Satellite Orbits Control Using Adaptive Neural Networks

Predictive Controllers (ANNPC)
1

2

A. F. Aly, M. Naguib Aly, M. A. Zayan
Faculty of Engineering Alexandria University, Nilesat Company
Alexandria, Egypt
+2012-3942832
m_zayan@yahoo.com
Abstract—This paper develops an Adaptive Neural
Network Predictive Controller (ANNPC) to predict satellite
thruster force and control osculating orbital elements during
maneuvers. An adequate mathematical satellite model is
implemented to simulate the satellite orbit trajectory during
thrusting maneuver. When using Adaptive Neural Network
(ANN) for control, two steps, System Identification and
Control Design, are used. In The system identification
stage, an ANN model is developed to represent the forward
dynamics of the satellite. The prediction error between the
implemented satellite model output and the ANN output is
used as the ANN training signal. In the system control
stage, the ANN model is used to predict future satellite
responses to potential control signals. Using ANNPC in
orbit control will optimize the thrust forces and satellite
parameters due to its inherent characteristic. ANNPC will
be efficient in the autonomous satellite generations and can
change the way space segment and missions operate.

has been placed in an operational orbit about the earth,
subsequent maneuvers will be required to correct the
satellite orbit [2]. In this paper, the Model Predictive
Control (MPC) and ANN [3, 4] techniques have been used
successfully to control the satellite orbits during thrusting
maneuvers. MPC was conceived in the 1970s primarily by
industry. Its popularity steadily increased throughout the
1980s. Model Predictive Control has developed
considerably over the last few years. At present, there are
many applications of predictive control successfully in use
not only in the process industry but also applications to the
control of a diversity of processes ranging from robot
manipulators [5, 6] to aerospace industry. The reason for
this success can be attributed to the fact that the MPC is the
most general way of posing the process control problem in
the time domain. MPC formulation integrates optimal
control, stochastic control, control of processes with dead
time, multi-variable control, and future references when
available. Another advantage of MPC is handling the finite
control horizon used constraints and in general non-linear
processes, which are frequently found in industry. The
capabilities of the multi-layer Neural Network (NN) [7, 3]
with non-linear function have been applied very
successfully in the identification and modeling of dynamic
systems. Combing both techniques of the MPC and ANN
[8, 9] makes it a popular choice for modeling non-linear
systems and for implementing general-purpose non-linear
controllers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
…………………………………………………….
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
2. ORBITAL ELEMENTS VARIATION ..................... 1
3. SATELLITE MANEUVER SIMULATION .............. 5
4. SATELLITE ORBIT CONTROL USING NEURAL
NETWORK PREDICTIVE CONTROL....................... 9
5. CONCLUSION ................................................... 13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................ 13
REFERENCES ....................................................... 20

2. ORBITAL ELEMENTS VARIATION
The satellite orbit is an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola if it is
influenced only by the gravitational filed of a point mass or
spherical body. The orbit elements can be calculated from
position and velocity vector at any time but these elements
will be invariant. Practically, the satellite motion is
perturbated by different forces and the calculation of the
orbit elements will yield a different set of values over an
interval of time. This orbit with varying parameters is called
an osculating orbit. The orbital elements can be treated as
the dependent variables of a set of first order differential

1. INTRODUCTION
The satellite motion is affected by different disturbance
forces depending on the satellite altitude, which lead to
change of the desired path and location. Aside from the
natural perturbation forces, the motion of a spacecraft is
also affected by the action of an onboard thruster system
[1]. Thrusters are frequently applied for orbit control,
attitude control, or combination of both. After a spacecraft
1
2

0-7803-7651-X/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
IEEEAC paper #1218

1

where p is the semi-latus rectum

equations. Conversely, the position and velocity vectors can
be calculated directly from the set of evolving parameters at
any time. In the following analysis [1] let ∂ indicate a
change in an orbital variable due to the application of a
vector f of acceleration other than due to the spherically
symmetrical central gravitational field. The change in the
energy per unit mass over a time interval ∂ t is as follows:

1 2
v
2
−µ
E potentialper unit mass = (
)
r
−µ
Etotalper unit mass = (
)
2a
µ∂a
∂E = 2 = v.f∂t .
2a
E kinematicper unit mass =

p = h2 / µ
Now to calculate out- of -plan elements (i, Ω, ω)

 sin i sin Ω 
h = r × v = h  − sin i cos Ω .


cos i



Where i is the inclination, Ω is the right ascension of the
ascending node and ω is the argument of perigee.
Differentiate this equation and arrange the result in the form

(1)

(14)

which is an orthogonal matrix, transpose equals the inverse.
Therefore

h sin idΩ / dt 
 − hdi / dt  = Γ T (r × f )
2


 dh / dt 

.
(15)
Note that the elements i and Ω refer to the same axes as the
vectors on the right hand side of the above equation in the
inertial Geocentric Equatorial Axes (i, j, k) [1, 10]. The
final form depends on the final axes in use. The rate of
change of the true anomaly θ and the rate of change due

(5)

h 2 = (r × v ).(r × v ) .

(6)
Where h is the angular momentum per unit mass and the
absolute value h= |h| is known as areal velocity. The rate of
change of angular momentum is

~

only to f is ∂θ are derived by applying the perturbation to
the following equation

h2
r=

(7)

µ

1 + e cos θ
a = p /(1 − e 2 )
~
r∂e cos θ − re sin θ∂θ = 2h∂h / µ .

(8)
(9)

(16)
(17)
(18)

In the limit

In order to obtain the rate of change of eccentricity (e)

h = µa (1 − e ) .

(10)

de
1
=
[( pa − r 2 )( v.f ) + (r.v )(r.f ) ,
dt µae

(11)

2

cos Ω − sin Ω cos i sin Ω sin i 
Γ2 =  sin Ω cos Ω cos i − cos Ω sin i  ,


sin i
cos i
 0


where

(4)

Since

2

(13)

(3)

2

dh
= (r × v ).(r × f ) / h
dt
= r × (f × r ).v / h
2
= [ r ( v.f ) − (r.v )(r.f )] / h . 


h sin iΩ


r × f = Γ2  − hi  ,
 h 

(2)

Referring to the orbital plane axes (ir, iθ, iz) where:
• ir is along the radius vector, away from
the center of attraction.
• iθ is perpendicular to r in the plane of the
motion and in the direction of increasing
the true anomaly (θ).
• iz is the normal to the plane motion.
Where the satellite mass is m, velocity vector is v, position
vector is r, the ellipse major-axis of orbit is a, and the Earth
gravitational coefficient is µ. In the limit this gives the rate
of change of energy as

da 2a
=
( v.f ) .
dt
µ

(12)

~

de 2h dh
= r cos θ

re sin θ
dt
dt µ dt
h(r.v ) = rµe sin θ .

