Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:10:01.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Observability-based Mars Autonomous Navigation Using Formation Flying Spacecraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2017

Yangwei Ou
Affiliation:
(College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defence Technology, Changsha, China)
Hongbo Zhang*
Affiliation:
(College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defence Technology, Changsha, China)
*

Abstract

This paper concentrates on designing an autonomous navigation scheme for Mars exploration. In this scheme, formation flying spacecraft are used to realise absolute orbit determination when orbiting around Mars. Inertial Line-Of-Sight (LOS) vectors from “deputy” spacecraft to the “chief” are measured using radio cross-link, optical devices and attitude sensors. Since the system's observability is closely related to the navigation performance, an analytical approach is proposed to optimise the observability. In this method, the gravity gradient tensor difference is chosen as the performance index to optimise two navigation scenarios. When there is one deputy flying around the chief, optimal parameters are obtained by solving the constrained optimisation problem. When a second deputy is added into the formation, the optimal configuration is also obtained. These results reveal that the observability is mainly determined by the magnitude of the in-track and cross-track distances in the configuration. An Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used to estimate the position and velocity of the chief. The results of a navigation simulation confirms that adding more deputies can significantly improve the navigational performance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alfriend, K.T., Vadali, S.R., Gurfil, P., How, J. and Breger, L.S. (2009). Spacecraft formation flying: Dynamics, control and navigation. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Anguelova, M. (2007). Observability and identifiability of nonlinear systems with applications in biology. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers Univ. of Technology and Göteborg Univ., Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bemporad, A., Ferrari-Trecate, G. and Morari, M. (2000). Observability and controllability of piecewise affine and hybrid systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(10), 18641876.Google Scholar
Böttcher, A. and Wenzel, D. (2008). The Frobenius norm and the commutator. Linear Algebra & Its Applications, 429 (8C9), 18641885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.G. and Hwang, P.Y.C. (1997). Introduction to Random Signals and Applied Kalman Filtering. Chapter 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997.Google Scholar
Chen, T. and Xu, S. (2010). Double line-of-sight measuring relative navigation for spacecraft autonomous rendezvous. Acta Astronautica, 67 (1-2), 122134.Google Scholar
Dutta, S. and Braun, R.D. (2014). Statistical entry, descent, and landing performance reconstruction of the mars science laboratory. Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, 51(4), 10481061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goshen-Meskin, D., Bar-Itzhack, I.Y. (1992a). Observability analysis of piece-wise constant systems. I. Theory. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems, 28(4), 10561067.Google Scholar
Goshen-Meskin, D., Bar-Itzhack, I.Y. (1992b). Observability analysis of piecewise constant systems. II. Application to inertial navigation in-flight alignment [military applications]. IEEE Transactionson Aerospace & Electronic Systems, 28(4), 10681075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, R. and Krener, A. (1977). Nonlinear controllability and observability. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 22(5), 728740.Google Scholar
Hill, K. and Born, G. (2007). Autonomous Interplanetary Orbit Determination Using Satellite-to-Satellite Tracking. Journal of Guidance Control & Dynamics, 30(3), 679686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, M., Zeng, G. and Song, J. (2013). Collision avoidance control for formation flying satellites. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 438448.Google Scholar
Kassas, Z.M. and Humphreys, T.E. (2014). Observability analysis of collaborative opportunistic navigation with pseudorange measurements. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 15(1), 260273.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Wei, E. and Jin, S. (2017). Mars cruise orbit determination from combined optical celestial techniques and x-ray pulsars. Journal of Navigation, 70, 719734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maessen, D. and Gill, E. (2012). Relative state estimation and observability analysis for formation flying satellites. Journal of Guidance Control & Dynamics, 35(1), 321326.Google Scholar
Markley, F.L. (1984). Autonomous navigation using landmark and intersatellite data. AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference, Seatle, WA, AIAA Paper 19841987.Google Scholar
Martinmur, T.J., Kruizinga, G.L., Burkhart, P.D., Abilleira, F., Wong, M.C. and Kangas, J.A. (2014). Mars science laboratory interplanetary navigation. Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, 51(4), 10141028.Google Scholar
Ning, Y., Avendano, M.E. and Mortari, D. (2011). Sequential Design of Satellite Formations with Invariant Distances. Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, 48, 10251032.Google Scholar
Ou, Y., Zhang, H. and Xing, J. (2016). Autonomous orbit determination and observability analysis for formation satellites. In: 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), 52945300.Google Scholar
Psiaki, M.L. (2011). Absolute Orbit and Gravity Determination Using Relative Position Measurements Between Two Satellites. Journal of Guidance Control & Dynamics, 34, 12851297.Google Scholar
Quadrelli, M.B., Wood, L.J., Riedel, J.E., McHenry, M.C., Aung, M., Cangahuala, L.A., Volpe, R.A., Beauchamp, P.M. and Cutts, J.A. (2015). Guidance, Navigation, and Control Technology Assessment for Future Planetary Science Missions. Journal of Guidance Control & Dynamics, 38, 11651186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schratz, B.C., Soriano, M., Ilott, P., Shidner, J., Chen, A. and Bruvold, K. (2014). Telecommunications performance during entry, descent, and landing of the mars science laboratory. Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, 51(4), 12371250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Zheng, W., An, X., Sun, S. and Li, L. (2014). X-ray pulsar-based navigation using time-differenced measurement, Aerospace Science and Technology, 36, 2735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. and Zheng, W. (2016). Pulse Phase Estimation of X-ray Pulsar with the Aid of Vehicle Orbital Dynamics. Journal of Navigation, 69(1), 414432.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Zhang, H., Wu, M., Hu, X. and Hu, D. (2012). Observability of Strapdown INS Alignment: A Global Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems, 48, 78102.Google Scholar
Yang, H.X., Vetrisano, M., Vasile, M. and Zhang, W. (2016). Autonomous navigation of spacecraft formation in the proximity of minor bodies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 230(1), 189204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yim, J.R., Crassidis, J.L. and Junkins, J.L. (2004). Autonomous orbit navigation of two spacecraft system using relative line of sight vector measurements. AAS Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Maui, HI, Feb. 2004, AAS Paper #04-257.Google Scholar
Yu, Z., Cui, P. and Zhu, S. (2015). Observability-Based Beacon Configuration Optimization for Mars Entry Navigation. Journal of Guidance Control & Dynamics, 38, 643650.Google Scholar
Zeng, G., Hu, M. and Yao, H. (2012). Relative orbit estimation and formation keeping control of satellite formations in low Earth orbits. Acta Astronautica, 76, 164175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar