NASA

Optimal
Guidance
Advanced
Launch
Anthony
Georgia

J. Calise and Martin

Institute
of Technology

S. K. Leung
Atlanta,

Contractor

Law Development
System

Report

4667

for an

Georgia

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001

Prepared

for Langley Research Center

under Grant NAG1-939

April

1995

Printed

copies

NASA

Center

800 Elkridge
Linthicum
(301)

available

for AeroSpace
Landing

Heights,

621-0390

from

the following:

Information

Road
MD 21090-2934

National
Technical
Information
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield,
(703)

VA 22161-2171

487-4650

Service

(NTIS)

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

S tion
1

INTRODUCTION
1.1

Background

1.2

Research

1.3

Report

1
Contributions

Organization

SYMBOLS

AND

PROBLEM

FORMULATION

ABBREVIATIONS

2.1

Equations

2.2

Assumptions

and Simplifications

2.3

Aerodynamic

Model

2.4

Atmospheric

Singular

and Launch

Vehicle

Configuration

11
15

Perturbations
state

model

c) Manifold

solution

Regular

17

approximation

b) Two-state

17
23

and eigenvalue

analysis

23

Perturbations

29

a) Regular

perturbations

b) Launch

vehicle

in optimal

Introduction

4.2

The Method

4.3

Regular

4.4

Duff'rag's

control

29

application

33

COLLOCATION/REGULAR

4.1

THE

APPROACHES

A HYBRID

4.5

Model

a) Energy

3.2

of Motion

ANALYTICAL
3.1

PERTURBATION

ANALYSIS
43

of Collocation

Perturbation
Equation

44

Formulation

45

Example

47

a) Level

0 formulation

48

b) Level

1 formulation

52

c) Level

2 formulation

57

d) Level

3 formulation

60

Conclusion
HYBRID

64
APPROACH

TO NEAR

OPTIMAL

LAUNCH

VEHICLE

GUIDANCE
5.1

Zero

5.2
5.3

Order

Solution

65

First order

Solution

71

Numerical

Results

73
,*

111

Table

of Contents

(cont.)

Section

5.4

Remarks

5.5

Wind

on the Numerical

Shear

Results

79

Investigation

CONCLUSIONS

AND

6.1

Conclusions

6.2

Recommendations

81

RECOMMENDATIONS
83
for Future

Work

83

APPENDIX

Derivation

APPENDIX

State Transition

Matrix

Expression

in Eq. 3.44

APPENDIX

State Transition

Matrix

Expression

of Level

86

of Eq. 3.32

87

1 Formulation

in

Sec. 4.3
APPENDIX

System

89
matrix

First Order

and State

Formulation

Transition
in Sec. 5.2

REFERENCES

Matrix

Expression

for the
91

94

iv

LIST

Coordinate

Systems:

and Wind

OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Earth-fixed

Frame OXYZ,

Local Horizontal

Cijk,

Frame.

2.2

Generic

2.3

ALS First Stage

C L Profile.

12

2.4

ALS First Stage

C D Profile.

12

2.5

ALS First Stage

C L Profile

(continued).

13

2.6

ALS First Stage

C D Profile

(continued).

13

2.7

ALS

Second

Stage

C L Profile.

14

2.8

ALS

Second

Stage

C D Profile.

14

2.9

Jump

2.10

Standard

2.11

KSC

3.1

Reduced

3.2

Angle

3.3

Reduced

3.4

Alpha

3.5

Flight-path

3.6

Angle

3.7

Typical

3.8

Eigenvalue

Analysis

3.9

Eigenvalue

Separation

3.10

Hight-path

Angle

3.11

Evaluation

of the Singular

3.12

Perturbation

Results

in v with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

38

3.13

Perturbation

Results

in u with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

39

3.14

Perturbation

Results

in h with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

39

3.15

Perturbation

Results

in X v with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

40

3.16

Perturbation

Results

in k u with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

40

3.17

Perturbation

Results

in _r with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

41

3.18

Perturbation

Results

in tx with Spherical

Earth

and Back-pressure

Effects.

41

3.19

Perturbation

Results

in tx Including

3.20

Aerodynamic

4.1

Level

Advanced

in Control

Launch

Wind

Solution
of Attack

of Attack

in the Cik Plane.

11

Hamiltonian.

15
16

Profile.

16

with _/= 0.

20

along

Using

and Gamma
Angle

Model

Model.

Profile

Solution

the Reduced

Estimated

Estimate

Profile

20

Angle.

22

Profiles.

for Various

Layer

Solution.

Flight-path

22

Prof'fle for Various

Boundary

0 Result

(ALS)

due to Nonconvex

Atmospheric

Mean

System

Reference
Reference

Trajectories.

24

Trajectories.

24

Characteristics.

along

the Reference

by Relative

Prof'fle

to Propulsive

of _'o = 75-

26
26

Solution.

26

Perturbation

in x.

Trajectory

Magnitude.

of Guided

Force

25

Parameter

Aerodynamic
Ratios

along

e(E) for the ALS Vehicle.

Effects.
Optimal

28

42
Trajectory.

42
50

List of Illustrations

(cont.)

FAgam
4.2

Level

0 Result

in v.

50

4.3

Level

0 Result

in E x.

51

4.4

Level

0 Result

in k v.

51

4.5

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in x for Different

N.

54

4.6

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in v for Different

N.

54

4.7

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in L x for Different

N.

55

4.8

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in 2_v for Different

N.

55

4.9

Level

1 Higher

Order

Results

in x for N=3.

56

4.10

Level

1 Higher

Order

Results

in v for N=3.

56

4.11

Level

1 Higher

Order

Results

in k x for N=3.

57

4.12

Level

1 Higher

Order

Results

in _a, for N=3.

57

4.13

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in x for N=2.

59

4.14

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in v for N=2.

59

4.15

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in Ex for N=2

60

4.16

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in ;v for N=2.

60

4.17

Level

3 Higher

Order

Results

inx

for N=I.

62

4.18

Level

3 Higher

Order

Results

inv

for N=I.

62

4.19

Level

3 Higher

Order

Results

in _

for N=I.

63

4.20

Level

3 Higher

Order

Results

in 2_v for N=I.

63

5.1

Open

Loop

v Profiles

for Various

N.

68

5.2

Open

Loop

u Profiles

for Various

N.

68

5.3

Open

Loop

h Profiles

for Various

N.

70

5.4

Open

Loop

2_v Profiles

for Various

N.

70

5.5

Open

Loop

2_u Profiles

for Various

N.

71

5.6

Open

Loop

_ Profiles

for Various

N.

71

5.7

Closed

Loop

Velocity

5.8

Closed

Loop

Flight-path

5.9

Closed

Loop

Altitude

5.10

Closed

Loop

Angle

5.11

Convexized

5.12

Closed

Loop

Velocity

5.13

Closed

Loop

Flight-path

5.14

Closed

Loop

Altitude

5.15

Closed

Loop

Angle

First

Profile
Angle
Profile
of Attack

Stage

for N=8.
Profile

74
for N=8.

74

for N=8.

75

Prof'fle for N=8.

75
76

C D Profile.
Profile
Angle
Profile

of Attack

Under

Wind

Profile
Under
Profile

Shear

and _

Under Wind

Wind
Under
vi

Shear
Wind

Shear

Constraint.
and _x t Constraint.

and ctq Constraint.

Shear

and txq Constraint.

76
77
78
78

List of Illustrations (cont.)

Fi_gum
5.15

Closed

Loop

Angle

5.16

Closed

Loop

5.17

A Hypothetical

5.18

Comparison

of the Thrust-vector

5.19

Comparison

of the o_ 1 Profiles

under

Wind

5.20

Experienced

Horizontal

Speed

for the 3 Different

of Attack

Profile
Wind

Profile

Under
Shear

Under

Wind

Shear

Wind

Shear

and _

Constraint.

and C_l Constraint.

79

Prof'tle.

Wind

80

Angle

LIST

78

Profiles

under

Wind

Shear.

Shear.

80
82

Simulations.

82

OF TABLES

v_ae

Table

15

2.1

ALS Vehicle

Physical

5.1

Performance

Comparison

for ALS Vehicle

5.2

Performance

Comparison

under Wind

Data.

vii

Shear.

Guidance.

77
81

OPTIMAL
FOR

GUIDANCE

LAW

AN ADVANCED

Anthony

J. Calise*

Georgia

Institute

DEVELOPMENT

LAUNCH

SYSTEM

and Martin S. K. Leung**

of Technology,

GA 30332

SUMMARY

The objective
for launch
with

vehicles

a variety

Singular

of model

approach

falls

large

ascent

perturbation

second
also

of this research

to be treated

methods

alone

developing

regular

order

vehicle

problem.

and

results

nonlinear

atmospheric
reliability

are

approach

delivers

the control
shear

effects

* Professor,
** Graduate

reduce

example.

demonstrated
over

99.9%

computation
and a control

flight

is completed
constraint

School of Aerospace
Research
Assistant.

entire

loop

flight

simulations.

vln

intelligent

sacrificing

a powerful

applied

to the

tangent
that

in a
launch

steering
includes

of performance
The

hybrid

law,
both
and

guidance

accuracy

on a SPARCstation

the

tool for

are illustrated

and orbit injection

of a second

are also addressed.

Engineering.

forms

analysis

and

without

of

of choosing

perturbation

regime,

in

method

The concept

is then

use

analytic/numerical

solution,

Assessment

performance

in tenths

vehicle.

from a bilinear

phases.

closed

of a launch

of the approach

is derived
the

for

Regular

method

are too

inadequate

the numerical

perturbations.

approach

solution)

It

that perturbation

a hybrid

the combined

for

of optimal

phase

combines

Details

order

are

The

investigated.

demonstrates

of elements

hybrid

through

zero

the number

solution

exoatmospheric

effort,

investigated.

to be unsatisfactory.

for the collocation

The

solution

flight

introduced.

problems.

The collocation

and

research

is also

control

in a guidance

the study

of regular

As a result,

optimal

in the

approach
combined

been

was subsequently

perturbations)

representation

further

accuracy.

(ignored

The approach

method

functions

functions

fourth

of the

and evaluated.

of a crude

real-time

analysis

singular

have

and found

for the atmospheric

phase

interpolating

solving

and

algorithm

intelligent

approximation

perturbation

guidance

approaches

reduction

first attempted,

Therefore,

and the analytical

interpolating

were

a real-time

analytical

complexity

as perturbations.

a second

use

Various

effects

was developed

the

injection.
model

on regular

collocation

allows

was to develop

the aerodynamic

(both

During

and

methods

a guidance

approach

order

based

because

to orbit

effort

while
1. Wind

A second
Dr. Dewey
has been

effort

Hodges,
documented

that paralleled

of the School
under

this work

of Aerospace

a separate

contractor

ix

under

the same grant

Engineering
report.

at Georgia

number
Tech.

was lead

by

This work

SECTION

INTRODUCTION

The

objective

unmanned,

all-weather

into a low Earth

realize

launch

algorithm

System

for placing

of present

for solving

(ALS)

large

cost.

program

payloads

is to develop

(100,0001b

Part of the guidance

the launch

vehicle

ascent

- 150,0001b)

requirement

trajectory

an

is to

problem.

Background
To date,

typically

forces

first stage

guided

as a part

by using

and from

attack

guidance

zero angle

to avoid

to the product

second

and

Saturn

employs

any

Powered

the guidance
position

commands

and velocity

Trafliti0n_l

t_uidance

[ 1 - 3].

The

first

typically

closed

loop guidance

solution

Numerical
programming

pressure.

stages

Guidance

vehicle

coefficients

of typically

discretely

the parameterized

the

These

aerodynamic

Near

zero

Guidance
various

are retargeting
cycle

using

flying
angle

of

which

is

for the

approaches.

[2], and the Space

Shuttle

schemes

because

the current

vehicle's

for the optimization

phase

piecewise

Then

orbital

through

conditions

process.

linear attitude

control
linear

the differential

So the original

portion

profile

is parameterized

polynomials.

typically
infinite

The

dimensional

states

number

problem

either

formulation

of dynamics.

at a finite

is a

required

orbit injection.

method

is transformed

of flight

The second

is possibly

employ

problem

phases

This has an analytic

loop phase

In a direct

equations

portion

of flight.

typically

different

program.

for final precision

[10].

optimization

two or three

for the atmospheric

guidance

shooting

the trajectory,

either

a third closed

to optimal

piecewise

along

is calculated

moments,

employing
(IGM)

may involve

guidance

The unknown

control.

[3].

for the exoatmospheric

[4 - 9] or multiple

problem.

Mode

at each update

guidance

loop

approaches

optimization

loop,

is

Methods

is approaching

of the control

is closed

(PEG)

assumptions.

programming,

are enforced

and dynamic

as the initial conditions

phase

certain

when the vehicle

functions

of attack

flies with a non-optimal

under

nonlinear

of angle

vehicle

it involves

[1].

bending

is an open

which

turn

aerodynamic

are recalculated

launch

a gravity

from

Typically

excessive

Solution

Traditional

loads

shear.

The

program

creating

Guidance

vectors

The steering

such as wind

uses an Iterative

Explicit

loop form.

for structural

and performing

subsequent

V vehicle

in open

program.

to account

disturbances

of attack,

proportional
stage

steering

preparation

atmospheric

is employed

has been realized

a pre-stored

of pre-launched

with nearly

The

Launch

system

orbit at a fraction

an efficient

1.1

of the Advanced

into

nonlinear
such

as

a parametric

with undetermined
are

considered

Constraints,
of nodal

as

if any,
points

is approximated

of
by

a finite dimensionalproblemin thereducedspaceof the controlparameters,andgradient

techniquesareusedto searchfor a solutionthatoptimizesthe performanceindex. In [8],
HargravesandParishavecombinedthenonlinearprogrammingmethodwith collocationby
approximating all the stateandcontrol historieswith piecewisesmoothfunctions, thus
avoiding any integrationprocess.Similar to thecollocationmethod,Pamadi[9] hasused
splines as function of velocity to approximate the altitude profile and applied an
optimizationalgorithmto determinetheunknowncoefficientsof thesplines. To beuseful
asa feedbackguidancesolution,it is essentialthattheseapproaches
convergequickly and
reliably at eachinstantthe solutionis updatedduringthe flight.
On the other hand, mul_tipleshootingis a techniqueusedin indirect methods.
Insteadof evaluatingtheperformanceindex directly,optimizationis achievedby satisfying
a setof necessaryconditionswhich areexpressedin the form of a Two-Point Boundary
ValueProblem(TPBVP). For aconstrainedcase,this may leadto a Multi-Point Boundary
Value Problem (MPBVP), for which a guessof the switching structureis required. To
reducethe sensitivity to an initial guessof the solution,piecewiseintegrationor multiple
shootingis used. Insteadof integratingfor thecompletetrajectorystartingfrom onesetof
initial conditions, the trajectory is divided into intervals and integration is performed
separatelyfrom different setsof initial conditionsfor eachinterval. Then the boundary
conditionsandcontinuity conditions(or jump conditionsin the caseof stateconstraintsor
discontinuousdynamics)betweenintervalsareenforced.A relaxedNewton'smethod[11]
is typically usedto iteratefor a solution. Thoughthe indirect methodproducesextremely
accurate results, it involves complicated programming in formulating the costates
differential equationsandthe control structure. The processis alsocomplicatedby the
requirementto provideaninitial guessfor bothcostateandstatevariables.Onthe contrary,
nonlinearprogrammingis relatively simpleto formulate. The methoddoesnot requirethe
useof costatevariablesor a knowledgeof switching structure. In practice,it is favored
over indirectmethodsfor solvingoptimizationproblemsin generalpurposeprograms.
Dueto the intensivecomputationrequirements,
directandindirectmethodsareused
only to generateoff-line solutionsfor analysispurposesor to provide a first stageopen
loop guidanceprogram. To compensatefor using anopenloop approachduring the first
stageflight, a feedbackguidanceschemeis introducedfor the subsequent
exoatmospheric
stagesof flight wherea moresimplifieddynamicmodelpermitsa moreanalyticsolution.
Using

Simplified

MQ_I_I$

In [2], Chandler
based
steering
2

on a flat
guidance.

Earth

and Smith have developed

no-atmosphere

The guidance

model,

solution

and

requires

an IGM for the Saturn

is further
solving

simplified

V vehicle.

with linear

only a set of linear

equations.

It is
angle

Ten yearslater, the Boeing AerospaceCompany[3] adoptedthe linear tangentsteering

guidanceas the baselineprogram for the SpaceShuttle'sPEG. Using an approximate
gravitymodel,the programis extendedto handlethe sphericalEarthcase,andthe solution
is solvedby aniterativealgorithm.
Perturbation

Methods

of Analysis

Perturbation
spacecraft
solve

methods

guidance

design.

a low thrust

feedback

control

is solved
Powers

space

flight

developed

a retargeting

constant

acceleration
on

applied

it to the launch

requires

the

flight.

an analytic

again based

on a flat Earth,

introduced

higher

costates

are

equation.

order

obtained

also developed
quadrature
found

to be inadequate

1.2

Research

which

and/or

singular

contributions

demonstrates

phase

perturbation
The

Jacobson

space

used

(HJB)

and

flight.

equation,

pertur-

solution

dynamics

the HJB equation.

series

expansion

solution

are

for the

to the

HJB

and costates

was

has the advantage

approaches

is

In this

corrections

of state

have

The approach

and the neglected

order

and

and

The analytic

and higher

It is

fixed

regular

flight.

evaluation.

that on-line

of [14, 15] were

later

are included.

individual

methods.

intelligent

choices
portion

vehicle

the numerical
it suitable

approach
The

retains

collocation

of the interpolation
of the necessary

are: (1) an exhaustive

that perturbation

are inadequate

to make

hybrid

of this research

of a launch

that combines

alone.

and the solution

In [13],

[14] have

This approach

A linear

for the inertially

of the power

effects

conclusively

perturbations)

the atmospheric
approach,

matrix.

solution

both the solution

aerodynamic

trajectory

by expanding

on regular

[15].

technique.

Contributions

The major
effort

based

However,

when

extremal

approximation,

differentiation

and Calise

can be avoided.

to

also for low thrust

and quadrature

are not required

approach

by Leung

perturbation

for exoatmospheric

is obtained

histories

An alternative

have used regular

and Speyer

problem

solution

by partial

to

Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman

Solution

state

approaches

transition

scheme

Feeley

no-atmosphere

as perturbations.

method,

state

guidance

zero order

to be powerful

the reference

and uses an analytic

of the

vehicle

[12]

about

guidance

Recently,

expansion

shown

It is a neighboring

determined

an explicit

been

and Rauch

by linearizing

procedure

bations

have

problem.

is formulated

basically

tractable

Breakwell

with a numerically
have

regular

of analysis

method

guidance,

desirable

and

method

is further

functions,

which

conditions

and simulation

alone

(both

a guidance

for optimality.

and the analytic

and superior

complimentary
improved
are derived
When

regular

algorithm

and (2) the development

of collocation

for real-time
the

methods

for use in developing

trajectory,

study

for

of a hybrid
method

to either

of

method

features

of the

by providing

more

from

applied

the analytically
to the launch

vehicle guidanceproblem,the main resultis a bilinear tangentsteeringlaw for the thrust

vectoranglethat canbe employedfor all flight phases,includingthe atmosphericphaseof
thetrajectory. The progressreportsandpapersthatarerelatedto this researcheffort canbe
found in [15 - 25].
A secondeffort thatparalleledthis work underthe samegrant numberwasleadby
Dr. DeweyHodges,of the Schoolof AerospaceEngineeringatGeorgiaTech. This work
hasbeendocumentedundera separatecontractorreport[26].
1.3

Report

Organization

Sec.
problem,

which

propulsion
purely

2 presents
includes

models

analytical

approach

using

the

that

approaches
an energy

assumption.

Sec. 4 details

perturbation

analysis

both regular
launch
zero

vehicle
and

the

shooting.