By differentiate

(19)
(20)

By differentiating

~
1 dh 

de p 
re cos θ
= − r sin θ
+ (r.f ) + (r.v )
dt
dt h 
h dt 

2

~
p
 dh

2h
re
= ( p / h ) cosθ (r.f ) +  2 cosθ (r.v ) − sin θ 
dt
µ
h
 dt

v.f = µ / p [ef r sin θ + (1 + e cosθ ) fθ ]
=

p

2h
 2 cos θ (r.v ) − sin θ  = − sin θ [ p + r (1 + e cos θ ) − er cos θ ] / h
h
µ

µe
h

sin θf r +

The required transformation from i j k axes to r θ z axes

= − sin θ ( p + r ) / h ,

h sin idΩ / dt 
 − hdi / dt  = Γ T (r × f ) .
2
ijk


 dh / dt 
= Γ2T Γ2 Γ1 (r × f ) rθz

and finally

~
1 
dh 

=
p cos θ (r.f ) − ( p + r ) sin θ  . (21)

dt 
dt
reh 

The variation of the argument of perigee ω is obtained by
i x .r = [cos Ω sin Ω 0].r = r cos(θ + ω ) .

 0 
= Γ1  − rf z 


 rfθ 

Differentiation results in

dΩ
[ − sin Ω cos Ω 0].r
dt
.
~
 dθ dω 

= − r sin(θ + ω )
+
dt 
 dt

Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t, n, z) in orbital
plane

r
[ − sin Ω cos Ω 0].r = [− sin Ω cos Ω 0] Γ2 Γ1 0
 
0
= cos i sin(θ + ω )r

~

dΩ dθ
= − cos i

.
dt
dt
dt

(1 + 2e cosθ + e 2 )

v cos γ =

µ
p

e sin θ

µ

(1 + e cosθ
p
r.f = r ( f t sin γ − f n cos γ )

=

(23)

µre

sin θf t −

vh
v.f = vf t

h
fn
v

by means of transformation from t n z axes to r θ z

(24)

sin γ
Γ3 = sin γ

 0

− cos γ
sin γ
0

0
0 ,

1

since

Tangential and Normal Components
From the orbital plane axes (ir, iθ, iz) then
r.f = rf r ,
and
r.v = rv sin γ ,
where γ is the angle between the velocity vector v and iθ
measured clockwise from the latter

Also

p

v sin γ =

We now have the required equations for variations of the
orbital elements. The final form of the equations depends on
the axes in use.

tan γ =

µ

v=

where

or

(25)

(22)

Therefore

cos(θ + ω ) − sin(θ + ω ) 0
Γ1 =  sin(θ + ω ) cos(θ + ω ) 0


0
0
1

~
 dθ dω 
dΩ
,
= −
+
cos i

dt
dt
dt

.

h

r

(r × f ) tnz

− rf z cos γ



,
=
− rf z sin γ


 rf n sin γ + rf t cos γ 

then

e sin θ
.
1 + e cos θ

0
h sin idΩ / dt 


 − hdi / dt  = Γ r 
.
− fz
1 



 dh / dt 
 f n sin γ + f t cos γ 
3

(26)

f(u )

1

x1

fn

f(u )

2

x2

ft

f(u )

3

x3

fz

f(u )
x4
f(u )
x5
f(u )
x6
f(u )
x7
f(u )
x8
f(u )
x9

M ux

SysM u x

1 /s
In te g 1
1 /s
In te g 2
1 /s
In te g 3
1 /s
In te g 4
1 /s
In te g 5
1 /s
In te g 6
1 /s
In te g 7
1 /s
In te g 8
1 /s
In te g 9

u (4 )

1

y1

a

u (5 )

2

y2

e

u (6 )

3

y3

h

f(u )

4

y4

T HET A

f(u )

5

y5

theta

f(u )

6

y6

OMEGA

f(u )

7

y7

i

f(u )

8

y8

omega

f(u )

9

y9

T HET A+OMEGA

Figure 1- Satellite Orbits Trajectory Model during Thrusting Maneuver (Satellite Plant Model) Using SIMULINK

~

r
1
= − [2 sin θf t + ( 2e + cosθ ) f n ]
dt
ev
a
dΩ r sin(ω + θ )
=
fz
dt
h sin i
di r cos(ω + θ )
=
fz
dt
h
~

dΩ dθ
= − cos i

dt
dt
dt

Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t, n, z) Axes
2

da 2a v
=
f
dt
µ t

de 1
r
= [2( e + cos θ ) f t − sin θf n ]
dt v
a
dh rh p
=
[ f t + e sin θf n ]
dt pv r
θ∗ =θ +ω
~
dθ * dθ dθ dω
dΩ
=
+
+
= h / r 2 − cos i
dt
dt
dt
dt
dt

(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
4

(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)

A substantial amount of propellant is consumed during a
single maneuver, which results in continuous change of the
spacecraft mass along the burn. Despite the variety of the
spacecraft propulsion systems, a simple, constant thrust
model is sufficient to describe the motion of a spacecraft
during thrust. The propulsion system eject a mass of
propellant per time interval dt at a velocity ve.

