pxj
for several
with increasing
by:
; _.v0N = 2SvV0N
+ _,2v0N / 2 + 1 = 0
unknowns
values
(4.19)
of N are presented
Lx00 .....
in Figs.
of having
4.5 to
to solve
of equations.
dynamics
lie
a0im]rXil
Tk/pvj/+/p _kq
+r0/qx,
/ /p3k(t)
0 0
0 0
0
1
; t e [tj,tj_l]
L_,vkj
Lqvjj
(4.20)
LPak(b.
where
c = l+3ax2[_
52
; b = 6a(_.v0X0)[_
; t = (tj +tj_l)/2
(4.21)
The state
transition
the forcing
matrix
function
Pll
expression
terms
in Appendix
C.
For k = 1, 2,
"" v0 Pxj
, P21 = x0
_Lv0
; P41 = kx0
 Pxj)TI/To
P22=
{CXl
_'vl
P32=
_'v0
ax3 Pvj
Pvj
qvj
x0
ax3
}T1/To
3ax01ix12
(1 + 3ax02 
/ TO + 6ax 0 _.vlXl
c)x 1
+ 3a_.v01ix 2
I
P42 = (_.xl
 b)xl
(4.22)
 _.x0  qvj)T1 / TO
where
x0(i)
= x0j1
_x0(i)
plus
the
= _'x0j1
boundary
2_.xk(T0), _.vk(T0)
; _'v0(i)
in Eq.
4.14
by replacing
0 = _.x2NV0N
+ _.x0NV2N
+ _.xlNVlN
 _.v2N(X0N
+ _'vlN(XlN
 3ax2NXl)
 3ax2NX2N)
and second
order corrections
collocation
Comparison
solution
with
in accuracy
4.9  4.12
discontinuity
the second
in slope
the
+ ax3N)
is achievable
order
without
solution
(which
solution)
(4.23)
ij1)
Xk(0 ), Vk(0),
Xk(T0),
corresponding
+ _.v0N (X1N
are computed
N = 3 results
+ qvj(i
Vk(T0),
expansion
of
as
 _,vlN(XON
improvement
+ Pvj( i  tj1)
= _'v0j1
+ _.x0NVlN
functions
conditions
= v0j1
0 = _.xlNV0N
First
The
+ qxj({  ij1)
conditions
_'v2N
Figs.
; v0(t)
the wansversality
4.12.
+ Pxj(t  ij1)
3
+ ax0N)
 _21N / 2
The results
(4.24)
a large
is indistinguishable
number
from
of using
as the order
N = 3 is used in
are shown
requiring
is also smoothed
 ax3N)
+ _.v0N(X2N
in Figs.
is a consequence
 _,v0N
that
of elements.
the optimal
f'rrst order
In
solution.
interpolation
of the correction
53
increases.
the
fact
Contrary
that
the
to Level
nonlinear
O's results,
term
has been
the
second
order
accounted
corrections
do
order
not diverge
solution.
2,0
,,t._
1.5
I,
At
_,
_ssJ
  _ 
3pc
  e, 
4pc
,
_,
spc
optimal
10'
,'_,',,,,
05'
0.0
0.5
0
Time
Figure
4.5.
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
in x for Different
N.
\
1
>
  I.
3pc
  e 
4pc
o
5pc
optimal
Lo_. s S
,_...._
1
2
,
1
i
2
i
3
Time
Figure
54
4.6.
Level
1 Zero
Order
Results
in v for Different
N.
due
to
,,_.,,_,
  .t. 
3pc
  e. 
4pc

o
5pc
optima,
m
"o
.Q
'="_x
11
"2
Time
  P 
3pc
  e 
4pc
  o 
5pc
N.
optimal
m
"o
.o
z,,,
E
..I
1
b_
2
0
Time
N.
55
2.0
I
t
/
._
,.,,
_1 ...7,,;_,,
",
"[r_,,,,"
Oth
1st
..........
_.
_o_
optimal
opti,
1.o
,,\
%'%'%,,%,
0.0
0.5
"
1
%'_
0.5
0
%'%" _%"
Time
Figure 4.9.
:k
Oth
I\
..........
1St
optimal
>
11
"2
'k
"
"',..,
"
,'
"
Time
Figure
56
4.10.
Level
1 Higher
Order
Results
in v for N=3.
4]
J
_,
._J
_\
..........
1st
2nd
X
"O
e_
E
a
._1
_._,,
2
Time
Figure 4.11.
L_vel
I Higher
Order
Results
in _
for N=3.
0th
x\
..........
1st
2nd
".,._\
optimal
>
I
el
0
E
eo
,_1
1
2
0
Time
2 formulation
As
dynamics
a second
from
illustration
the necessary
Level
of a hybrid
conditions
1 formulation.
solution
to identify
Consider
the
approach
a more
following
we
intelligent
simple
retain
a portion
interpolating
modification
of the
function
of the
57
regular
perturbation
formulation
X=V
qxj}
=
Note
(4.25)
that we interpolate
ing interpolation
formulation.
retains
more
The interpolating
x0(t)
of the dynamics
functions
x0(tj1)+[v0j1
coupling,
in the original
problem
+lpvj(t
tj1)](ttja)
)_xO(t)
XvO(t)
= 2Lv0(tj_l)
Consequently,
there
are fewer
the formulation
should
fewer
to be used.
elements
enforced
by replacing
 [_x0j1
+ lqxj(t
unknowns
improve
variables
show
 qxj
matrix
4.13  4.16
solution,
terms
conditions
Eq.
4.26,
solution
The accuracy
good
riding
on the exact
solutions,
even
and
similarly
are
for
(4.27)
1.
is dramatically
solution
in
in Eq. 4.19
; P41 = 0
retained
This allows
Figs.
58
approximation.
_Lv0(t N) from
in comparison
x0(tN),
; P21 = xo
The results
to be solved
(4.26)
 tj_l)
Pll=0
Figures
(2N+5)
To evaluate
expressions.
 tj_l)](t
improved
especially
though
in Figs. 4.13
a cruder
in the state
1 formulation
to 4.16
segmentation
in
are very
has
been used.
A similar
trend
is also prevailed
on the costates
histories.
2.0
Oth
jt/_,,,.,j_
1.5
..........
,_
1st
optimal
",',_
1.0'
x
0.5'
0.0
0.5
Time
Figure
4.13.
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in x for N=2.
2
Oth
_
..........
1st
>
a:.,,,
optimal
/
J
1
It
2
Time
Figure
4.14.
Level
2 Higher
Order
Results
in v for N=2.
59
4
Oth
..........
""" "" "..,._'" "'A,.
I st
optimal
2
x
_fB
oe
.Q
E
,=.1
2
0
Time
Figure 4.15.
Level 2 Higher
Oth
..........
1
II
"O
E
m
..4
optimal
"_.
_'_ "_,,

==
1st
',
_
"_,
o] ,,:.
0
Time
Figure 4.16.
for N=2.
d) Level 3 formulation
In this last demonstration,
60
are approximated
by piecewise
constants.
is further
enhanced.
