0 views

Uploaded by m_zayan

Satellite Orbits Guidance Using State Space Neural
Network
By: Dr. Mohamed Zayan

save

- passive energy dissipation devices
- The Novel Attempt for Finding Minimum Solution in Fuzzy Neutrosophic Relational Geometric Programming (FNRGP) with (max, min) Composition
- Info Tech 05
- operations-research-1229480696777816-1
- Operational Research
- Risk Solver Platform User Guide
- HuSt-ACC-07
- Wilmer Sarmiento Matlab
- rocket launching
- Consumer Behaviour and Optimal Advertising
- Satellites for Beginners
- rotary hearth furnac
- 04.pdf
- Op Tim Ization
- Mariner Mars 1971 Press Kit
- Possible Questions and Answers Machine Design
- IEEE70a
- Analytical Numerical Analysis
- Using Calculator and Expressions for Parameter Analysis
- OJOp_2017122815291536
- 100 Cross-Directional Control of Sheet and Film Processes
- ENCH442_S18_Lecture3.pdf
- A Bee Colony Optimization-based Approach for Binary Optimization
- Whittle Modules
- TH-1171_07610212
- Swarmintelligence PSO tutorial
- WEEK 5 SOLUTION METHODS FOR SIMULTANEOUS NLEs 2.ppt
- rr311303-operations-research
- Operation Research - MB0048
- 1455.pdf
- Satellite Orbits Guidance Using State Space Neural Network
- Esa Astro Zayan Experment Op-sat Technical Introduction
- CHAP6_rev
- Satellite Orbits Control Using 1Adaptive Neural Networks Predictive Controllers (ANNPC)
- 6003298B Multi Dim Cal of Measurement While Drilling Tools w
- Optimization Techniques for Orbit Estimation and Determination to Control the Satellite Motion
- Orbits Design for Remote Sensing Satellite
- 20120705 Hongwei Security
- Satellite Orbits and Flight Dynamics_final
- plc_3
- 1 Market-update Kunstadter
- Frances Cleveland
- Lecture Two Orbits
- 02_SCADA (1)
- Satellite Orbits Guidance Using State Space Neural Network
- Colt
- Panel Maintenance
- if1_4st
- Structured Cabling New
- GATOR 01 Libre
- CS Lecture VKI
- ISUs EMBA Brochure_Jun10
- Stela Release Note 2.4.2
- Cost
- LTU-EX-2011-32639631
- Space Law Certificate Course 2013
- 130225 Esnc13 International Kick-Off Programme
- Space Law Certificate Course 2013
- OPS SAT ExperimeterInformation and Questionnaire
- Pan Jing Thesis 2011 (1)

Network

12

Mohamed A. Zayan

The Egyptian Satellites Company (Nilesat), Alexandria, EGYPT

+2012-3942832

m_zayan@yahoo.com

Abstract—This paper develops a State-Space Neural

Network (SSNN) to predict the satellite thruster force and

control osculating orbital elements during maneuvers. An

adequate mathematical satellite model is implemented to

simulate the satellite orbit trajectory. When using SSNN for

control, the system identification Adaptive Neural Network

(ANN) model is implemented 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's signal. In the system control

stage the SSNN model is used to predict future satellite

responses to potential control signals. Neural Predictive

Control (NPC) is basically a type of Model-Based

Predictive Control, where the model for predictions is a

neural network. Incorporating neural-network models in

Model Based Predictive Control (MBPC) algorithms

providing a NPC. The neural network for obtaining the

predictions in the MBPC scheme is called State-Space

Neural Network (SSNN). State-space candidate models,

which are likely to need less arguments than input-output

models, this is clearly an advantage when small data sets

only are available.

**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 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. The

work in neural black-box modeling has been performed

making the assumption that the process to be modeled can

be described accurately by input-output models, and using

the corresponding input-output neural predictors. Since

state-space models constitute a larger class of nonlinear

dynamical models, there is an advantage in making the

assumption of a state-space description, and in using the

corresponding state-space neural predictors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

…………………………………………………….