3. SATELLITE MANEUVER SIMULATION
Numerical Integration Methods
The high accuracy, which is required in computation of
satellite orbit, can only be achieved by using numerical
methods for the solution of the equation of motion. A
variety of methods have been developed for the numerical
integration of ordinary differential equations. Multi-step
methods with the availability of variable-order and step-size
are suited for the satellite orbits from near circular orbits to
high eccentricity orbits without any precautions. Due to
their flexibility, variable order and step-size multi-step
methods are ideal candidates for use in general satellite orbit
prediction and determination systems.

dm = m dt .
A space craft mass m experiences a thrust

F = m v e .
And the acceleration

f=

F m
=
ve .
m m

Integration over the burn time ∆t, the total velocity
increment is given by

Satellite Orbits Correction

t 0 + ∆t

The three component of a corrective velocity (vn, vt, vz)
maneuver affect the 6 orbital elements, and therefore, it is
not common to require the adjustment of all the orbital
elements. Geostationary satellite orbits [11] are assumed to
be equatorial orbits with a period equal to the sidereal day
(86164.1 s), i.e. corresponding to the daily rotation of the
Earth relative to the stars. A satellite of a circular orbit with
radius of approximately 42164 km will appear stationary to
an observer on the earth. Although the perturbations on
satellites in geostationary orbits are very small, they become
important due to the tight tolerance arising from the mission
requirements. Station keeping, therefore has to be
performed, and the spacecraft is maneuvered in order to
keep it within strict latitude and longitude limit defining a
dead-zone. The magnitude of the dead-zone depends upon
the characteristics of the communication antennas and
transponders. It is common with modern communication
satellites to require that the satellite remains stationary
relative to the ground within ± 0.1 degree in both latitude
and longitude due to narrow antenna beam width of the
ground transmitter. If the inclination of the orbits drifts
away from the Equator then the satellite will appear to have
a daily oscillation in latitude equal to the magnitude of the
non-zero inclination. The changes in the inclination of a
geostationary orbit arise from the effects of the gravitational
attraction of the Moon and the Sun. The perturbations
caused by the Sun and the Moon are predominantly out-ofplane effects causing a change in the inclination and in the
right ascension of the orbit’s ascending node. In-plane
perturbations also occur, but these are second order effects
and need to be considered when extremely tight tolerance,
i.e. about ± 0.03 degree, is required.

∆v =

∫ f (t )dt = − v e

t0

∆v = −

m ( t 0 + ∆t )
1
m
m0

dm = − v e ln

m(t 0 + ∆t )
m0

m ∆t
F
.
ln(1 −
m
m0

Assuming that a mass has a constant flow rate and making
use of the total velocity increment ∆v, the acceleration may
be expressed [10] as

f (t ) =

m

1

m(t )

m ∆t 


− ln1 −
m 0 

∆v
∆t

(37)

Satellite Maneuver Modeling
An adequate mathematical satellite orbit trajectory model
during thrusting maneuver is implemented by treating the
orbital elements as the dependent variables of a set of first
order differential equations in (t, n, z) axes using numerical
integration methods. Due to very small interval time of the
propulsion system burning required for the satellite
maneuver the equations of Tangential-Normal axes are
applicable to simulate the satellite maneuver during
thrusting period. A model is implemented, using SIMULINK
[12], to simulate the satellite maneuver. There are three
inputs, which represent the three corrective acceleration
vectors samples in Tangential-Normal axes (fn, ft, fz), and
nine outputs, which describe the orbital elements states (a,

~

e, h, θ*(THETA), θ (theta), Ω (OMEGA), ω (omega), i, and
θ*+Ω (THETA+OMEGA) ) as shown in Figure 1.

Thrust Forces

Case Study (Satellite Maneuver Simulation)

The maneuver may conveniently be treated as instantaneous
velocity increments ∆v occurring at the impulsive maneuver
time tm whenever the thrust duration is small as compared to
the orbital period.

The following case study contains the information of the
typical satellite data history in geostationary orbit, which is
used in the implementing of the North-South maneuvers.
The main object of the simulated maneuver is to correct the
non-zero inclination of a geostationary satellite, which is

v(t m+ ) = v(t m− ) + ∆v(t m ) .

(36)
5

Table 1 - Orbit Bulletin Epoch, Before Maneuver
in Adaptive Keplerian Elements at 16/3/2002
12:06:40 UTC with m=1083.255 kg
42166.35× 103 meter
a
e_x
0.00036276
e_y
-0.000007898
i_x
-0.00049069 degree
i_y
0.00026083 degree
353.006504 degree
L
Table 2 - The Velocity Increment Vectors in
Tangential Normal Axes during Pre-Maneuver
with 50 s Pulse Duration
-0.00119 m/s
vn pre-maneuver
vt pre-maneuver
-0.00146 m/s
vz pre-maneuver
-0.25767 m/s
Table 3 - The Velocity Increment Vectors in
Tangential Normal Axes during Maneuver with
57.094 s Pulse Duration
-0.00644 m/s
vn maneuver
vt maneuver
-0.00794 m/s
vz maneuver
-1.39760 m/s

-4

0

x 10

fn

-0.5
-1
-1.5
0
-4
x 10
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

20

40

60

80

100

120

20

40

60

80

100

120

ft

-0.5
-1
-1.5
0
-0.005
-0.01

fz

-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
0

time in sec

Figure 2- Acceleration Vectors in Tangential-Normal
Axes (fn, ft, and fz) in m/s2

called North-South maneuver. North-South maneuver is
defined also as the main Station-Keeping maneuver, which
is accomplished by firing one or several thrusters for the
period of time required to achieve the change in orbital
velocity. The main maneuver is occurring in routine
schedule to compensate the perturbation forces. Premaneuver is applied to the satellite in advance of the
maneuver with 10% of the full thrust capacity (offmodulation thrust) in order to estimate disturbing torques
variations. After fluids of the propulsion system have been
relocated and the estimator has converged, the open loop
compensation is modified according to estimations done and
then full thrust is used. Orbit bulletin before maneuver in
adaptive Keplerian elements are shown in Table 1 where

Applying the velocity increment at 19/03/2000 9:08:57
UTC and propagating the orbital parameters starting from
the last orbital determination process to get the epoch of the
orbital elements at the thrusting time [13]. Using the
implemented model in SIMULINK with sampling time =
0.57094 s and plotting the orbital elements during premaneuver and maneuver, Figure 2 shows the acceleration
samples of the pre-maneuver and maneuver respectively.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 describe the variation in the orbital
elements due to the thrusting forces. It is shown that
influence of the thrusting forces decrease the inclination and
semi-major axis values. Also, it is clear that the direction of
the velocity increment is very important in adjusting the
orbital elements. Reviewing the previous differential
equations (27~35), it is seen that the value of the inclination
will be very sensitive to sign value of the cos(θ*). Increasing
the value of the velocity increment in -z direction is not
sufficient to guarantee the decreasing in the inclination
angle because it is important to supervise and predict all
other parameters related to the satellite orbit during
maneuver. Tables 4 and 5 contain the initial and final values
of orbital elements during pre-maneuver and total maneuver
(pre-maneuver + maneuver). It is shown that small changes
in inclination leads to large amount changes in the perigee
location and the right ascension of the ascending node. The
simulated satellite plant model has succeeded to achieve the
main object of the maneuver and produces a typical
scenario of the satellite maneuver.

e x = e cos(Ω + ω )
e y = e sin(Ω + ω )
i x = sin i cos Ω
i y = sin i sin Ω
L ≈ Ω + ω + θ − GMST = True-Longitude.

