Proceedings of the 2006 American Control Conference FrC10.

5
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, June 14-16, 2006

Optimal Nonlinear Guidance

With Inner-Loop Feedback for Hypersonic Re-Entry
John M. Carson III, Michael S. Epstein, Douglas G. MacMynowski, and Richard M. Murray

Abstract— Development of feasible G&C (Guidance and Con- to make use of current state and parameter knowledge.
trol) methods for precision atmospheric re-entry has remained a Additionally, these techniques provide a systematic method
challenge since pre-Apollo-era space exploration. The inherent for simultaneously satisfying state and control constraints in
difficulty arises from the governing hypersonic dynamics being
significantly nonlinear, subject to parametric uncertainty, and the real-time guidance generation.
limited with control authority. Vehicle safety requirements im- The scope of this paper is application-oriented, presenting
pose further constraints, and desired cost objectives complicate a G&C algorithm for reentry based on outer-loop, nonlinear
an already difficult G&C problem. The scope of this paper is to trajectory generation for optimal guidance trajectories and
present a guidance algorithm for optimal trajectory generation inner-loop feedback to handle disturbances, and parametric
based on a reduced-dimension reentry formulation. Preliminary
simulations demonstrate the algorithm with feedback used to and dynamic uncertainty. The guidance trajectory is deter-
track the guidance trajectory in the presence of initial state mined by using a reduced-dimension reentry model to mini-
uncertainty. The objective is to further this approach toward mize the number of equality constraints in the optimization.
an onboard receding-horizon implementation. Preliminary simulations utilize a guidance trajectory and
I. I NTRODUCTION LQR feedback as a proof-of-concept for the algorithm. This
research focuses on reduced-dimension models as a potential
Precision atmospheric re-entry has been a significant enabler for onboard RHC during hypersonic re-entry.
and ongoing research focus for spacecraft G&C (Guidance The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Sec-
and Control) since the early years of the space program tion II presents the governing reentry dynamics and the basic
[1]−[6]. Significant challenges with re-entry G&C include G&C approach, Section III details the primary contribution
dynamics with significant nonlinearities, state and trajectory of the paper, the reduced-dimension formulation that is
constraints, limits on control authority, and parametric uncer- used for the outer-loop guidance determination, Section IV
tainty. Apollo and Shuttle-era drag-based tracking techniques discusses the inner-loop feedback design, Section V provides
([3]) remain the state-of-the-art for re-entry G&C and are preliminary simulations with the inner-loop/outer-loop algo-
proposed for forthcoming Mars entry vehicles [7], [4], [5]. rithm developed in the paper, and Section VI summarizes
Drag-based tracking, in essence, fits off-line a quadratic or developments in the paper, along with future directions of
low-order polynomial in drag-velocity space to lie inside a the research.
safe re-entry corridor. Onboard control then attempts to track
this curve and provide some degree of guidance updating. II. H YPERSONIC DYNAMICS AND AN A PPROACH TO
The approach is very intuitive; if measured drag is below G UIDANCE AND C ONTROL
desired, drop down in the atmosphere (higher density) to A. Governing Dynamics
increase drag, otherwise, rise up in the atmosphere (lower The kinematics and dynamics governing the descent of
density) to decrease drag. While very effective for re-entry a point-mass vehicle through the atmosphere of a non-
when atmospheric and aerodynamic parameters are well rotating planet are given by Vinh’s equations [2]; the non-
known, the drag-based technique requires careful off-line rotating assumption is a valid approximation for short-
construction of guidance profiles to ensure state and control duration flights [2]:
constraints remain satisfied in the presence of uncertainty.
V cos γ sin χ
With advances in computation power and real-time con- θ̇ = (1)
r cos φ
trol, constrained nonlinear trajectory generation problems
V
are being pushed on-line and computed in real-time [8]− φ̇ = cos γ cos χ (2)
[10]. Rather than using a guidance trajectory computed off- r
ṙ = V sin γ (3)
line, computing power and numerical algorithms now allow
admissible guidance trajectories and control to be computed V̇ = −D − g sin γ (4)
   
online in a RHC (receding-horizon control) fashion [10] 1 V2
γ̇ = L cos σ − g − cos γ (5)
V r
This work was supported by and conducted at the California Institute of
L sin σ V
Technology, Pasadena, California, USA. χ̇ = + cos γ sin χ tan φ, (6)
J. Carson and M. Epstein are graduate students in Mechanical V cos γ r
Engineering, D. MacMynowski is a Senior Research Fellow and
R. Murray is a Professor in Control & Dynamical Systems. where vehicle parameters (relative to the planet) are as
{carson,epstein,macmardg,murray}@cds.caltech.edu follows: r is radius; V is velocity; γ is flight path angle;