All the
expressions
become:
XV
_ = x  _v + Pvj + E{ax3
 Pvj}
 qxj}
=
This
(4.28)
is equivalent
unknown
to the
constants.
of the analytically
the collocation
also similar
Level
This formulation
tractable
solution
portion
= (x0(tj1)
for the
an attempt
of the solution
presence
to make
in selecting
problem.
of two
additional
maximum
utilization
the interpolating
solutions
function
for
0 case:
(2Lv0(_j_l)
v0(t)
except
represents
x0(t)
0 problem
t + _Lx0 (tj1)[sin
t  tcost]
/ 2
= (x0(tj1)
(_.vO (tj_l)
+ qxj)[sin
2Lx0([ ) = _.x0(tj_l)COSt
t + icost]
+ (Lv0(tj_l)
+ _'x0(tj1
)_ sin_ / 2
/2
+ qxj)Sint
sint + (_Lv0(tj1)
(4.29)
where
: 31A
Pvj
( )1
x((ij+tj_l)/2)
; qxj = 3a _.vx2
In this formulation,
4.29
unknowns
in Eqs.
one
lement
accurate
solutions
degenerate
an efficient
of x0(0),
as the previous
levels
are
as those
x((ij+ij_l)/2)
(4.30)
; i _ It j_ 1, t j]
i = i  i j_ 1
the 2N+5
_.v((ij+ij_l)/2);
v0(0),
shown
in Level
in Figs.
4.17
2 (because
_.v0(0),
formulations
here.
 4.20.
0 results
is to solve
are obtained
in the same
for
Eq.
manner
results
using
Though
results
are not as
solution
(Figs.
the first
is used),
order
correspond
only
order
to the
2.0
Oth
.......... Ist
1.5
r
X
optimal
_v,
1.0
0.5
0.0
Time
Figure 4.17.
2 l_, "
Oth
1,.,
1 t
>
.........._s,
0"1
optimal
_,,
t
2
_,.:Z:__
I
Time
62
4 T
Oth
J
__. 1
_"_.
.=.... =..,\\
."
r
2 "4
I
TM
b..
1 :/
a
lo
n
".
1st
optimal
_.
",
%",,
_/
..........
"=, _
II
I
"%,,,.,
2/
,
1
.
2
Time
Figure
4.19.
Level
3 Higher
Order
Results
in Lx for N=l.
3
0th
..........
\
2
_\
1st
optimal
\
>
i
1l""..
x,
/
A
10
.D
"lk _
E
a
.J
"]b_%%
,, %
]b,. %
"l._=.._
1
2
.dr ore,
Time
63
4.5
Conclusions
A hybrid
regular
perturbation
shows
the
analytical/numerical
and
that it is possible
number
of finite
approach
collocation
methods
to significantly
elements.
The
number
of f'mite elements
is compensated
solution
based
perturbation
solve
the zero
dynamics
are derived
64
problem
from
implications
5 on the launch
by the addition
theory.
tractable
in realtime
vehicle
Viewed
more
portions
guidance
problem.
developed.
solution
of higher
a second
order
of the necessary
a smaller
to the
collocation
more
that further
to
of the
dramatic
functions
conditions.
which
approach
corrections
allows
interpolating
using
increasing
using
way, using
applications
hybrid
without
from
expansion
intelligent
problems
The
that results
perturbation
solution.
by selecting
optimization
a collocation
loss in accuracy
the analytically
has been
improve
in a regular
can be achieved
important
in Chapter
order
to be retained
improvements
show
on regular
for solving
which
The results
will be demonstrated
SECTION V
THE
HYBRID
APPROACH
LAUNCH
This
problem
nearly
section
defined
analytic
zero order
serves
solution
dynamics
VEHICLES
the hybrid
2. The
solution
of the collocation
which
neglected
in Section
zero order
representation
angle,
applies
feedback
evaluated
as an intelligent
NEAROPTIMAL
GUIDANCE
analytical/numerical
solution
guidance
approach
approach
a bilinear
interpolating
function
is then improved
axe corrected
TO
through
a regular
on a piecewise
method.
Each piecewise
tangent
Wind
4 to the
is based
perturbation
of Section
vector
method.
analysis,
shear effects
The
wherein
the
and constraints
5.1
Zero
Order
Solution
As discussed
more
intelligent
interpolating
the
interpolating
functions
necessary
then
However,
the costate
the strategy
4.3).
the
This
perturbed
In this
collocation
x' =
are poorly
T(i)c  P(i)A(i)
m(t)
of the analytically
if spherical
tangent
law
solution
and
tractable
atmospheric
solution
results
as either
constant
dynamics
and
(cf. Level
by half.
by using
in Eq. 4.1.
represented
of unknowns
and costates,
Earth
guidance
of the costates
the number
formulation
+_(i)__
fi =
case
the representation
a collocation
the approximation
to improve
from analysis
linear
dynamics
also reduces
to interpolate
functions
previous
is to keep
to improve
4, it is possible
can be derived
conditions.
neglected
method
in Section
portions
in
effects
(Sec.
or zero.
are
3.2b).
Hence,
2 and 3 formulation
Thus
The
instead
of using
in Sec.
Eq. 4.1
for interpolation.
The
_(i)
sin0
+e(
+ _)
T (i) _(i)A_i)
vac
m(t)
_ p)A(i)
u_v
r
65
/'=V
aH
Xv =
qvj + e(_
_'r =
qrj + ("_
e"
qvj)
aH
qrj)
;j=l
.....
=0
dO
(5.1)
where
v = Vcosy+W
; u = Vsiny+W
( (T (i)
+Xu_
The terms
_(i),
backpressure
previous
the
spherical
acceleration
(5.2)
components
that including
problem
partial
terms
these parameters
values
of the engine
for each
flight
for these
effects
are chosen
_(1) = P(ho ) / 2
; _(1) = Be / r2  Uo
2 / ro
; g(ul) = 0
_(2)
' gv
=(2) = g (1) /2
; =(2)
gu
= 0
= 0
to be updated
In the following
Eq. 5.1 to generate
we make
regarding
the dependence
condition,
which
m00(t)
With
66
are approximations
it is found
control,
 L (i) sin y
re(t)
_(i)
investigation
approximation,
vac
_(i),
and
 pA(i))
r_+
results
in closed
of aerodynamic
in the celebrated
= _,v0j1
_.u0j1
the above
continuously
by using
forces
bilinear
stage.
solution
and using
From
improve
the
as:
(5.3)
loop implementation.
portion
the form
of the optimality
in Eq. 4.3.