Sec.

research.

the development

to demonstrate

first

guided

on the zero

order
solution

the

trajectory
vehicle

of the ALS.

and a 2-state
order

solution

of a hybrid

analysis

and purely

problem

is presented

6 is the conclusions

and

model

of collocation.

model.

optimization

aerodynamic
The

results

approach

order

using

solution

of this research

and

the hybrid
their
obtained

no-atmosphere
both regular

nonlinear

it to solutions

collocation

solutions,

is
by

In Sec. 5, the
It includes

the

compares

the

and

by the method

and the recommendations

system
obtained

methods.
approach.

for two

is a regular

that employs

A fourth

numerical

Earth

and

perturbation

The second

for a flat

and to compare

formulations

with the optimal

vehicle

in Sec. 3. The first is a singular

its application,

correction

launch

of motion

on a generic

and the method

guidance

resulting

equations

are documented

based

perturbation

of the

state approximation

approach

in depth

the

are based

perturbation

treated

formulation

of multiple
for future

SYMBOLS

AND

ABBREVIATIONS

Symbol

- airspeed

Wijk

- wind

- heading

- flight-path

- vehicle

mass

ts

- staging

time (158.5s

- magnitude

re

- Earth

mean

_e

- Earth

gravitational

- Earth's

- altitude,

- thrust

throttle

0t

- angle

of attack,

speed components

in the Cijk frame

angle
angle

for the ALS vehicle)

of radius
radius

vector
(6.378

measured

(3.9906

x 1014m3s -2)

rate (7.27 x 10-5rads -1)

h = r - re

- sideslip

control

angle,

variable

control

-Mach

number

- sound

speed

ce

- reference

CD

- aerodynamic

drag coefficient

cL

- aerodynamic

lift coefficient

- amaospheric

Pe

- reference

- atmospheric

Pe

- reference

- dynamic

Tv_

- vacuum

sound

in the wind frame

variable

- engine

center

x 106m)

constant

rotational

from the Earth's

speed

in the wind frame

on Earth's

surface

(340.3ms

-1)

C D = CD(Ot, M, _)
C L = CL(Ot, M, [3)

density
atmospheric

density

on Earth's

surface

(1.225kgrn-3)

pressure
atmospheric

pressure

on Earth's

surface

(101330Nm

-2)

pressure
thrust
exit nozzle

area

- aerodynamic

2A

- state transition

- local vertical

- local horizontal

- thrust-vector

angle relative

ge

- gravitational

acceleration

reference

area

matrix
velocity

for the linear system

component

velocity

component
to local horizon,
on Earth's

surface

the conla'ol variable

(ge = ge/re 2)
5

SymbolsandAbbreviations(cont.)
Symbol
gi

- small

nonlinear

terms

(i = 1, 2)

Px

- interpolated

state dynamics

qx

- interpolated

costate

in the collocation

dynamics

in the collocation

Abreviations

ALS

- Advanced

HJB

- Hamilton-Jacobi-BeUman

IGM

- Iterative

KSC

- Kennedy

LEO

- Low Earth Orbit

PEG

- Powered

TPBVP

- Two-Point

MPBVP

- Multi-Point

Launch

Guidance

System

Mode

Space Center

Explicit

Guidance

Boundary
Boundary

Value Problems
Value

Problems

formulation
formulation

SECTION

PROBLEM

In this section,
which

includes

subsequent

analyses

sion models

2.1

of motion

are applied

the optimal
for a point

to. The reference

launch

mass

vehicle

model

guidance

of a launch

aerodynamic,

Equations

of

vehicle

atmospheric

that the

and propul-

Motion

to Fig. 2.1, the point

over a spherical,

rotating

mass

-'_i cost

sin Z-

equations

of motion

Earth inside a non-stationary

T (i) cosot cos[_ - D (i) ___sin

m
r-

for a multi-stage

atmosphere

_'iCjcsTcsx-

= {. T (i) cosot sin 13+ y(i)

m
+2OeV(cos

launch

are:

T + ree2( sin T cs2 )t - cosy sin)t cos)t cos Z)

Wk sinT + 2Oe[Wi (sin T cos)t

cos T sin)t cos X) + cos T(Wj sin)t - W k cos)t) sin X]

; V (t o) = Vo

t- 2 cos 2 T tan )t sin Z + ro 2 sin )t cos)t sin

r

T sin)t - sin T cos)t cos Z) - _/i cos Z + Wj sin X +

2r,Oe[W i sin)t sin _ + (Wj sin)t - W k cos)t)cosz]}

_'=

problem,

are also included.

Referring
vehicle

FORMULATION

we first formulate

the equations

{T (i) sin___ + L(i)

m
+2OeV sin ;_ cos)t

_e
(-_

V2
r )cosy

/ (VcosT)

+ ro2 (cos 2 )t cost

+ VCisin T sin Z + @j sin TcosZ

; Z(t o) = Zo

+ sin)t cos)t sin T cos Z)

- Wk cosy

+2o) e [W i (cos T cos)t + sin T sin)t cos Z) - sin T(Wj sin )t Wk cos)t)sin

Z]} / V

= VcsTsinz+Wi
rcos)t

7_ = VcosTcosz+Wj

= VsinT

rh = f(rl,
where

= To

; _(to)

= _bo

; )t(to)

= )t o

; r(to)

+ Wk

r, t)

; T(to)

; m(t o) = m o

= ro

(i)3 = m (i)
; m(ts+_
s

(2.1)

_
Earth-fixed
reference
system_

North
N_''--.
_

..--""_
/

\
_

wi

k__aa/M'%,
\_i
_._____-..._7al

r_

X"-_

horizon=plane
Zw

refe_nc

Mc_di=

_\

/ .,,<--._<

,Zw
k

4 T (along

L__

longitudinal

Figure

2.1.

System

Equator
Coordinate
Wind

* Here

axis)

x_
Coordinate

vehicle

Systems:

Earth-fixed

Frame OXYZ,

Local

Horizontal

Frame*.

Yw and Zw are defined

in the opposite

from their usual

convention.

Cijk, and

Wx-

Wx-

D (i) = qS(i)cg

q = pV 2 / 2

Here,

(3.9906

oblateness

sufficient

% longitude
variables

a and

radius
angle

altitude

parameters,
density

and

are given

independent

above

V, heading

from the Earth's

center

air.

model

and

To simplify
Analytic

thrust

employs

maximum

The

here.

mass

components

are throttle

fuel

force

rate

m(ts+),

Standard

c are given

X, flight-path

r, and vehicle

C D, side

stage mass

which

angle

Cy

are interpolated

of h.

operated

and r e is
of attack

lift C L are
of throttle

properties
The

as smooth

such

coefficients
functions

as
and

of the

thrust

Simplifications

the analysis,

expression

the following

- As mentioned

throttle

_ = 1.0 during

can be adequately

Tva c is the vacuum

represents

m. The

time ts, are vehicle

atmospheric

functions

and

f is a function
staging

angle

W i, Wj, W k

rl, angle

modeled

assumptions

in the previous
the ascent

are exercised:
section,

phase.

a typical

For most

launch

trajectory

the
inside

thrust

back-pressure

vehicle
analysis

as
(2.3)

T max
(i) = T vac
(i) _ A_i)p
where

provides

h = r - r e is the altitude

variables

of drag

The after-jettison

forms

The superscript

complex

The wind velocity

M = V/c.

speed

for the Earth's

expression.

are airspeed

fixed

to account

variables.

Assumptions

purposes,

The

The control

number

in tabular

model

gravitational

purposes.

coefficients

p, and sound

harmonic

of {, k, h }, where

x 106m).

are both assumed

p, pressure

properties

vector

(2.2)

and _te is the Earth's

values.

analysis

as functions

and time.

order

to the moving

Mach

is assumed

stage

in this model

13. The

' 11 e [0, 1]

_te/r2 with the harmonic

different

(6.378

of a, 13 and

se_ng,

A higher

_,, radius

to be given

sideslip

field

for most trajectory

, latitude

Earth

functions

2.2

n} indicates

V, y, X are relative

the mean

_ qS<i)c(_>

by replacing

state variables

are assumed

; L(i) = qS<i)c(_)

x 1014m3s-2).

details
The

; y(i)

gravitational

can be used

(i) = { 1, 2 .....

; x = {i, j, k}

(i)
, T (i) = _T
", max

an inverse-square

constant

+--gg-

value and A e is the engine

effect

that

causes

a drop

nozzle
of thrust

exit area.
level

The term Aep

as the engine

is

the atmosphere.

Constant

fuel r_te - For a purely

proportional

to the vacuum

rocket

propulsion

system

the rate of fuel consumption

thrust
(2.4)

rh = -T(i)vac / (geI_))

where

ge = IXe/re2, and Isp is the specific

rocket

engines

Non-rotating
which

have
Earth

represents

the

values

ranging

- The Earth's

represents

the

toe is small
was

may

at the Earth's

surface.

sharply

the end of its flight

for a short period

of the fuel efficiency.

Modem

from 300s to 450s*.

acceleration

acceleration

apparent

a measure

acceleration,

gravitational
near

impulse,

rotation,

transport

Coriolis

is

phase.

of time,

reach

(7.27 x 10-Srads -I) and the term rtoe2

neglected.

0.1g e at orbital

However,

Therefore,

and setting

The

2toeV

speed.

the vehicle

the dominant

term

Here

reaches

effect

which
ge is the

orbital

of this term

to e = 0 does not produce

any

speed
is only

significant

error.
Planar

motion

- In actual

on the launch

site which

of orbit inclination
required

airspeed,

is selected

flight

it is assumed

considering

Cy(_l

angle

and the dynamics

the vehicle

- D (i)

m(t)

_' =

{T (i) sin ct + L(i)

m(t)

= Vcos),

amount

can be achieved

assumptions
from those

to those

associated

as possible

motion

so that a wide range

is typically

in the flight.

by setting

angle,

with motion

system

Hence

the dynamics

longitude

for

in the vertical

is a 4-state

of

and latitude,

due east on the equator,

The resultant

not

13 = Wj = 0 and

us to decouple

of heading

is dependent

maneuver

very early

allow

to be launched

set to zero.

This magnitude

of lateral

is no out-of-plane

These

is assumed

and 2_o = 0, and _o is arbitrarily

= T (i) cost_

azimuth

is short.

to the equator

A large

and altitude

are reduced

maneuver

as close

that there

= 0) = 0.

_ght-path

convenience,

the lateral

can be achieved.

and the desired

simplicity,

flight,

plane.

For

i.e. Zo = 90
model:

I1_

- -_- sin ), - W i cos), - "_k sin),

; V(to)

= Vo

r-

I.te
( "_
r

V2
r )cos)'

+ Wi

+ W i sin)' - "qgk cosy} 1

; )'(to)

= )'o

; 0(t o) = 0

f = Vsin),

+ Wk

; r(to)

= h o + re

where

* For comparison,
10

specific

impulse

of tubojet

engine

is over 5000s.

(2.5)

_mo - k(1)(t_ to)

m(t)=] tms(j) - k(j) ( t - t(j)
s )
k(i)

a vertical

launch

and clearing

injection

at the perigee

chosen

/ s

; hf = 148160m

and

can be deleted

performed

to the constraints

Model

The aerodynamic
to a generic

model

vehicle

mounted

has

speeds

during

attack

and

model

body.

the fn'st stage

the C D exhibits

from

Launch

capacity

2-stage

The booster
flight.

a nonconvex

CD(O 0 and CL(a

direct

(2.7)

to minimizing

the fuel

on _f, the _ dynamics

Also,

the optimization

in Eq.
must

be

Configuration
from

launch vehicle
as shown

produces

This shadow

represent

[ aCl ] < (aq)max.

Vehicle

configuration

following

; t o = 15s

is equivalent

the analysis.

states

constraints

(cf. Figs. 2.3 - 2.8) is obtained

an asymmetric

Other than this behavior,

Mach

n -1

orbit.

is no constraint

q < qmax and

and

of a heavy-lift

atop the main

which

Since there

2.5 axe ignorable

Aerodynamic

transfer

; 7f = 0
the final time,

the vehicle

The terminal

; ho = 400m

for this formulation.

subject

represent

; To = 89.5

is to minimize

consumption

tower.

of an 80nm x 150nm elliptical

Vf = 7858.2m
objective

for this problem

of the launch

Vo = 64.49m/s

The

t_ n) = tf ,'j = 1, ...,

(2.6)

conditions

2.3

; t_j) _<t _<t_ j+l)',

= T(i)vac/ (geI_))

The initial

The

.(1)
s

; to <t<t

behavior
) are nearly

in Fig.

reduces

2.2 with

effect

the

above

in a above

and linear

booster

supersonic

the C D at positive

(cf. Fig. 2.6)

parabolic

It corresponds

based on a CFD analysis.

a shadowing

effect

[27].

angle
Mach

respectively

of
1.3.

at all

numbers.

L
k

T
V

i
mlMr 2

Figure

2.2.

Generic

Advanced

Launch

System

(ALS)

Model

in the Cik Plane.

11

0.6

0.4

M=0.2;

M=0.4

M=0.6;

M=O.8_a.=.-M=

1. 0

.,41
B,II
.411

0.2

.J
0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-15

"

-10

"

-5

"

2.3.

ALS

F_st

"

alpha
Figure

10

15

(deg)

Stage

C L Profde.

1.1
M=1.0
0.9

0.7'

\
N'';_._

0.5'

/
....,.
....

_,._

0.3

"_.

0.1

-10

'

....

"

-5

12

2.4.

ALS

/.o:;"

"

0
alpha

Figure

_..,....s

First

M=0.8

s'/
S_;

M=0.6
M=0.4

._.-

'

10

(deg)

Stage CD

/"

Profile.

M=0.2

15

0.6

0.3

0.0
.J
M=1.2
-0.3

..........

M=1.5
M=2.0

-0.6

- - '-v- -

M=2.5

..... ....

M=3.0

,
-0.9

-10

-5

0
alpha

M=4.0
I

"

10

15

(deg)

Figure 2.5. ALS First Stage C L Profile (continued).

1.3
M=1.2
..........

M=1.5
M=2.0

1.1
,_

- - "P- -

M=2.5

.........
"

M=3.0

"

M=4.0

\N,

s
//

t.)
0.9

4.X_\ ?."

."

::_'_,.

o,
0.5
-15

i _

_ ,,, ,,=

o,P

_t'_._
,
-10

...

.........

,
-5

,
0

alpha

_'_ ," ,

,
5

,
10

15

(deg)

Figure 2.6. ALS First Stage C D Profile (continued).

13

1.0
M=8
...........

M=I 0
M=12

0,5'

._

0,0'

7 7
-0.5

-1.0

-10

"

-5

alpha

Figure 2.7.

ALS

"

Second

10

15

(deg)
Stage

C L Profile.

0.45
M=12
M=IO
M=8

0.35

tO

0.25'

0.15

l
."

-10

"

'

-5

alpha
Figure

14

2.8.

ALS

"

Second

"

10

15

(deg)
Stage

C D Profile.

Due
control
peaks

to the nonconvexity

is expected
(using

to jump

Maximum

The phenomenon
the hodograph
and the angle

and

simply

in Fig. 2.9.

switches

nonconvex

region.

at t-At

when

bank

2.9.

is used

control

in Control

Table

2.1.

due to Nonconvex

Physical

Since
splines

sideslip

derivatives.

2.4

The
Profiles
values

at the Earth's

(158.5s)

430s
65.67m

11.25m 2
-2

167,580de_Nm

the aerodynamic

nil
-2

nil

coefficients

scheme

provides

of the ALS vehicle

can be interpolated
up to second
are given

order

in Table

as bicubic
continuous

2.1.

Model

atmospheric

of normalized

the

546,600kg

40698.2Nm

parameters

within

7,744,000N

37.5 lm 2

Other physical

Atmospheric

(15s)

The interpolation

by the

Hamiltonian.

430s

[28] in o_ and M.

will

2nd-sta_e

131.34m

is not considered,

o_.

Data

25,813,000N

positive

is observed

activity

that

variable,

control

(ctq)ma

C D at small

4Hmax_

1,523,400kg

qmax

control

is consolidated

lst-sta_e

Isp

has shown

at t+At

ALS Vehicle

Tva c

the two

progresses.

This hypothesis

Jump

rno(to); ms(ts+)

as a second

Hmax

when

as time

in [22]

The

of the f'LrSt kind [27], if exists,

Hmax

si-

documented

nonconvex.
value

equal

use of the lower

no high frequency

at t

to higher

become

angle

arc is not expected.

where

also becomes
value

The study

of a chattering

Figure

a lower

from 0 to n to make

that a chattering
here,

from

of the Hamiltonian

that the effect

analysis

Principle)

can be convexized

numerical

as tx switches

is displayed

It has also shown

be small

in C D, the Hamiltonian

model
density,

surface

is based

on the

1975

pressure

and sound

U. S. Standard

speed

with respect

(Pc = 1-225kg m-3, Pe = 101330Nm-2,

Atmosphere
to their

Ce = 340-3ms-1)

[29].

reference
are
15

given
over
profile

in Fig.

2.10.

Kennedy
is shown

and the vertical

To investigate

Space

Center

the effect

(KSC)

in Fig. 2.11.
and horizontal

of wind

is used to model

It indicates
(north)

a head-on

wind

shear,

a mean

winter

the non-stationary
wind

for vehicle

speed components

launched

...........

p/101330
c/340.3

o
I

/
I

1.2'
/

/
/

"D

0.g'

="

o
Z

0.6'

0.3

i.

0.0

40000

altitude

Figure 2.10.

80000

Standard

120000

160000

(m)

Atmospheric

Model.

10

0
A

E
v

-10
o
o
D.

-20

wi
IIII

W j, Wk

-30'

-40

10000

20000

Altitude
Figure
16

2.11.

KSC

Mean

(m)
Wind

Profile.

30000

The

due east,

to be zero.

1.8

15'

profile

atmosphere.

are assumed

rho/1.225

wind

SECTION

ANALYTICAL

Two
optimal

analytical

guidance

summarized

problem

in this

formulation,

3.1

chapter.

with

in Sec. 2.

The

analysis

perturbation

The

the objective

analytical

results

are

for:

of simplifying

and numerical

the

results

(1) a singular

are

perturbation

formulation.

Perturbations

Singular
singularly

APPROACHES

are presented

described

and (2) a regular

Singular

series

approaches

III

Perturbation

perturbed

systems

representation

theory

is related

of O. D. E's and

of the exact

solution.

to the

study

of a reduced

the construction

For example,

solution

of a matched

consider

of

asymptotic

the following

initial

value problem
dx
-- = f(x,y,t)
dt
e dy = g(x,y,t)
dt
where
have

x and y are scalar

the reduced

not

one.

system.

= Yo

problem

ones and the separation

are the main

advantages

Basically,
of y.

The

will be quite

the

system

is separated

of higher

order

of the method

that of the

solution

does

of singular
into

the

problems

stiff parts by using different

Applications

we

conditions

from

that the reduced

y) is a characteristic

reduction

E to zero,

initial

different

for

of numerically

of the method.

Setting

will not satisfy

on y (meaning

approximation

variables

parameter.

solution

solution

conditions

formulations.

of x and the fast

order

the reduced

of the reduced

valid

(3.1)

and _ > 0 is a scalar

Generally

a uniformly

perturbation

lower

; y(e,0)

This loss of boundary

provide

variables

= xo

functions

on y, and the initial behavior

exact

; x(e,0)

slow
into

time scales

are detailed

in [30, 31].

a) Energy_ state approximation

The
performance
applied
problems.

energy

state approximation

optimization,

to minimum

A third analytical

and sometimes

time-to-climb,

First we replace

attempt

is the most
referred

minimum

the velocity

used approximation

to as energy

fuel-to-climb

with the mass

using matched

widely

asymptotic

specific

methods

management.

and minimum

in aircraft
It has been
time intercept

energy

is documented

in [25].
17

E = V2 / 2

- ge[

as the state variable.

