Computational and Applied Mathematics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 865–879 | Cite as

Mathematical modeling of spacecraft guidance and control system in 3D space orbit transfer mission

  • Abolfazl Shirazi
  • A. H. Mazinan


Spacecraft performance in an orbital maneuver relies on guidance and control systems which manage the thrust direction within orbit transfer. In this article, the guidance and control approach for spacecraft having a 3D orbit transfer mission is proposed. To derive the optimal variation of steering angles with initial and terminal constraints on the space orbits, a mathematics polynomial function of the guidance command with unknown coefficients is introduced, one of which is determined to achieve the transfer accuracy requirement between space orbits. Genetic Algorithm is employed in finding optimal variation of guidance command and the optimal initial states within the transfer. The attitude control system is also modeled to evaluate the spacecraft response with respect to generated commands by the guidance system. Gas thrusters are considered as attitude actuators for space mission and linear controller with pulse-width pulse-frequency modulator and unconstrained control allocation is employed for controlling steering angles. Results indicate that the presented approach for guidance and control system fairly satisfies the mission requirement.


Guidance Control Spacecraft Polynomials  Genetic algorithm Attitude Thruster Orbital maneuver 

Mathematics Subject Classification

93C35 93C15 49K15 65K05 37M05 


  1. Assadian N, Pourtakdoust S (2010) Multiobjective genetic optimization of Earth–Moon trajectories in the restricted four-body problem. Adv Space Res 45(3):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang W (2007) Nonlinear system identification and control using a real-coded genetic algorithm. Appl Math Model 31(3):541–550CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cong B, Liu X, Chen Z (2011) A precise and robust control strategy for rigid spacecraft eigenaxis rotation. Chin J Aeronaut 24(4):484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtis H (2014) Orbital mechanics for engineering students. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaz-Calderon A, Paredis C, Khosla P (2000) Automatic generation of system-level dynamic equations for mechatronic systems. Comput Aided Design 32(5–6):339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. dos Santos D, da Silva Formiga J (2014) Application of a genetic algorithm in orbital maneuvers. Comput Appl Math 34(2):437–450MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Geng J, Sheng Y, Liu X (2014) Finite-time sliding mode attitude control for a reentry vehicle with blended aerodynamic surfaces and a reaction control system. Chin J Aeronaut 27(4):964–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godard Kumar K, Zou A (2013) A novel single thruster control strategy for spacecraft attitude stabilization. Acta Astronaut 86:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu Q, Zhang Y, Huo X, Xiao B (2011) Adaptive integral-type sliding mode control for spacecraft attitude maneuvering under actuator stuck failures. Chin J Aeronaut 24(1):32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ikenaga T, Utashima M, Ishii N, Hiraiwa T, Noda A (2014) Study on the orbital maneuvering capability of H-2A kick stage. Acta Astronaut 94(2):718–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiao H, Wang Z, Chen Y (2013) Global optimization algorithm for sum of generalized polynomial ratios problem. Appl Math Model 37(1–2):187–197MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansen T, Fossen T (2013) Control allocation—a survey. Automatica 49(5):1087–1103MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kakoi M, Howell K, Folta D (2014) Access to Mars from Earth–Moon libration point orbits: manifold and direct options. Acta Astronaut 102:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee C, Kim T, Tahk M, Whang I (2013) Polynomial guidance laws considering terminal impact angle and acceleration constraints. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 49(1):74–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li C, Teo K, Li B, Ma G (2012) A constrained optimal PID-like controller design for spacecraft attitude stabilization. Acta Astronaut 74:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lim T (2014) Thruster attitude control system design and performance for tactical satellite 4 maneuvers. J Guid Control Dyn 37(2):403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luo Q, Yin J, Han C (2013) Design of Earth–Moon free-return trajectories. J Guid Control Dyn 36(1):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Motlagh J, Novinzadeh A (2012) Solid upper stage design process using finite burn maneuvers for low Earth orbit-geosynchronous Earth orbit transfer phase. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng 227(6):966–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nobari N, Misra A (2012) Attitude dynamics and control of satellites with fluid ring actuators. J Guid Control Dyn 35(6):1855–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patton R, Uppal F, Simani S, Polle B (2010) Robust FDI applied to thruster faults of a satellite system. Control Eng Pract 18(9):1093–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prado A, Gomes V (2014) Searching for capture and escape trajectories around Jupiter using its Galilean satellites. Comput Appl Math 34(2):451–460MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Salazar F, Macau E, Winter O (2014) Pareto Frontier for the time-energy cost vector to an Earth–Moon transfer orbit using the patched-conic approximation. Comput Appl Math 34(2):461–475Google Scholar
  23. Sarli B, da Silva A, Paglione P (2014) Sliding mode attitude control using thrusters and pulse modulation for the ASTER mission. Comput Appl Math 34(2):535–556MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Wie B (2008) Space vehicle dynamics and control. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, RestonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu S, Wang R, Radice G, Wu Z (2015) Robust attitude maneuver control of spacecraft with reaction wheel low-speed friction compensation. Aerosp Sci Technol 43:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang Z, Luo Y, Zhang J (2013) Two-level optimization approach for Mars orbital long-duration, large non-coplanar rendezvous phasing maneuvers. Adv Space Res 52(5):883–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang A, Hu Q, Huo X (2013) Dynamic control allocation for spacecraft attitude stabilization with actuator uncertainty. Proc Inst Mech Eng G J Aerosp Eng 228(8):1336–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zimmer S, Ocampo C, Bishop R (2010) Reducing orbit covariance for continuous thrust spacecraft transfers. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 46(2):771–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SBMAC - Sociedade Brasileira de Matemática Aplicada e Computacional 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringK. N. Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Control Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, South Tehran BranchIslamic Azad University (IAU)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations