1 / 25

Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation

Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation. Robert G. Melton Department of Aerospace Engineering Penn State University. 6 th International Workshop and Advanced School, “Spaceflight Dynamics and Control” Covilh ã , Portugal March 28-30, 2011.

urania
Télécharger la présentation

Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation Robert G. Melton Department of Aerospace Engineering Penn State University 6th International Workshop and Advanced School, “Spaceflight Dynamics and Control” Covilhã, Portugal March 28-30, 2011

  2. Gamma-Ray Bursts/ Swift

  3. Unconstrained Time-Optimal Reorientation • Bilimoria and Wie (1993) unconstrained solution NOT eigenaxis rotation • spherically symmetric mass distribution • independently and equally limited control torques • bang-bang solution, switching is function of reorientation angle • Others examined different mass symmetries, control architectures • Bai and Junkins (2009) • discovered different switching structure, local optima • for magnitude-limited torque vector, solution IS eigenaxis rotation

  4. Constrained Problem (multiple cones): No Boundary Arcs or Points Observed Example: 0.1 deg. gap between Sun and Moon cones

  5. Constrained Problem (multiple cones) tf= 3.0659, 300 nodes, 8 switches

  6. Keep-out Cone Constraint (cone axis for source A) (sensor axis)

  7. Optimal Control Formulation • Resulting necessary conditions are analytically intractable

  8. Numerical Studies Sensor axis constrained to follow the cone boundary (forced boundary arc) Sensor axis constrained not to enter the cone Entire s/c executes -rotation about A Legendre pseudospectral method used (DIDO software) Scaling: lie on constraint cone • I1 = I2 = I3and M1,max = M2,max = M3,max •  lies along principal body axis b1 • final orientation of b2, b3generally unconstrained

  9. Case BA-1 (forced boundary arc) • A = 45 deg. (approx. the Sun cone for Swift) • Sensor axis always lies on boundary • Transverse body axes are free •  = 90 deg. 

  10. Case BA-1 (forced boundary arc) tf = 1.9480, 151 nodes

  11. Case BA-1 (forced boundary arc)

  12. Case BA-2 (forced boundary arc) • A = 23 deg. (approx. the Moon cone for Swift) • Sensor axis always lies on boundary • Transverse body axes are free •  = 70 deg. tf = 1.3020, 100 nodes

  13. Case BA-2 (forced boundary arc)

  14. Case BP-1 • same geometry as BA-1 (A = 45 deg.,  = 90 deg.) • forced boundary points at initial and final times • sensor axis departs from constraint cone Angle between sensor axis and constraint cone tf= 1.9258 (1% faster than BA-1) 250 nodes

  15. Case BP-1

  16. Case BP-1

  17. Case BP-2 • same geometry as BA-2 (A = 23 deg.,  = 70 deg.) • forced boundary points at initial and final times • sensor axis departs from constraint cone Angle between sensor axis and constraint cone tf= 1.2967 (0.4% faster than BA-2) 100 nodes

  18. Case BP-2

  19. Case BP-2

  20. Sensor axis path along the constraint boundary Constrained Rotation Axis • Entire s/c executes -rotation • sensor axis on cone boundary • rotation axis along cone axis

  21. Constrained Rotation Axis Problem now becomes one-dimensional, with bang-bang solution Applying to geometry of: BA-1 tf = 2.1078 (8% longer than BA-1) BA-2 tf = 2.0966 (37% longer than BA-2)

  22. Practical Consideration • Pseudospectral code requires • 20 minutes < t < 12 hours • (if no initial guess provided) • Present research involves use of two-stage solution: • approx solnS (via particle swarm optimizer) • S = initial guess for pseudospectral code • (states, controls, node times at CGL points) • Successfully applied to 1-D slew maneuver

  23. Dido No guess cpu time = 148 sec. With PSO guess cpu time = 76 sec,

  24. Conclusions and Recommendations • For independently limited control torques, and initial and final sensor directions on the boundary: • trajectory immediately departs the boundary • no interior BP’s or BA’s observed • forced boundary arc yields suboptimal time • Need to conduct more accurate numerical studies • Bellman PS method • Interior boundary points? (indirect method) • Study magnitude-limited control torque case • Implementation • expand PSO+Dido to 3-D case

  25. fin

More Related