Where GMST=Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time which
denotes the angles between the mean Vernal equinox of
date and the Greenwich meridian. The velocity increments
vectors in Tangential-Normal axes during pre-maneuver
with 50 s pulse duration are shown in Table 2. The velocity
increment vectors in Tangential-Normal axes during
maneuver with 57.094 s pulse duration are shown in Table
3.
Results of Maneuver Simulation

6

x 10

7

x 10

4 .2 1 6 6

-4

x 10

3.72

11

1.29 64

4 .2 1 6 6

1.29 64

4 .2 1 6 6

h

1.29 64

e

3 .715

a

4 .2 1 6 6

1.29 64

40

60

310

THE TA

305

300

1.29 64
0

20

40

60

0.2

160

0.15

158

0.1

156

0.05

295

154

0
0

20

40

60

0.032

20

40

60

om ega

i

0

98.3

192

0.03

98.2

190

20

40

60

60

20

40

60

20

40

60

98.1

188
0

40

98.4

194

0.029

20

152
0

196

0.031

0

THE TA + O M E G A

20

OMEGA

3.71
0

theta

4 .2 1 6 6

0

20

t im e

40

60

0

Figure 3 - Satellite Orbital Variation during Pre-maneuver (a in m, h in m2/s, angles in degree, and time in s)
7

x 10

4 .2 1 6 6

x 10

11

1.29 64
1.29 64

3.74

1.29 64

e

a

4 .2 1 6 6

-4

3.76

h

x 10
4 .2 1 6 6

3.72
1.29 64

150

280

260

THE TA

300

3.7
50

100

150

0.8

220

0.6

200

0.4

180

0.2

240
50

100

150

0.03

1.29 64
50

160

0
50

100

150

200

140
50

0.026

0.024
50

98.5

om ega

i

160

98.4

140

100

150

120
50

150

100

150

100

150

98.6

180
0.028

100

100

150

98.3
50

THE TA + O M E G A

100

theta

4 .2 1 6 6
50

OM EGA

4 .2 1 6 6

t im e

Figure 4 - Satellite Orbital Variation during Maneuver (a in m, h m2/s, angles in degree, and time in s)

7

7

x 10

4 .2 1 6 6

x 10
1 .2 9 6 4

3 .7 4

1 .2 9 6 4

3 .7 2

1 .2 9 6 4

3 .7
0

50

100

150

0

50

100

150

1 .2 9 6 4
0
220

300

0 .6

200

280

theta

0 .8

THE TA

320

0 .4

260

180

0 .2

160

0
0

50

100

150
200

0 .0 3

180

0 .0 2 8

160

i

0 .0 3 2

0 .0 2 6

50

100

150

0

9 8 .4

9 8 .2

50

100

150

50

100

150

50

100

150

98

120
0

150

9 8 .6

140

0 .0 2 4

100

140
0

om ega

240

50

OM EGA

4 .2 1 6 6
4 .2 1 6 6

11

h

e

a

4 .2 1 6 6

-4

3 .7 6

THE TA O M E G A

x 10
4 .2 1 6 6

0

50

100

150

0

t im e

Figure 5 - Satellite Orbital Variation during Total Maneuver Period (Pre-Maneuver + Maneuver) (a in m, h m2/s, angles in
degree, and time in s)

Satellite Orbit Elements

Table 4 – Satellite Orbital Variation during Pre-maneuver
Initial Value at t=0
Final Value at t= 50
Amount of Change

a in meter
42166.35×103
42166310.21
-39.78
e
0.00037125
0.00037195
0.00000069
2
11
11
h in m /s
1.296438395×10
1.2964377831994×10
-61180.057
THETA in degree
306.2
298.85
-7.34
theta in degree
0
0.11526
0.11526
OMEGA in degree
152.00
159.55
7.54
i in degree
0.03183960
0.02926856
-0.00257103
Omega in degree
195.71
188.04
-7.66
THETA+OMEGA in degree
98.12
98.33
0.20
Table 5 - Satellite Orbital Variation during Total Maneuver Period (Pre-Maneuver + Maneuver)
Satellite Orbit Elements
Initial Value at t=0
Final Value at t= 50
Amount of Change
a in meter
42166.35×103
42166.0935837467×103
-256.41
e
0.00037125
0.00037575
0.00000449
h in m2/s
1.29643839500×1011
1.2964344514864×1011
-394351.35
THETA in deg
306.2
245.50
-60.69
theta in deg
0
0.73377979
0.73377979
OMEGA in deg
152.0067823
213.152167139785
61.14
i in deg
0.03183960
0.02816396
-0.00367563
Omega in deg
195.7104787
133.831320930936
-61.87
THETA+OMEGA in deg
98.1295
98.57543008
0.44593008
8

process as close as possible to the reference
trajectory. This criterion usually takes the
form of a quadratic of the errors between the
predicted output signal and the predicted
reference trajectory. An explicit solution can
be obtained if the criterion is quadratic, the
model is linear and there are no constraints,
otherwise an iterative optimization method
has to be used.
3. The control signal u(t|t) is sent to the process
whilst the next control signals calculated are
rejected, because at the next sampling instant
(t+1) is already known and step 1 is repeated
with this new value and all the sequences are
brought up to date. Thus, the u(t+1|t+1) is
calculated which in principle will be different
to the u(t+1|t) because of the new
information available) using the receding
horizon concept.
In order to implement this strategy, a model is used to
predict the future plant outputs, based on past and current
values and on the proposed optimal future control actions.