(3.2)

Differentiating

IZ.= T(i) cosa

Eq. 3.2 and using

Eqs. 2.5, 2.6 leads

to the system

- D (i) V

m(t)
/, = Vsin T
T (i) sin _ + L(i)
"i' = {

where
earlier

I.te

m(t)

V = _/2(E
studies

( r2

+ ge / r).

aircraft

and altitude

3.3 into the singular

)cosy}

At the moment,

on supersonic

slow variables

V2
(3.3)

the wind

shear

[30, 31], specific

and flight-path

perturbation

/ V

form,

angle

energy

are lreated

we artificially

effects
and

are not considered.

mass

are regarded

as fast variables.

in_oduce

In

a bookkeeping

as

So to put Eq.
parameter

into Eq. 3.4 as follows:

T (i) cosa

- D (i)

m(t)
ef = Vsin T

E_ = {T (i) sin o_ + L (i)

The performance

V2

(--_
r-

objective

is to minimize

The necessary
the differential

ge

m(t)

conditions

equations,

- ) cos T} / V
r

The costate

18

V 2

(r 2

OH

_'E =-

0-"E-

by fhst

and define the Hamiltonian

l.te

dynamics

tf.

axe formulated

H = _-E T(i) Cos0_ - D(i) V + --V

_'rm(t)
8

(3. 4)

8 to the right hand

side of

as

sin7 + _'3'__{T(i)
8

-) cosT} / V + constraint

moving

sino_ + L (i)

m(t)

(3.5)

satisfy:
"
;_Lr

OH
= -'_--

;_T

OH
-

0T

(3.6)

Now introducethe transformations_.E= _-E,e_'r

_-E-

Note

OH

. ej_r =

OH

that _'E is a slow variable

"e_,

= _'r, e_._, = _._, which

results

in

OH

(3.7)

and that L r , k v are fast variables.

The optimality

condition

is given by
OH / 0o_ = 0

In the reduced
consequence

(3.8)

problem
of

(e = 0) r and 3r are treated

setting

e = 0 in Eq.

substituted

in Eq. 3.6) can be interpreted

constraints

that result

Reduced

(outer)

or outer

e is set to zero.

3.7) is a first order

are minimizing
follows

setting

The

necessary

the final

may be written

solution

as Lagrange's

corresponds
0H/0r

condition

time).

costates

multipliers

to the solution

= 0 (which

for a minimum

Since

problem,

is a

)_r, _'_, (when

used

to enforce

the

the costate

_'E < 0. Hence

results

of Eqs. 3.4, 3.7 and

from

setting

of the Hamiltonian

_.E may
a stronger

3.8

e = 0 in Eq.
in Eq. 3.5 (we

be interpreted

as 0tf/OE(to),

statement

for this optimality

it

as

r* = max IT(i)cst_r L
m(t)

subject

transformed

which

e = 0 in Eq. 3.5.

condition

that in the reduced

condition

The

variables,

solution

The reduced
when

from

3.7.

as control-like

D(i)V}I

(3.9)

E,m

to the conditions:
_/=0
T (i) sinct + L(i)
m(t)

( r2

q < 40698.2Nm

last

Starting
performed.

two

conditions

at an initial

V2
r

)cos_

-2

Iraqi < 2924.82radNm

The

_te

are the

energy

The energy

(3.10)

-2

level

dynamic

pressure

and initial

mass,

level is then increased

and

aerodynamic

a one-dimensional

and the corresponding

load
search
change

constraints.
in altitude
in mass

is

is

19

50000

'!

'!

Energy

II

in

Contour

I
I

I f

'1

40000
I

1
I

,.c

',

*.

I.

l
l

30000

t
l

I
1
l

l
II
I
I
I
!

I
l
I

20000
500

t
.i

1000

"

1500
V

II
I
!
I
I

II
I
I
I
I
I

2000

2500

3000

(m/s)

Solution with 7 = 0.

Figure 3.1. Reduced

22

19
A

o
"o
(o

16

t,_
Io

13

1o
500

1000

1500
V

2000

2500

3000

(m/s)

Figure 3.2. Angle of Attack Profile along the Reduced Solution.

2O

Since
sistent

the optimal

with

estimated

the reduced

through

problem

result

solution

level of -6.09
Since
with

estimate

is obtained.

another

of flight-path

calculation

angle

scheme

sin3'e

By perturbing

is used

range

a reference

values

of angle

and therefore

guidance

law that defines

3.2 show

the

results

a central

the optimal

solution

optimal

trajectory.

the reduced

solution

the reduced

flight.

The initial

The solutions

not be considered

at low
the

feasible.

on the cut constraint

flight-path

solution.

Assuming

the change

Ah
(AE-/_)V

the energy

the vehicle
in altitude

value

another

angle and to include

angle according

a large

approximation),

The

up to an energy

along

calculation

the effect

is already

of flight-path

scheme

of a non-zero

solution

solution
gives

difference

to

angle
and is to

an estimate

of

(3.12)

}*

level from E to E + AE, we have

(3.13)

scheme

is used to estimate

with 3' = 0 replaced

3.4.

The inclusion

of 3'e gives

However,

(incon-

is used

flight-path

on the reduced

the reduced

angle

to

is recalculated

reasonably.

the

(> 20 ) that are well beyond

should
stays

also exhibits

3.10

vehicle

to

by sweeping

for

out for the fu'st-stage

of attack

in that the vehicle

Hence

feedback

3.1 and

along

solution.

Ah* = h*(E + AE) - h*(E)

and

(incon-

x 107Jkg -1.

the trajectory,

the flight-path

a reduced

Figs.

in very large
model

on the reduced

in Eq. 3.9 is carried

is unrealistic

a non-zero

in the reduced
follow

evaluation

of interest,

the optimization

aerodynamic

sistent

value

(3.11)

in E and m are chosen

levels

given

levels

profile

when

conditions

reduced

approximation),

'*' denotes

all the energy

altitude

energy

solution

a large

= -k(i)(AE / I_*)

the superscript

best

also exhibits

as
Am

where

solution

a slightly

this calculation

left the otq constraint

y.

Then

the solution

of Eqs.

3.9 and

are given

in Figs.

3.3 and

of o_, and both angle

profiles

behave

with 3' = 3'e- The results

lower
scheme

value

becomes

numerically

unstable

once

the

boundary.

21

30000

2000
1500
1000

4O

...........

gamma
alpha

30

6
U
2=.

O=
Q

2O

10

22

b) Two-state

model

Since
reasonable
model

the energy

flight

trajectory,

corresponds

I_=

state

approximation
a more

to a 2-state

T (i) _ D (i)

does not produce

accurate

model

a solution

is employed.

that resembles

The new

reduced-order

approximation:

m(t)

f = Vsiny

= {

where

T(i)o_ + K(_)o_
m(t)

only the flight-path

we adopt

angle

angle

the assumptions

proportional

_te
m
(r 2

V2
r

is assumed

and angle of attack

re(t)

la e

V2

r2

. (,--

T (i) +K 0)

In [23]
mass)

it is shown

that

is nonconvex,

interpretation
energy

here

and mass),

while

maximizing

totally

then

up of ve_cal

c) Manifold

solution

state

approximation

comparison

implies

reduced

chatters

of energy

climb

rate.

model

between

its optimum

is able to maintain

value

y = :!_/2.

Therefore

The

(for the current

the optimum

altitude

rate

this formulation

in that it produces

by chattering

(including

a reduced

is

solution

arcs.

analysis
inherent

in treating

to the constraints

parameter

the reduced

solution

rate to energy

and mass dynamics

perturbation

y = 0 along

for the 3-state

reaches

and dives, connected

relates

to energy

on the singular

of the mass

problem

of flight-path

(3.15)

solution

and eigenvalue

The fundamental

for optimality

; _-r >0

the altitude

for the analysis

climbs

and lift is linearly

,; _-r
_'r <0 0

hodograph

a chattering

the ratio

to ot is negligible

tractable,

.)cosy

the velocity

is that when

Eq. 2.5 analytically

are:

and that at kr = 0 the optimal

inappropriate

made

solution

I-re/2

To make

conditions

singular
rc/2

by

(3.14)

drag due

The necessary

on the reduced

_,r V sin 7 =_

/ V

fast.

that the induced

to ot (L(i) = KL(i)cz).

OH

)cosy]

solution,

vehicle

dynamics

on the y and h dynamics.

and without

e. For instance,
which

launch

taking

into account

the constraint

is an extremely

crude

They

by energy
are fast

in

the dependency

on altitude
approximation

dynamics
for the

23

lO0
go=89.5
\

..........

go=80
go=70
go=65

o
"o
v

60

e=

E
E
m

40

20

50

100
Time

Figure

3.5.

Flight-path

Angle

Profile

150

200

(s)

for Various

Reference

Trajectories.

20

go=89.5

"
A

go=80

go=75

*_

10

==

@
"D
m
in
m

..........

go=70
go=65

I
I
I
I

!
I
I

-10
0

50

1 O0
Time

Figure 3.6. Angle

24

of Attack

Profile

150

200

(s)

for Various

Reference

Trajectories.

launch

vehicle

in place

case.

This problem

can be alleviated

solution,

amounts

of the reduced

flight-path
separate

angle

chosen

boundary

condition

to suppress

layer

exact

of the initial condition

condition)
by visual
initial

of the states

are numerically
inspection

condition

worsen

above

deteriorates.

This hypothesis

corresponds

L r are absent

and costates

(with

the control

layer

estimated

to be at _'o = 75, where

like behavior

of dynamics

value

boundary

This allows

initial

it is found

supersonic

speed,

is consolidated

to determining
in the exact

eliminated

in _/and

lies to the manifold,

solution.

using

First

Ly..

the more

The

it can be seen that there

closer

accurate

and the

the optimality

the equilibrium

Figs 3.5 and 3.6 demonstrate

_/and the control

the initial

of 3to = 89.5 is performed,

us to identify

of fast transients

in _' becomes.

in the fast variable

the actual

out, however

a nominal

for the fast variable

correction

to take into account

in T about

for the absence

in the solution.

carried

in _/and

integrated.

[32]

with the initial

has also been

manifold

transients

solution

below.

of the equilibrium

on _t so that rapid

dynamics

described

the exact problem

that may be present

then perform

approximation

investigation

Computation
condition

could

the separation

model

by the eigenvalues

to solving

any fast motion

This approach

regarding

and the reduced-order

sweep

analysis

on 2t (cf. Fig. 3.7).

that the assumptions

which

by using a slow manifold

manifold
the actual

the subsequent

that the manifold

is no apparent

is

boundary-layer-

or.

initial

terminal
boundary

layer

solution
t

Figure
To shed insight
launch

vehicle

obtained,
about

linearized

an eigenvalue

the equilibrium

and the relative

the separation
system

and costates)

and 3.9 (only

magnitudes

possibility

whose

Boundary

test is carried
manifold,

Characteristics.

of the fast and slow dynamics

out.

By linearizing

the eigenvalues

characterize

at discrete

those in the right half s-plane

A Hamiltonian
the full order

provide
matrix

system

of the

the dynamics

of the linearized

of the real part of the eigenvalues

of the equilibrium

calculated

Layer

phenomenon

of the dynamics.

eigenvalues

in the vicinity

Eigenvalues

Typical

on the separation

problem,

r, _/, _,E, Lr, L about

3.7.

of E,

system

are

information

appears

of dynamics

in the
(states

manifold.

points

along

are shown).

the trajectory

are shown

At the beginning

in Figs.

3.8

part of the trajec25

tory (t < 50s),

(and costate)
a factor

the results
variables.

clearly

show

a separation

All the eigenvalues

of up to 4 in this interval

configuration

are real.

(cf. Fig. 3.9).

of 2 slow and

The relative

As the energy

magnitude

1 fast state

is separated

level increases,

two of the

10-1

mm

10.2

iA%A&

&

max

2nd largest
min

J
m

II
o

&
&&

I)

_>

10

-3,

A_

II
0
Q.
O
"

1 0.4,

C
0

O,

nO
D

>
c
e

'"

10.5.
0

100

200

300

Time
Figure 3.8.

Eigenvalue

Analysis

along

400

(s)

the Reference

Trajectory

of 1'o = 75.

lOO
"'0

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

....

o
..................

A
W

....

e
"ID

lO

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

,,,

L
..........

.....

m
D__
m v

-0_

'

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

100

200
Time

max/i 'nd largest

max/_ _in

300

400

(s)

Figure 3.9. Eigenvalue Separation by Relative Magnitude.

26

by

eigenvalues

join

magnitude

larger

fast state

variables.

energy

levels

specific

to form

An eigenvector

pair,

analysis

corresponds

levels,

rapidly

in Figs

3.8 and

to being

of which

is an order

a decomposition

indicates

to the flight-path

transitions

the real part

This suggests

is the only slow state variable.

energy

of 1 slow and 2

that the fast state

angle,

Altitude,

whereas

which

a fast variable

feedback

control

for the flight-path

solution

variable

at low

at high energy

levels

was a slow variable

at low

at approximately

for angle of attack,

angle dynamics,

H = -_,mo k(i) + kEol_(Eo,

t = 50s as shown

can be formulated

based

layer

as follows:

o_)+ _.roVo sin )' + _,7_(Eo,

h o , mo,

on a boundary

h o, m o , o0 = 0

Ha = 0

where
and

(3.16)

m o, E o, h o, kmo, kEo, kro are treated

are

constant

function

in the boundary

of energy,

control

update

unknowns

to form

a guided

Ly.

The

as slow variables*

analysis.

layer

solution.
guided

The

problem
Note

solution

solution

The

optimal

solution

is f'l_rst attracted

almost

exactly

with

altitude

state

in Fig.

boundary

layer

Recalling
analysis

performance

to the manifold,

the transition
3.8.

analysis

e). This explains

clearly

zero

dimensional

variable

inherent

aircraft

in this case and therefore

reasonable

order

along

role

boundary

layer

at about

variable

reduced

in the launch

the reduced

solution

with a load factor

a zero or even

the guided

This correlates
with

the

but

the

to zero-order

in

changed,

as slow (constant

in

for this problem.

formulation,

is attributed

vehicle

problem.

is plotted

scale

solution

even

The

vehicle

though

behavior,

to the

in Fig. 3.10.

of 0.1, the launch

a first order

manifold

associated
has

at each

is plotted

t = 25s.

variable

of a two-time

solution

slow

However

in the eigenvalue

as a

for the two

correction

solution.

of altitude

approach

existence

in Eq. 3.16 is solved

pre-computed

the

solution,

is stored

using

state approximation

the

solution

are two equations

place

the altitude

indicates

load factor

transport

is, the

energy

defined

and then diverges

of the manifold

the previous

manifold

the manifold

that takes

has treated

longitudinal

a subsonic

That

the failure

of the

approaches

in the manifold

that there

for )'o = 75 in Fig. 3.6) with an on-line

Fig. 3.10.

values

layer

and the boundary

in o_ and

(chosen

of

3.9.

A nonlinear
correction

conjugate

than the third (real) root.

indeed

energy

a complex

the

large

value

eigen-

value

of

of this non-

In comparison
averages

is not expected

poor

with
above

to provide

any

approximation.

* Here we treat m as a state variable,

and it is not eliminated

by Eq. 2.6.
27

lOO

.........

8O

optimal
manifold
guided

o
'ID
v

60

E
E
m

40

20

25

Time

Figure 3.10.

50

Flight-path

75

100

(s)

Angle Profile of the Guided Solution.

c
O
m
O.
o

500

1000

1500
V

Figure

3.11.

2500

3000

(m/s)

Evaluation of the Singular Perturbation

Parameter

28

2000

E(E) for the ALS Vehicle.

3.2

Regular

Perturbations

The unsuccessful
another
the

analytic

regular

attempt

approach

analysis.

formulation

for

optimal

formulations

is that higher
developed

horizontal

speed

order

atmospheric

here.

to account

led to consideration

on low thrust

spaceflight

the

regular

general

is discussed.

An

zero order

perturbation

extension

in a constant

gravity

solution

over

earlier

gravitational

by an attempt
field,

spherical

in the

on the maximum

field and in vacuum

This is then followed

for a central

based

of

problems,

for the free f'mal time are made explicitly

an analytic

rocket.

analysis

[33] is extended
to compute
Earth

a first

and all the

effects.

a) Re_malar perturbations
The
mance

Then

problem

section,

problems

order corrections

multi-stage

correction

In this

control

transfer

to a mass-varying

perturbation

that has been used repeatedly

perturbation

formulation

by singular

optimal

index

m optimal
control

which

conn'ol

problem

formulation

is a function

of the

consider

terminal

here

states

and

is to maximize
time,

subject

a perforto dynamic

constraints:

J =

max
u

{_)(x, t

(3.17)

)}[ tf

/_ = f(x,u,t)+eg(x,u,t)

and

the terminal

dimensional
expansion

state

effects,

Hamiltonian

constraints

vector

parameter

nonlinear
The

time

_gi(x(tf))

E is sometimes

artificially

and used as a bookkeeping

and transversality

condition

equations

and associated

the

constraints,

subscript
the optimal

is used

to denote

control

Hu = _.T {fu + _gu} = 0

inserted

In Eq. 3.18,

vector.

to signify

x is an n-

In applications,
the presence

for the regular

expansion

the

of small
analysis.

are given by:

boundary

; _(tf)

p < n.

control

parameter

"' H(tf)

= -H x

where

= 0, i = 1.....

and u is an m-dimensional

H = _T{f+_g}

The costate

(3.18)

; X(to) = x o ; t _ [to,t f]

=-_t

Itf ; _ =(_+vT_

conditions

(3.19)

are:

(3.20)

= *xltfl

partial

differentiation.

In the

absence

of control

satisfies
(3.21)
29

assumingthat

Huu > 0.

In the above
(t - to)/T where
following

final time is free.

T = tf- toand

equivalent

rewrite

Thus,

we introduce

the necessary

a new independent

conditions

of Eqs.

3.18

variable
- 3.20

x" = H_T

; x(x = 0) = x o ; _(x('t

X' = -HxT

; X(x = 1) = Cx[,_ = 1

= 1)) = 0

(3.22)

(3.23)

(3.24)

H = xT{f(x,u,'cT

mate

(-)' denotes
the solution
x=x

Assume

2+

l+E2u2+

T O +ET 1 +E2T2

the functions

- 3.25

the objective

is to approxi-

series in x, X, u and T as follows:

(3.26)

continuous

of approximation.

is constructed

_Okl_

necessary

analysis,

+ ...

f, g, 0, _g have piecewise

K is the order

3.22

perturbation

(3.25)

...

...

0+Eu

)=F(o0)+e

Using

according

._-_-I

o = {x, X, v, u, T}.

in Eqs.

In a regular

u=u

K
k=l

30

1+2x

approximation

where

xT+ to) } ; H('_ = 1) = -t[xl

to Eqs. 3.22 - 3.25 by an asymptotic

0+Ex

F(o0+

order

d(-)/d'c.

...

K+ 1 where
series

+ to) + eg(x,u,

_L = x 0 + E_, 1 + E2_L2 +

T=

in the

form:

Tt=0

where

x =

and equating

the Taylor

up to order at least

series

formula,

a finite

to

Ol+E2{_I

do IO0
Substituting

derivatives

the series

like powers

conditions.

To zero order

ax0/_t

= all0/_'0

; x0(to)

c)_'0/igi

= -_)H 0/_)x 0 ; X0(i = to +To)

1324

(3.27)

d2FJo002}
21 ! do
2 +1

do IO0
representation

in e, we obtain

for each
the zero

"'"
of the variables

order

we have:

= Xo ; V(x0(to

+To))

= (I)(x0,i)

= 0

/ _)x0li = to +To

and

higher

/)H 0 /Du o = 0
I
H 0 = ETf(x0,u0,i

In Eq. 3.28,
noted

' H0(t

the new independent

the higher

order

(3.28)

= to +To)

variable

that in the zero order problem

For

linear

= -(x0't)

t = fib

has been

/ 3tltl =to+T

introduced,

where

it should

be

T = T 0.

problems,

they are governed

by a set of nonhomogeneous

O. D. E's. with the form of

rn,,,x0A12(x0,
0T0, I T'0,T0)I[Xk
r l'X0 0T0'

diLZ.kJ

LA21(x0,_,0,T0)

A22(x0,_.0,T0)J

+[ Plk (x0';L0'
LP2k (x0'

TO .....

_,k

Xk_l,kk-l,

Tk-1) ]

Xk-1,

Zk-1)_l

_'0' TO .....

_'k-1,

+_00LC2(x0,Z'0,T0)

(3.29)

where
All

= fx - fu[(fT_')ul-l(fT_')x

A12 = -fut(fTX,)ul-lf

A21 =-(fxT_,)x

A2 2 =_fT

+ (fxT),)ut(fT_,)ul-'(ff;_)x

+ (fxT_,)ut(fT_,)u]-lfuT

C 1 = f + (t-

C2 = _fT_,

to){f i -fu[(fT_,)u]-l(fT_,)i}

_ (__

to){(fTk)i_

(fT)Qut(fTk)u

(3.30)

]-l(fT_.)i}

and for k = 1"

Pll = g-

fu[(fu

T
P21 =-gx_,+(fx

All the matrices

necessary
transversality
higher

order

_')u]
T

-I

T
gu _"

_,)u[(fu

_,)u]

-1

T
gu _.

in Eq. 3.30 are evaluated

conditions,
condition
corrections

it is also

to the fial

at the zero order solution

required

in Eq. 3.28.

(3.31)

Note

to expand
that

values.

To complete

the

boundary

conditions

Eq. 3.29

explicitly

shows

time, T. If the solution

process

is terminated

the

and

the

the effect

of

at say,
31

= 1, then

constructed
control

a real-time

sampled

as follows.

For the original

is obtained

treating

as function

the present

data

implementation
system

of the control

in Eq. 3.18, an expression

of x and k from the optimality

state as the initial

state, a first order

condition

for 3,(to) to compute

_l(to)

of the zero and the fast

This process

is repeated

the new initial

updating

from the solutions

state.

Therefore,

the estimate
The

state transition

in terms

matrix

with respect

ordinary

of a convolution

conditions

solution.

the above

performed

In Appendix

Since

at t = T O along

for the fast

In a discrete

zero
the

order

quadrature

and

the zero

- 3.31

matrix.

The

solution

computed

at

given

can be expressed

process

time.

of solving

can be handled
we would

term

x0(to)

changes

update

solution

solution

have

modification

if the current
satisfies

computed
it would

the

that must

be

state is regarded

as

order

be possible

as might

of Eq. 3.32.

arise

epoch

state,

it is

between
time,

to pre-compute

the trajectory.

and the quadrature

on the

corrections.

as the deviation

for the original

along

condition

of the initial

higher

xk(to)

variable

such

Thus

the initial

for the

condi-

equations.

lies in the quadrature

and treat

of a monotonic

dynamics,

of the boundary

at each update

the zero order problem

by a simple

"^ "FPIk(X)I"

a set of linear algebraic

order

In this form

case of discontinuous

/ +

with the expansions

at each

order

and store it as a function

32

it is easily

that the result

time implementation,

solution

quadrature

representation

3.29

i-t['_o(t)1' '_ _

at the present

vehicle,

in

k-Co LXo( )j JtoXZA(t,X,Lp2k(x)_ (3.32)

x

we can fix the zero order

state

The

in Eqs.

of the zero order

J-___|

"[-Xk(t)+T

evaluated

real-time

solutions

a state transition

hence

A it is shown

for B.k(to), v k and T k from

to repeat

the current

equations

derivative

and L0(to),

then Xk(to) = 0 in Eq. 3.32 since

state variable.

Alternatively,

order

"^

of the computation

state

necessary

of the state as

^ ._Tk['CI('C)
]
[Plk(_)]_d.
flA(t":)L'oLC2('C)J
L 2k()JJ C

in Eq. 3.32.

the initial

and

conditions.

^ to)[_,kx k (t)4 + _t
(to)J to

expression

tions, we can solve

part

differential

the partial

x0(to)

= Att, to)L .k(to)

major

by using
k0(to)

necessary
the value

Then,

form

[Xk(t)]=,A(t,
[_k(t)J

Using

where

the zero and fast

by first obtaining

_A (t, to) is merely

zero order

order

time by regarding

to repeat

for the optimal

is obtained

the control,

be

variable.

linear

to the initial

in the following

update

it is necessary

of the costate

non-homogeneous

may be expressed

an analytic

at the next control

would

in Eq. 3.21.

approximation

3.0(t o) + e3,1(t o) as an approximation

are obtained

solution

but
the

Thus

the

can be avoided.

in a multi-stage

For example,

launch

in a two-stage

[xk(bl n_)(_,ts){a(')'" " ,['k(to)l - ,_ to[_(o_)(tPl+

Lk(bJ=
A,_,'oJLxk(to)]+ 'k '_TO-'
[_o
(_)(tp]

Fpfl)(,ol_ _
(3.33)
ts

The

superscripts

interior

point

b) Launch

JLP2(2)(,c)_"

(1), (2) denote

where

vehicle

should

orbit.

is to maximize

= 7858.2ms

to direct

it is necessary

but accurate

enough

and ts is the

a closed

time)

subject

= 148160m,

open

(tf).

of an 80nm

x 150nm

form,

such that the neglected

fial

zero

order

dynamics

to the
These

elliptical

solution

which

can be corrected

in

term.

is made

to treat the atmospheric

the problem,

spherical

Earth

when

the vehicle

only apparent

atmosphere

at the perigee

to derive

that the dominant

is similar

sets of dynamics

-tf (ie. minimize

-1, y(tf) = 0, h(tf)

injection

Assuming
attempt

to the maximum
situation.

dynamics

are

unknown

final

format

V(tf)

First,

be simple,

a first order

for different

occurs.

objective

correspond

transfer

ts

application

conditions

conditions

the expressions

discontinuity

The performance
terminal

; t>

effects

We now

Tv(_ sin0
";' = m(i) _ k(i) t
ge
+ge--_-

ge + _

the

transfer

terminal

with the above

i) sin0-

effect.

and gravity,

To further
(these

near the end of the flight).

problem

boundary

the dynamics

(-PA(e

simplify

effects
The

are
result

in [33] for a flat Earth

of the vehicle

conditions

are

no-

is varying,
specified

of Eq. 2.5 in a regular

desired

an

the
at an

perturbation

approximations:

D (i) sin'y + L(i) cosy

m(i) _ k(i) t

u2
+---_-)

T(ia)c cos 0 t + I(-pA_i)

t_ = m---(i_-_-k-_

i"= v

speed

are thrust

as perturbations

here are that the mass

recast

as in Eq. 3.18, in accordance

orbital
speed

The differences

vehicle

as a perturbation

are also considered

reaches

and

on the launch

effects

horizontal

discontinuous
time.

forces

; V(to)=

Vo;

cos0- rn-(O-k--_t
D(i) cosy

; r(t o) = r o

i= 1, 2

- L(i) sinT

uv
- 1 ; u(t)

= u

(3.34)

33

where

Here

m(1)= mo + k(1)to

; m(2) = ms+ k(2)ts

v = Vsin T

; u = VcosT

e has

been

artificially

dynamics

are expressed

derivation

of the zero order

horizontal

velocity

from

the local

introduced

as an arbitrary

in a rectangular
solution.

components.

; 0 = tx+y

coordinate

The control

bookkeeping

system

The state variables

variable

(3.35)

to facilitate

parameter.

The

the closed

form

v and u are the local vertical

is 0, the thrust-vector

angle

and

measured

horizon.

The necessary

_,v = -_,r

conditions

+ (-_Lv

_r = g(-_Lv

_g_

_gl_

0 = (Xv cos0-

of optimality

_Lu _'_

for the above

formulation

are:

_Lu_-_)

Xu sm 0) mt _

?(ix t

I
0 = {Z,v, + Z,uia + Xri'_l
JI

where

-pA(i)

g2 =
order

and the transversality

- D (i) cosy

- L (i) sinT

m (i) - k(i)t

conditions

__te.
r2

I- ge

respectively,

and

_ u2
r

uv
(3.37)

solution

Setting

e = 0, the costate

some license

taken

solutions

and

the optimal

control

with the zero order time notation):

2Lv0(t ) = Cv0 - Cr0t

34

(3.36)

sin 0- D(i) sin T + L(i) cost

m(i) _ k(i) t

-pA (i) cos0

(with

- 1

the last two are the optimality

gl =

Zero

tf

; 2Lu0(t) = Cu0

; _,r0(t)

= Cr0

are given

as follows

tan(00(t)) = p = qt
The

control

equations
initial

satisfies

a linear

can be integrated

conditions

superscript

; P - Cv0/Cu0
tangent

in closed

is presented

(1) would

simply

form.

below

and

T(_
k'-_-G(

Eq. 3.38

The solution

that relates

for t < ts, the terms

into Eq. 3.36,

the states

involving

m (1) k (1) x "c= ts . T_

,(rn(2
,
, ) i'_ t o _k(2)(2) v,-.

+ Tv(la) F(m(1),k(1),.0
_

u0(t)=u

Substituting

(3. 38)

the

state

at t > ts to the
variables

with

be deleted.

v0(t ) = v o -ge(t-to)+

r0(t)

law.

; q = Cr0 / Cu0

) k(2) "0
= t
,, It_=ts

x = ts + T_a_ r:rm( )t-( ) x)

2
Ix=t
x = ts
x=t o
k (2)
(2)-" ......2

= ro+Vo(t-to)-2ge(t-to)

2 -(,t-to)
"

.Tv(_,-,,_(1)
k--_-_,m

,r,,.(1) , t o/-

T (2)

(t -

ts)/#G(m(2)'k(2)'ts)L

w(1)
'vac K(m(1),k(1),x)
qk (1)

- k"_"
T(_ c:,...(1)
_'"
, k(1) ,ts)}

[:=ts

to

T(.2) K(m(2),k
+ q_

2
(),x)

[-_=t
'c = t s ; t > t s

(3. 39)

where

F(m(i),k(i),,

0 =

-sinh-l[tan(00('0
1_+

K(m (i), k (i), 'c) = - sec(00

for the solution,

+ ts + T O where
enforce
condition

Eqs.

T O represents

the zero order expansion

given

; tanTl = _

(_)) - [ tan(00

; A =

k(i)

(_))]

(3.40)

(x)) + A]G(m (i), k (i), "0

3.38 - 3.40 are evaluated

the zero order,

qm (i) - pk (i)

second

of the terminal

at the zero order

stage,

boundary

open flight

conditions

final

time tf0 = to

time,

and used

to

and the transversality

below:

v(tf0 )=vf

2LvO(

A2

(i),
k (i),'c)
- sinh-1 [tan(00

G(m (i),
k(i),'_)
= -AF(m

To solve

- TI)]

;u(tf0

)=uf

)t -ge)+_uO

;r(tf0)=hf+r

"vac cos
m-('_'--k(2---)t +_,rOVO

tfo = 1

(3.41)

35

Thereis a total of four unknownsCv0,Cu0,cr0,TOto beevaluatedby thefour conditionsin

Eq. 3.41.
First

order

solution

Using

Eqs.

3.29 to 3.31,

the first order

correction

dynamics

for the launch

vehicle

pmb_mbecome

dt

with vl(to)

a_

Vl

c_i)(t)

o(i)

Ul

c(2i)(t)

"0

a_i4)

Ul
"vl

a(_

rl

Xvx

Xul

.2grl.

"25

= ul(t o) = rl(t o) = Vl(tf0)

(i)
T_a c
a14 = m(iS-k(i)

.Xrl J

= Ul(tf 0) = rl(tf0)

Pl = gl - (m(i)

36

= 0, where

t (Xv0 sin00

_k(i)t)(kvSin0+_.uCOSO)

+Xu0COS00

v 20

ac
_'v
Tv(i) sin0
_ k(i)t)(Xv sin 0 + Xu cosO)[

P4 =-_'v_gl

_.

Og2

P6 = -_.v 3gl
_r

X 3g2
U;gr

.,.(2) cos0
'vac _;u='_'0 rl
k(2)(t"c2
= _
,
- k(2)t " + m-_-k(-_

P2 = g2 + (re(i)

u _v

ok"(t)

_1

sin 2 0

k(2)( t- ts)
m (2) _ k(2)t J -ge

_v

D_'(t)

+ Xu0 cosOo)

; a25 = m(i_-k(i)
vac

-r,(2) sin00
c 1 = mlvac
(2) _ k(2)t [1+

p(2)(t)

T (i)
a24 = a15

(3.42)
+

- cos 00 sin 00

t (Xv0 sin00

-Xr0

_ul

)-

p(i)(t)

v0(t)

Xvl I

2
cos 0
t (Xv0 sin00 + Xu0 cos00

Tv(i2c
a15 = m(iS-k(i)

-1

p_i)(t

, P5 =

ts) ]
t

_O--

t)gl + _'u ;
_}
20
"
"

__Lv_gl

_u

_'u Og2

0u

(3.43)

All the variables

is assumed

are evaluated

to be fixed,

and the second

term

this time interval.

versality

in Eq. 3.42 is discarded

condition

0=

for the correction

the state transition

matrix

(o_i4)

co_ )

eo_i6
)

,,(i)
w24

,.,(i)
'-"25

e0(i)
26

0
0

1
0

_(_
1

w35
,.,(i)
0

"36
,.,(i)
t1 - t 2

of the (o's are given

in Appendix

_'vl(

ge+gl0)+_,ul

vac
T(2)k(2)
(m(2S_-k-'_-)t)

2 (;Lv0Sin00

From Eq. 3.33, the first order variables

I xl(tf0)]
Xl(tf0)J

+_'u0CS00)

at tf0 are related

Eq.

3.46

the unknown

accurate

results,

of the trans-

costate

and final
algebraic

by setting
cede

effects

to their initial values

at to by

dz

to

Lr:z2[J

and using
time

= {Pl, P2, 0} and P21 = {P4, P5, P6}"

the boundary

corrections

conditions

Xvl(to),

Xul(to),

defined
_l(to),

in Eq.

T1 can be

equations.

the reference

area S = 0).

[10] is also included

are concerned,

especially

(3.45)

}1t = tf0

(3.46)

3.12 to 3.18 give the zero and first order

shooting

back-pressure

(3.44)

I"t)(2)"l

tfo

into Eq. 3.45

from a set of linear

multiple

of

z)

where x 1 = {v 1, u 1, rl}, _.1 = {_Lvl, _'ul, _Lrl }, Pll

(obtained

has a structure

to

0 +g20)+
k(2)t

L 1( oJJ

Figures

t < ts,

corresponding

B, and the expansion

/ _vac
'm(2)

+j
L .q2)(te0)t s

case

dynamics

= n(A2)(tf0,ts)

Tl[X_:)(tf0)"

found

describing

time

for the first order case is

Wl

3.42,

the first stage flight

T 1 = 0 for the dynamics

Substituting

Since

t2-t
0

expression

solution.

T = tf - t s. Consequently,

In this example,

f_(_)(t2,tl)

Complete

along the zero order

results for a no-aerodynamic

The optimal

for comparison.

the regular

in the state histories.

perturbation

solution

obtained

As far as spherical
approach

Next the aerodynamic

force

effect

from

Earth

produces

and
very

is included,

37

the resulting angle of

solution

is found

forces.

The

value

of angle

these

results

zero

order

has been
solution.

40%

over

amount

some

is shown

in the region

solution

of attack

along

profile

at low altitudes

f'n'st order

components

attack

over-corrects

that is not considered

that the aerodynamic

Figure

3.20

the optimal
time interval

of aerodynamics

effects

show

solution.
during

in Fig.

No

of high dynamic

reasonable

pressure

the zero

order

feasible.

The conclusion

forces
the ratios

are simply

result

The magnitude

and

gives

too large

of lift to thrust
flight

large

that is drawn

from

to be ignored
forces

+%

optimal

--

1st

4D

E
v

+oo

X7
V.,

200

',

100

Time
Figure 3.12.

300

400

(s)

Regular Perturbation Results in v with

Spherical

38

200

Earth and Back-pressure

almost

that a significant

8OO

in the

to the thrust

ratio reaches

in the ALS vehicle.

order

a very

and indicates

first

and aerodynamic

of the aerodynamic

the first stage

exist

3.19.

Effects.

8000
1st
.....

60O0

Oth
optimal

4000

2000

100

200
Time

Figure

3.13.

Regular
Spherical

160000 I

120000

300
($)

Perturbation
Earth

Results

in u with

and Back-pressure

optimal
1st

.....

400

Effects.

/,_-"

Oth

/"

g oooo
t

_--

"

100

Time

Figure

3.14.

200

Regular
Spherical

300
(s)

Perturbation
Earth

400

Results

in h with

and Back-pressure

Effects.

39

0.04

optimal
1st

0.03'

.....

Oth

E
Q

0.02

ca
"o

0.01

m
,.I

0.00

o0.01

100

200
Time

Figure

3.15.

Regular

300
(s)

Perturbation

Spherical

400

Earth

Results

in Xv with

and Back-pressure

Effects.

0.030

optimal
1st

.....

Oth

0.025

,=

t,

0.020

""

0.015

,
100

I
200
Time

Figure

3.16.

Regular
Spherical

40

,
300

400

(s)

Perturbation

Results

in _a with

Earth and Back-pressure

Effects.

8.0e-4

optimal
1st

.....

6.0e-4

0th

E
W
v

4.0e-4 '
"O

E
IB
,--I

2.0e-4.
Aid%=

=A

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

...-..--......--.--..---....---

0.0e+0

_
100

,
200
Time

Figure

Regular

3.17.

Spherical

,
300

400

(s)

Perturbation

Results

in k r with

Earth and Back-pressure

Effects.

4O

.
;" .... ".... .
, AA&,,_
"-..

20
A

_
.....

optimal
1st
Oth

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

6
"13

0
m
D.
m

-20

-40

100

200

300

Time
Figure

3.18.

Regular
Spherical

400

(s)

Perturbation

Results

in o_ with

Earth and Back-pressure

Effects.

41

10
optimal

o
"o
v

m
/D.
m

-10

100

Time
Figure

3.19.

200

Regular

300

400

(s)

Perturbation

Aerodynamic

Results

in _ Including

Effects.

0.4
O

D/lcos(alpha)

L/Tsin(alpha)

0.3'

2
I-

0.2'

-,I

0.1

=11

/\\

.=
a
0.0

200

Time
Figure

3.20.

100

Aerodynamic

300

(s)
to Propulsive

Along the Optimal

42

4O0

Trajectory.

Force

Ratios

SECTION IV
A HYBRID

COLLOCATION/REGULAR

PERTURBATION

This chapter
seeks to combine
simplified
finite

the desirable

models,

elements

regular

develops

perturbation

system

a solution

approach

for nonlinear

features

of analytical

methods

and numerical

to represent

is used

methods

The

and collocation

to illustrate

the

optimization
which

that use elementary

the solution.

analysis

ANALYSIS

are based

is developed

technique.

A simple

approach

for

that

on the use of

interpolation

approach

conceptual

problems

functions

and

for a combination

of

fourth

several

order

nonlinear

possible

levels

of

approximation.

4.1

Introduction
Among

the proposed

analysis

by regular

crucial

to the success

perturbation

by the zero order

series
The

solution
approach

has had

so that

transition

matrix

facilitating

problem

may

even

zero order

problem

to diverge

even

drawback

control

when

the

unknown
associated

process.

The major

limitation

close

order

in any attempt
is required

coefficients.

It involves

Thus

two point boundary

when

even

terms

applications

a state

corrections,

further

appears

to be

in the zero

problem,

which

out in this case that the

and the solution

(cf.

by model
a minor

is

Sec.

3.2b).

A second

simplification
change

begins

is that

in the optimal

is made.

[8, 36] is a general

constraints

problem

is attempted

nonlinear

be neglected

It turns

to the

in accuracy.

applications

must

effects.

of analysis

However,
approximated

small

order

3, the

corrections

for the zero order

to the original

correction

with

in certain

effects

of aerodynamic

order

in guidance

solution

appealing.

is reasonably

and higher

such as aerodynamic

a first

formulation

Also,

the first

in Chapter

in an improvement

to systems

is linear.

an analytic

solution

results

for

to obtain

is most

of f'trst or higher

applied

problem

of re-analysis

equations.

interpolatory

when

be determined

is inherent

Collocation
differential

order

in the absence

amount

problem

success

is not sufficiently

which

significant

is that the optimal

is not convergent)

nonlinearities,
in order

also nonlinear

great

for real time guidance

of the solution

so that the addition

usually

the zero

the solution

that significant
order

solution,

approaches

expansion

of the method

(which

[34, 35]

analytical

method

choosing

at specific
when

applied

value problem

for obtaining

simple
points

an approximate

interpolating

within

to an optimal

functions

finite

elements

control

to a set of coupled

problem,

nonlinear

solution

of

and enforcing
to evaluate
it reduces
algebraic

the
the

equat43

ions. Collocation methodshave the advantagesthat they are simple to use for a wide
variety of optimization problems,andtheir accuracycanbe improvedby increasingthe
numberof elementsusedin theapproximation.The major disadvantages
arethatthereis
no generalguaranteethat the numericalmethodsemployedwill successfullysolve the
nonlinearprogrammingproblemunderall circumstances,
andthedimensionof theproblem
increasesproportionatelywith thenumberof elements.
It is apparentfrom the above discussionthat the advantagesof analytical and
numericalmethodsarein manyrespectscomplementaryin the sensethatif the advantages
can becombinedin someway, thenmostof the importantdisadvantages(from the viewpoint of realtime applications)canbereduced.In this chapter,two of possiblymanyways
to obtain such a hybrid methodology are presented,with the potential for use in the
developmentof realtime optimal guidancealgorithms. Thefin'stapproach uses the method
of regular

expansion

a given

number

regular

expansion

to improve

of elements.

method,

without

the number

increasing

The

Method

Collocation
ential

equations

functions.

The

unperturbed
simplicity,
are enforced

qj -

x(i)

to identify

with

unknown

finite

for constructing
elements

coefficients

points

are determined

each

the first by using

the level

solution

or simple

by enforcing

functions

element.

for
both

functions
of accuracy

We consider

satisfy

approximation
These

constraints

interpolating

continuity

at the nodes

the differential

an optimization

where

to a set of differ-

analytic

dx/dt = f(x, u, 0 and Hamiltonian

a first order polynomial

j_ 1

an approximate

of the interpolating

within

equations

problem
H = _Tf.

the derivative
can be expressed

with
For

constraints
as:

OH
-

0_,

[=([j+ij_l)/2

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

_'j - _'j-1
OH
^
-----ij - t j_ 1
0x [=([j+ij_l)/2

= xj_ 1 + pj(i-

tj-1)

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

; J = 1.....
^

_'(i) = 2Lj-1 +qj(i-ij-1)

44

the error

interpolating

of improving

of polynomials

at the mid point of each element.

i j-i

upon

more intelligent

the objective

(ie. g(x, u, 0 = O) dynamics

assume

improves

reducing

of elements.

is a method

xj -- x j_ 1
P J=

methods

thereby

of Collocation

by using

specified

solution,

approach

again

and that the time derivatives

at some

a collocation

The second

and analytical

in the collocation

4.2

upon

; i _[tj-l,tj]

; _,=(_.j+kj_l)/2

; _,=(_.j+_,j_l)/2

N
^

; to =to;iN

=to+TO

(4.1)

whereN is the numberof elements.Thecontrolis assumedto havebeeneliminated using

the optimality condition. In practice,it is moreconvenientto directly evaluatethe nodal
values (x0, _.0..... xtq,_qq)rather than finding the coefficients of the interpolating
functions. Though higher order polynomials such as Hermite's cubic are generally
preferred(becauseof their smoothness
properties),we considera first orderrepresentation
to simplify the presentation,althoughthe approachappliesequallywell for higher order
representations.
4.3

Regular

Perturbation

A regular
dynamics

Formulation

perturbation

in the following

formulation

may

be introduced

by rewriting

the

actual

form:

= pj + e(HTt - p j)

_. = qj + e(-H

x - qj)
^

Hu = 0

Note

that e has again

been

introduced

this step is that if the collocation

then the second

terms

the state and costate

the control
analytic

; _ _ [tj_l,tj]

cannot

as a bookkeeping

solution

derivatives,

which

is actually

explicitly

The justification

approximates

as having

a small

condition

formulation

(for which

the true

perturbing

zero at the mid points

in the collocation

H(u, x, _,) of the optimality

u) can be extracted

parameter.

alone accurately

in Eq. 4.2 may be regarded

be eliminated

portion

(4.2)

solution,
effects

4.2.

in Eq. 4.1, then an

it is possible

to eliminate

as the zero order

functions

possible

ficant decrease
Now

As presented

solution

for the regular

by example

can be identified

the analytically

tractable

in the computational
we can

improve

the

problems

defined

H is the Hamiltonian

parameter.

as will be shown

interpolating
extent

(4.3)

equations

a perturbation

Also,

If

such that

Note that in the above

viewed

on

of the elements.

0 = H + e(H u - H)

without

for

apply

approximate

portions

in Eqs. 3.29 - 3.31,

solution

to the original

a collocation

perturbation
section,

from the necessary

requirements

order

above,

in the next

the perturbation
zero

corresponding

problem
more

may

formulated

intelligent

conditions,

of the solution.

solution

system

in Eq.

choices

by utilizing

This results

be

of

to the

in a signi-

for a given level of accuracy.

technique
from

described
collocation.

in the
For the

Section
higher

3.2

to

order

we have:
45

All j

_PJ
a2H[
= a"_- = axa--_ [t=(tj+tj-l)/2

apj
h12j

; x=(xj+xj_

I)/2 ; _-=(_.j+_.j-i

)/2

a2H[

= _

= a2-"_[t=(tj+tj-1

)/2 ; x=(xj+xj-1)/2

; _'=(_'j+_'j-1)/2

_:"1
A21 j = _qxj =

_ aqj
A22j

Clj

a2 x [t=(tj+tj_l)/2

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

; Z=(_.j+_.j_I)/2

a2H

a_

a;_:rnx [=(tj+tj_l)/2

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

; _.=(Zj+kj_l)/2

= pj + (i - i j_ l)ptj
.all

.^

a2H[

= l-ff_- + (t - tj_l) a--_}[i=([j+ij_l)/2

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

; B.=(kj+_.j_I)/2

C2j = qj + (t - tj-1)qtj
aH

,.

= {--ff
and

Pllj

= "_

P%

costate

; x=(xj+xj_l)/2

;_.=(B.j+B,j_I)/2

(4.4)

) -PJ

dynamics
which

; _,=_,j.l+qj(_-[j_l

(4.5)

_. =xj.1+Pj(L_j_1)
_.=_.j.1+qj(L_j.1)
-qj

in Eq. 4.4 are constant*

solution.

The

evaluated

now corresponds

_.k ([)j

46

_=(ij+_j_l)/2

i ; x=xj.l+Pj([-ij_l)

all the terms

collocation

_tj_l)_.x}

for k = 1,

where

3.32,

a2H

= f_A(t,

matrix

within

Aj is simply

at the constraint
to a piecewise

to)[B.k (to) j

an element,

and are evaluated

the perturbation

point
constant

of the original

of each element.
system

Tk,t
-i -FCl
ToJtO . A('Z)Lc2Ad'+

using

the

state

and

The expression

matrix

Aj, can be written

_u "A ([,x)[P_:

If higher order interpolating

polynomials
are chosen, the dynamical
time varying matrix polynomial
with piecewise
constant coefficients.

in Eq.

system

as

]dx (4. 6)

will be a

and for a constant

system

matrix

'

[Xk(_) j
1
LXk(t)
f Aj(i,ij-,

is not the
transition

same
matrix

as in Eqs.

3.32

and

here may not have

is not necessarily

analytic.

sensitivity

functions

assigning

a unit vector

to to to + T 0. Thus
sensitivity

(t'

matrix

and

"_

3.33

because

an analytic

superposition

we can

for the initial conditions,

functions

the position

are obtained.

solve

[PIj]

of linear

4.4

and

systems.

that _Aj
The

state

solution

4.5 using

This

integrates

element

can be done

Note

the zero order

Eqs.

and numerically

This process

differently.

because

of the non-zero

..

as in Eq. 4.4.

A is defined

expression

property

[tj,tj-1]

and Ptj, qtj are defined

If this is true,

by changing

/[_i

Tkf2A(t'tj-1)Ayl

J) "tj+

flAj is the state transition

as

.[Xk(_j_l)],

+AT/qt

where

Aj, it can be written

the

is done

the system

from

in the unit vector,

in parallel

by

the

for different

unit

vector.
In the zero order
collocation
solving

constraints

4.4

equations.

as explained

A Duffing's

section.

Then first

in the earlier

Equation

This investigation
preceding

in Eq. 4.2 is set to zero, which

in F_x[.4.1 are employed

the algebraic

by quadrature

solution,

means

and an approximate

and higher

section

solution

order corrections

on regular

that the standard

is obtained

by

may be computed

perturbation.

Example

is carded

The example

out to demonstrate

is based

on Duffing's

the hybrid
equation

approach
presented

outlined

in the

in its first order

form:

=v

, x(0) = xo

_, = -x - ax 3 + u

and the objective

; v(0)

is to

rninu { Sxx2 (tf) + Sv v2 (tf)

with

S x, S v being

converted

(4.8)

= vo

the weights

to the Mayer's

tf }

+ ] (1 +
0

on the terminal

(4.9)

)dt

values

form in Eq. 3.17 (if desired)

and tf is free.
through

the usual

The

problem

method

can be

of introdu47

cing an additional stateequationwhoseright handsideis the integrandof

investigate

the problem

the full system

in different

levels

of complexity

according

Eq. 4.9.

We

to how the dynamics

of

are treated.

a) Level 0 formulation
This
therefore

is the degenerate

collocation

Sec. 3.2).

case

is not required

(solely

Let e = a, thus neglecting

necessary

conditions

in which

there

is an analytic

a regular

perturbation

the hardening

effect

zero

order

approach

solution,

and

as discussed

ax 3 in the original

problem.

in
The

are:

X=V

; x(0) = xo

_, = -x + u - x 3

; v(0) = Vo

_-x = _'v + e3_-v x2

; _,x(tf)

= 2Sxx(tf)

v = -Xx

; 2Lv(tf)

= 2Svv(tf)

H u = u+_, v =0

H = _,xV + _.v(-X

The zero order

problem

+ u-ex3)

+ 1 + u2/21

tf

(e = 0) is linear and time invariant,

x0(! lF
xo(t)[
v0(t)

sint

(sin t - tcost)

and can easily

-tsint

/ 2

sint

-sint

/2

-(sin t + tcost)

COSt

0
cos

ZvO(bJ

/ 2

isini/2

(4.10)

=0

cost

be solved

xo([o)
vo(to)
XxO(io)
__-vo(to).

as

(4.11)

where
t = t - to
The above
order

state transition

correction.

2Sxx0(T0),

; [o,t

Given

48

condition

(4.12)

is also the state transition

the boundary

2Lv0(T 0) = 2Svv0(T0),

2%_0(T0), T O can be solved

Wansversality

matrix

_ [0,T 01

the

with a Newton's

_-_A(t,'to)

matrix

conditions

of x0(0)

= x o, v0(0)

remaining

unknowns

_,x0(0),

method

using

Eq. 4.11

for the higher

= v o, _,x0(T0)

Xv0(0 ), _Lx0(T0),

and the corresponding

{H 0 =
From
dynamics

(4.13)

)_x0V0 - )_v0x0 - _,2 0 / 2 + 1}IT0 = 0

Eq. 3.29,

the differential

equations

governing

the higher

order

correction

are

E
1]Ixk]
r ,, t,3k

d v_ = -_ o o
00 0
l_.vkJ

with the boundary

0-1

_vk

= 0 ; _.xk(T0)

we have

[-P4k(t)J

; _,vk(T0)

(4.15)

= 2SvVk(T0)

for k = 1, 2:
;P21

P12= vlT1/T0

; P22 = -(Xl

= -x3

P32 = (_'vl + 3_'v0x2)T1

and the transversality

;P31

= 3_'v0X_

;P41

= 0

+ )_vl + x3)T1 / TO - 3X2Xl

; P42 = -_'xlT1

/ TO + 3)_vlX_ + 3_'v0X0Xl

(4.16)

/ TO

conditions:

- _xlV0

-)_x0 (_)

= 2SxXk(T0)

Pll=0

(Ul

l_

conditions

Xk(0 ) = Vk(0)

In this case,

v_ T_/-xo(_)-_vO(_)/+/P=_(!)
/
(4.14)
_ +Too/ _vO(_)

- _vl (x0 + _'v0)+

= ;Lx2V0 - )_v2(X0

_'x0Vl-

_'v0(Xl

+ x3)}IT0_I

+ ;Lv0) + _.x0V2 + %vlXl - 3_.v0XgX 1

I

3
2
_l
-_.vl (Xl + _.vl + x0) + _vl / 2lIT0

which

are needed

to compute

results

are shown

in Figs.

and costate
second
is also

order

solution.

included

convergent,
solution.

histories

and

that the nonlinear

the first and second

(4.17)

order

corrections

by quadrature.

4.1 - 4.4 for S x = S v = 100, and a = 0.4.

are stored

and later retrieved

The optimal

for

comparison.

that

the most

If we regard

=0

this level

solution

generated

These
accurate

by linear

results

using
clearly

approximation

of accuracy

interpolation
a multiple
show

that

is obtained

as insufficient,

term (ax 3) is too large to be neglected

The

f'n'st order

state

to construct
shooting
the
using

the

technique

series

is not

a first

then the conclusion

in the zero order

The

order

must

be

solution.
49

2.0
Oth
1st
2nd
optimal

0.5

'_,,

0.0

,
0

\_

I"_'_

'' "-' _'l"

Time
Figure

4.1.

Level

0 Result

in x.

Oth
1st
2nd
optimal

>

-1

-2
0

Time
Figure

50

4.2.

Level

0 Result

in v.

4
Oth
1st
2nd
optimal

2
x
'13
J:

E
m
..i

'_.

-2
0

Time

Figure 4.3.

Level 0 Result in Lx.

3
Oth
..........

1st

2nd

optimal

m
"o
.Q

E
IO
.J

0
-1

\\\

-2

'

Time

Figure 4.4. Level 0 Result in _v-

51

b) Level

1 formulation
This case

using

illustrates

a piecewise

zero

order

linear

solution.

the hybrid

approach

representation

The

as outlined

to approximate

interpolatory

constraints

in the section

the states

on collocation,

and the costates

for an N equally

spaced

for the

segmentation

are:

x0j

- x0j_

v0j

+ v0j_ 1

T0/N

v0j

-- v0j-1

x0j + x0j-1

T0/N
_'x0j

-- _'v0j-1

_x0NV0N

_'x0j

conditions

Pvj

; v00 = Vo

equations

nonlinear

system

The higher

/
L_.vkj

order

condition

- _'v0N - ax3N)

to solve

improves

=qxj

(4.18)

given

; _.x0N = 2SxX0N

for the 4N+5

X0N, V0N, 2Vx0N, Lv0 N, T 0. Solutions

that accuracy

+2xj--1 )2

=qvj

and transversality

+ _'v0N (-XON

are 4N+5

a large

3 =

- _'x0j-1

x00 = Xo

Note

x0j + x0j-1-)

= )"vOj + ]2_'vOj-1 [ 1 + 3a(xj

with the boundary

4.8.

a(

+ _'v0j-1

- _'x0j-1

To/N

There

_'v0j

T0/N
_'v0j

=Pxj

for several

with increasing

by:

; _.v0N = 2SvV0N

+ _,2v0N / 2 + 1 = 0

unknowns
values

(4.19)

of x00, v00, kx00,

of N are presented

N, but at the expense

Lx00 .....

in Figs.

of having

4.5 to
to solve

of equations.
dynamics

in this case are

lie
a0im]rXil
Tk/pvj/+/p _kq
+r0/qx,
/ /p3k(t)

0 0
0 0
0

-1

; t e [tj,tj_l]

L_,vkj

Lqvjj

(4.20)

LPak(b.

where

c = l+3ax2[_

52

; b = 6a(_.v0X0)[_

; t = (tj +tj_l)/2

(4.21)

The state

transition

the forcing

matrix

function

Pll

expression

terms

for this case is given

in Appendix

C.

For k = 1, 2,

in Eq. 4.20 are:

"" v0 -Pxj

, P21 = -x0

P31 = _.v0(1 + 3ax3)-qxj

-_Lv0

; P41 = -kx0

- Pxj)TI/To

P22=

{-CXl-

_'vl-

P32=

{C_.vl + bx 1 + _.v0(1 + 3ax 2 _ qxj)}T1

_'v0-

ax3 -Pvj

-Pvj

-qvj

P12 = (Vl +v0

x0-

-ax3

}T1/To-

3ax01ix12-

(1 + 3ax02 -

/ TO + 6ax 0 _.vlXl

c)x 1

+ 3a_.v01ix 2
I

+ (1 + 3ax 2 - c)_-vl + (6agvoXO

P42 = (-_.xl

- b)xl
(4.22)

- _.x0 - qvj)T1 / TO

where
x0(i)

= x0j-1

_-x0(i)

plus

the

= _'x0j-1

boundary

2_.xk(T0), _.vk(T0)

; _'v0(i)

in Eq.

4.14

by replacing

in this case are defined

0 = _.x2NV0N

+ _.x0NV2N

+ _.xlNVlN

-- _.v2N(X0N

+ _'vlN(-XlN

- 3ax2NXl)

-- 3ax2NX2N)

and second

order corrections

collocation

Comparison

solution

with

in accuracy

4.9 - 4.12
discontinuity

the second
in slope

for the collocation

the

+ ax3N)

(note here e is 1.0).

is achievable
order

without

solution

(which
solution)

(4.23)

ij-1)

Xk(0 ), Vk(0),

Xk(T0),

corresponding

+ _.v0N (-X1N

are computed

N = 3 results

+ qvj(i-

Vk(T0),

expansion

of

as

- _,vlN(XON

improvement

+ Pvj( i - tj-1)

= _'v0j-1

+ _.x0NVlN

the zero order

functions

conditions

= v0j-1

0 = _.xlNV0N

First

The

+ qxj({ - ij-1)

conditions

-_'v2N

Figs.

; v0(t)

with Xk0, Vk0, XkN, VkN, _,xkN, _,vkN- The

the wansversality

4.12.

+ Pxj(t - ij--1)

3
+ ax0N)

- _-21N / 2

The results

(4.24)

a large

is indistinguishable

number

from

of using
as the order

N = 3 is used in

are shown

4.5 - 4.8 show

requiring

is also smoothed

- ax3N)

+ _.v0N(-X2N

for the case where

in Figs.

is a consequence

- _,v0N

that

in Figs. 4.9 a significant

of elements.

the optimal

f'rrst order

In

solution.

interpolation

of the correction
53

increases.
the

fact

Contrary
that

the

to Level

nonlinear

O's results,

term

has been

the

second

order

accounted

corrections

for in the zero

do

order

not diverge
solution.

2,0

,,t._

1.5

I,-

At

_,

_ssJ

- - -_- -

3-pc

- - -e,- -

4-pc

---,--

_,

s-pc
optimal

10'

,'_,',,,,
05'

0.0

-0.5
0

Time
Figure

4.5.

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in x for Different

N.

\
1
>

- - -I.--

3-pc

- - -e-- -

4-pc

---o--

5-pc
optimal

Lo_. s S

,_...._
-1

-2

,
1

i
2

i
3

Time
Figure

54

4.6.

Level

1 Zero

Order

Results

in v for Different

N.

due

to

,,_.,,_,

- - -.t.- -

3-pc

- - -e.- -

4-pc

--

-o--

5-pc

optima,

m
"o
.Q

'="_x

11-

"2

Time

Figure 4.7. Level 1 Zero Order Results in L x for Different

- - --P- -

3-pc

- - -e- -

4-pc

- - -o- -

5-pc

N.

optimal

m
"o
.o

z,,,

E
..I

-1
b_

-2
0

Time

Figure 4.8. Level 1 Zero Order Results in L v for Different

N.

55

2.0

I
t
/

._

,.,,

_1 ...7,,-;_,,
"-,
"[r_,,,,"-

Oth
1st

..........

_.

_o_
optimal
opti,

1.o

,,\

%'%'%,,%,

0.0
0.5

"
1

%'_

-0.5
0

%'%" _%"

Time

Figure 4.9.

Level 1 Higher Order Results in x for N=3.

:k

Oth

I\

..........

1St

optimal

>

-1-1

"2

'k

"

"'-,..,-

"

,'-

"

Time
Figure

56

4.10.

