Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25

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.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Numerical analysis of constrained time-optimal satellite reorientation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Gamma-Ray Bursts/ Swift

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

Constrained Problem (multiple cones):

No Boundary Arcs or Points Observed

Example:

0.1 deg. gap between Sun and Moon cones

Constrained Problem (multiple cones)

tf= 3.0659, 300 nodes, 8 switches

Keep-out Cone Constraint

(cone axis for source A)

(sensor axis)

Optimal Control Formulation

• Resulting necessary conditions are analytically intractable

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

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.

Case BA-1 (forced boundary arc)

tf = 1.9480, 151 nodes

Case BA-1 (forced boundary arc)

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

Case BA-2 (forced boundary arc)

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

Case BP-1

Case BP-1

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

Case BP-2

Case BP-2

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

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)

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

Dido

No guess

cpu time = 148 sec.

With PSO guess

cpu time = 76 sec,

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

fin