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1

2. OSCULATING ELEMENTS VARIATION .............. 1

3. SATELLITE MANEUVER SIMULATION MODEL. 5

4. SATELLITE ORBITS GUIDANCE USING SSNN.. 9

5. CONCLUSION ................................................... 12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................ 12

REFERENCES ....................................................... 16

1. INTRODUCTION

Neural network black-box modeling is usually performed

using nonlinear input-output models. The goal of this paper

is to show that there are advantages in using nonlinear statespace models, which constitute a larger class of nonlinear

dynamical models, and their corresponding state-space

neural predictors to model the satellite orbits motion. The

satellite motion is affected by different disturbance forces

depending on the satellite altitude, which lead to change of

2

**2. OSCULATING ELEMENTS VARIATION
**

The satellite orbit is an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola if it is

influenced only by the gravitational field of a point mass or

**0-7803-9546-8/06/$20.00© 2006 IEEE
**

IEEEAC paper #1092, Version 1, Updated Nov, 1 2005

1

**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

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], [20] 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 =

where p is the semi-latus rectum

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)

(2)

(3)

(13)

**⎡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

⎥⎦

(14)

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

Therefore

(4)

**⎡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

~

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

the following equation

h2

(5)

r=

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

~

dθ

de 2h dh

= r cos θ

−

re sin θ

dt

dt μ dt

h(r.v ) = rμe sin θ .

(8)

(9)

de

1

=

[( pa − r 2 )( v.f ) + (r.v )(r.f ) ,

dt μae

(11)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

By differentiating

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

(10)

(16)

In the limit

(7)

h 2 = μa (1 − e 2 ) .

μ

1 + e cos θ

a = p /(1 − e 2 )

~

r∂e cos θ − re sin θ∂θ = 2h∂h / μ .

Since

dh

= (r × v ).(r × f ) / h

dt

= r × (f × r ).v / h

= [ r 2 ( v.f ) − (r.v )(r.f )] / h .

⎤

⎡h sin iΩ

⎢

⎥

r × f = Γ2 ⎢ − hi ⎥ ,

⎢ h ⎥

⎣

⎦

where

**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 2

=

( v.f ) .

dt

μ

(12)

~

1 dh ⎤

dθ

de p ⎡

re cos θ

= − r sin θ

+ ⎢(r.f ) + (r.v )

dt

dt h ⎣

h dt ⎥⎦

By differentiate

2

~

⎡p

⎤ dh

dθ

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 ⎤

dθ

=

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

v=

~

dω

dΩ dθ

= − cos i

−

.

dt

dt

dt

(1 + 2e cosθ + e 2 )

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 cos 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 sin γ =

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

fθ

r

(r × f ) tnz = [− rf z cos γ − rf z sin γ − rf z sin γ ]T ,

then

0

⎡h sin idΩ / dt ⎤

⎡

⎤

⎢ − hdi / dt ⎥ = Γ r ⎢

⎥.

− fz

1 ⎢

⎢

⎥

⎥

⎢⎣ dh / dt ⎥⎦

⎢⎣ f n sin γ + f t cos γ ⎥⎦

e sin θ

.

1 + e cos θ

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 [20]

~

dθ * dθ dθ dω

dΩ

=

+

+

= h / r 2 − cos i

dt

dt

dt

dt

dt

~

dθ

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

dΩ dθ

= − cos i

−

dt

dt

dt

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

[20]

da 2a 2v

=

f

μ t

dt

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

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

4

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

3. SATELLITE MANEUVER SIMULATION MODEL

f=

Satellite Orbits Correction [20]

**Integration over the burn time Δt, the total velocity
**

increment is given by

**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.

t 0 + Δt

Δv =

∫ f (t )dt = − v

t0

m ( t 0 + Δt )

1

e

m

m0

Δv = −

∫

dm = − v e ln

m(t 0 + Δt )

m0

Δt

m

F

ln(1 −

).

m0

m

**Assuming that a mass has a constant flow rate and making
**

use of the total velocity increment Δv, the acceleration may

be expressed [10] as

f (t ) =

m

1

m(t )

m Δt ⎞

⎛

⎟

− ln⎜⎜1 −

⎟

m

0 ⎠

⎝

≈

Δv

Δt

(37)

**Satellite Maneuver Modeling [20]
**

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)[20]

**The maneuver may conveniently be treated as instantaneous
**

velocity increments Δv occurring at the impulsive maneuver

time tm whenever the thrust duration is small as compared to

the orbital period.

v(t m+ ) = v(t m− ) + Δv(t m ) .