Level

1 Higher

Order

Results

in v for N=3.

4]
J

_,

._J

_\

..........

1st

2nd

X
"O
e_

E
a
._1

_._,,

-2

Time

Figure 4.11.

L_vel

I Higher

Order

Results

in _

for N=3.

0th
x\

..........

1st

2nd

"-.,._\

optimal

>
I

el

0
E
eo
,_1

-1

-2
0

Time

Figure 4.12. Level 1 Higher Order Results in Zv for N=3.

c) Level

2 formulation
As

dynamics

a second
from

for the hybrid

illustration

the necessary
Level

of a hybrid
conditions

1 formulation.

solution

to identify

Consider

the

approach
a more

following

we

intelligent
simple

retain

a portion

interpolating
modification

of the
function

of the

57

regular

perturbation

formulation

for this example:

X=V

_'x = qxj + e{kv (1+ 3ax2)-

qxj}

=
Note

(4.25)

that we interpolate

ing interpolation
formulation.

only the variables

retains

more

The interpolating

x0(t)

that have nonlinear

of the dynamics
functions

x0(tj-1)+[v0j-1

coupling,

in the original

and that the result-

problem

than in the Level

in this case are:

+lpvj(t-

tj-1)](t-tj-a)

vo(i ) = voj_ 1 + Pvj(t - ij_l)

)_xO(t)

= 2_xOj_ 1 + qxj(t - ij_l)

XvO(t)

= 2Lv0(tj_l)

Consequently,

there

are fewer

the formulation

should

fewer

to be used.

elements

enforced

by replacing

the first order

- [_x0j-1

+ lqxj(t

unknowns

improve

X0N, _Lv0N with

The forcing

and the state transition

variables

show

- qxj

matrix

4.13 - 4.16

solution,

terms

for this case are:

conditions
Eq.

4.26,

solution

The accuracy

good

and are almost

riding

of the first order

on the exact

solutions,

even

and

similarly

are
for

- _'vO - ax_ - Pvj

(4.27)

1.

is dramatically
solution

in

in Eq. 4.19

; P41 = 0

to the zero order

4.9 and 4.10.

retained

This allows

show the zero and first order state solutions

Figs.

58

approximation.

_Lv0(t N) from

is same as that in Level

that the zero order

in comparison

and the dynamics

x0(tN),

; P21 = -xo

P31 = _.vO( 1 + 3ax2)

The results

to be solved

the zero order

(4.26)

- tj_l)

the zero order collocation

Pll=0

Figures

(2N+5)

To evaluate

expressions.

- tj_l)](t

improved

for the case N = 2.

especially

for N = 3 of the Level

solutions
even

though

in Figs. 4.13
a cruder

in the state

1 formulation
to 4.16

segmentation

in

are very
has

been used.

A similar

trend

is also prevailed

on the costates

histories.

2.0
Oth
jt/_,,,.,j_

1.5

..........
,_

1st

optimal

",',_

1.0'

x
0.5'

0.0

-0.5

Time
Figure

4.13.

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in x for N=2.

2
Oth
_

..........

1st

>

a:.,,,

optimal

/
J

-1

It

-2

Time
Figure

4.14.

Level

2 Higher

Order

Results

in v for N=2.

59

4
Oth
..........
""" "" "-..,._'" "'A,.

I st

optimal

2
x
_fB
oe

.Q

E
,=.1

-2
0

Time
Figure 4.15.

Level 2 Higher

Order Results in _.x for N=2.

Oth
..........
1

II
"O

E
m
..4

optimal

"_-.
_'_ "_,,

|
==

1st

',
_

"_,

o] ,,:.
0

Time

Figure 4.16.

Level 2 Higher Order Results in _

for N=2.

d) Level 3 formulation
In this last demonstration,

the Level 2 formulation

linear terms are retained in the zero order problem,

dynamics

60

are approximated

by piecewise

constants.

is further

and the nonlinear

The resultant

enhanced.

All the

terms in the v and 2_v

expressions

become:

X--V

_ = -x - _v + Pvj + E{-ax3

_,x = _Lv + qxj + E{3agvX2

- Pvj}

- qxj}

=
This

(4.28)

is equivalent

unknown

to the

constants.

of the analytically
the collocation
also similar

Level

This formulation
tractable

solution

portion

= (x0(tj-1)

for the

an attempt

of the solution

presence
to make

in selecting

problem.

of two

additional

maximum

utilization

the interpolating

The zero order

solutions

function

for

in this case are

0 case:

- Pvj - qxj) cs_ + v0(tj-1)sin

-(2Lv0(_j_l)

v0(t)

except

represents

in the zero order

m that for the Level

x0(t)

0 problem

t + _Lx0 (tj-1)[sin

t - tcost]

/ 2

+ qxj)t sin t / 2 + Pvj + qxj

= -(x0(tj-1)

- Pvj - qxj) sin_ + v0(tj-1)cst

-(_.vO (tj_l)

+ qxj)[sin

2Lx0([ ) = _.x0(tj_l)COSt

2Lv0(t) = -TLx0 (tj-1)

t + icost]

+ (Lv0(tj_l)

+ _'x0(tj-1

)_ sin_ / 2

/2

+ qxj)Sint

sint + (_Lv0(tj-1)

+ qxj) cos_ - qxj

(4.29)

where

: 31A

Pvj

( )1

x((ij+tj_l)/2)

; qxj = 3a _.vx2

In this formulation,

4.29

unknowns

in Eqs.

one

lement

accurate
solutions
degenerate

an efficient

of x0(0),

4.30 and 4.19.

as the previous

levels
are

as those

x((ij+ij_l)/2)

(4.30)

; i _ It j_ 1, t j]

i = i - i j_ 1

the 2N+5

_.v((ij+ij_l)/2);

v0(0),

way m f'md the collocation

gx0(0),

The high order

and are not repeated

shown
in Level

are far superior

in Figs.

4.17

2 (because

_.v0(0),

Pvl, qxl .....

formulations
here.

- 4.20.

0 results

is to solve

PvN, qxN, tf0 using

are obtained

in the same

for
Eq.

manner

The zero and first order

results

using

Though

results

are not as

only one element

than the Level

solution

(Figs.

the first
is used),

order

both zero and first

4.1 - 4.4) which

correspond

only

order
to the

case of only one element.

61

2.0
Oth
.......... Ist

1.5
r
X

optimal

_v,

1.0

0.5

0.0

Time

Figure 4.17.

Level 3 Higher Order Results in x for N=I.

2 l_, "

Oth

1,.,
1 t

>

.........._s,

0"1

optimal

_,,

t
-2

_,.:Z:__
I

Time

Figure 4.18. Level 3 Higher Order Results in v for N=I.

62

4 T

Oth

J
_-_. 1

_"_.

.=.... =..,\\

."
r

2 "4
I

TM

b..

1 :/

a
lo
n

".

1st
optimal

_.
",

%",,

_/

..........

"=, _

II
-I

"%,,,.,

-2/

,
1

.
2

Time
Figure

4.19.

Level

3 Higher

Order

Results

in Lx for N=l.

3
0th
..........

\
2

_\

1st
optimal

\
>
i

1-l"-"..
x,
/
A

10
.D

"lk _

E
a
.J

"]b_%%
,, %
]b,. %
"l._=.._

-1

-2

.dr ore,

Time

Figure 4.20. Level 3 Higher Order Results in Lv for N=I.

63

4.5

Conclusions
A hybrid

regular

perturbation

shows
the

analytical/numerical
and

that it is possible

number

of finite

approach

collocation

methods

to significantly
elements.

The

number

of f'mite elements

is compensated

solution

based

perturbation

solve

the zero

dynamics

are derived

64

problem

from

implications

5 on the launch

by the addition
theory.

tractable

in real-time
vehicle

Viewed

more
portions

guidance

problem.

developed.

solution

of higher
a second

order

of the necessary

a smaller
to the

collocation
more

that further

to

of the

dramatic

functions

conditions.

which

approach

corrections

allows

interpolating

using

increasing

using

way, using

It has also shown

applications

hybrid

without

from

expansion

intelligent

problems

The

that results

perturbation

solution.

by selecting

optimization

a collocation

loss in accuracy

in the zero order

the analytically

has been

improve

in a regular

can be achieved

important

in Chapter

order

to be retained

improvements

show

on regular

for solving

which

The results

will be demonstrated

SECTION V
THE

HYBRID

APPROACH

LAUNCH

This
problem
nearly

section

defined
analytic

zero order

serves

solution
dynamics

VEHICLES

the hybrid
2. The

solution

of the collocation

which

neglected

in Section
zero order

representation
angle,

applies

feedback

evaluated

as an intelligent

NEAR-OPTIMAL

GUIDANCE

analytical/numerical

solution

guidance

approach
approach

using the collocation

obeys

a bilinear

interpolating

function

is then improved
axe corrected

TO

through

a regular

on a piecewise

method.

Each piecewise

tangent

law for the thrust

for the collocation

Wind

4 to the

is based

perturbation

in the first order term.

of Section

vector

method.

analysis,

shear effects

The

wherein

the

and constraints

axe also investigated.

5.1

Zero

Order

Solution

As discussed
more

intelligent

interpolating
the

interpolating

functions

necessary
then

However,

the costate

the strategy

4.3).

the

This

perturbed

In this

collocation

x' =

are poorly

T(i)c - P(i)A(i)
m(t)

of the analytically

if spherical

tangent

law

solution

and

tractable

atmospheric

solution

results

as either

constant

for the state

dynamics

and

(cf. Level
by half.

by using

in Eq. 4.1.

represented

of unknowns

and costates,

Earth

guidance

of the costates

the number

formulation

+_(i)__

fi =

case

the representation

a collocation

than the first order representations

the approximation

both the states

to improve

from analysis

linear

dynamics

also reduces

to interpolate

functions

previous

is to keep

to improve

4, it is possible

can be derived

conditions.

neglected

method

in Section

portions

only the latter are chosen

in

effects
(Sec.

or zero.

are
3.2b).

Hence,

use the collocation

2 and 3 formulation

Thus

The

instead

of using

in Sec.
Eq. 4.1

for interpolation.

The

in Eq. 4.2 becomes:

_(i)
sin0-

+e(

((-15(i) - P )A(i) sin 0 - D(i) sin T + L(i) csT

m_

+ _)

T (i) -_(i)A_i)
vac
m(t)

cos0 - _!i) + e((_(i)

"JU

_ p)A(i)

cos0 - D (i) cos T - L(i) sin T

m(t)

u_v
r

65

/'=V

aH

Xv =

qvj + e(-_--

_'r =

qrj + (-"_-

e"

qvj)

aH

; _'u = quj + e(-_" u - quj)

-qrj)

;j=l

.....

=0

dO

(5.1)

where

v = Vcosy+W

; u = Vsiny+W

( (T (i) - pA (i)) sin 0 - D (i) sin y + L(i) cos y

H = kvl"
vac
m(t)

( (T (i)
+Xu_-

The terms

_(i),

back-pressure
previous

the

spherical

for the average

acceleration

and for the present

(5.2)

components

that including
problem

partial

terms

these parameters

values

of the engine

for each

flight

for these

effects

are chosen

_(1) = P(ho ) / 2

; _(1) = Be / r2 - Uo
2 / ro

; g(ul) = 0

_(2)

' gv
=(2) = g (1) /2

; =(2)
gu
= 0

= 0

to be updated

In the following
Eq. 5.1 to generate

we make

the zero order

regarding

the dependence

condition,

which

m00(t)

With

66

are approximations

it is found

and they are assumed

control,

- L (i) sin y

re(t)

_(i)

investigation

approximation,

cos0 - D (i) cosy

vac

_(i),
and

- pA(i))

r---_-+

results

the zero order

in closed

use of the analytic

control,

of aerodynamic
in the celebrated

= _,v0j-1
_.u0j-1

the above

continuously

by using
forces
bilinear

stage.

solution

and using

From

improve

the

as:

(5.3)

loop implementation.

portion
the form

of the optimality
in Eq. 4.3.

on 0 as a perturbation

condition

in

This amounts

to

of the optimality

tangent law

+ qvj( t - tj-1)
+ quj( t - tj-l)

formulation

nozzle

(5.4)

the expression

(e = 0) can be expressed

as:

in Eq. 5.4 to eliminate

the

v0(t ) - v0(tj_l)
-(t-

+ k(i--ff

u0(tj-1)+

_(t

; t e [tj_l,t j]

tj_l)_(v i)

FE
u0(t)=

(tan((p

I+A_

k(i---ff{1+_-_

-1

smh

(tan((P+rl))-_sinh-l(tan(P)}[(p_(jt_)l)

-(t - t j_ 1)g(i)

r0(t)

FDC
k(i)A

= r0(tj-1)

sec(p--gSlnh

2Lv0(t) = _,v0j-I

-1

+qvj(

I
I.(A-

tan(p)[

_sinh-l(tan((p+rl))
_/1 +A"

(p(t)
(tan(p)}l(p(tj_l)+[v0(tj_l)-g

sinh-l(tan(p)]

_(i) t-tj_l
v ---_](t-tj_l)-G(tj_l)

t -t j-l)

;Zu0(t ) = _Lu0j_ 1 + quj(t - tj_l)

_-r0(t)

= _'r0j-I

+ qrj( t - t j-l)

(5.5)

where

D=qvj/A

Cv = _.v0j-1

- qvjtj-1

-l_At

FD

The
order

above

F = T (i) -_(i)A(i)

; Cu = 2Lu0j_ 1 -qujtj_l

; Cm = m (i) + k(i)tj_l

_tan-l(l/ A)

, A_>O
, A <0

cvA
; _ =

_+A

qujC
cuA - qujB

constitute

is now expressed

; g-

-1

= k-_l_smh

expressions

solution

; E = (cuA - qujB) / (AC)

; 11 = [_+tan-l(1/A)

cmA + k(i)B
k(i) C

G(tj-1)

; C = 4C2v +c 2 -B 2

+B,

(p(t) =mn

A =

; B = (Cvqvj + Cuquj)/A

(tan((p+rl))-slnh

a set of nonlinear
in terms

-1

- qvjB
qvj C

_(

(tan(p)j(p(tj_l)

interpolating

of the unknown

costate

functions
nodal

values.

(5.6)

and

the zero

To evaluate
67

800

E
v

400

i,', /

_'_

!;i"/

>

"

,t*/
0

,_oc,_,c._._>
"X_',

oop....
:....
I

100

Time
Figure

5.1.

Open

200

Loop

300

400

(s)

v Profiles

for Various

8000

/,,_
/t_

1-pc (Sec.3.2)
3-pc (2; 1)
......

6000

_i

5-pc (4;1)

,_/'I-

optimal

//li

4000

jm.d,--

2OO0

J__i

'

100

Figure

5.2.

Open

200
Time

68

N.

Loop

"

300

400

(s)

u Profiles

for Various

N.

these values,

the collocation

constraints

on the costate

derivatives

in Eq. 4.1 are enforced:

_'v0j -- _'v0j-1

qvj =

- --_"

tj -t j_ 1

t=(tj+tj_

1)/2; 7_v0=(kv0j+7_v0j_ 1)/2;

_,u0 =(ku0j+_-u0j_l)/2;

quj =

_'uOj - kuOj-1

Xr0=(_,r0j+_,r0j-1)/2

= _ ()I-I

tj - t j_ 1

()u

t=(tj+tj_l)/2;

... ; _,rO=(_,rOj+_,rOj.1)/2

t=(tj+tj_l)/2;...

; kr0=(_,r0j+_,r0j_l)/2

_'r0j - _-r0j-1

(5.7)

qrj =

tj - t j_ 1

Since
segmentation

more

unknowns

more

atmosphere

order

are also included

with

accounted
zero

in the zero
for several

results

hybrid

solution

linear
law.

aerodynamic

in time

effects

whereas

problem

the

a 1-piece
stage

segment

flight.

are 3N+4.

values

atmosphere,

Open

of N are given

using

only the regular

Significant

approach

because

formulation.

approximation.

part

of the

to ignoring

in Figs.

which

for the failure

note from

Eq.

of the regular

in a

5.1 to 5.6.

The
stage

in Sec.

3.2

in the costate
effects

are

now

Figs. 5.4 - 5.6 that the

effects

in _,u and _,r being

from

of

solutions

as given

aerodynamic

for

number

for the second

are observed

aerodynamic

This results

total

loop

approach

improvements

In particular,

5.4 - 5.6),

accounts

perttu'bation

a denser

is sufficient

The

for the first stage flight and one element

(see Figs.

This largely

inside

second

order

of Sec. 3.2 amounts

Earth

flight,

increasing

for comparison.

the

fiat, non rotating

steering

is expected

exoatmospheric

for in the zero order

order

being

activity

is N-1 elements

Zero

profiles

nearly

to be solved

segmentation
flight.

control

is used for the first stage

the subsequent

stationary

5.4 gives

and invoking
constant

the

perturbation

linear
method

and

a
_,v

tangent
when

are included.

69

160000

1-pc(sec.3.2)
...........

3-pc (2;1)

s-pc(4;1)

120000

optimal

800001

,.c

. jp=_

._V

_//

40000

0
0

100

200
Time

300

400

($)

Figure 5.3. Open Loop h Profiles for Various N.

0.060

'
t

..........3-pc (2;1)

A_
0.045

1-pc (Sec.3.2)

.....

_tt

s-pc(4;1)

optimal

o._o-I _

' t
0.015

0.000
0

100

200
Time

Figure

7O

5.4.

Open Loop

300

400

(s)

Lv Profiles

for Various

N.

0.024

s,_&A,__

0.018
E

AAAAA

//
/

0.012
ca
"o
J_

1-pc (Sec.3.2)

111

"J

0.006

3-pc (2;1)
5-pc (4;1)
optimal

0.000

100

Time
Figure

5.5.

300

200

Open Loop

400

(s)

Xu Profiles

for Various

N.

1.5e-3
1-pc (See.3.2)
..........

3-pc (2;1)
5-pc (4;1)

optimal

1.0_3
R.t
m
,,Q

E
m

5.0e-4

.....

O.Oe+O

_ ....

100

5.2

First

Order

In this case,
the following

5.6.

Open Loop

_,- &" --=''".It

I

200
Time

Figure

._r----_-----

300

400

(s)

Xr Prof'lles

for Various

N.

Solution
the linear

differential

equations

satisfied

by the first order

terms

have

form:

71

Vl

" 0

a14 j

a15 j

Vl

0
1

0
0

0
0

a15 j
0

a25 j
0

Ul
r 1

Dqvj

Dqvj
_

Dqvj
_

_lvj

_luj

Dquj

Dquj

_tuj

Dqrj
g

Dqrj
_UU

&trj
_

Ul
rl
d

_.vl

_'ul

_tvj
DO

Dqvj + f Dqvj
_
2"_"

_luj

Dquj+f

Dquj

. &trj
1
DO

Dqrj+f
_u

Dqrj

D)_'v
.

m+Ii_

_'vl

_+tl_
_rl

"Clj(t)"]
C2j(t) I
vo(t) I

+ T1
To

Complete
time

expressions

is fixed,

Therefore,
dropped

T = tf-

an exact

following

Jacobian

matrix

P6j(t)

are given

in Appendix

terms

an approximate

the zero

10

earlier,

second

the first stage flight

stage

t < ts, and the second

algebraic

the

open
term

flight

time.

in Eq. 5.8 is

matrix

equations.

that

second

By neglecting

for the first order

m{i)j

O(_j

0(i5)j

0_(2i6)j

t j_ 1-t

left comer
order

block

variations
terms

to
an
the

of the
of the

we are able

to

system:

m_i)j

of using

So we introduced

these

o_i)j

t-tj_i 0 1 o, i4)j
4i j

are not sensitive

to the practice

The 3 x 5 lower

effects

variables.

corrections

is analogous

the analysis.

on the costate

order

order perturbation

nonlinear

state transition

As explained

This behavior

5.8 represents

have

D.