4. SATELLITE ORBIT CONTROL USING NEURAL
NETWORK PREDICTIVE CONTROL
Model Predictive Control (MPC)
The term MPC does not designate a specific control strategy
but a very wide range of control methods, which make an
explicit use of a model of the process to obtain the control
signal by minimizing an objective function. These design
methods lead to linear controllers, which have practically
the same structure and present adequate degrees of freedom.
The ideas appearing in greater or lesser degree in all the
predictive control family are basically defined in the
following points:
• Explicit use of a model to predict the process output
at future time instants (horizon).
• Calculation of a control sequence minimizing an
objective function.
• Receding strategy, so that at each instant the horizon
is displaced towards the future, which involves the
application of the first control signal of the sequence
calculated at each step.
While MPC is suitable for almost any kind of problem, it
displays its main strength when applied to problems with a
large number of manipulated and controlled variables. The
various MPC algorithms only differ amongst themselves in
the model used to represent the process and the noises and
the cost function to be minimized. This type of control is of
an open nature within which many works have been
developed, being widely received by the academic world
and by industry. The good performance of these
applications shows the capacity of the MPC to achieve
highly efficient control systems able to operate during long
periods of time with hardly any intervention

Object Function
The general aim is that the future output (y) on the
considered horizon should follow a determined reference
signal (w) and, at the same time, the control effort (∆u)
necessary for applying. The general expression for such an
object function will be:

J ( N1 , N 2 , N u ) =
N2

∑ δ ( j )[ yˆ (t + j t ) − w(t + j )]

2

+

. (38)

j = N1
Nu

∑ λ ( j )[∆u(t + j − 1)]

MPC Methodology and Schema

2

j =1

Where N1 and N2 are the minimum and maximum cost
horizons and Nu is the control horizon. The weighting
factors δ(j) and λ(j) are sequences that consider the future
behavior, usually constant values or exponential sequences
are considered.

The following strategy represents the methodology of all the
controllers’ characteristics belonging to the MPC [14]
family:
1. The future outputs for a determined horizon
N, called the prediction horizon, are predicted
at each instant t using the process model.
These predicted outputs y(t+k|t) for k = 1...
N, which indicate the value of the variable at
the instant (t+k) calculated at time t, depend
on the known values up to instant t (past
inputs and outputs) and on the future control
signals u(t + k|t), k = 0... N - 1, which are
those to be sent to the system and to be
calculated.
2. To keep the process as close as possible to
the reference trajectory w(t + k), which can
be the set point itself or a close
approximation of it, the set of future control
signals is calculated by optimizing a
determined criterion in order to keep the

δ ( j) = α N

2−

j

.
If the parameter α is a value between 0 and 1, the errors
farthest from instant t are penalized more than those nearest
to it, giving rise to smoother control with less effort. If α>1
the first errors are more penalized and a tighter control is
occurred. The weighting factor λ acts as a damper on the
predicted control. Normally bounds in the amplitude and in
the slew rate of the control signal and limits in the output
will be considered and adding these constrained to the
objective function to be minimized. The control law is
imposed by the use of the control horizon Nu, which
consists of considering that after a certain interval Nu<N2
there is no variation in the proposed control signals. When
the condition that the output attains the reference value at a
determined instant, stability results are guaranteed.
9

MPC Algorithm
The MPC algorithm has the following important steps.
1. Generate a reference trajectory.
2. Start with the previous calculated control
input vector, and predict the performance of
the plant using the model.
3. Calculate a new control input that minimizes
the object function,
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until desired
minimization is achieved,
5. Send the first control input, to the plant,
6. Repeat entire process for each time step.
There are several minimization algorithms that have been
implemented in MPC such as Non-gradient, Simplex, and
Successive Quadratic Programming. The quality of the
plant’s model affects the accuracy of a prediction. A
reasonable model of the plant is required to implement
MPC. With a linear plant there are tools and
techniques available to make modeling easier, but when the
plant is non-linear this task is more difficult. For non-linear
plant, the ability of the MPC to make accurate predictions
can be enhanced if a neural network is used to learn the
dynamics of the plant instead of standard modeling
techniques. Improved predictions affect rise time, overshoot, and the energy content of the control signal.

Figure 6 - Multi-Layer Feed-Forward neural Network
with a time-delayed structure

Adaptive Neural Network Predictive Control (ANNPC)
Since a neural network will be used to model the plant, the
configuration of the network architecture should be
considered. Figure 6, depicts a multi-layer feed-forward
neural network with a time delayed structure. The inputs to
this network consist of external inputs, u(n) and y(n-l), and
their corresponding delay nodes, u(n-l),…, u(n-nd), and y(n2), …, y(n-dd). The parameters nd and dd represent the
number of delay nodes associated with their respective input
node. The second input could instead have been the
estimated output yn(n-l) and it's delayed values. The
network as shown in Figure 6 has one hidden layer
containing several hidden nodes that use a general output
function. The output node uses a linear output function with
a slope of one for scaling the output.

Figure 7 – Network Prediction
network feedback is displayed as one network feeding
another.

Prediction Using A Neural Network

Designing Adaptive Neural Predictive Controllers to

The ANNPC algorithm uses the output of the plant’s model
to predict the plant’s dynamics to an arbitrary input from the
current time n, to some future time, n+k. Consider a
network with two hidden nodes, one output node, one input
consisting of u(n) and two previous inputs, and of three
previous outputs. To produce the output yn(n+2), input
u(n+1) and u(n+2) are needed. The prediction is started at
time n, with the initial conditions of [u(n) u(n-1)] and [y(n)
y(n-1) y(n-2)] and the estimated input u(n+1). The output of
this process is yn(n+1), which is fed back to the network
and the process is repeated to produce the predicted plant’s
output yn(n+2). This process is shown in Figure 7. The

Control Satellite Orbits
The main object of the controllers is to control the satellite
orbits parameters during thrusting maneuver. There are
typically two steps involved when using neural networks for
control, system identification and control design. The first
stage of model predictive control is to train a neural network
to represent the forward dynamics of the plant. The neural
network plant model is trained off-line, in batch form, using
any of the training algorithms [7, 12]. The prediction error
between the plant output and the neural network output is
used as the neural network training signal. The neural
10