1-4244-0210-7/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE 5782

θ is longitude; φ is latitude; χ is heading angle (clockwise
angle from local north to velocity component normal to r); D
is specific-drag magnitude; L is specific-lift magnitude; g is
gravity ( rμ2 with μ being the planet gravity constant). Control
inputs are σ, the bank angle (counter-clockwise about V from
local vertical to L), and α, the angle of attack, which enters
through L and D.
Models for specific lift and drag for the vehicle are
L = κCL V 2 and D = κCD V 2 ,
where κ = 12 ρ m S
(S is surface area, m is mass, and ρ
is atmospheric density), CD and CL (vehicle drag and lift
coefficients, respectively) are functions of α, taken as in [6]:
CL = a0 + a1 α
CD = b0 + b1 α + b2 α2 ,
where a0 , a1 , b0 , b1 , and b2 are vehicle-dependent aerody-
namics characteristics. Density ρ is based on the exponential
atmosphere model
r−rref
−
ρ = ρref e href
, (10)
where rref , ρref and href are reference radius, density, and
scale height, respectively.
The functional form of Vinh’s equations is
ẋ = f (x, u; p), x ∈ X, u ∈ U
where x = (θ, φ, r, V, γ, χ) are state elements, u = (α, σ)T
T feasible and meaningful re-entry trajectories:
are control inputs, p are parameter values (i.e. μ, ρref , a0 ,
etc.), and X and U are state and control sets, respectively.
+Tk
B. Approach to Guidance and Control
The G&C method utilized herein separates the problem
into guidance (ol ≡ outer-loop) and feedback (f b) portions
(i.e Xol + Xf b ⊆ X and Uol + Uf b ⊆ U where 0 ∈ Xf b
and 0 ∈ Uf b ). The architecture is depicted in Figure 1.
The design establishes an outer- and inner-loop that can
be implemented in single-horizon, RHC, or compressing-
horizon G&C. Note, the Figure 1 variables xol , uol , and uf b
are represented by z, v, and w, respectively, in subsequent
equations.
Fig. 1. Feedback Architecture Proposed for Hypersonic Reentry
Guidance is based on nonlinear trajectory generation for
a set of nominal parameters pol and nominal states z(t) that
satisfy system 11:
ż = f (z, v; pol ), z ∈ Xol , v ∈ Uol , (12)
where z = (θol , φol , rol , Vol , γol , χol ) and v = (αol , σol )T .
T
Feedback policies are designed to track the guidance
trajectories z(t) and handle parametric uncertainty in the
nominal parameters pol . The origin is not an equilibrium
point of system (12), so we make it one by translating the
nonlinear dynamics about the nominal solution. Let η =
(7)
x − z, w = u − v, and δ = p − pol , then
η̇ = ẋ − ż = f (x, u; p) − ż
= f (η + z, w + v; δ + pol ) − ż = g(η, w; δ) (13)
(8) where the origin is an equilibrium point (and η ∈ Xf b and
w ∈ Uf b as desired). From system (13), control laws can
(9) be developed such that feedback input w handles parametric
uncertainty δ and drives system (11) to the desired nominal
trajectory. Note, system (13) is non-autonomous due to the
dependence on the guidance trajectory z(t) and the outer-
loop input v(t).
III. O PTIMAL N ONLINEAR T RAJECTORY G ENERATION
FOR O UTER -L OOP G UIDANCE
The outer-loop guidance trajectories must satisfy the
nominal entry dynamics, as well as the state and control
constraints of system (12). The guidance problem can be
(11) cast as the following optimal control problem to generate
Problem 1: Guidance Trajectory
min J(z, v, t; pol , Tk ) ∀t ∈ [tk , tk + Tk ]
v
⎧ tk
⎪
⎪
⎪ J = q(z, v, τ )dτ + ν(z, tk + Tk )
⎪
⎨ tk
subject to ż = f (z, v; pol )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ z ∈ Xol
⎩
v ∈ Uol
where tk ≥ 0 is the initial time and Tk > 0 is the horizon.
Recent research in nonlinear control has developed meth-
ods for trajectory generation of nonlinear constrained sys-
tems. The approach in [10] casts trajectory generation for
optimal control problems as a computational nonlinear opti-
mization problem. The trajectory generation problem is set
up by choosing a cost function that is to be minimized
along the system trajectory. The idea is to then parameterize
the states and controls as functions of time in terms of
computationally-efficient B-Splines [11]. The optimization
space is over the spline coefficients, with the cost function
evaluated, and constraints enforced, at specified collocation
points of the splines.
With this method the system dynamics are enforced by
including them as constraints on the splines. Problem 1 could
be solved by parameterizing all the states and controls as
splines, but this would require enforcing the six equality
constraints of equations (1)-(6). Techniques from differential
flatness [12] can be implemented to reduce the optimization
space and number of constraints by implicitly enforcing the
5783
system dynamics. Although the hypersonic re-entry dynam-
ics in equations (1)-(6) are not differentially flat, as shown
by [6], concepts from differential flatness significantly reduce
the dimensionality of the problem. For the reformulation, we
choose three of the states as “flat” variables to parameterize
as splines, and then, define the other states and controls in
terms of the “flat” variables and their derivatives.
Similar to the formulation in [6], the “flat” variables
utilized are
y1 = rol
y2 = φol
y3 = θol .
By differentiating the “flat” variables and manipulating
Vinh’s equations (1)–(3) the remaining states can be deter-
mined according to
Vol = ẏ12 + y1 2 (ẏ22 + ẏ32 cos2 y2 )
The states and controls are now defined in terms of “flat”
variables, and thus, the cost function and constraints can be
recast as functions of the yi ’s and their time derivatives.
The derivation above utilizes all but equation (4) of
Vinh’s equations, and thus all but equation (4) are implicitly
enforced in the optimization. For y1 (t), y2 (t) and y3 (t) to
represent valid reentry trajectories, equation (4) must be
explicitly enforced:
F1 = V̇ol + g sin γol + Dol = 0 (21)
where the variables V̇ol , g, γol and Dol are replaced by
(14) their dependencies on the yi ’s. Thus, the constraint F1 is
a function of the “flat” variables as well.
This re-parameterization converts Problem 1 into the fol-
lowing, reduced-dimension optimization problem, now with
only one equality constraint from the dynamics:
Problem 2: Guidance Trajectory - “Flat” Representation
min J(z(y), v(y), t; pol , Tk )
  v(y)
⎧ tk
+Tk
ẏ1 ⎪
γol = arctan
(15) ⎪
⎪ J = q(z(y), v(y), τ )dτ + ν(z(y), tk + Tk )
y1 ẏ22 + ẏ32 cos2 y2 ⎪
⎪
  ⎪
⎨ tk
ẏ3 subject to F1 (y) = 0
χol = arctan cos y2 . ⎪ − π2 < γol (y), χol (y), αol (y), σol (y) < π2
ẏ2 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ z(y) ∈ Xol
⎪
⎩
To determine the controls we first differentiate the states v(y) ∈ Uol
above to obtain
∀t ∈ [tk , tk + Tk ]
V̇ol = ÿ1 sin γol + cos γol cos χol (ÿ2 y1 + ẏ2 ẏ1 )
where y = {yi (t), ẏi (t), ÿi (t), ∀i = 1, 2, 3}, tk ≥ 0 is the
+ H cos γol sin χol initial time, and Tk > 0 is the horizon.
1 1
γ̇ol = ÿ1 cos γol − sin γol cos χol (ÿ2 y1 + ẏ2 ẏ1 ) IV. D EVELOPMENT OF I NNER -L OOP F EEDBACK
Vol Vol
1 C ONTROL
− H sin γol sin χol (16) Feedback laws are developed for cases with small per-
Vol
  −1 turbations from the guidance trajectory. This assumes the
ẏ 2
χ̇ol = 1 + 32 cos2 y2 linear terms in an expansion of system (13) dominate in some
ẏ
 2  region about the nominal trajectory, so system (13) becomes
ÿ3 ẏ3 ÿ2
× cos y2 − ẏ3 sin y2 − 2 cos y2 η̇ = Aη + Bw (22)
ẏ2 ẏ2
with H = (ÿ3 y1 cos y2 + ẏ3 ẏ1 cos y2 − ẏ2 ẏ3 y1 sin y2 ). The where
bank angle can then be found from equations (5) and (6):
A = ∇x f |(z,v;pol ) and B = ∇u f |(z,v;pol ) .
⎛   ⎞
χ̇ol cos γol − Vyol1 cos2 γol sin χol tan y2 The matrices A and B are functions of the nominal trajectory,
σol = arctan⎝   ⎠.
so system (22) is LTV (Linear Time Varying). The parametric
γ˙ol − cos γol Vyol1 − Vgol
perturbations δ in system (13) are neglected here. The
(17) linearization of Vinh’s equations (3)-(6) about a nominal
The specific lift is then given by trajectory gives the following B and A matrices (the A
  
Vol Vol g matrix is on the top of the next page):
Lol = γ̇ol − cos γol − . (18) ⎡ ⎤
cos σol y1 Vol 0 0 

⎢ 0 0 ⎥ 
The angle of attack is given by ⎢ ⎥
  ⎢ 0 0 ⎥ 
1 2mLol B(z, v; pol ) = κV ⎢
⎢ −CDα V
⎥
⎥  (23)
αol = − a0 , (19) ⎢ 0 ⎥
a1 ρVol 2 S ⎣ CLα cos σ −CL sin σ ⎦

and finally the specific drag is determined by making the CLα sin σ CL cos σ ol
appropriate substitutions in equation (7)
where all state variables and parameters are nominal values,
Dol = κCD Vol 2 . (20) as implied by the subscript ol. Note, this formulation makes

5784
 A(z, v; pol ) =
2 3˛
0 V sin χ tan φ
− rV2 sin χ sin χ
− Vrγcos
sin χ V cos χ ˛
r cos φ cos φ r cos φ φ r cos φ ˛
6 0 0 V cos χ
− r2 cos χ V γ cos χ
− r − V sin χ 7˛
6 r r 7˛
6 0 0 0 γ V 0 7˛
6 7˛
6 κCD V 2 7˛
6 0 0 −2κCD V −g 0 7˛
6 “ href ” ` ´ `g ´ 7˛
6 7˛
6 0 0 −V κChLref cos σ
+ r12 κCL cos σ + Vg2 + r1 γ V − Vr 0 7˛
4 “ ” ` ´ 5˛
˛
0 V sin χ
r
(1+tan2 φ) −V κChLref
sin σ
+ sin χr2tan φ κCL sin σ+ sin χrtan φ Vγ κCL sin σ− tan φrsin χ V tan φ cos χ
r ˛
ol

(24)