(5.8)

to this time interval.

matrix.

to simplify

; t e [tj_l,tj]

describing

that higher

to solve

in Eq.

f_(_)j (t, tj_l)

72

qrj

corresponding

approximation

atmospheric
derive

P4j(t)

PSj(t)

state transition

approximate

system

quj

has shown

_'rl]

P2j(t)

ts, and T O represents

for the elements

2_

- Plj(t)

T 1 = 0 for the dynamics

Experience
using

qvj

i 1

&trj
m+t
D_,v

; t _ [tj_l,tj]

(5.9)

AppendixD detailsthecotermsin Eq.5.9. The lowerright handblock in Eq. 5.9 accounts

for sphericalEartheffectson thecostatesolution,neglectedin the zeroordersolution. As
will be shown in the numericalresultssection,this is an important correction for the
exoatmosphericphase of flight. By successivelyapplying Eq. 4.6 of N times, the
perturbationsattN for a fast ordersystemwith piecewiserepresentation
arenow givenby
-Xl(tN)"

_(2)

_,l(tN)_

n(1)
rxl(to)-I
) ... a,A1 (tl'to)t_Ll(to)J+

.Q(1)

= ,,AN (tN,tN-1)

AN_I(tN-I,tN-2

j=N-1

J'_N_ 1D-(A2
)N( tN, "l;){T'_0(C_

((:))]

/,_

K_N(tN'tN-1)'"

j=l

L 2N,-j
"p(1)(x )
lj-_z

... D.Aj+I(1).
(tj+l,tj)i-_i_

(5.10)

1.Q(A1)j
(tj, x)
P2(Ij)(z)_

5.3

Numerical
Figures

the wind
within

Results
5.7 to 5.10 show

frame

coordinates.

each update

in Fig. 5.10

interval.

that jumps

due to the shadowing

a higher
There

ct profile
is another

This figure
for ot during
Earth

The

of attack

drag)

small jump
a major

the two solutions,

the trajectory

the optimal

is insensitive

result

followed

causes

between
which

in

and is held constant

M = 1.3 and M = 2.3.

the control
profile

solution

the zero order

to correct

index

a large difference
stay very

close,

are

the trajectory.
dynamics.

and first order

is due to the absence

Even though

These

to first follow

time due to the discontinuous

and the performance

to control

second

expressed

used in this case is N = 8. Note

by a lower

at the staging

solution.

at every

at about

which

stage flight,

in the zero order

for the state variables

of elements

occur

difference

the end of the second

corrections

is updated

of the booster

(to reduce

also shows

control

loop results

The total number

in angle
effects

third

the closed

solution

of the spherical
exists

between

and imply

that

variations.

73

sooo
t hlst 7q
6000

4000
>

2000

0
0

100

200
Time

Figure

5.7.

Closed

300

400

(s)

Loop

Velocity

Profile

for N=8.

100
Oth
1st
80

optimal

6O

E
E

40

II

2O

100

Time
Figure

74

5.8.

Closed

200

Loop

"--

300

--

400

(s)
Flight-path

Angle

Profile

for

N=8.

160000

Oth

is,

120000

......,;..

optimal

sS

80000

T-

40000

.-_--_--

,
100

,
200
Time

Figure

5.9.

Closed

Loop

,
300

400

(s)
Altitude

Profile

for N=8.

15.0
sm--_.

7.5

o_
o
"0

0.0
n
13.

-7.5

......

,,"
t

Oth

t
t

1st

100

Figure

wind

profile

in Fig.

2.11,

investigation

we include

5.10.

the effects

used is the interpolated

and

It
I

-15.0

Next,

optimal

this profile

it is learned

200

Closed

Time

(s)

Loop

Angle

of non-stationary
mean winter

is accounted

that the performance

400

300

profile

of Attack

Profile

atmosphere

on the

solution.

Space

Center,

shown

From

earlier

for Kennedy

for in the guidance

is not sensitive

for N=8.

solution.

to control

variations,

The

there75

1.05
"

M=1.2
"_

0.95,

0.85 -

M=1.5

...........

M=2.0

..... 4"....

M=2.5

......

M=3.0

o
o
0.75
T

0.65

3
alpha

Figure

5.11.

8000 T-'_
I

"

(deg)

"7

optimal

,_

200

Closed

300

40(

(s}

Loop Velocity

and CtClConstraint.

76

12

ls t

100

5.12.

Convex_zed FLrst Stage CD Profile.

Time

Figure

Profile

Under

Wind

fore attemptis not madeto incorporatethecontrolconstraintin the analysis.Insteada hard

boundon thecontrolis enforcedin thesimulation,but not in the guidancederivation. The
boundsin this caseare
-167580degNm-2
They

represent

the dynamic

profile

was

jumps

in control

convexized,

performance.
depicted

solution

constraint,
results

which

loading

as shown

that

The

in Figs.

guided

< o_q < 167580degNm

and

the

is active

5.1.

which

optimal

5.10,

in Table

excellent

stage

the objectionable

negligible

agreement
illustrates

CD

effect

on the
case

are

between

the first order

the

of the

of the trajectory.

effect
The

o_q

performance

5.1.

for ALS Vehicle

Guidance.

1st-order

0th-order

148160m

148160.0m

148160.0m

tf

have

optimal

7858.2ms

the first

for the unconstrained

5.16

portion

Comparison

_tf)
V(tf)

which

simulation

Fig.

a minor

Performance

h(tf)

show

In addition,

This is done to eliminate

loop

solution.

only over

for this case summarized

Table

in Fig.

of the closed

and 5.15,

on the vehicle.

in Fig. 5.11.

are observed

results

5.12

limits

(5.11)

-2

0.000
-1

7858.20ms

377.372s

-0.001
-1

7858.14ms

377.382s

-1

378.397s

11

1st I

80

o
"o

E
E

60

40

20

0
0

100

200
Time

Figure

5.13.

Closed
Wind

Loop

300

400

(s)

Flight-path

Angle

Profile

Under

and oat Constraint.

77

160000

'

120000

'

1st

=-=

E
v

80000 '

e-

40OO0 '

0
0

100

200
Time

Figure

5.14.

Closed

Loop

300

400

(s)
Altitude

Profile

Under

Wind

and o_1Constraint.

10
1st

optimal

5
A

0
m
D.

-5

-10
0

Figure

100

5.15.

Closed
Wind

78

200

300

Time

(s)

Loop

Angle

and

of Attack

t_q Constraint.

400

Profile

Under

200000

1 st
150000

optimal

E
Z
100000
o
v

o-

50000

m
t-

D.
m
.
D

-50000

......

100

5.16.

Closed

-I

iii

200

300

Time

Figure

400

($)

Loop

o_q Profile

Under

Wind

and cut Constraint.

In this example,
the first stage
drag

forces

in Sec.

ascent.

consequently

forces

mid-element

introduced
solution

results

show

continuously

5.10.

updated

extremely

(x to meet
good

shows

the ratios

why the regular

of aerodynamic
to be treated
diverged.

accounts

in the middle

portion

of the lift and

perturbation

forces

analysis

in the first

as perturbation

order

effects,

Use of the collocation

for the aerodynamic

of

effect

and

method

through

the

Results

a high level

of fidelity

transition

and justify

matrix

improvement

in Eq. 5.9.

by correcting

In this case the zero order

acceleration

the initial portion

negative

largely

Numerical

the state

in the radial

too large

effect

in Eq. 5.7.

significant

in Fig.

for the effect

first order correction

solution

the

to obtain

illustrated

during

on

shows

change

order

constraints

Remarks

This explains

are simply

the calculated
a zero

The

to correct

have a major

in Fig. 3.20 which

to the thrust components.

These

in forming

forces

This is illustrated

3.2 is not able

analysis.

5.4

the aerodynamic

guess

as the orbital

of gv.

of the second

the terminal

orbit injection

This

stage flight,

conditions.
accuracy

solution

fails

and is later forced

we have

the f'u'st order

Earth

pull-up

the

even

as

sharp

using

of the vehicle

to correct

both zero and first order

requiring

effects,

to anticipate

is approached,

in an excessive

However,

without

In particular,

for the spherical

condition

results

the approximation

a high rate of control

with a large
results

give

update.
79

lOO

50
E
"o
o
o
Q.
U)

"o
c-

-50

-100
0

1OO00

200O0

Altitude
Figure

5.17.

30000

(m)

A Hypothetical

Wind

11

Shear

Profde.

..........

Open-loop

Guided

Nminal

Q
"O

75 -J

O
C

50 t
Q

25

*"

..

2
rI--

-25
0

100

200
Time

Figure

80

5.18.

300
(s)

Comparison

of the Thrust

under

Shear.

Wind

400

Vector

Angle

Profiles

The computations
CPU time needed
0.15s

for the cases

for a control

for a 1-element

Broyden's

update

the solution

solution

that the first order

are dominant

update

ranges

during

the second

of the Jacobian

converges

time

is needed

would

from 0.65s

for an 8-element

stage

in 4 iterations.

only in the second

in computation

here are done on a SPARCstation

flight.

to correct

stage of flight.

have

resulted

collocation

It is apparent

mainly

from

to less than
method

with

evaluation

and

Earth

a significant

had we computed

1. The

the numerical

for spherical

Therefore

case

The Newton's

[11] is used in the zero order

typically

correction

presented

results

effects

additional

this correction

which
savings

only for that

phase.

5.5

Wind

Shear

Investigation

To assess

the effectiveness

scenario.

First,

typical
program

stage

flight

is based

closed

loop guidance

solution

To

constraints.

loop

conditions,

to have

assure

guidance

for

and compensated

5.18

nominal

wind

solution

performance

in payload)

the

the 'Open
with the same
is also
5.2).

5.2.

included.

solution,

launch
using

piecewise
The

control

and is also worse

(lst)

148160.0m

_(tf)

0.000
7858.20ms
377.287s

Guided

under
(0th)

148160.0m

7858.18ms
378.243s

ie.

guidance.
of interest,
under

gives

(equivalent

than the guided

The

the

poorer

to a loss of
solution

Shear.

Open loop
148160.0m

-0.000
-1

flight.

flying

solution

Wind

ctq

atmospheric

A point

program

the

operation,

near optimal

'Open-loop'

guided
in the

with

for the exoatmospheric

solutions.

using

included

pre-flight

for ALS, ie. real-time

The

results,

This

vehicle

for

5.17).

trajectory

incorporated

angle

guidance

is simulated.

are

flight

vector

(cf. Fig.

is therefore

for present

Comparison

h(tf)

-J = tf

cases

and the 'Guided'

linear

Performance
Guided

V(tf)

both

and

thrust

a guided

flight

we show

of the previous

The final lime to orbit is 1.13s longer

than the guided

Table

stage

loop guidance

loop'

shear

Second,

shear,

approach

interpolation

endoatmospheric

approach

linear

wind

shear,

the approach

by a closed

condition
(cf. Table

the wind

wind

loop hybrid

profile.
second

integrity,

the proposed

- 5.20 compare

the 'Nominal'

wind

detected

structural

piecewise

from a linear

mean

against

a hypothetical

for both the first and

case represents

45501bs

is derived

nominal

using

by the closed

with

The first case represents

an open

Figs.

on the

is assumed

calculation.

followed

is simulated

open loop part of the guidance

which

approach

an open loop trajectory

for the first stage flight,

the second

second

of the hybrid

0.000
-1

7858.20ms

378.413s

81

using only a zero order solution.

22%,

then

open-loop

guidance

If the magnitude
will result

of the wind shear is further

in a catastrophic

failure

unless

increased

by

the aq limit

is

exceeded.

200000
Open-loop
Guided
150000

Nominal

B_D=q

100000

5oooo

==
n.

'\
0

.
m

-50000

100

.
i

300

400

(s)

Comparison of the _1 Profiles

Wind

_=|

200
Time

Figure 5.]9.

A
m

under

Shear.

9O
Open-loop
A

t_

E
o
o
D.

Guided
6O

Nominal

3O

m
c
O
N

-3O

o
-r

-6O
0

100

200

Time
Figure

5.20.

Experienced
3 Different

82

300

400

(s)
Horizontal

Simulations.

Wind

Speed

for the

SECTION

CONCLUSIONS

6.1

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
The

fundamental

perturbation
result,

methods

the

solution

zero

problem
relates

order

in treating

to the inherent

reduced

was also attempted

solution

to account

ascent

profile.

Regular

aerodynamic

forces.

phase,

which

the zero order

A new

hybrid

has been

developed

desirable

features

collocation

solving

are simply
approach

a large

approach

dimension

of regular

correction

and

elements.

It can

of requiring

a large

The regular

collocation

solution,

elements

needed

enhanced

which

for a given

in the launch

are that a bilinear

atmospheric

phase,

tangent

without

in a further

level of solution
in the solution
vehicle
steering

number

guidance

reduction

accuracy.

These

of optimal

solution

higher

and

functions

features

problems,

for

can be obtained

promise

an

has been

on this problem

phases,
using

the

of finite

which

results

in all flight

order

of approximation

in the number

The main

of

elements

provides

attractive

control

application.

method

of optimization

the number

substantial

the

for by the analytical

approach

interpolating

law can be employed

and that the collocation

variety

are compensated

in

control

it combines

numerical

intelligent

of

forces

in optimal

of approximation

increasing

absence

effect.

because

a wide

the

for the atmospheric

problems

The

perturbation

to identify

results

real time capability

demonstrated

solution

be used

solving

equations

in the

aerodynamic

is hybrid

also

throughout

as a perturbation

methods.

for

perturbation.

also

analytical

solution

The neglected

As a

but this method

guidance

of nonlinear

formulation

over the collocation

a better

singular

A manifold

in the same manner

This approach

set of algebraic

approximation.

handle

of this research.

by

load factor.

dynamics,

to large to be considered

of numerical

The disadvantage

poor

gives
cannot

dynamics

of longitudinal

path angle

for the solution

a simple

value

a very

analysis

for this application.

allows

problems.

gives

the approach

is the main issue

solution

large

vehicle

are not separable

perturbation

However,

launch

for flight

fails due to the fact that the dynamics

flight

VI

including
a small

the

number

of elements.

6.2

Recommendations
Many

important

for

Future

issues

remain

recommendations

are made in increasing

Identifying

Intelligent

capable

More

of handling

partial

Work

Interpolating
aerodynamic

for

future

research,

and

the

following

order of complexity:
Functions
effects,

- Though

spherical

the zero

Earth effects

order

solution

is

were not directly

83

incormorpatedin theanalysis.This leadsto a poor

as the vehicle
this effect

orbital

in the formulation,

perturbation
More

approaches

term,

Accurate

considering
complex

similar
Model

a more
propulsion

interpolating

speed.

elaborate

dynamic

model

should

should

be made

solution

to account

for

is to add a constant

in See. 4.3.

can be made

in the launch

vehicle

problem

model.

rotating

effects

and

The

be considered.

in the collocation

of the zero order

way to set up the problem

3 formulation

- Improvements

solution

An investigation

and a proposed

to the Level

representation

Earth

It may

approach,

be necessary

depending

by

a more

to modify

the

on the magnitudes

of these

can be extended

to handle

nonlinearities.
Multi-flight
various

Task

flight

constraints

Rcquircment_

tasks such as deorbit

vehicles

Such multi-flight

Problem

performance
constraint
include

values,

which
would

vehicle

problem,

which

the constraint

Launch

Vehicles
ascent

a narrow
efficient

becomes
Range

will pose terminal

can be included
be very

corridor

useful

in a 3-D
to manned

simplified
Hybrid

Approach

perturbation

analysis

the

HIB

future

of formulations

using

the HJB expansion,

should

methods

corrections.

to

problem

time intervals

Future

study

methods

in

this type
should

potential

corrections

are

include

to fly within

a study

a much

simpler

and

approach.

37], the

regular

equation.

by a set of linear
functions

simply

of the relationships
expansion)

are not

a systematic

in [14,

or sensitivity
evaluated

disaster

of problem

such as the hybrid

are not represented

matrix

promises

to the launch

the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman

transition

include

To avoid

- As demonstrated

out using

related

may be constrained

to handle

(the HJB and the state/costate

which

safety

the vehicle

by analytic

state

perturbation

types

issues

corrections

of the

research

approach

the constrained

- The range

Expansion

can be carried

the

To address

that the

of the control

the hybrid

of variable

means.

that is tractable

calculation

to complete

and a formulation

boosters,

Present

the perturbation

Instead

the perturbation

of reusable

the

the exclusion

in the form of state constraints.

on numerical

with

this formulation,
and

Concerns

of air space.

formulation

be useful

it is coincidental

active.

occur

and rely purely

thus allowing

problems.

structure

Safe_

the retrieval

it would

optimization

of the switching

trajectory

or to facilitate

variations,

However,

of constrained

a guess

84

requirements

capability

- For the launch

to control

in the analysis.

requires

vehicle

Analysis

is insensitive

analysis

Proposed

These

and crossrange
task guidance

approach

like the Space Shuttle.

Constrained

required.

guidance

and rendezvous.

on both the downrange

formulation.

E's.,

- The hybrid

by

O. D.
are

not

quadrature.

between

and the hybrid

and more efficient

In

these

two

approach

evaluation

of

Manifold
zero

Investigation

order

(e

= 0)

approximation

reduced

is needed.

e in the

manifold

singular

perturbation

was not successful

be highly

- The failure

useful

would
the

accomplished

manifold

converges

desirable

solution.

to the manifold

nonlinear

of Manifold
the fast

problems.

to determine

examination
an algebraic

alternative

would

indicates

and
Theory

variable

to the slow variable.

optimization

to develop
An

feature

analysis

satisfactory

due to the varying

experiment
by visual

from

considers

in addition

for this application,

approximation

is far

[24] which

parameter

in other

be highly

solution

One distinguishing

condition

that we had to numerically

has been

of the energy

a higher

Although

A drawback

of the trajectories
test for when
be to develop

of

of the

this approach
state,

it may

in our analysis

close to the manifold.

in Fig's.
the initial

order

is the inclusion

as a function

role of the altitude

a solution

that the

3.5 and
condition

an iterative

process

is
This

3.6.

It

lies on
that

solution.

85

APPENDIX
Derivation

of

Eq.

3.32

We want to show that

Oto
in Eq. 3.32.

Let

L _, ,J

k TO[Lo(t)J

fl = R0(x0,_.0,x);

f2 = _0(x0,_,0,x),

(A.1)

assuming

u being

eliminated

and

recall that

The left hand

side of (A. 1) becomes

Tk }_A(t,'01
TO to

Using

(A.2)

; C2 = f2 + (x - to)_x2

C1 = fl + (x - to) _

integration

d {(x-to)[_]
[d%k.

('c

(A.3)

F_fl / 8x
-t)k
z/Oxo

by parts on the first term in (A.3),

we have

^
T----g'k
.10 t_(X-

t)f2A

(t"0[f2

fi

_=_
]}[,C = to ---

Tk/i('c
TO

- t)(d

f2A (_"c))[_

]dx

_f_ / _Z' 1
Tk

_('C- to)f_A(t,'C

TO to

(A.4)

) _f2/3x0

Substituting the state transition matrix property

d
into

(A.4),

transition

86

,^
the
matrix

last two

_,[_f_/ _xo _f_/ _Zo1

terms

cancel

is also used to derive

and

the result

Eq. 4.7.

is demonstrated.