o p ti m i z a te r b l o c k

C o n t ro l S i g n a l

si g n a l 4

si g n a l 3

si g n a l 2

1

si g n a l 1

R e f e re n c e

o p ti m i z e r

1

u

y hat

y

y h a t1

N N m o d e l

2

P la n t o u tp u t

Figure 8 – Neural Network Predictive Control Process
Figure 9 – Model Predictive Control (MPC) Block-set
network plant model uses previous inputs and previous
plant outputs to predict future values of the plant output. In
the controller design phase, the ANN model is used to
predict future plant responses to potential control signals.
An optimization algorithm then computes the control
signals that optimize future plant performance. The
optimization uses a technique of backtracking tracking
algorithm, which from searches in a given direction to
locate the minimum of the performance function in that
direction. The backtracking algorithm is a linear search
routine that begins with a step multiplier of 1 and then
backtracks until an acceptable reduction in the performance
is obtained. The structure of the Neural Network Predictive
Control is given in Figure 8. The ANNPC is implemented
using MPC (SIMULINK block), which is contained in the
Neural Network Toolbox block-set of the MATLAB V.6
[12]. The MPC block-set, as shown in Figure 9, is based on
the receding horizon technique and the optimization is
based on Newton’s (sometimes called Newton-Raphson)
algorithm [8, 12]. The MATLAB functions PREDOPT [12] and
CSRCHBAC [12] have been used.
Three SISO models are designed by using ANNPC to
predict the acceleration vectors (fn, ft, fz) increment in (t, n,
z) axes required to control the angular momentum per unit
mass (h), the major axis (a), and the inclination (i)
respectively. The MPC block-set is used to implement the
ANNPC controllers and guide the satellite orbits parameters
during maneuvers. The first step in model predictive control
is to determine the ANN model for the satellite orbit
trajectory during thrusting maneuver (system identification).
Next, the controller uses this ANN model to predict future
performance. Satellite orbit trajectory model during
thrusting maneuver (satellite plant model), which has been
simulated in the previous section, is used to develop the
ANN model by generating training data. This network is
trained off-line in batch mode. In Figure 9 the controller
consists of the ANN model for the satellite trajectory during
thrusting maneuver and the optimization block. The
optimization block determines the value of the acceleration
vectors that minimize the object function of the predictive

Figure 10 – Structure of Neural Network Model
control algorithm and then the optimal signal is input to the
satellite plant model as shown in Figure 10. The ANNPC
uses the ANN model to predict the future performance of
the satellite. The controller then calculates the control inputs
that will optimize satellite parameters over a specified future
time horizon. Any poor performance and instability due to
the interactions between processes variables can be avoided
thanks to the setting constraints of the input and the output.
The variation of the perturbation forces depends on the time
of the year and therefore the velocity increment will be
varied according to this change and is limited by the thruster
characteristics. The input and output constraints are
depending on the satellite application and thruster
characteristics.
Training data for pre maneuver phase
A set of collective cycles from typical history data of
implemented North-South maneuvers for a current
operating geostationary satellite is used to the set constraints
of the ANNPCs system. The maximum and minimum input
samples of the acceleration vector fn minimum input during
pre maneuver are set to value 2.618×10-5 and 2.142×10-5
m/s2 respectively. The maximum and minimum inputs
samples of the acceleration vector ft during pre maneuver
are set to value 3.212×10-5 and 2.628×10-5 m/s2
respectively. The maximum and minimum input samples of
the acceleration vector fz during pre maneuver are set to
value 0.0056687 and 0.0046381 m/s2 respectively. The
parameters and characteristic of the controllers are as
follows:
11

NN Predictive Controller of h (ANNPC1)

1

Reference

Optim.

h ref.

satellite orbit trajectory model during thrusting maneuver
Control
Signal
Plant
Output

-1

NN
Model

Gain

satellite model

f n ANNPC

h

NN Predictive Controller of a (ANNPC 2)

2

Reference

Optim.
a

a ref.
Control
Signal
Plant
Output

NN
Model

i

-1
Gain1

f t ANNPC

NN Predictive Controller of i (ANNPC 3)

3

Reference

Optim.

i ref.
Control
Signal
Plant
Output

NN
Model

-1
Gain2

f z ANNPC

Neural Network Predictive Control of satellite orbit trajectory during maneuver

Figure 11 – Maneuver Simulation Using ANNPCs to Control satellite Orbit

Two layers feed-forward neural networks with a time
delayed structure as shown in Figure 10. The inputs
to the networks consists of external inputs fn(n), ft(n),
fz(n), and h(n-1), a(n-1), i(n-1) and their
corresponding two delay nodes. The networks have
one hidden layer containing 10 hidden nodes that use
a tan-sigmoid transfer function. The output node uses
a linear output function with a slope of one for
scaling the output.
Training function is trainlm, which is a network
training function that updates weight and bias
values according to Levenberg-Marquardt
optimization [12].

The cost horizon is 7, the control horizon is 2, the
control weighting factor. The backtracking algorithm
iteration number is set to two iterations. The search
parameter of the, which determines when the line
search stops is 1.0e-8. The sampling time = 0.57094
s.
The simulated satellite plant model, which has been
developed before, is used to generate training data for the
NN models. The training data is generated by applying a
series of constrained step inputs to the SIMULINK plant
model as shown in Figures 12, 13, and 14. The response of
the plant is compared to the response of the trained network
and the corresponding error between the plant and the
network are shown in Figure 12, 13, and 14.
12

minimize the fuel consumption because of its optimization
technique. Nonlinear optimizations are computationally
expensive processes. The use of Newton-Raphson is
intended to produce a computationally efficient process.
The Newton-Raphson optimization has been used and it has
been found to converge to a good result within two
iterations. Increasing the available training data will refine
and enhanced the ANN model. The flexibility and inherent
characteristics of the ANNs in representing non-linear and
dynamic models permit realizing high efficiency maneuver
and improve the performance of the controllers. Using ANN
with MPC technique is a very good solution due to its
strength in dealing with non-linearity system. The ANNPC
has applied the required rehearsal of the satellite maneuver
with stable and good performance. The ANNPCs can be
tuned easily to satisfy satellite application and operation
requirements.

Training data for maneuver phase:
Repeat the same steps as shown in the previous section but
with the maneuver parameters. The maximum and minimum
inputs samples of the acceleration vector fn during pre
maneuver are set to value 0.00012408 and 0.00010152 m/s2
respectively. The maximum and minimum input samples of
the acceleration vector ft during pre-maneuver are set to
value 0.00015298 and 0.00012516 m/s2 respectively. The
maximum and minimum input samples of the acceleration
vector fz during pre maneuver are set to value 0.0269 and
0.022 m/s2 respectively.
The Simulated Satellite Plant model is used to generate
training data for the NN models as shown in Figures 15, 16,
and 17.
Maneuver Simulation using ANNPC
Using SIMULINK to simulate the maneuver, using the
implemented ANNPCs, the simulated output data available
from the previous implemented maneuver is used to drive
(the reference simulate signals of (a, h, i)) the ANNPCs.
Numerical integration methods (ode113 function [12]) is
used in the simulation with variable step-size and sampling
time = 0.57094 s. The ANNPCs calculate and optimize the
acceleration vectors samples (fn, ft, fz) in (t, n, z) axes and
input to the satellite plant model as shown in Figure11. The
simulation is performed over the time of the pre-maneuver
and maneuver, which is set to 50, and 57.094 s respectively.