two further assumptions: the perturbation in gravity between sufficient constraints exist that are much larger algebraic
actual and nominal systems is negligible (which affects the expressions.
A matrix formulation), and the flight-path angle is small. The
variables CLα and CDα are the derivatives of CL and CD V. C ASE E XAMPLE
with respect to α, respectively. This section provides a proof-of-concept simulation for
Assuming system (22) is stabilizable, then LQR (Lin- the G&C concept developed in this paper and is a key
ear Quadratic Regulation) feedback provides a convenient step toward the ultimate interest of implementing RHC in
method for demonstrating the re-entry algorithm and key the outer-loop guidance. A guidance trajectory is computed
components of a potential RHC implementation. The feed- through the method of Section III, and inner-loop feedback
back is given by w = −Kη where gain matrix K = is computed as outlined in Section IV to deal with small
1 −1
2R B(t)T P (t) comes from the LQR problem [13] uncertainties in the initial conditions. These uncertainties can
 ∞
∗
 T  represent either the effect of computation delay in the outer-
w = min η Qη + wT Rw dt (25) loop trajectory generation, or they can represent errors in the
w 0
estimated entry conditions.
Q = QT >= 0 and R = RT > 0. (26)
Past studies in [14] and [6] used the maximization of
and solving a Riccati equation for P . Since system (22) is cross-range as the cost function in designing optimal entry
LTV, an approximation is made that A, B and P are constant trajectories
over small time increments along the guidance trajectory, J = −y2 (tf ). (30)
which allows P to be determined by solving an Algebraic
Riccati Equation As a baseline we use the same cost function and parameters
(See Table I) because they provide a means for comparison
0 = A(ti )T P + P A(ti ) − P B(ti )R−1 B(ti )T P + Q of the guidance trajectory and a way of validating the overall
at set time indices ti along the nominal trajectory. The G&C approach developed in this paper.
resultant feedback gain Ki is then fixed until the next time
TABLE I
index. The stability of this switching scheme is not addressed
S IMULATION PARAMETERS
in this paper. Robustness to parametric uncertainty is ignored
for now too. Parameter Value
Sufficient constraints can be imposed on the guidance r(0) 260000 + Re (feet)
φ(0) 0◦
Problem 2 (or used as verification checks for a computed θ(0) 0◦
trajectory) to ensure the linearized system is controllable v(0) 25600 (ft/sec)
along the nominal trajectories, which will ensure a solution γ(0) −1◦
to the LQR problem. Some of these constraints are intuitive, ψ(0) 90◦
tf 2000 (sec)
like non-zero velocity (V > 0), already a constraint in h(tf ) 80000 (ft)
Problem 2, and non-zero lift, which puts an additional v(tf ) 2500 (ft/sec)
constraint on α; the α constraint, plus some of the other γ(tf ) −5◦
μ 0.14976539 × 1017
sufficient controllability constraints include Re 20902900 (feet)
S 2690 (ft2 )
CL > 0 ⇒ α > − aa01 (27)
m 6309.44 (slugs)
CDα > 0 ⇒ α> − 2b
b1
2
(28) href 23800 (feet)
ρ0 0.002378
CLα tan γ + CDα cos σ = 0 (29) a0 −0.20704
a1 0.029244 (deg.−1 )
Equation (29) indicates a coupling between angle-of-attack b0 0.07854
and flight-path angle where ratios of lift and drag properties b1 −0.61592 × 10−2 (deg.−1 )
can cause a loss of control at certain bank angles. Other b2 0.621408 × 10−3 (deg.−2 )

5785
 


Note, these simulations (as in [14], [6]) do not incorporate 

design/operational state constraints (e.g. heating, max dy-




namic pressure, max load capacity, etc.) or control rate limits, 
but the approach is capable of handling such constraints. In 
         
addition, the controllability constraints (27)-(29) were not

enforced on the guidance optimization but were used to

check the resultant guidance trajectories.




For the case study, perturbations were given to some of

the initial conditions:

          

◦
θ(0)actual = 0.1

φ(0)actual = 0.1◦





v(0)actual = 25610 (ft/sec)

γ(0)actual = −0.95◦ ,



with the LQR design matrices chosen as Fig. 3. Dynamic States of Nominal Trajectory
 
0.25 0 30

Constraints 1 & 2
C >0 CD > 0
Q = diag(1, 1, 4, 4, 5, 1) and R =  (
) L

0 0.5 20

10
with higher penalties on radius, velocity, and flight path angle
0
in order to keep the state trajectories close to the guidance 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

trajectory; this scheme also drove the choice of a lower Constraint 3 1

penalty on angle of attack.

0.5
Figures 2 and 3 show the guidance trajectory produced by
C cos +  * C
0
the method outlined in Section III. The final cross-range (or 0
D L

latitude φ) is 34.0011◦ , which is comparable to the results of 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

[14] and [6]: 34.1412◦ and 33.0656◦ , respectively. Note, the 7

Controllability (A,B)
guidance trajectories were determined by solving Problem
Rank

6
2 with 10 intervals of 7th -order B-splines having 4th -order
smoothness between intervals. 5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (sec)
100
Fig. 4. Constraints that Impose Controllability on the Feedback System

(
)

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Figure 5 depicts the outer-loop along with the inner-loop
40 feedback control generated with LQR. Notice in the plot that
the feedback control magnitude is small.
 (
)

20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

7
x 10
2.12






2.11
r (ft)


2.1

2.09

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000   

     

Time (sec)


Fig. 2. Kinematic States of Nominal Trajectory


 



A check of the constraint equations (27)-(29) in Figure 4

 
reveals that the provided constraints were satisfied in the

 
optimization for the guidance trajectories over the entire

 
trajectory time. Note, the top plot shows the constraints           
  
on angle-of-attack are dominated by the coefficient-of-lift
(CL ) constraint. The bottom plot simply verifies that the Fig. 5. Outer-Loop Control (solid) and Feedback Control (dashed)
controllability matrix was always full rank in the simulations.
Figures 6 and 7 depict the state error (relative to the outer-