on 0 as a perturbation
condition
in
This amounts
to
of the optimality
tangent law
+ qvj( t  tj1)
+ quj( t  tjl)
formulation
nozzle
(5.4)
the expression
(e = 0) can be expressed
as:
the
v0(t )  v0(tj_l)
(t
+ k(iff
u0(tj1)+
_(t
; t e [tj_l,t j]
tj_l)_(v i)
FE
u0(t)=
(tan((p
I+A_
k(iff{1+__
1
smh
(tan((P+rl))_sinhl(tan(P)}[(p_(jt_)l)
(t  t j_ 1)g(i)
r0(t)
FDC
k(i)A
= r0(tj1)
sec(pgSlnh
2Lv0(t) = _,v0jI
1
+qvj(
I
I.(A
tan(p)[
_sinhl(tan((p+rl))
_/1 +A"
(p(t)
(tan(p)}l(p(tj_l)+[v0(tj_l)g
sinhl(tan(p)]
_(i) ttj_l
v _](ttj_l)G(tj_l)
t t jl)
= _'r0jI
+ qrj( t  t jl)
(5.5)
where
D=qvj/A
Cv = _.v0j1
 qvjtj1
l_At
FD
The
order
above
F = T (i) _(i)A(i)
; Cu = 2Lu0j_ 1 qujtj_l
; Cm = m (i) + k(i)tj_l
_tanl(l/ A)
, A_>O
, A <0
cvA
; _ =
_+A
qujC
cuA  qujB
constitute
is now expressed
; g
1
= k_l_smh
expressions
solution
; 11 = [_+tanl(1/A)
cmA + k(i)B
k(i) C
G(tj1)
; C = 4C2v +c 2 B 2
+B,
(p(t) =mn
A =
; B = (Cvqvj + Cuquj)/A
(tan((p+rl))slnh
a set of nonlinear
in terms
1
 qvjB
qvj C
_(
(tan(p)j(p(tj_l)
interpolating
of the unknown
costate
functions
nodal
values.
(5.6)
and
the zero
To evaluate
67
800
E
v
400
i,', /
_'_
!;i"/
>
"
,t*/
0
,_oc,_,c._._>
"X_',
oop....
:....
I
100
Time
Figure
5.1.
Open
200
Loop
300
400
(s)
v Profiles
for Various
8000
/,,_
/t_
1pc (Sec.3.2)
3pc (2; 1)
......
6000
_i
5pc (4;1)
,_/'I
optimal
//li
4000
jm.d,
2OO0
J__i
'
100
Figure
5.2.
Open
200
Time
68
N.
Loop
"
300
400
(s)
u Profiles
for Various
N.
these values,
the collocation
constraints
on the costate
derivatives
_'v0j  _'v0j1
qvj =
 _"
tj t j_ 1
t=(tj+tj_
_,u0 =(ku0j+_u0j_l)/2;
quj =
_'uOj  kuOj1
Xr0=(_,r0j+_,r0j1)/2
= _ ()II
tj  t j_ 1
()u
t=(tj+tj_l)/2;
... ; _,rO=(_,rOj+_,rOj.1)/2
t=(tj+tj_l)/2;...
; kr0=(_,r0j+_,r0j_l)/2
_'r0j  _r0j1
(5.7)
qrj =
tj  t j_ 1
Since
segmentation
more
unknowns
more
atmosphere
order
accounted
zero
in the zero
for several
results
hybrid
solution
linear
law.
aerodynamic
in time
effects
whereas
problem
the
a 1piece
stage
segment
flight.
are 3N+4.
values
atmosphere,
Open
of N are given
using
approach
because
formulation.
approximation.
part
of the
to ignoring
in Figs.
which
note from
Eq.
of the regular
in a
5.1 to 5.6.
The
stage
in Sec.
3.2
in the costate
effects
are
now
from
of
solutions
as given
aerodynamic
for
number
are observed
aerodynamic
This results
total
loop
approach
improvements
In particular,
5.4  5.6),
accounts
perttu'bation
a denser
is sufficient
The
(see Figs.
This largely
inside
second
order
flight,
increasing
for comparison.
the
steering
is expected
exoatmospheric
order
being
activity
is N1 elements
Zero
profiles
nearly
to be solved
segmentation
flight.
control
the subsequent
stationary
5.4 gives
and invoking
constant
the
perturbation
linear
method
and
a
_,v
tangent
when
are included.
69
160000
1pc(sec.3.2)
...........
3pc (2;1)
spc(4;1)
120000
optimal
800001
,.c
. jp=_
._V
_//
40000
0
0
100
200
Time
300
400
($)
0.060
'
t
..........3pc (2;1)
A_
0.045
1pc (Sec.3.2)
.....
_tt
spc(4;1)
optimal
o._oI _
' t
0.015
0.000
0
100
200
Time
Figure
7O
5.4.
Open Loop
300
400
(s)
Lv Profiles
for Various
N.
0.024
s,_&A,__
0.018
E
AAAAA
//
/
0.012
ca
"o
J_
1pc (Sec.3.2)
111
"J
0.006
3pc (2;1)
5pc (4;1)
optimal
0.000
100
Time
Figure
5.5.
300
200
Open Loop
400
(s)
Xu Profiles
for Various
N.
1.5e3
1pc (See.3.2)
..........
3pc (2;1)
5pc (4;1)
optimal
1.0_3
R.t
m
,,Q
E
m
5.0e4
.....
O.Oe+O
_ ....
100
5.2
First
Order
In this case,
the following
5.6.
Open Loop
200
Time
Figure
._r_
300
400
(s)
Xr Prof'lles
for Various
N.
Solution
the linear
differential
equations
satisfied
terms
have
form:
71
Vl
" 0
a14 j
a15 j
Vl
0
1
0
0
0
0
a15 j
0
a25 j
0
Ul
r 1
Dqvj
Dqvj
_
Dqvj
_
_lvj
_luj
Dquj
Dquj
_tuj
Dqrj
g
Dqrj
_UU
&trj
_
Ul
rl
d
_.vl
_'ul
_tvj
DO
Dqvj + f Dqvj
_
2"_"
_luj
Dquj+f
Dquj
. &trj
1
DO
Dqrj+f
_u
Dqrj
D)_'v
.
m+Ii_
_'vl
_+tl_
_rl
"Clj(t)"]
C2j(t) I
vo(t) I
+ T1
To
Complete
time
expressions
is fixed,
Therefore,
dropped
T = tf
an exact
following
Jacobian
matrix
P6j(t)
are given
in Appendix
terms
an approximate
the zero
10
earlier,
second
stage
algebraic
the
open
term
flight
time.
in Eq. 5.8 is
matrix
equations.
that
second
By neglecting
m{i)j
O(_j
0(i5)j
0_(2i6)j
t j_ 1t
left comer
order
block
variations
terms
to
an
the
of the
of the
we are able
to
system:
m_i)j
of using
So we introduced
these
o_i)j
ttj_i 0 1 o, i4)j
4i j
to the practice
The 3 x 5 lower
effects
variables.
corrections
is analogous
the analysis.
on the costate
order
order perturbation
nonlinear
state transition
As explained
This behavior
5.8 represents
have
D.
(5.8)
matrix.
to simplify
; t e [tj_l,tj]
describing
that higher
to solve
in Eq.