5. CONCLUSION
Using ANNPC in satellite orbits control will optimize the
satellite orbits parameters and the thrust forces and due to
its main strength when applied to problems with a large
number of manipulated and controlled multi-variable. Also,
the ANNPC have the ability to impose the constraints on
both the manipulated and controlled variables. It is very
efficient when future references are known, as in case of the
satellite maneuver. The fuel consumption can be minimized,
which is the main issue during satellite lifetime, because of
the ANNPC optimization technique. Using Kalman filters
for on-line parameters estimation [13], the ANNPCs can be
used on-board, which will handle the maneuver in
autonomous way, eliminating the need of human
calculations and introduce a robustness controller. It can be
used to control any kind of earth satellite orbits including
geostationary because it is ability to handle a great variety
of processes, from those with relatively simple dynamics to
other more complex ones, including systems with long
delay times or of non-minimum phase or unstable ones.
ANNPC permits on-board maneuver planning, calculation,
and introduces safety condition when the Earth Control
Stations (ECS) is out of order, which will recover the
absence of ECS and subsequently downgrade the operation
costs. The open methodology of the ANNPC based on
certain basic principles, which allow for future extensions.
ANNPC is a major element in introducing the philosophy of
"robustness, better, faster, safety, cheaper" to next
generations of ECS and spacecraft operation.

ANNPCs Simulation Results
As shown in Figures 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 26, which
represent the outputs of the satellite plant model using
ANNPCs with the references simulated signals, the
ANNPCs can follow and trace the reference simulated
signals (or the output constrained) required for controlling
the satellite orbit parameters. Comparing among the final
states samples of a, h, and i of the reference simulated
maneuver and the simulated maneuver using the ANNPCs
at t = +107.094 s and calculating the percentage errors as
shown in Table 6. It indicates that the high efficiency that
the ANNPC could achieve during maneuver simulation.
Figures 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 represent the acceleration
vectors samples of the reference simulated maneuver in
comparison with the output of the ANNPCs. ANNPC can
Table 6 – ANNPCs Maneuver Output Verses
Reference Simulated Maneuver a in meter, h in m2/s,
i in degree
Reference
ANNPCs
Error
Simulated
Maneuver Output %
Maneuver Output
a
42166.090×103
6×10-6
42166.093×103
h
i

1.29643445×1011
0.02816396

1.29643440×1011
0.02840392

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the Egyptian Satellite company Nilesat
(one of the Egyptian Radio and TV Union companies) for
providing working and training in the field of aerospace.

3×10-6
0.85
13

Input

-5

x 10

2.6

Plant Output

11

x 10
1.2964

2.55

1.2964
2.5

f

1.2964

n

2.45
2.4
2.35

h

1.2964
1.2964
1.2964
0

10

20

30

40

0

Error

10

30

40

NN Output

11

x 10

1

20

1.2964

0.5

1.2964
0
1.2964
-0.5

h

1.2964

-1

1.2964
1.2964

-1.5
0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

time (s)

Figure 12 – Pre-Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (h) in m2/s
-5

Plant Output

7

x 10

3.014

4.2166

3.012

x 10

4.2166

3.01

f

4.2166

t

a

3.008
4.2166
3.006
3.004

4.2166
0

10

20

40

0

Error

-6

x 10

10

30

10

30

40

NN Output

7

4.2166

20

x 10

8
4.2166
6

a

4.2166

4
2

4.2166

0
-2

4.2166
0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

time (s)

Figure 13 – Pre-Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (a) in meter
Input

-3

x 10

5.4

Plant Output
0.0315

5.35

f

z

5.3

0.031

5.25

0.0305

5.2

i

0.03

5.15
0.0295
5.1

0

10

-7

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

NN Output

Error

x 10

1.5

20

0.0315
1
0.031
0.5

i

0.0305
0
0.03
- 0.5
0.0295
-1

0

10

20
i

30
(

40

0

)

10

20
30
time ( s)

Figure14 – Pre-Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (i) in degree

14

40

Input

-4

x 10

1.18
1.178

1.2964

1.176

f

1.2964

1.174

n

h

1.2964

1.172
1.17

1.2964

1.168

1.2964

1.166

Plant Output

11

x 10
1.2964

1.2964
0

10

20

30

40

50

0

Error

10

30

40

50

40

50

NN Output

11

x 10

0.4

20

1.2964

0.3

1.2964

0.2

1.2964

0.1

h

1.2964

0
-0.1

1.2964

-0.2

1.2964
1.2964

-0.3
0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30
time (s)

Figure 15 - Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (h) in m2/s

Plant Output

7

-4

x 10

x 10

1.395

4.2166

Input
1.39

4.2166

1.385

f

t

1.38

a

4.2166

1.375
4.2166
1.37
1.365

4.2166
0

10

20

40

50

0

20

30

40

50

40

50

40

50

40

50

NN Output

x 10
4.2166

0.5

4.2166

0

4.2166

-0.5

4.2166

-1

10

7

Error

-3

x 10

1

30

a

4.2166
0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

time (s)

30
time (s)

Figure 16 - Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (a) in meter
Input

Plant Output

0.026
0.029
0.0259

f

z

0.0285

0.0258

0.028

0.0257

0.0275

i

0.027

0.0256

0.0265
0.0255
0.026
0.0254

0

10

20

-7

40

50

0

10

Error

x 10

1

30

20

30

NN Output
0.029
0.0285

0.5

0.028
0.0275

0

i

0.027
-0.5

0.0265
0.026

-1

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

time (s)

10

20

30
time (s)

Figure 17 - Maneuver Training Data for ANNPC of (i) in degree
15

11

x 10

ref
ANNPC
1.2964

1.2964

1.2964

h

1.2964

1.2964

1.2964

1.2964
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

time

Figure 18 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (h) in Comparison With (h) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Pre-Maneuver (h) in m/s2, time in s
7

x 10
4.2166

ref
ANNPC

4.2166

4.2166

a

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

time

Figure 19 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (a) in Comparison With (a) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Pre-Maneuver (a) in m, time in s
0.04
ref
ANNPC
0.035

0.03

i

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

0

5

10

15

20

25
time

30

35

40

45

50

Figure20 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (i) in Comparison With (i) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Pre- Maneuver (i) in degree, time in s
16