F m

=

ve .

m m

**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

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

(36)

**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.

dm = m dt .

A space craft mass m experiences a thrust

F = m v e .

And the acceleration

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

**then full thrust is used. Orbit bulletin before maneuver in
**

adaptive Keplerian elements are shown in Table 1 where

**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

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

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

**the CFM block. The selection of the minimization algorithm
**

affects the computational efficiency of the algorithm. There

are several minimization algorithms that have been

implemented in MPC such as Non-gradient [5], Simplex

[8], and Successive Quadratic Programming [4, 8]. The

selection of a minimization method can be based on several

criteria such as; number of iterations to a solution,

computational costs and accuracy of the solution. In general

these approaches are iteration intensive thus making realtime control difficult. To improve the usability, a faster

optimization algorithm is needed. Newton-Raphson [8] is a

quadratically converging algorithm while the others have

less than a quadratic convergence. The improved

convergence rate of Newton-Raphson is computationally

costly, but is justified by the high convergence rate of

Newton-Raphson. In using Newton-Raphson as the

optimization algorithm, the number of iterations to

convergence is significantly reduced from other techniques.

The main cost of the Newton-Raphson algorithm is in the

calculation of the Hessian, but even with this overhead the

low iteration numbers make Newton-Raphson a faster

algorithm for real-time control [8].

The general aim is that the future output on the considered

horizon should follow a determined set point or desired

(reference) signal and, at the same time, the control effort

(Δu) necessary for applying. The general expression for

such a cost function will be:

**4. SATELLITE ORBITS GUIDANCE USING SSNN
**

Model and Neural Network Predictive Control( MNNPC)

Many physical plants exhibit nonlinear behavior. These

relationships may be approximated by linear models, but

often a nonlinear model would be more desirable. Nonlinear

systems exhibit many phenomena that are not seen in linear

systems such as an asymmetry between a step increase and

decrease and the law of superposition does not hold. 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 nonlinear this task is more difficult. Currently there

are two techniques used to model nonlinear plants. One is to

linearize the plant about a set of operating points. If the

plant is highly nonlinear the set of operating points can be

very large. The second technique involves developing a

non-linear model, which depends on making assumptions

about the dynamics of the non-linear plant. If these

assumptions are incorrect the accuracy of the model will be

reduced.

Models using ANN have been shown to have the capability

to capture nonlinear dynamics [8]. For nonlinear plants, 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, over-shoot, and the

energy content of the control signal. The Adaptive Neural

Predictive Control (NPC) system can be seen in Figure 6. It

consists of three components, the plant to be controlled, the

neural network that models the plant, and the Cost Function

Minimization (CFM), or optimization, algorithm that

determines the input needed to produce the plant’s desired

performance. The NPC is approximately working as inverse

transfer function of the controlled plant. The set points or

desired output target trajectory work as an input to the

CFM. The CFM algorithm produces an output, which is

either used as an input to the plant or the plant’s model. The

NPC algorithm has the following important steps:

1.Generate a desired output target trajectory (from desired

future response), tracking trajectory, or reference trajectory

(from set point window constraints, or available history

data). If the future trajectory is unknown, keep the desired

signal constant for the future 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 cost

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.

Nu

N2

∑

∑

J(N1, N2, Nu ) = β( j)( yh (n + j) − yn (n + j)) + λ_w( j)(Δu(t + j −1)) ,(38)

j =N1

2

2

j =1

where

N1 is the minimum-costing horizon,

N2 is the maximum costing horizon,

Nu is the control horizon,

yh set point or desired output target trajectory,

yn is the predicted output of the neural network,

β and λ_w are the control output and input weighting

factors,

Δu(n+j) is the change in u and is defined as u(n+j)- u(n+j1),

This cost function minimizes not only the mean squared

error between the set point or desired (reference) signal and

the plant’s model, but also the weighted squared rate of

change of the control input with it’s constraints. When this

cost function is minimized, a control input that meets the

constraints is generated that allows the plant to track the set

points or desired (reference) trajectory within some

tolerance.

There are five tuning parameters in the cost function, N1, N2,

Nu, β, and λ. The predictions of the plant will run from N1 to

N2 future time steps. The bound on the control horizon is Nu.

The only constraint on the values of Nu and N1 is that these

bounds must be less than or equal to N2.

The output and input weighting factors, β (j) and λ_w(j) are

sequences that consider the future behavior, usually

constant values or exponential sequences are considered.

The output weighting factor, β (j), is defined as follows:

Cost Function

The computational performance of a MPC implementation

is largely based on the minimization algorithm chosen for

9

β ( 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_w(j) 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 cost

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 desired (reference) value at a determined instant,

stability results are guaranteed.

**Figure 6 – Neural Network Predictive Control
**

Process

**The Cost Function Minimization Algorithm
**

The objective of the CFM [8] algorithm is to minimize J in

with respect to [u(n+1), u(n+2), ...,u(n+Nu)]T, denoted U.

This is accomplished by setting the Jacobian to zero and

solving for U. With Newton-Rhapson (sometimes called

Netwon) used as the CFM algorithm [8], J is minimized

iteratively to determine the best U. An iterative process

yields intermediate values for J denoted J(k). For each

iteration of J(k) an intermediate control input vector is also

generated and is denoted as

⎛ u (n + 1) ⎞

⎟

⎜

⎜ u (n + 2) ⎟

U( k ) = ⎜

(39)

⎟ , k = 1,..., # iteration.

#

⎟

⎜

⎜ u (n + N ) ⎟

u ⎠

⎝

**Figure 7- State-Space Neural Network
**

If J"(u(k))>0, then guarantees that the initially segment

[u(k), u(k+1)] points towards decreasing values of J( in the

direction of the ‘descending gradient’), Therefore,

backtracking from u(k+1) to u(k) leads to a point u(k)+ with

better value than u(k) and this point can be chosen as a next

iterate of the Netwon-Raphson method. If J"(u(k))<0, then

the method must be updated to take a step in the opposite

direction. Here again, searching along the direction of the

descending gradient -J'(u(k) allows to locate a point with

better value than J(u(k)). If the point u(k+1) defined by

Newton's iterate does not get us closer to 0, then backtrack

on the segment from u(k+1) to u(k) until a better point than

u(k) is found (such a point always exists). Therefore,

backtracking from u(k+1) to u(k) eventually leads to a point

u(k)+ with better value than u(k) and this point can be

chosen as the next iterate of the Newton-Raphson method.

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.

Such strategies combine global convergence with the fast

local convergence properties of Newton's method. In

practice all processes are subject to constraints. The

operational conditions are normally defined by the

intersection of certain constraints for basically economic,

safety, and stability reasons, so that the control system will

operate close to the boundaries. All of this makes the

**The Netwon-Raphson rule for U(k+1) is
**

−1

⎛ ∂ 2J

⎞ ∂J

U(k + 1) = U(k ) − ⎜⎜ 2 (k ) ⎟⎟

(k ) ,

⎝∂ U

⎠ ∂U

(where the Jacobian is denoted as

∂J

⎛

⎞

⎜

⎟

u

(

n

1

)

∂

+

⎜

⎟

∂J

(k ) ≡ ⎜

#

⎟

∂U

∂J

⎜

⎟

⎜ ∂u (n + N ) ⎟

u ⎠

⎝

(40)

(41)

**and the Hessian as
**

⎞

⎛

∂ 2J

∂ 2J

⎟

⎜

"

2

∂u(n + 1)∂u(n + N u ) ⎟

⎜

u

(

n

1

)

∂

+

2

∂ J

⎟

(k ) ≡ ⎜

#

%

#

⎟

⎜

2

2

∂U 2

∂ J

∂ J

⎟

⎜

"

2

⎟

⎜ ∂u(n + N u )∂u(n + 1)

u

(

n

N

)

∂

+

u

⎠

⎝

In this approach, to design an ANNPC to control the

satellite motion, the Newton methods optimization uses a

technique of backtracking algorithm, which searches in a

given direction to locate the minimum of the performance

function in that direction, based on the following idea:

10

**introduction of constraints in the function to be minimized
**

necessary. Many predictive algorithms inherently take into

account constraints and therefore have been very successful

in industry. Normally bounds in the amplitude and in the

slew rate of the control signal and limits in the output will

be considered:

u min ≤

u(t)

≤ u max

∀t

y min ≤

y( t )

≤ y max

**3. Definition and training of the SSNN neural network.
**

4. Definition of a steady state for the model representing the

plant, to become the initial condition for simulation.

5. Definition of the NPC parameters and application of the

control algorithm in simulation.

Simulink Model and Inputs

∀t

**The first step is to select the simulink model that will
**

represent the MIMO (Multi-Input((fn, ft, fz), and MultiOutput (a, e, THETA, OMEGA, i, omega) satellite plant to

be controlled. Satellite orbit trajectory model during

thrusting maneuver (satellite plant model), which has been

simulated in the previous section, is used to develop the NN

model by generating training data. This network is trained

off-line in batch mode The SSNN is implemented using

NPC tool-box [21] to predict the acceleration vectors (fn, ft,

fz) increment in (t, n, z) axes required to control the, the

major axis (a), and the inclination (i) respectively. The NPC

will guide the satellite orbits parameters during maneuvers.

The NPC 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.

**Modeling and No-Linear Predictions using SSNN [21]
**

This paper will use the Neural Predictive Control Toolbox

For Cacsd In Matlab Environment [21].

A deterministic non-linear system can be represented in

discrete state-space form as:

x(k+1)=f1(x(k),u(k),d(k))

y(k)=f2(x(k))

where x is the state vector, u is the control input vector, d is

the measurable disturbance vector, y is the output vector,

and f1, and f2 are two static nonlinear mappings. In case of

stochastic State-Space Models Both state and output noise

are assumed to be present. The neural-network has the

ability to represent any arbitrary non-linear function. Thus,

the proposed SSNN architecture [21], with suitable hidden

layers to obtain f1 and f2, can be actually used to represent

(SSNN):

⎛ u(t − 1) ⎞

⎟⎟ + B h )

x(t ) = W h ⋅ f1 ( W r ⋅ x(t − 1) + W i ⋅ ⎜⎜

⎝ d(t − 1) ⎠

y (t ) = W o ⋅ f 2 ( W h 2 ⋅ x(t ) + B h 2 )

(42)

(43)

where the first equation takes into account the possible

nonlinear dynamics of the states, and the second is a

nonlinear mapping from the states to the output. This NN

can be represented as a block diagram (Figure 7). The

parameters W and B are properly dimensioned matrices and

vectors, respectively, which must be estimated to fit the

SSNN and the real plant response, given an ordered

temporal sequence for the inputs. The sum squared error

(SSE) between the real output and the simulated one can be

used as a criterion to adjust the weights and bias in the NN

using a Gradient-Based technique [21]. All of the

predictions from the system are obtained from the actual

state of the system, the actual and future values of u (the last

vector produced by the optimization algorithm) and the

actual and future values of the disturbances (in the actual

version, future values are assumed constant). Whenever the

controller is called (at every sampling time), the SSNN must

obtain the next state in order to keep up to date when the

predictions are needed. For NPC design, a CACSD is

convenient. This allows to simulate the process, training of

the neural network based on input/output data collection,

and tuning of the parameters of the controller to obtain an

appropriate response. The application of the tool box has

been divided into five steps:

1. Definition of the model to be controlled and inputs for

identification purposes.

2. Normalization of the input/output data for feeding in to

the neural network.

**Training data for 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 SSNN system.

• The parameters and characteristic of the controllers are

as follows:

¾ The network has 2 hidden layer containing six

hidden nodes that use a tan-sigmoid transfer

function.

¾ The output node uses a linear output function with

a slope of one for scaling the output.

¾ The network has six neurons in the state layer

¾ Training function is traingmr, which is a network

training function that updates weight and bias

values.

¾ The control, prediction, and constraints horizon

are set to 5, the control weighting factor is 0.5.

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. The response of the plant is compared to the

response of the trained network and the corresponding error

between the plant and the network. Figure 8 represents the

11

**sum squares errors of the training algorithm versus the
**

number of epochs.. The maneuver parameters and

constraints are as follows:

¾ The maximum and minimum input samples of the

acceleration vector fn during pre maneuver are set

to value -0.0001228 and -0.0001028 m/s2

respectively.

¾ The maximum and minimum input samples of the

acceleration vector ft during pre- maneuver are set

to value -0.00014907 and -0.00012907 m/s2

respectively.

¾ The maximum and minimum input samples of the

acceleration vector fz during pre maneuver are set

to value -0.026479 and -0.022479 m/s2

respectively.