72
qrj
corresponding
approximation
atmospheric
derive
P4j(t)
PSj(t)
state transition
approximate
system
quj
has shown
_'rl]
P2j(t)
2_
 Plj(t)
Experience
using
qvj
i 1
&trj
m+t
D_,v
; t _ [tj_l,tj]
(5.9)
_(2)
_,l(tN)_
n(1)
rxl(to)I
) ... a,A1 (tl'to)t_Ll(to)J+
.Q(1)
= ,,AN (tN,tN1)
AN_I(tNI,tN2
j=N1
J'_N_ 1D(A2
)N( tN, "l;){T'_0(C_
((:))]
/,_
K_N(tN'tN1)'"
j=l
L 2N,j
"p(1)(x )
lj_z
... D.Aj+I(1).
(tj+l,tj)i_i_
(5.10)
1.Q(A1)j
(tj, x)
P2(Ij)(z)_
5.3
Numerical
Figures
the wind
within
Results
5.7 to 5.10 show
frame
coordinates.
each update
in Fig. 5.10
interval.
that jumps
ct profile
is another
This figure
for ot during
Earth
The
of attack
drag)
small jump
a major
the trajectory
the optimal
is insensitive
result
followed
causes
between
which
in
solution
to correct
index
a large difference
stay very
close,
are
the trajectory.
dynamics.
Even though
These
to first follow
second
expressed
by a lower
at the staging
solution.
at every
at about
which
stage flight,
of elements
occur
difference
corrections
is updated
of the booster
(to reduce
also shows
control
loop results
in angle
effects
third
the closed
solution
of the spherical
exists
between
and imply
that
variations.
73
sooo
t hlst 7q
6000
4000
>
2000
0
0
100
200
Time
Figure
5.7.
Closed
300
400
(s)
Loop
Velocity
Profile
for N=8.
100
Oth
1st
80
optimal
6O
E
E
40
II
2O
100
Time
Figure
74
5.8.
Closed
200
Loop
"
300

400
(s)
Flightpath
Angle
Profile
for
N=8.
160000
Oth
is,
120000
......,;..
optimal
sS
80000
T
40000
.__
,
100
,
200
Time
Figure
5.9.
Closed
Loop
,
300
400
(s)
Altitude
Profile
for N=8.
15.0
sm_.
7.5
o_
o
"0
0.0
n
13.
7.5
......
,,"
t
Oth
t
t
1st
100
Figure
wind
profile
in Fig.
2.11,
investigation
we include
5.10.
the effects
It
I
15.0
Next,
optimal
this profile
it is learned
200
Closed
Time
(s)
Loop
Angle
of nonstationary
mean winter
is accounted
400
300
profile
of Attack
Profile
atmosphere
on the
solution.
Space
Center,
shown
From
earlier
for Kennedy
for N=8.
solution.
to control
variations,
The
there75
1.05
"
M=1.2
"_
0.95,
0.85 
M=1.5
...........
M=2.0
..... 4"....
M=2.5
......
M=3.0
o
o
0.75
T
0.65
3
alpha
Figure
5.11.
8000 T'_
I
"
(deg)
"7
optimal
,_
200
Closed
300
40(
(s}
Loop Velocity
and CtClConstraint.
76
12
ls t
100
5.12.
Time
Figure
Profile
Under
Wind
represent
the dynamic
profile
was
jumps
in control
convexized,
performance.
depicted
solution
constraint,
results
which
loading
as shown
that
The
in Figs.
guided
and
the
is active
5.1.
which
optimal
5.10,
in Table
excellent
stage
the objectionable
negligible
agreement
illustrates
CD
effect
on the
case
are
between
the
of the
of the trajectory.
effect
The
o_q
performance
5.1.
Guidance.
1storder
0thorder
148160m
148160.0m
148160.0m
tf
have
optimal
7858.2ms
the first
5.16
portion
Comparison
_tf)
V(tf)
which
simulation
Fig.
a minor
Performance
h(tf)
show
In addition,
loop
solution.
only over
Table
in Fig.
of the closed
and 5.15,
on the vehicle.
in Fig. 5.11.
are observed
results
5.12
limits
(5.11)
2
0.000
1
7858.20ms
377.372s
0.001
1
7858.14ms
377.382s
1
378.397s
11
1st I
80
o
"o
E
E
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
Time
Figure
5.13.
Closed
Wind
Loop
300
400
(s)
Flightpath
Angle
Profile
Under
160000
'
120000
'
1st
==
E
v
80000 '
e
40OO0 '
0
0
100
200
Time
Figure
5.14.
Closed
Loop
300
400
(s)
Altitude
Profile
Under
Wind
and o_1Constraint.
10
1st
optimal
5
A
0
m
D.
5
10
0
Figure
100
5.15.
Closed
Wind
78
200
300
Time
(s)
Loop
Angle
and
of Attack
t_q Constraint.
400
Profile
Under
200000
1 st
150000
optimal
E
Z
100000
o
v
o
50000
m
t
D.
m
.
D
50000
......
100
5.16.
Closed
I
iii
200
300
Time
Figure
400
($)
Loop
o_q Profile
Under
Wind
In this example,
the first stage
drag
forces
in Sec.
ascent.
consequently
forces
midelement
introduced
solution
results
show
continuously
5.10.
updated
extremely
(x to meet
good
shows
the ratios
of aerodynamic
to be treated
diverged.
accounts
in the middle
portion
perturbation
forces
analysis
in the first
as perturbation
order
effects,
of
effect
and
method
through
the
Results
a high level
of fidelity
transition
and justify
matrix
improvement
in Eq. 5.9.
by correcting
acceleration
negative
largely
Numerical
the state
in the radial
too large
effect
in Eq. 5.7.
significant
in Fig.
solution
the
to obtain
illustrated
during
on
shows
change
order
constraints
Remarks
This explains
are simply
the calculated
a zero
The
to correct
have a major
These
in forming
forces
This is illustrated
analysis.
5.4
the aerodynamic
guess
as the orbital
of gv.
of the second
the terminal
orbit injection
This
stage flight,
conditions.
accuracy
solution
fails
we have
pullup
the
even
as
sharp
using
of the vehicle
to correct
requiring
effects,
to anticipate
is approached,
in an excessive
However,
without
In particular,
condition
results
the approximation
with a large
results
give
update.
79
lOO
50
E
"o
o
o
Q.
U)
"o
c
50
100
0
1OO00
200O0
Altitude
Figure
5.17.
30000
(m)
A Hypothetical
Wind
11
Shear
Profde.
..........
Openloop
Guided
Nminal
Q
"O
75 J
O
C
50 t
Q
25
*"
..
2
rI
25
0
100
200
Time
Figure
80
5.18.
300
(s)
Comparison
of the Thrust
under
Shear.
Wind
400
Vector
Angle
Profiles
The computations
CPU time needed
0.15s
for a control
for a 1element
Broyden's
update
the solution
solution
update
ranges
during
the second
of the Jacobian
converges
time
is needed
would
from 0.65s
for an 8element
stage
in 4 iterations.
in computation
flight.
to correct
stage of flight.
have
resulted
collocation
It is apparent
mainly
from
to less than
method
with
evaluation
and
Earth
a significant
had we computed
1. The
the numerical
for spherical
Therefore
case
The Newton's
typically
correction
presented
results
effects
additional
this correction
which
savings
phase.
5.5
Wind
Shear
Investigation
To assess
the effectiveness
scenario.
First,
typical
program
stage
flight
is based
closed
loop guidance
solution
To
constraints.
loop
conditions,
to have
assure
guidance
for
and compensated
5.18
nominal
wind
solution
performance
in payload)
the
the 'Open
with the same
is also
5.2).
5.2.
included.
solution,
launch
using
piecewise
The
control
(lst)
148160.0m
_(tf)
0.000
7858.20ms
377.287s
Guided
under
(0th)
148160.0m
7858.18ms
378.243s
ie.
guidance.
of interest,
under
gives
(equivalent
The
the
poorer
to a loss of
solution
Shear.
Open loop
148160.0m
0.000
1
flight.
flying
solution
Wind
ctq
atmospheric
A point
program
the
operation,
near optimal
'Openloop'
guided
in the
with
solutions.
using
included
preflight
The
results,
This
vehicle
for
5.17).
trajectory
incorporated
angle
guidance
is simulated.
are
flight
vector
(cf. Fig.
is therefore
for present
Comparison
h(tf)
J = tf
cases
linear
Performance
Guided
V(tf)
both
and
thrust
a guided
flight
we show
of the previous
Table
stage
loop guidance
loop'
shear
Second,
shear,
approach
interpolation
endoatmospheric
approach
linear
wind
shear,
the approach
by a closed
condition
(cf. Table
the wind
wind
loop hybrid
profile.
second
integrity,
the proposed
 5.20 compare
the 'Nominal'
wind
detected
structural
piecewise
from a linear
mean
against
a hypothetical
case represents
45501bs
is derived
nominal
using
by the closed
with
an open
Figs.
on the
is assumed
calculation.
followed
is simulated
approach
the second
second
of the hybrid
0.000
1
7858.20ms
378.413s
81
then
openloop
guidance
If the magnitude
will result
in a catastrophic
failure
unless
increased
by
the aq limit
is
exceeded.
200000
Openloop
Guided
150000
Nominal
B_D=q
100000
5oooo
==
n.
'\
0
.
m
50000
100
.
i
300
400
(s)
_=
200
Time
Figure 5.]9.
A
m
under
Shear.
9O
Openloop
A
t_
E
o
o
D.
Guided
6O
Nominal
3O
m
c
O
N
3O
o
r
6O
0
100
200
Time
Figure
5.20.
Experienced
3 Different
82
300
400
(s)
Horizontal
Simulations.
Wind
Speed
for the
SECTION
CONCLUSIONS
6.1
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The
fundamental
perturbation
result,
methods
the
solution
zero
problem
relates
order
in treating
to the inherent
reduced
solution
to account
ascent
profile.
Regular
aerodynamic
forces.
phase,
which
hybrid
has been
developed
desirable
features
collocation
solving
are simply
approach
a large
approach
dimension
of regular
correction
and
elements.
It can
of requiring
a large
The regular
collocation
solution,
elements
needed
enhanced
which
for a given
in the launch
phase,
tangent
without
in a further
level of solution
in the solution
vehicle
steering
number
guidance
reduction
accuracy.
These
of optimal
solution
higher
and
functions
features
problems,
for
can be obtained
promise
an
has been
on this problem
phases,
using
the
of finite
which
results
in all flight
order
of approximation
in the number
The main
of
elements
provides
attractive
control
application.
method
of optimization
the number
substantial
the
approach
interpolating
variety
are compensated
in
control
it combines
numerical
intelligent
of
forces
in optimal
of approximation
increasing
absence
effect.
because
a wide
the
problems
The
perturbation
to identify
results
demonstrated
solution
be used
solving
equations
in the
aerodynamic
is hybrid
also
throughout
as a perturbation
methods.
for
perturbation.
also
analytical
solution
The neglected
As a
guidance
of nonlinear
formulation
a better
singular
A manifold
This approach
set of algebraic
approximation.
handle
of this research.
by
load factor.
dynamics,
to large to be considered
of numerical
The disadvantage
poor
gives
cannot
dynamics
of longitudinal
path angle
a simple
value
a very
analysis
allows
problems.
gives
the approach
solution
large
vehicle
perturbation
However,
launch
for flight
flight
VI
including
a small
the
number
of elements.
6.2
Recommendations
Many
important
for
Future
issues
remain
recommendations
Identifying
Intelligent
capable
More
of handling
partial
Work
Interpolating
aerodynamic
for
future
research,
and
the
following
order of complexity:
Functions
effects,
 Though
spherical
the zero
Earth effects
order
solution
is
orbital
in the formulation,
perturbation
More
approaches
term,
Accurate
considering
complex
similar
Model
a more
propulsion
interpolating
speed.
elaborate
dynamic
model
should
should
be made
solution
to account
for
is to add a constant
in See. 4.3.
can be made
in the launch
vehicle
problem
model.
rotating
effects
and
The
be considered.
in the collocation
3 formulation
 Improvements
solution
An investigation
and a proposed
to the Level
representation
Earth
It may
approach,
be necessary
depending
by
a more
to modify
the
on the magnitudes
of these
can be extended
to handle
nonlinearities.
Multiflight
various
Task
flight
constraints
Rcquircment_
vehicles
Such multiflight
Problem
performance
constraint
include
values,
which
would
vehicle
problem,
which
the constraint
Launch
Vehicles
ascent
a narrow
efficient
becomes
Range
can be included
be very
corridor
useful
in a 3D
to manned
simplified
Hybrid
Approach
perturbation
analysis
the
HIB
future
of formulations
using
should
methods
corrections.
to
problem
time intervals
Future
study
methods
in
this type
should
potential
corrections
are
include
to fly within
a study
a much
simpler
and
approach.
37], the
regular
equation.
by a set of linear
functions
simply
of the relationships
expansion)
are not
a systematic
in [14,
or sensitivity
evaluated
disaster
of problem
promises
to the launch
the HamiltonJacobiBellman
transition
include
To avoid
 As demonstrated
out using
related
may be constrained
to handle
safety
the vehicle
by analytic
state
perturbation
types
issues
corrections
of the
research
approach
the constrained
 The range
Expansion
can be carried
the
To address
that the
of the control
the hybrid
of variable
means.
that is tractable
calculation
to complete
and a formulation
boosters,
Present
the perturbation
Instead
the perturbation
of reusable
the
the exclusion
on numerical
with
this formulation,
and
Concerns
of air space.
formulation
be useful
it is coincidental
active.
occur
thus allowing
problems.
structure
Safe_
the retrieval
it would
optimization
of the switching
trajectory
or to facilitate
variations,
However,
of constrained
a guess
84
requirements
capability
to control
in the analysis.
requires
vehicle
Analysis
is insensitive
analysis
Proposed
These
and crossrange
task guidance
approach
Constrained
required.
guidance
and rendezvous.
formulation.
E's.,
 The hybrid
by
O. D.
are
not
quadrature.
between
In
these
two
approach
evaluation
of
Manifold
zero
Investigation
order
(e
= 0)
approximation
reduced
is needed.
e in the
manifold
singular
perturbation
 The failure
useful
would
the
accomplished
manifold
converges
desirable
solution.
to the manifold
nonlinear
of Manifold
the fast
problems.
to determine
examination
an algebraic
alternative
would
indicates
and
Theory
variable
optimization
to develop
An
feature
analysis
satisfactory
experiment
by visual
from
considers
in addition
approximation
is far
[24] which
parameter
in other
be highly
solution
One distinguishing
condition
of the energy
a higher
Although
A drawback
of the trajectories
test for when
be to develop
of
of the
this approach
state,
it may
in our analysis
order
is the inclusion
as a function
a solution
that the
3.5 and
condition
an iterative
process
is
This
3.6.
It
lies on
that
solution.
85
APPENDIX
Derivation
of
Eq.
3.32
Oto
in Eq. 3.32.
Let
L _, ,J
k TO[Lo(t)J
fl = R0(x0,_.0,x);
f2 = _0(x0,_,0,x),
(A.1)
assuming
u being
eliminated
and
recall that
Tk }_A(t,'01
TO to
Using
(A.2)
; C2 = f2 + (x  to)_x2
C1 = fl + (x  to) _
integration
d {(xto)[_]
[d%k.
('c
(A.3)
F_fl / 8x
t)k
z/Oxo
we have
^
Tg'k
.10 t_(X
t)f2A
(t"0[f2
fi
_=_
]}[,C = to 
Tk/i('c
TO
 t)(d
f2A (_"c))[_
]dx
_f_ / _Z' 1
Tk
_('C to)f_A(t,'C
TO to
(A.4)
) _f2/3x0
d
into
(A.4),
transition
86
,^
the
matrix
last two
cancel
and
the result
Eq. 4.7.
is demonstrated.
(A.5)
The above
state
APPENDIX
State
Transition
f_(_)(t2,tl)
matrix
Matrix
Expression
in Eq.
perturbation
co_i4)
o)_
,.,,16".'(i)
,.,(i)
w24
,.,(i)
w25
,.,(i)
w26
0
0
1
0
co(i)
,.,(i)
w35
0
(i)
0)36
t1  t2
t2t
0
3.44
approach
in Sec. 3.2 is
(B.1)
where
toni4) = _i4)(t2)
 _i4)(t 1)
co_i5) = n_(t2)
n_is)(tl)
co 16
i) = rc_ (t2)
_(t
1) + tlco_
co(i)
,.(i)
24 = "'15
CO(i)
25 = _(i5)(t2)co(i)
26 = _(2_(t2)
_(i5)(tl)
_:(_ (t 1)(t
2 t 1)_i 4)(tl)
co(i)
(i) (t2)  x35
(i) (1)
t  (t2 tl)_(t
35 = _35
co(i)
_(i)(t2)_x(3i6)(tl)_(t2tl)_(tl)+
36 = '_36
n_i4)(t ) = A
g_(t)
sinhl[tan(0(t))__ +_
=" [Asinhl[tan(O(t))B)]
1)
tlco_
rl)]
Asin(0(t))+A2 + cos(0(t))"
1
sin(O(t))Acos(O(t))l
87
T (i)
vac
Cu0 k(i)
A
; B=
A sin(0(t))
x(i5)
(t)= A
A
sinhl[tan(0(t))
(A2 + 1)3/2  rl)] +
tan(0(t))]
_(_(t)
= B{ [A +
(p + A) sin(0(t)) Aff+l
 (pA  1) cos(0(t)):
7
'j
 lq)]
(A 2 + 1)3/2
A2 + 1
+ tan(O(t))]sinhl[tan(0(t))rl)]
(A 2+1) 3/2
sec(0__(t_))_
A2+1
J
x(_(t)
+ A)[A + tan(0(t))]
sinhl[tan(0(t))(A
2 + 1)3/2
 _)]
(pA
1) sec(0(t))
k: i J
All the variables
88
Asec(0(t))
n(3is)(t)= B{A[A
= B{.(p
are evaluated
A2+I
 rl)]
sinhl[tan(0(t))
+ cos(0(t))
(B.2)
APPENDIX
State
Transition
Matrix
_A(i,
Expression
matrix
of Level
of Level
all
a12
a13
a21
all
a14
a24
ba24
ba23
all
a21
ba23
bal3
a12
all
to) =
1 Formulation
in
example
Sec.
4.3
is
a14 ]
(C.1)
For b > 0:

;
(/,C
; t=tt

C_
_C
c13
a12 = (ot_13)_f_sin(t'q_)+
1
sin(tq_)
a13 = (or  [_)'x/_
1
a14 = COS(t_')
1
sin(Lf_)
(ix  [_),f_
13
c 2  o_c  b
a21 = (__'_
a24 = _
sin(taft)
cos(i.f_)
b + c13  c 2
sin(t_t_)q
sin(t'_)
(_13)f_
sin(bf_)
(C.2)
+ ____ sin(tf_)
For b < 0:
0 = (42_c2
b 2c)/2
c + 02  02
al 1 = cosh(O_)cosO[)
+
20(_
sinh(0i)
sin({_t) ; a14 = _
02 +(_2
a12 
02 + g)2 _ c sinh(0t)cos(_t)
20(02+_2)
_ 2_(02
sinh(0i)
sin(_t)
+C
+ #2 ) cosh(0t)sin(_t)
89
al3  20(02
2(_(0
'_ +
#'_)
2
c 2 _bc(02
_._p2)sinh(Oi)cos(_)+bc
a21 =
20(02 + _) )
c.O 2 + _.2.
,t,
,_ _ ).cosh(0ilsin(_)
2_(0 "_+ _")
(C.3)
a24 = _
90
sinh(0t)
matrix
cos(_)
 2_csh(0t)
sin(_)t)
0 for b = 0.
APPENDIX
System
Matrix
of
The terms
al4j
the
defined
Transition
Matrix
in
T (i)
vac 
a25j
State
FirstorderFormulation
T(i)  pA(i)[
V_m(t)
alSj =
and
Sec.
Expression
5.2
expressions:
2 _'20
(_v0 + _,20)3/2 ]
_v0_'u0
(i
m(t)
(_v0 + _,20)3/2
 pA(i)[
= T(i) m(t)
2 +_'2_00)3/2 ]
(kvO
cos00
h
_.v0 sin00
+ ku0 cs00
sin 00
f2 = 2Lv0 sin00
+ _,u0COS00
(t  t j_ 1)k (i) 1
Clj = T(i) m(t)
 pA(i)
[ 1q
m(t)
(t  tj_l)k
c2j = Tv(i2Cm(t)_A(i)
[11
_'u0
_vO
+_.
3H
0u
3g2
_'v03gl
_ (_,v0 sin00
&tuj /
quj
3g2
/ 300 + _,u03g2
/ 300
wm
30
Psj
gu
u0 3_0 f
3gl + "_
3qvj [
qvj
gv
_u0
2
2
J 4_:v0 + _u0
vO __o
P2j = g2
3gl
2
+ ku0
(i) 1
m(t)
{_.