-5

x 10

0

ref
ANNPC

-0.5

n

f

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

time

Figure 21 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fn) of Reference Simulated Pre-Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC1, time in s
-5

x 10

0

ref
ANNPC
-0.5

t

f

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

time

Figure 22 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (ft) of Reference Simulated Pre-Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC2, time in s
-3

x 10

0

ref
ANNPC

-0.5
-1
-1.5

z

f

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

time

2

Figure 23 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s (fz) of Reference Simulated Pre-Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC3, time in s
17

11

x 10
1.2964

ref
ANNPC
1.2964

1.2964

h
1.2964

1.2964

1.2964

1.2964

1.2964
10

20

30

40

50

60

time

Figure 24 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (h) in Comparison With (h) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Maneuver (h) in m2/s, time in s
7

x 10
4.2166

ref
ANNPC

4.2166
4.2166
4.2166
4.2166

a
4.2166
4.2166
4.2166
4.2166
4.2166
4.2166
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

time

Figure 25 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (a) in Comparison With (a) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Maneuver (a) in m, time in s
ref
ANNPC

0.029

0.0285

i

0.028

0.0275

0.027

0.0265

0.026

10

20

30

40

50

60

time

Figure 26 – Reference Simulated Trajectory of (i) in Comparison With (i) Output of Satellite Plant Model Using ANNPC
during Maneuver (i) in degree, time in s
18

-4

x 10

0

ref
ANNPC
-0.2

n

f

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

time

2

Figure 27 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s (fn) of Reference Simulated Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC1, time in s
-4

x 10

0

ref
ANNPC

t

f

-0.5

-1

-1.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

time

Figure 28 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (ft) of Reference Simulated Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC2, time in s
0
ref
ANNPC

-0.005

z

f

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025
0

10

20

30
time

40

50

60

Figure 29 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fz) of Reference Simulated Maneuver in Comparison with Output of
ANNPC3, time in s
19

Determination to Control the Satellite Motion “, paper #164,
Volume 5 Track 7.07 page 2231-2248, IEEE AC, 2002.

REFERENCES
[1] Maxwell Noton; Space Craft Navigation and Guidance
,”Advances in Industrial Control Series”, Springer-Verlage
London Limited, 1998.

[14] Eduardo F. Camacho and Carlos Bordons; ”Model
Predictive Control”, Springer Verlag, London, 1999.

[2] Gwynne Gurevich, Robert Bell, James R. Wertz;
Autonomous On Board Orbit Control, ” Flight Results and
Applications”, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA), pp 5226-52644, 2000.

[15] D.W. Clarke and C. Mohatadi; “Properties of
Generalized Predictive Control”, Automatica, 25(6): 1989.
[16] Long A.C.; Mathematical Theory of the Goddard
Trajectory Determination System, Goddar Space Flight
Center; Greenbelt, Maryland (1989).

[3] Narendra, K. S. and S. Mukhopadhyay; “Adaptive
Control Using Neural Networks and Approximate Models”,
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks Vol. 8, pp. 475-485,
1997.

[17] Allgowe E. L., George K.; Numerical Continuation
Methods, SMC13, Springer Verlag, New York (1990).

[4] Hagan, M.T. and H.B. Demuth, “Neural Networks for
Control”, Proceedings of the 1999 American Control
Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 1642-1656,1999.

[18] McCarthy J. J., Rowton S.; GEODYN ΙΙ Systems
Description, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Green belt
Maryland (1993).

[5] M. A. Lelic and P. E. Wellstead; Generalized Pole
Placement Self Tuning Controller. Part 1.Basic Algorithm.
Int. J. Control, 46(2):547-568.1987.

[19] Tapley B. D; Precision Orbit Determination for
TOPEX/POSEIDON, 99, (1994).
Prof.Dr. Abd Elsalam F. ALY is a professor of Electrical
Engineering,
Faculty
of
Engineering,
Alexandria University, Egypt. M.Sc. and Ph.D. from
University of Illinois USA, 1966. Alexandria university
since 1966, head of Electrical Department 1992-1995.
Dean of Faculty of Engineering Beirut Arab University
1988-1991. The main interest is Digital control systems and
Artificial intelligence systems.

[6] D. A. Linkers and M. Mahfonf; Advances in Model-Based
Predictive Control, chapter Generalized Predictive Control in
Clinical Anaesthesia, Oxford University Press, 1994.
[7] M. A. Zayan; “Noise Cancellation Using Adaptive Digital
Filters and Neural Network”, Master thesis; Electrical Dep.,
Communication Section, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University, Egypt, 1998.

Prof.Dr .Mohamed Naguib Aly is a professor of Nuclear
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University, Egypt. The main
interest are digital simulation and modeling
of nuclear power plants, Artificial
intelligence systems and numerical methods.

[8] Soloway, D. and P.J. Haley; “Neural Generalized
Predictive Control” Proceedings of the 1996, IEEE
International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pp. 277-281,
1996.
[9] Hagan, M.T., O. De Jesus, and R. Schultz; ”Training
Recurrent Networks for Filtering and Control,” Chapter 12 in
Recurrent Neural Networks; Design and Applications,
L.Medsker and L. C. Jain, Eds., CRC Press, pp. 311-340,
1999.

Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan was born in 1969, He
received the B.Sc. in 1991, M.Sc. degree in
1998
in
digital
Communication
Engineering from the Faculty of
Engineering, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Since 1996, he is working as a Satellite
Control Engineer for The Egyptian
Satellite Company (Nilesat) (one of the Egyptian Radio and
TV Union companies). He is currently working toward the
PhD at the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Alexandria University. His current research involves
Artificial Intelligence, Fuzzy Logic, Genetic Algorithm,
Satellite Control, and Orbit Determination.

[10] Oliver Motenbruck, Eberhard Gill; “Satellite Orbit
(Models,
Methods,
Application)”,
Springer-Verlag
Heidelburg New York (2000).
[11] Pocha, J. J. (Jehangir. J.); An Introduction to Mission
Design For Geostationary Satellites, Published by D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Holland; 1987.
[12] MATLAB Soft Ware Package “The Technical Language
of Technical Computing”; Version 6.0.0.88 Release 12, Math
Work Inc, 2000.
[13] A.F. Aly, M. Nguib Aly, M. E. Elshishtawy, M.A.
Zayan; ”Optimization Techniques for Orbit Estimation and
20