5786
loop optimal trajectory) in the simulations when the inner-
loop feedback is applied as well a simulation where the
inner-loop feedback is turned off and the only control signal
applied is that from the outer-loop. The benefit of feedback
is apparent, the small perturbation in the initial conditions
has a large affect on the system when inner-loop feedback is
not included, this is particularly profound in the final radius,
off by 10000 ft at the end time without feedback. With even
the small amount of feedback as shown in Figure 5, the state
remains close to the desired, optimal guidance trajectory.





upon the guidance trajectory. The continuation of this work
will explore different nonlinear optimizers for use in gener-
ating the guidance trajectories, with an intent to implement
RHC in the outer loop. This will enable resolving for the
guidance trajectory, thus allowing an assessment of how well
the algorithm handles sources of uncertainty and external
disturbances.
The cost function used in the case example was chosen
for comparison with previous studies. Studies with other
cost functions may be more relevant to actual missions
and should be investigated. Additionally, the complicated
algebraic constraints associated with the controllability of the
feedback system need to be further refined or a new feedback


methodology chosen. Overall stability of the inner/outer-loop

  

       architecture should be explored as well as the ensuring a
 
method to handle parametric uncertainty.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



 
The authors would like to thank Mark Milam and Bill


           Dunbar, alumni of California Institute of Technology, and


 Raktim Bhattacharya, former post-doc under Richard Mur-

ray, for their assistance with nonlinear trajectory generation.



R EFERENCES


           [1] R.C. Wingrove. survey of atmosphere re-entry guidance and control
 
methods. AIAA Journal, 1(9):2019–2029, September 1963.
[2] N.X. Vinh et. al. Hypersonic and Planetary Entry Flight Mechanics.
Fig. 6. Error from Nominal: Feedback ON (solid), Feedback OFF (dashed) University of Michigan Press, 1980.
[3] J.C. Harpold and C.A. Graves Jr. Shuttle entry guidance. The Journal
of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, July-September, pages
239–268, 1979.
[4] K-Y Tu, M.S. Munir, K.D. Mease, and D.S. Bayard. Drag-based



predictive tracking guidance for mars precision landing. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 4, July-August, pages
620–628, 2000.


  

       [5] S.A. Striepe, D.W. Way, A.M. Dwyer, and J. Balaram. Mars smart lan-

der simulations for entry, descent, and landing. In AIAA Atmospheric
Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, August 5–8 2002.
[6] T. Neckel, C. Talbot, and N. Petit. Collocation and inversion for a





reentry optimal control problem. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna-
tional Conference on Launcher Technology, 2003.

[7] G.F. Mendeck and G.L. Carman. Guidance design for mars smart

landers using the entry terminal point controller. In AIAA Atmospheric

Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, August 5–8 2002.
[8] R. Bhattacharya, G. J. Balas, M. Alpay Kaya, and A. Packard.




Nonlinear receding horizon control of an F-16 aircraft. Journal of

Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 25(5):924 – 931, 2002.


[9] M.B. Milam, R. Franz, and R.M. Murray. Real-time constrained







































Fig. 7. Error from Nominal: Feedback ON (solid), Feedback OFF (dashed)
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
The inner-loop/outer-loop structure of the G&C algorithm
developed in this paper demonstrated some of the key
components necessary for the implementation of RHC to the
reentry problem. An outer-loop optimal guidance trajectory
can be computed based on current state knowledge and a
nominal dynamics model. Then, inner-loop feedback can be
utilized to deal with some of the uncertainty affecting desired
trajectories.
A significant remaining piece is the development of a
nonlinear optimizer that can reliably and efficiently converge
5787
trajectory generation applied to a flight control experiment. 2002 IFAC
World Congress.
[10] M. Milam. Real Time Optimal Trajectory Generation for Constrained
Dynamical Systems. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology,
2002.
[11] C. de Boor. A Practical Guide to Splines. Springer-Verlag, 1978.
[12] M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin, and P.Rouchon. Flatness and defect
of nonlinear systems: Introductory theory and examples. International
Journal of Control, Vol. 61, pages 1327–1361, 1995.
[13] B. Friedland. Control System Design: An Introduction to State-Space
Methods. McGraw-Hill, 1986.
[14] J.T. Betts. Practical Methods for Optimal Control using Nonlinear
Programming. SIAM, 2001.