Plj = gl 4
_v_.0
2
JCkv0
+ Lu0 eos00)(Tv(_
_'vo3gl
/ 300 + _'uo3g2
[ 300
__m,
30
[(_.v0Sin00
+ 2Lu0cos00)(Tv(_
_A_i))
/ m(t)
J
91
OH
_r %
P6J
_lrj
_0
t
)
Oqvj
_
O2H
= { , __
It=(tj+tj_l)/2;
... ;Xr0=(_r0j+Xr0j_l)/2
(D.1)
OOOrjlt=(tj+tj1)/2;
... ;_.r0=(_r0j+2Lr0j_l)/2
where
gl =
 D (i) sinT0
+ L(i) cos_/0
m(t)
The
expressions
partial
approximate
derivatives
{v0(tj1),
derivatives
uo(tjl),
0)14 
state
(Oqvj/0v,
0)16 =
r0(tj.1),
Xv0(tj.1),
0v0(t)
0v0(t)
) =
Ou0(t)
O_.u0(tj_l
0)36 =
0qvj
_ 0u0(t)
)
0r0(t)
0)34  O_,v0(tj_l
0v0(t)
0C v
/)v0(t)
O_,r0(tj_l
0)25 
transition
of the zeroorder
_)2Lv0(t j_ 1)
_)Cu
_ &'0(t)
Oc v
0r0(t)
Oqvjf0u ....
) are similar
to the last
three
matrix
solution
Xu0(tj.1),
; 0)15 
by taking
to the initial
the
conditions
So we have:
0v0(t)
O_,u0(tj_l)
t)Cu
Ou0(t)
; 0)24  O_,v0(tj_l
_ Ou0(t)
)
0c v
Ou0(t)
; 0)26 = 02Lr0(tj_l
Ou0(t)
) =
0r0(t)
; 0)35 = 3_,u0(tj_l
3v0(t)
Oqvj
_ _r0(t)
)
Oc u
Oro(t)
m
0_'r0(tj1)
92
(D.2)
r0
in (F. 1).
The
partial
m(t)
remaining
u0v0
Igu
(D.3)
Oqvj
Symbolic
the analytic
Ov0
OD
_D
_c v
manipulation
expressions
Ov0
3A
_A
_c v
programs
is given
_v0
_c v
by
Ov0
Oq)
_tp
_c v
such as Mathernatica,
of the above
derivatives,
Ov0
MACSYMA
and to write
3rl
(D.4)
0r I _c v
can be used
the subroutines
to obtain
needed
for
their computation.
93
REFERENCES
1.
Brusch,
R. G., Reed,
tion, "Journal
2.
of the British
Chandler,
D. C., Smith,
Application
to Various
Vol.
3.
McHenry,
6.
Shuttle
I. L., "Optimal
Function
Interpolation,
Well,
Programming,
pp. 101
116.
Well,
K. H., "Ariane
Down
Constraint,
Brusch,
"Proceedings
of the Iterative
"Journal
Guidance
Mode
of Spacecraft
with its
and Rockets,
C. R., Paris,
Vol.
and Collocation,
Problems,"
C. G.,
BreakweU,
Vehicle,
Jacobson,
Feeley,
"Journal
in a Plane,
Thirddegree
Spline
Optimization
via Recursive
with
Vol. XXX,
a Firststage
of Nonlinear
1982,
Splash
Programming
Trajectory
Journal
Vehicle,
"Journal
Using
Nonlinear
Optimization
of Guidance,
for an Aeroassisted
& Control
Translation
Control,
Boost
Conference,
A Program
of DFVLRMitt.
Vol.
and Dynamics,
Vehicle,
"Procee
for Numerical
for Solving
Solution
8505,
Nonlinear
of Opti
1985.
Simultaneous
Equa
for a Low
Thrust
Interplane
W. F., "Iterative
Explicit
and Rockets,
"Proceedings
Launch
H. E., "Optimum
of Spacecraft
T. S., Speyer,
using
of Methods
Journal,
R. A., Powers,
of the Astronau
Sciences,
Application
of Computation,
"A/AA
Trajectory
of Control
"A/AA
English
J. V., Rauch,
J. R. III,
1974.
Optimization
"BNDSCO,
"A Class
"' Mathematics
No. 74823,
Trajectory
Guidance
W.,
"Journal
Shaping
of the Astronautical
Navigation
H. J., Grimm,
Profile
S. W., "Direct
Guidance,
B. F., Thibodeau,
and Control,
Ascent
Optimization
and Rockets,
of AIAA
Broyden,
2361.
Selec
1989.
B. N., "Adaptive
Flight
94
Conference,
Pamadi,
Oberle,
Paper
V Ascent
craft,
14.
Programme
A. D., Cockrell,
Thrust
"Journal
Vol.10,
tary
13.
Rocket
R., "Trajectory
Hargraves,
tions,
12.
Steering
S. R., "Rocket
Quadratic
mal Control
11.
Society,
Navigation
"AIAA
K. H., Tandon,
dings
10.
Guidance,
Johnson,
Programming
9.
Vehicle
and Missions,
T. J., Long,
Vol. XXVII,
of Spacecraft
8.
Vehicles
Ascent
and Optimization
7.
Interplanetary
I. E., "Development
R. L., Brand,
tical Sciences,
5.
Launch
"Space
4.
T. E., "Realtime
Vol.
Guidance
Space
Approximate
of American
Control
Optimal
Conference,
Guidance
Law
for

16.
Vehicle
 1828.
Hodges,
D. H.,
Finite
Element
ceedings
17.
Leung,
Leung,
"A/AA
Leung,
"A/AA
1994,
Calise,
Calise,
Nov.
Hamiltonian
Vehicle,"
Pro
to Nearoptimal
Navigation
A. J., Leung,
of an Advanced
Vol.
launch
Launch
& Control
Vehicle
Conference,
to
S. K., "Finite
Vehicle,
"AIAA
Element
Method
Journal
of Guidance,
of optimal
Control
of Guidance,
A. J., "Hybrid
Journal
to Solution
Control,
June
and Dynamics,
Dec.
Institute
Development
R. R.,,
Vol.
17, No. 5,
Launch
Vehice
Vol.
Launch
D. H., Leung,
Institute
Launch
17, No. 5,
Progress
Report,"
Law
Dec.
88 
R. R., "Optimal
 Interim
Progress
Guidance
Report,"
Law
June
89
1989.
S. K., Bless,
System
R. R., "Optimal
 Interim
Progress
Guidance
Report,"
Law
Dec.
89
1989.
S. K., Bless,
System
R. R., "Optimal
 Interim
NASA
System
CR 4376,
Progress
CR192189,
in Optimal
May
Control
Guidance
Report,"
Law
June 90
1990.
R. R., "Optimal
 Interim
NASA
Progress
CR187652,
S. K., Bless,
Finite Elements
NASA
 Interim
Guidance
1989.