(A.5)

The above

state

APPENDIX
State

Transition

The state transition

-

f_(_)(t2,tl)

matrix

Matrix

Expression

used in the regular

in Eq.

perturbation

co_i4)

o)_

,.,,16".'(i)

,.,(i)
w24

,.,(i)
w25

,.,(i)
w26

0
0

1
0

co(i)

,.,(i)
w35
0

(i)
0)36
t1 - t2

t2-t
0

3.44

approach

in Sec. 3.2 is

(B.1)

where
toni4) = _i4)(t2)

- _i4)(t 1)

co_i5) = n_(t2)-

n_is)(tl)

co 16
i) = rc_ (t2)-

_(t

1) + tlco_

co(i)
,.(i)
24 = "'15
CO(i)
25 = _(i5)(t2)co(i)
26 = _(2_(t2)

co(_ = n(_ (t2)-

_(i5)(tl)

(i) (tl) + tlco24

(i)
- _26

_:(_ (t 1)-(t

2 -t 1)_i 4)(tl)

co(i)
(i) (t2) - x35
(i) (1)
t - (t2 -tl)_(t
35 = _35

co(i)
_-(i)(t2)_x(3i6)(tl)_(t2-tl)_(tl)+
36 = '_36

n_i4)(t ) = A

g_(t)

-sinh-l[tan(0(t))_-_ +---_

=" [-Asinh-l[tan(O(t))-B)]

1)

tlco_

rl)]

Asin(0(t))+A2 + cos(0(t))"
1

sin(O(t))-Acos(O(t))l

87

T (i)
vac
Cu0 k(i)

A
; B=--

A sin(0(t))
x(i5)
(t)= A

-A

sinh-l[tan(0(t))
(A2 + 1)3/2 - rl)] +

x(i6)(t) = B A(p + A)sinh

(A2 -1+ [tan(0(t))
1)3/2

tan(0(t))]
_(_(t)

= B{ [A +

(p + A) sin(0(t)) Aff+l
- (pA - 1) cos(0(t)):
7
'j

- lq)]

(A 2 + 1)3/2

A2 + 1

+ tan(O(t))]sinh-l[tan(0(t))-rl)]
(A 2+1) 3/2

sec(0__(t_))_
A2+1
J

x(_(t)

+ A)[A + tan(0(t))]
sinh-l[tan(0(t))(A
2 + 1)3/2

- _)]

(pA-

1) sec(0(t))

k: i J
All the variables

88

Asec(0(t))

n(3is)(t)= B{A[A

= B{.-(p

are evaluated

A2+I

- rl)]

sinh-l[tan(0(t))

+ cos(0(t))

at the zero order values.

(B.2)

APPENDIX
State

Transition

Matrix

The state transition

_A(i,

Expression

matrix

of Level

of Level

I case for the Duffing's

all

a12

a13

a21

all

-a14

a24

-ba24

ba23

all

-a21

-ba23

-bal3

-a12

all

to) =

1 Formulation

in

example

Sec.

4.3

is

a14 ]

(C.1)

For b > 0:
--

;
(/,--C

; t=t-t
-

C--_

_--C

c-13

a12 = (ot_13)_f_sin(t'q_)+

-1
sin(t-q_)
a13 = (or - [_)'x/-_

1
a14 = --COS(t_')

1
sin(Lf_)
(ix - [_),f_

-13

c 2 - o_c - b
a21 = (-_--_'_

a24 = _

sin(taft)

cos(i.f_)

b + c13 - c 2
sin(t_t-_)q

sin(t'_)

(_-13)-f_

sin(bf_)

(C.2)

+ _-___ sin(t-f_)

For b < 0:

0 = (42_c2-

b -2c)/2

c + 02 - 02
al 1 = cosh(O_)cosO[)

+
20(_

sinh(0i)

sin({_t) ; a14 = _

02 +(_2

a12 -

02 + g)2 _ c sinh(0t)cos(_t)
20(02+_2)

-_ 2_(02

sinh(0i)

sin(_t)

+C

+ #2 ) cosh(0t)sin(_t)
89

al3 - 20(02

2(_(0
'_ +

#'_)
2

c 2 _b-c(02
_._p2)sinh(Oi)cos(_)+b-c
a21 =
20(02 + _) )

c.O 2 + _.2.

-,t,
,_ _ ).cosh(0ilsin(_)
2_(0 "_+ _")

(C.3)
a24 = _

The state transition

90

sinh(0t)

matrix

cos(_)

- 2_csh(0t)

has the same

sin(_)t)

structure of that in Level

0 for b = 0.

APPENDIX
System

Matrix
of

The terms

al4j

the

defined

Transition

Matrix
in

in Eq. 5.8 have the following

T (i)
vac -

a25j

State

First-orderFormulation

T(i) - pA(i)[
V_m(t)

alSj =

and

Sec.

Expression
5.2

expressions:

2 _'20
(_v0 + _,20)3/2 ]

-_v0_'u0

(i

m(t)

(_v0 + _,20)3/2

- pA(i)[
= T(i) m(t)

2 +_'2_00)3/2 ]
(kvO

-cos00
h

_.v0 sin00

+ ku0 cs00
sin 00

f2 = 2Lv0 sin00

+ _,u0COS00

(t - t j_ 1)k (i) 1
Clj = T(i) m(t)
- pA(i)

[ 1q

m(t)

(t - tj_l)k
c2j = Tv(i2Cm(t)_A(i)

[1-1

_'u0

_vO

+_.

3H
0u

3g2

_'v03gl

_ (_,v0 sin00

&tuj /
quj

3g2

/ 300 + _,u03g2

/ 300

wm

30

Psj-

gu

u0 3-_0 f

3gl + "_

3qvj [
qvj

gv

_u0
2
2
J 4_:v0 + _u0

vO _--_o

P2j = g2

3gl

2
+ ku0

(i) 1

m(t)

{_.

Plj = gl 4

_v_.0

2
JCkv0

+ Lu0 eos00)(Tv(_

_'vo3gl

/ 300 + _'uo3g2

-_A(e i)) / m(t)

[ 300

__m,

30

[(_.v0Sin00

+ 2Lu0cos00)(Tv(_

-_A_i))

/ m(t)

J
91

OH
_r %

P6J-

_lrj
_0

2Lv0/ggl / _00 + _'u0C3g2 / _)00

(Xv0sin00+Xu0COS00)(T_c-_gCei))/m(t)

t
)

Oqvj
-_

O2H
= { , _-_

It=(tj+tj_l)/2;

... ;Xr0=(_r0j+Xr0j_l)/2

_-0 = ' 000u Jlt=(tj+tj_l)/2: ... ; _.r0=(_.r0j+_.r0j.1)/2

(D.1)

OOOrjlt=(tj+tj-1)/2;

... ;_.r0=(_r0j+2Lr0j_l)/2

where

(P - P)A (i) sine0

gl =

- D (i) sinT0

+ L(i) cos_/0

m(t)

(p - p)A(e i) cos0 0 - D (i) cos _/0 - L (i) sinT0

g2 =

The

expressions

partial

approximate

derivatives

{v0(tj-1),

derivatives

uo(tj-l),

0)14 -

state

(Oqvj/0v,

0)16 =

r0(tj.1),

Xv0(tj.1),

0v0(t)

0v0(t)
) =

Ou0(t)
O_.u0(tj_l

0)36 =

0qvj

_ 0u0(t)
)

0r0(t)
0)34 - O_,v0(tj_l

0v0(t)
0C v

/)v0(t)
O_,r0(tj_l

0)25 -

transition

of the zero-order

_)2Lv0(t j_ 1)

_)Cu
_ &'0(t)

Oc v

0r0(t)

Oqvjf0u ....

) are similar

to the last

three

matrix

solution
Xu0(tj.1),

in Eq. 5.9 can be obtained

in Eq. 5.5 with respect

Xr0(tj_l)}.

; 0)15 -

by taking

to the initial

the

conditions

So we have:
0v0(t)

O_,u0(tj_l)

t)Cu

Ou0(t)
; 0)24 - O_,v0(tj_l

_ Ou0(t)
)

0c v

Ou0(t)
; 0)26 = 02Lr0(tj_l

Ou0(t)
) =

0r0(t)
; 0)35 = 3_,u0(tj_l

3v0(t)

Oqvj

_ _r0(t)
)

Oc u

Oro(t)
m

0_'r0(tj-1)
92

(D.2)

r0

in (F. 1).

The
partial

m(t)

remaining

u0v0

I-gu

(D.3)
Oqvj

Forexample,usingthe chainrule, 0)14

0)14 -

Symbolic
the analytic

Ov0

OD

_D

_c v

manipulation
expressions

Ov0

3A

_A

_c v

programs

is given
_v0

_c v

by

Ov0

Oq)

_tp

_c v

such as Mathernatica,

of the above

derivatives,

Ov0

MACSYMA

and to write

3rl

(D.4)

0r I _c v

can be used

the subroutines

to obtain
needed

for

their computation.

93

REFERENCES

1.

Brusch,

R. G., Reed,

tion, "Journal
2.

of the British

Chandler,

D. C., Smith,

Application

to Various

Vol.
3.

McHenry,

6.

Shuttle

I. L., "Optimal

Function

Interpolation,

Well,

Programming,

pp. 101-

116.

Well,

K. H., "Ariane

Down

Constraint,

Brusch,

"Proceedings

of the Iterative
"Journal

Guidance

Mode

of Spacecraft

with its

and Rockets,

C. R., Paris,

Vol.

and Collocation,

Problems,"
C. G.,

BreakweU,
Vehicle,

Jacobson,

Feeley,

"Journal

in a Plane,

Third-degree

Spline

Optimization

via Recursive

with

Vol. XXX,

a First-stage

of Nonlinear

1982,

Splash

Programming

Trajectory
Journal

Vehicle,

"Journal

Using

Nonlinear

Optimization

of Guidance,

for an Aero-assisted
& Control

Translation

Control,

Boost

Conference,

A Program

of DFVLR-Mitt.

Vol.

and Dynamics,

Vehicle,

"Procee-

1988, pp. 995 - 1005.

for Numerical

for Solving

Solution

85-05,

Nonlinear

of Opti-

1985.

Simultaneous

Equa-

19, 1965, pp. 577 - 583.

Guidance

for a Low

Thrust

Interplane-

Vol. 4, 1966, pp. 693 - 704.

W. F., "Iterative

Explicit

and Rockets,

J. L., "A Real-time

"Proceedings

Launch

14, 1977, pp. 550 - 555.

H. E., "Optimum

of Spacecraft

T. S., Speyer,

using

for the Arias/Centaur

of Methods

Journal,

R. A., Powers,

of the Astronau-

Sciences,

Application

of Computation,

"A/AA

Trajectory

of Control

"A/AA

English

J. V., Rauch,

J. R. III,

1974.

Optimization

"BNDSCO,

"A Class

"' Mathematics

No. 74-823,

Trajectory

Guidance

W.,

"Journal

Shaping

of the Astronautical

Navigation

H. J., Grimm,

Profile

S. W., "Direct

Guidance,

B. F., Thibodeau,

and Control,

Ascent

Optimization

and Rockets,

of AIAA

Broyden,

2361.

Selec-

1989.

B. N., "Adaptive

Flight

94

Conference,

Pamadi,

Oberle,

Paper

V Ascent

1987, pp. 338 - 342.

craft,
14.

Programme

Vol. 26, 1973, pp. 279 - 290.

A. D., Cockrell,

Thrust

"Journal

Vol.10,

tary
13.

Rocket

R., "Trajectory

Hargraves,

tions,
12.

Steering

1978, pp. 1 - 38.

S. R., "Rocket

Quadratic

mal Control
11.

Society,

Navigation

"AIAA

K. H., Tandon,

dings
10.

Guidance,

Johnson,

Programming

9.

Vehicle

and Missions,

T. J., Long,

Vol. XXVII,

of Spacecraft
8.

Vehicles

Ascent

and Optimization
7.

Interplanetary

I. E., "Development

R. L., Brand,

tical Sciences,

5.

Launch

4, 1967, pp. 898 - 903.

"Space

4.

T. E., "Real-time

Vol.

Guidance

Space-

11, 1974, pp. 494 - 497.

Approximate

of American

for Low Thrust

Control

Optimal
Conference,

Guidance

Law

1990, pp. 2356

for
-

15. Leung, S. K., Calise, A.

Launch

16.

Vehicle
- 1828.

Hodges,

D. H.,

Finite

Element

ceedings
17.

Leung,

Leung,

"A/AA

Leung,

"A/AA

1994,

Calise,

Calise,

Nov.

Hamiltonian
Vehicle,"

Pro-

1989, pp. 2036 - 2043.

Approach

to Near-optimal

Navigation

A. J., Leung,

of an Advanced
Vol.

launch

Launch

& Control

Vehicle

Conference,

to

S. K., "Finite

Vehicle,

"AIAA

Element

Method

Journal

of Guidance,

of optimal

Control

15, No. 3, 1992, pp. 664 - 671.

Approach

of Guidance,

A. J., "Hybrid

Journal

to Solution

Control,

June

and Dynamics,

Dec.

Institute

Development

R. R.,,

Vol.

17, No. 5,

Launch

Vehice

Vol.

Launch

D. H., Leung,

Institute

Launch

17, No. 5,

Progress

Report,"

Law

Dec.

88 -

R. R., "Optimal

- Interim

Progress

Guidance

Report,"

Law

June

89

1989.

S. K., Bless,
System

R. R., "Optimal

- Interim

Progress

Guidance

Report,"

Law

Dec.

89

1989.

S. K., Bless,
System

R. R., "Optimal

- Interim

NASA

System

CR 4376,

Progress

CR-192189,

in Optimal
May

Control

Guidance

Report,"

Law

June 90

1990.

R. R., "Optimal

- Interim

NASA

Progress

CR-187652,

S. K., Bless,

Finite Elements
NASA

- Interim

Guidance

1989.

System

of Technology,

Guidance"

R. R., "Optimal

S. K., Bless,

of Technology,

"Time-Domain

to Launch-Vehicle

Launch

D. H., Leung,

of an Advanced

91, Georgia

System

of Technology,

Institute

A. J., Hodges,

Launch

D. H., Leung,

of an Advanced

90, Georgia

Calise,

and Dynamics,

S. K., Bless,

of Technology,

of an Advanced

A. J., Hodges,

Launch

D. H., Leung,

Institute

A. J., Hodges,

Development

to Near-optimal

Control,

of Technology,

of an Advanced

90, Georgia

Calise,

D. H., Leung,

Institute

A. J., Hodges,

Development

Approach

of Guidance,

of an Advanced

89, Georgia

Calise,

Bless,

Launch

1990,

pp. 881-888.

89, Georgia

Development

26.

R. R., Calise,

Journal

A. J., Hodges,

May

Jun.

S. K., "A Weak

of an Advanced

Guidance,

A. J., "A Hybrid

S. K., Calise,

Development

25.

Conference,

pp. 966-974.

1994,

24.

Guidance

of an Advanced

Control

R. R., Leung,

Conference,

of MAA

Guidance

of American

A. J., "A Hybrid

Guidance

S. K., Calise,

Guidance,

23.

Control

and Dynamics,

Problems,

22.

for Optimal

D. H., Bless,

Control,

21.

A. J., Bless,

to Optimal

1992.

Hodges,

1994,

Approach

" Proceedings

"Proceedings

for Optimal

20.

method

S. K., Calise,

appear,

19.

Calise,

of American

Guidance,

18.

Concept,

pp. 1824

"An

J.,

Guidance

Report,"

Dec.

Law
90 -

1991.
With

Application

1991.

95

27. Marchal,C., "Survey Paper:ChatteringArcs andChatteringControls,"Journal

Optimization
28.

Press,

W.

Recipes,
29.

31.

Vol.

Flight

Center,

Computing,

NASA

A. J., Moerder,

Aircraft

Trajectory

Ardema,

11, 1973, pp. 441 - 468.

B. P., Teukolsky,

R. A., et al., "'U. S. Standard

S. A.,

Cambridge

Atmosphere,

TR-459,

D. D.,

Vetterling,

W.

University

Press,

1975 (COESA

T., Numerical
1986.

1975),

"Goddard

1975.

"Singular

Optimization

M. D., "Singular

Perturbation

and Control,

Techniques

"NASA

Perturbations

in Flight

K. H., O'ReiUy,

J., Singular

CR-3597,

for Real

Time

1992.

Mechanics,

" NASA

TM

X-62,

1977.

Kokotovic,

P., Khalil,

trol: Analysis
33.

Flannery,

Calise,

380,
32.

H.,

andAppIications,

the Art of Scientific

Minzer,
Space

30.

Theory

of

Bryson,

and Design,

Academic

A. E., Ho, Y. C., Applied

Press,

Perturbation

Methods

in Con-

Hemisphere

Publishing

Corp.,

Optimal

Control

1986.

Optimal

Control,

Perturbation

Method

1968.
34.

Junkins,

J. L., "An

Problems,

"A/AA

Asymptotic
Journal

of Guidance,

Control,

for Non-linear

and Dynamics,

Vol.

9, 1986,

pp.

357 - 367.
35.

Baldwin,

J. F., Williams,

Synthesis

of Closed

matica,

Vol.

36.

Prenter,

P. M., Splines

37.

Bensoussan
1982.

96

Loop

5., 1969,

J. H. S., "The
Optimal

Use

Control

of a Method
Laws

of Perturbations

for Nonlinear

Systems,

in the
"Auto-

pp. 357 - 367.

and Variational

A., Perturbation

Methods

Methods,

Wiley,

in Optimal

1975.

Control,

John

Wiley

& Sons,

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188

PAGE

Pubic mpor_ng burden for tin o4ection of information i estimated Io a.,mrage1 hour pet"msloonse, includingthe time Io1're_
_.
search.'_ esisting data =oun_,
_
lad maintair,i_l the dlla need=l, a_l o_ir_
Ind rlNiasar_ thl colection ol i_ _
S4md oomff,entt reguding thil buRhm e_imato or any oihe mlpGCtOl this
(x_ecbon _ kdocmation, inctudmgsuggest=on=lot' rekmingthis tx._dee, to Washington Headqmuler= Senior, Directorate forInformation Op_abo_
and Flecort=. 1215 Jeffenmn Davis
Hi_,
Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302.. and to the Office ot Mana_
and Budget, Paperwodc Reduction Pm_ect (0704-0188), Washin_toh, DC 205_3.
1. AGENCY

USE ONLY

(Leave

blank)

2. REPORT

DATE

3. REPORT

April 1995
4. TITLE

AND

Optimal

TYPE

Contractor

SUBTITLE

AND DATES

COVERED

Report
5. FUNDING

Guidance

Law Development

for an Advanced

Launch

System

NUMBERS

G NAG1-939
WU 232-01-04-05

s. AUTHOR(S)
Anthony

J. Calise

and Martin

S. K. Leung

8. PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
REPORT
NUMBER

7. PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES)
Georgia

Institute of Technology

School of Aerospace
Atlanta, GA 30332

Engineering

10.

9. SPONSORINGI MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES)

SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY

National

Aeronautics

Langley

Research

Hampton,

11.

VA

NUMBER

Center

NASA

CR-4667

23681-0001

SUPPLEMENTARY

Langley

REPORT

and Space Administration

NOTES

Technical

Monitor:

Daniel D. Moerder

Final Report
12a.

DISTRIBUTION

Unclassified

Subject

13.

I AVAILABILITY

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

- Unlimited

Categories

ABSTRACT

12b.

STATEMENT

(Maximum

12, 16, 31, 64, and 66

200 words)

The objective of this research effort was to develop a real-time guidance approach for launch vehicles ascent to orbit
injection. Various analytical approaches combined with a variety of model order and model complexity reduction have been
investigated. Singular perturbation methods were first attempted and found to be unsatisfactory. The second approach
based on regular perturbation analysis was subsequently investigated, it also fails because the aerodynamic effects (ignored
in the zero order solution) are too large to be treated as perturbations. Therefore, the study demonstrates that perturbation
methods alone (both regular and singular perturbations) are inadequate for use in developing a guidance algorithm for the
atmospheric flight phase of a launch vehicle. During a second phase of the research effort, a hybrid analytic/numerical
approach was developed and evaluated. The approach combines the numerical methods of collocation and the analytical
method of regular perturbations. The concept of choosing intelligent interpolating functions is also introduced. Regular
perturbation analysis allows the use of a crude representation for the collocation solution, and intelligent interpolating
functions further reduce the number of elements without sacrificing the approximation accuracy. As a result, the combined
method forms a powerful tool for solving real-time optimal control problems. Details of the approach are illustrated in a fourth
order nonlinear example. The hybrid approach is then applied to the launch vehicle problem. The collocation solution is
derived from a bilinear tangent steering law, and results in a guidance solution for the entire flight regime that includes both
a_mospheric and ,_x0atmosph_ric
14.

SUBJECT

fliqht phase_,

1S. NUMBER

TERMS

Optimal Guidance,

Trajectory

Optimization,

Perturbation

Methods

OF PAGES

107
16.

PRICE

CODE

A06
i17.

SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT

Unclassified

NSN

7540-01-280-5500

18.

SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE

19.

SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT

20.

LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified
St_r,_:-P3
Prescn_
298-102

Form 2g8 (Rev. 2-89)

by ANSi Sld. Z3g-lS