**consumption can be minimized, which is the main issue
**

during satellite lifetime, because of the NPC optimization

technique. Using Kalman filters for on-line parameters

estimation [20], the NPCs 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. NPC 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 NPC

based on certain basic principles, which allow for future

extensions. NPC is a major element in introducing the

philosophy of "robustness, better, faster, safety, cheaper" to

next generations of ECS and spacecraft operation. Using

SSNN in cooperative with MBPC, in orbit control, will

optimize the thrusts’ forces and satellite parameters due to

its inherent characteristic and non-linearity performance.

NPC will be efficient in the autonomous satellite

generations. Autonomous on-board orbit control can change

the way space segment operate.

**Maneuver Simulation using NPC
**

Defining the set point for geostsationry orbit where a=

42164 km, and i= 0, the sampling time = 0.57094 s. The

NPC tool-box 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 maneuver, which is set to

57.094 s.

NPC Simulation Results

As shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 which represent the

acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fn) and (ft) (input)

calculated by the NPC, and Reference Simulated Maneuver

model in Comparison with Output of SSNN for a, and i, the

NPCs can follow and trace the reference simulated signals,

or the output setpoint, required for controlling the satellite

orbit parameters. It is shown that the high efficiency that the

NPC could be achieved during maneuver simulation. The

NPC has applied the required rehearsal of the satellite

maneuver with stable and good performance. The NPCs can

be tuned easily to satisfy satellite application and operation

requirements, and in this case NPC can minimize the fuel

consumption because of its optimization technique.

Increasing the available training data will refine and

enhanced the SSNN model. The flexibility and inherent

characteristics of the SSNN in representing non-linear and

dynamic models permit realizing high efficiency maneuver

and improve the performance of the controllers. Using

SSNN with MPC technique is a very good solution due to

its strength in dealing with non-linearity system.

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.

5. CONCLUSION

Using SSNN and NPC 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 multivariable. Also, the SSNN 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

12

**Figure 8 – Maneuver Training Data for SSNN
**

13

-4

x 10

-1

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3

-1.4

-1.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

7

x 10

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

4.2166

0

**Figure 9 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fn) and (ft) (input) calculated by the NPC, and Reference Simulated
**

Maneuver model in Comparison with Output of SSNN for a, time in s

-4

x 10

-1

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3

-1.4

-1.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.03

0.029

0.028

0.027

0.026

**Figure 10 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fn) and (ft) (input) calculated by the NPC, and Reference Simulated
**

Maneuver model in Comparison with Output of SSNN for a, time in s

14

-0.0225

-0.023

-0.0235

-0.024

-0.0245

-0.025

-0.0255

-0.026

-0.0265

0

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

7

x 10

4.2166

4.2166

4.2165

4.2165

4.2165

4.2164

0

**Figure 11 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fz) (input) calculated by the NPC, and set-point in Comparison with
**

Output of SSNN for a, time in s

-0.0225

-0.023

-0.0235

-0.024

-0.0245

-0.025

-0.0255

-0.026

-0.0265

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0

**Figure 12 – Acceleration Vector Samples in m/s2 (fz) (input) calculated by the NPC, and set-point in Comparison with
**

Output of SSNN for i, time in s

15

**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).

[20] M.A. Zayan; Satellite Orbits Control using Adaptive

Neural Predictive Control“, paper #1218, 6-2671, IEEE

AC, 2003.

**[6] D. A. Linkers and M. Mahfonf; Advances in Model-Based
**

Predictive Control, chapter Generalized Predictive Control in

Clinical Anaesthesia, Oxford University Press, 1994.

**[21] Zamarreٌo J.M., P. Vega (1999); Neural Predictive
**

Control. Application to a Highly Non-Linear System.

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 12, 149158.

**[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.

**[22] Camacho, E. F. and Bordons, C. (1998); Model
**

Predictive Control. Springer, Berlin.

**[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.

BIOGRAPHY

**[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.

**Dr. Eng. Mohamed A.
**

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.

He

received the Ph.D degree in

2005 in Automatic Control, at

the Department of Electrical Engineering, Alexandria

University. Currently, he is working as a Satellite Control

Engineer for The Egyptian Satellite Company (Nilesat) (one

of the Egyptian Radio and TV Union companies). 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

16

- passive energy dissipation devicesUploaded byRipuDamanSingh
- The Novel Attempt for Finding Minimum Solution in Fuzzy Neutrosophic Relational Geometric Programming (FNRGP) with (max, min) CompositionUploaded byscience2010
- Info Tech 05Uploaded byBala Murugan
- operations-research-1229480696777816-1Uploaded byManzzie
- Operational ResearchUploaded byShadan Faizi
- Risk Solver Platform User GuideUploaded byvicothe
- HuSt-ACC-07Uploaded byAmr Mabrouk
- Wilmer Sarmiento MatlabUploaded byHermogenes L. Jr Mejia
- rocket launchingUploaded bySunita Revale
- Consumer Behaviour and Optimal AdvertisingUploaded byBlue Yurble
- Satellites for BeginnersUploaded byOctavio Garcia
- rotary hearth furnacUploaded bykamphunk
- 04.pdfUploaded byNils Meyer
- Op Tim IzationUploaded bySana Nazir
- Mariner Mars 1971 Press KitUploaded byBob Andrepont
- Possible Questions and Answers Machine DesignUploaded byOmar Tabaza
- IEEE70aUploaded byingabos
- Analytical Numerical AnalysisUploaded byrajadazzle
- Using Calculator and Expressions for Parameter AnalysisUploaded bymjm614
- OJOp_2017122815291536Uploaded byKJ JK
- 100 Cross-Directional Control of Sheet and Film ProcessesUploaded byBrYan Frias Ruiz
- ENCH442_S18_Lecture3.pdfUploaded byCharlie CB Portner
- A Bee Colony Optimization-based Approach for Binary OptimizationUploaded bys1075457
- Whittle ModulesUploaded byBhalthimor7
- TH-1171_07610212Uploaded byNmg Kumar
- Swarmintelligence PSO tutorialUploaded byyoubest2
- WEEK 5 SOLUTION METHODS FOR SIMULTANEOUS NLEs 2.pptUploaded byDemas Jati
- rr311303-operations-researchUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Operation Research - MB0048Uploaded byHariharan Ganapathy
- 1455.pdfUploaded byHendra Wijaya

- Satellite Orbits Guidance Using State Space Neural NetworkUploaded bym_zayan
- Esa Astro Zayan Experment Op-sat Technical IntroductionUploaded bym_zayan
- CHAP6_revUploaded bym_zayan
- Satellite Orbits Control Using 1Adaptive Neural Networks Predictive Controllers (ANNPC)Uploaded bym_zayan
- 6003298B Multi Dim Cal of Measurement While Drilling Tools wUploaded bym_zayan
- Optimization Techniques for Orbit Estimation and Determination to Control the Satellite MotionUploaded bym_zayan
- Orbits Design for Remote Sensing SatelliteUploaded bym_zayan
- 20120705 Hongwei SecurityUploaded bym_zayan
- Satellite Orbits and Flight Dynamics_finalUploaded bym_zayan
- plc_3Uploaded bym_zayan
- 1 Market-update KunstadterUploaded bym_zayan
- Frances ClevelandUploaded bym_zayan
- Lecture Two OrbitsUploaded bym_zayan
- 02_SCADA (1)Uploaded bym_zayan
- Satellite Orbits Guidance Using State Space Neural NetworkUploaded bym_zayan
- ColtUploaded bym_zayan
- Panel MaintenanceUploaded bym_zayan
- if1_4stUploaded bym_zayan
- Structured Cabling NewUploaded bym_zayan
- GATOR 01 LibreUploaded bym_zayan
- CS Lecture VKIUploaded bym_zayan
- ISUs EMBA Brochure_Jun10Uploaded bym_zayan
- Stela Release Note 2.4.2Uploaded bym_zayan
- CostUploaded bym_zayan
- LTU-EX-2011-32639631Uploaded bym_zayan
- Space Law Certificate Course 2013Uploaded bym_zayan
- 130225 Esnc13 International Kick-Off ProgrammeUploaded bym_zayan
- Space Law Certificate Course 2013Uploaded bym_zayan
- OPS SAT ExperimeterInformation and QuestionnaireUploaded bym_zayan
- Pan Jing Thesis 2011 (1)Uploaded bym_zayan