System
of Technology,
Guidance"
R. R., "Optimal
S. K., Bless,
of Technology,
"TimeDomain
to LaunchVehicle
Launch
D. H., Leung,
of an Advanced
91, Georgia
System
of Technology,
Institute
A. J., Hodges,
Launch
D. H., Leung,
of an Advanced
90, Georgia
Calise,
and Dynamics,
S. K., Bless,
of Technology,
of an Advanced
A. J., Hodges,
Launch
D. H., Leung,
Institute
A. J., Hodges,
Development
to Nearoptimal
Control,
of Technology,
of an Advanced
90, Georgia
Calise,
D. H., Leung,
Institute
A. J., Hodges,
Development
Approach
of Guidance,
of an Advanced
89, Georgia
Calise,
Bless,
Launch
1990,
pp. 881888.
89, Georgia
Development
26.
R. R., Calise,
Journal
A. J., Hodges,
May
Jun.
of an Advanced
Guidance,
S. K., Calise,
Development
25.
Conference,
pp. 966974.
1994,
24.
Guidance
of an Advanced
Control
R. R., Leung,
Conference,
of MAA
Guidance
of American
Guidance
S. K., Calise,
Guidance,
23.
Control
and Dynamics,
Problems,
22.
for Optimal
D. H., Bless,
Control,
21.
A. J., Bless,
to Optimal
1992.
Hodges,
1994,
Approach
" Proceedings
"Proceedings
for Optimal
20.
method
S. K., Calise,
appear,
19.
Calise,
of American
Guidance,
18.
Concept,
pp. 1824
"An
J.,
Guidance
Report,"
Dec.
Law
90 
1991.
With
Application
1991.
95
Press,
W.
Recipes,
29.
31.
Vol.
Flight
Center,
Computing,
NASA
A. J., Moerder,
Aircraft
Trajectory
Ardema,
B. P., Teukolsky,
S. A.,
Cambridge
Atmosphere,
TR459,
D. D.,
Vetterling,
W.
University
Press,
1975 (COESA
T., Numerical
1986.
1975),
"Goddard
1975.
"Singular
Optimization
M. D., "Singular
Perturbation
and Control,
Techniques
"NASA
Perturbations
in Flight
K. H., O'ReiUy,
J., Singular
CR3597,
for Real
Time
1992.
Mechanics,
" NASA
TM
X62,
1977.
Kokotovic,
P., Khalil,
trol: Analysis
33.
Flannery,
Calise,
380,
32.
H.,
andAppIications,
Minzer,
Space
30.
Theory
of
Bryson,
and Design,
Academic
Press,
Perturbation
Methods
in Con
Hemisphere
Publishing
Corp.,
Optimal
Control
1986.
Optimal
Control,
Perturbation
Method
1968.
34.
Junkins,
J. L., "An
Problems,
"A/AA
Asymptotic
Journal
of Guidance,
Control,
for Nonlinear
and Dynamics,
Vol.
9, 1986,
pp.
357  367.
35.
Baldwin,
J. F., Williams,
Synthesis
of Closed
matica,
Vol.
36.
Prenter,
P. M., Splines
37.
Bensoussan
1982.
96
Loop
5., 1969,
J. H. S., "The
Optimal
Use
Control
of a Method
Laws
of Perturbations
for Nonlinear
Systems,
in the
"Auto
A., Perturbation
Methods
Methods,
Wiley,
in Optimal
1975.
Control,
John
Wiley
& Sons,
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
Form Approved
OMB No. 07040188
PAGE
Pubic mpor_ng burden for tin o4ection of information i estimated Io a.,mrage1 hour pet"msloonse, includingthe time Io1're_
_.
search.'_ esisting data =oun_,
_
lad maintair,i_l the dlla need=l, a_l o_ir_
Ind rlNiasar_ thl colection ol i_ _
S4md oomff,entt reguding thil buRhm e_imato or any oihe mlpGCtOl this
(x_ecbon _ kdocmation, inctudmgsuggest=on=lot' rekmingthis tx._dee, to Washington Headqmuler= Senior, Directorate forInformation Op_abo_
and Flecort=. 1215 Jeffenmn Davis
Hi_,
Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 222024302.. and to the Office ot Mana_
and Budget, Paperwodc Reduction Pm_ect (07040188), Washin_toh, DC 205_3.
1. AGENCY
USE ONLY
(Leave
blank)
2. REPORT
DATE
3. REPORT
April 1995
4. TITLE
AND
Optimal
TYPE
Contractor
SUBTITLE
AND DATES
COVERED
Report
5. FUNDING
Guidance
Law Development
for an Advanced
Launch
System
NUMBERS
G NAG1939
WU 232010405
s. AUTHOR(S)
Anthony
J. Calise
and Martin
S. K. Leung
8. PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
REPORT
NUMBER
7. PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES)
Georgia
Institute of Technology
School of Aerospace
Atlanta, GA 30332
Engineering
10.
9. SPONSORINGI MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES)
SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY
National
Aeronautics
Langley
Research
Hampton,
11.
VA
NUMBER
Center
NASA
CR4667
236810001
SUPPLEMENTARY
Langley
REPORT
NOTES
Technical
Monitor:
Daniel D. Moerder
Final Report
12a.
DISTRIBUTION
Unclassified
Subject
13.
I AVAILABILITY
DISTRIBUTION
CODE
 Unlimited
Categories
ABSTRACT
12b.
STATEMENT
(Maximum
200 words)
The objective of this research effort was to develop a realtime guidance approach for launch vehicles ascent to orbit
injection. Various analytical approaches combined with a variety of model order and model complexity reduction have been
investigated. Singular perturbation methods were first attempted and found to be unsatisfactory. The second approach
based on regular perturbation analysis was subsequently investigated, it also fails because the aerodynamic effects (ignored
in the zero order solution) are too large to be treated as perturbations. Therefore, the study demonstrates that perturbation
methods alone (both regular and singular perturbations) are inadequate for use in developing a guidance algorithm for the
atmospheric flight phase of a launch vehicle. During a second phase of the research effort, a hybrid analytic/numerical
approach was developed and evaluated. The approach combines the numerical methods of collocation and the analytical
method of regular perturbations. The concept of choosing intelligent interpolating functions is also introduced. Regular
perturbation analysis allows the use of a crude representation for the collocation solution, and intelligent interpolating
functions further reduce the number of elements without sacrificing the approximation accuracy. As a result, the combined
method forms a powerful tool for solving realtime optimal control problems. Details of the approach are illustrated in a fourth
order nonlinear example. The hybrid approach is then applied to the launch vehicle problem. The collocation solution is
derived from a bilinear tangent steering law, and results in a guidance solution for the entire flight regime that includes both
a_mospheric and ,_x0atmosph_ric
14.
SUBJECT
fliqht phase_,
1S. NUMBER
TERMS
Optimal Guidance,
Trajectory
Optimization,
Perturbation
Methods
OF PAGES
107
16.
PRICE
CODE
A06
i17.
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
NSN
7540012805500
18.
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
19.
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
20.
LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
St_r,_:P3
Prescn_
298102