2000 character limit reached
MPC for Tracking applied to rendezvous with non-cooperative tumbling targets ensuring stability and feasibility (2403.10986v1)
Published 16 Mar 2024 in eess.SY, cs.SY, and math.OC
Abstract: A Model Predictive Controller for Tracking is introduced for rendezvous with non-cooperative tumbling targets in active debris removal applications. The target's three-dimensional non-periodic rotational dynamics as well as other state and control constraints are considered. The approach is based on applying an intermediate coordinate transformation that eliminates the time-dependency due to rotations in the constraints. The control law is then found as the solution to a QP problem with linear constraints and dynamics, as derived from the HCW equations, that provides feasibility and stability guarantees by means of a terminal LQR and dead-beat region. The proposed control algorithm performs well in a realistic simulation scenario, namely a near rendezvous with the Envisat spacecraft.
- G. Behrendt, A. Soderlund, M. Hale, and S. Phillips, “Autonomous satellite rendezvous and proximity operations with time-constrained sub-optimal model predictive control,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 9380–9385, 2023.
- G. Boyarko, O. Yakimenko, and M. Romano, “Optimal rendezvous trajectories of a controlled spacecraft and a tumbling object,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1239–1252, 2011.
- C. Buckner and R. Lampariello, “Tube-based model predictive control for the approach maneuver of a spacecraft to a free-tumbling target satellite,” in 2018 ACC. IEEE, 2018, pp. 5690–5697.
- M. M. Castronuovo, “Active space debris removal—a preliminary mission analysis and design,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 848–859, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576511001287
- A. Caubet and J. D. Biggs, “An inverse dynamics approach to the guidance of spacecraft in close proximity of tumbling debris,” Proceedings of 2015 IAC, vol. 7, p. 9, 2015.
- W. Clohessy and R. Wiltshire, “Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous,” Journal of the aerospace sciences, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 653–658, 1960.
- K. Dong, J. Luo, and D. Limon, “A novel stable and safe model predictive control framework for autonomous rendezvous and docking with a tumbling target,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 200, pp. 176–187, 2022.
- A. Ferramosca, D. Limon, I. Alvarado, T. Alamo, and E. F. Camacho, “MPC for tracking with optimal closed-loop performance,” Automatica, vol. 45, pp. 1975–1978, 2009.
- F. Gavilan, R. Vazquez, and E. Camacho, “Chance-constrained model predictive control for spacecraft rendezvous with disturbance estimation,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 111–122, 2012.
- E. N. Hartley, P. A. Trodden, A. G. Richards, and J. M. Maciejowski, “Model predictive control system design and implementation for spacecraft rendezvous,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 695–713, 2012.
- G. W. Hill, “Researches in the lunar theory,” American journal of Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–26, 1878.
- J. P. How and M. Tillerson, “Analysis of the impact of sensor noise on formation flying control,” in 2001 ACC, vol. 5. IEEE, 2001, pp. 3986–3991.
- D. Kucharski, G. Kirchner, F. Koidl, C. Fan, R. Carman, C. Moore, A. Dmytrotsa, M. Ploner, G. Bianco, M. Medvedskij, A. Makeyev, G. Appleby, M. Suzuki, J.-M. Torre, Z. Zhongping, L. Grunwaldt, and Q. Feng, “Attitude and spin period of space debris envisat measured by satellite laser ranging,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 7651–7657, 2014.
- M. Leomanni, E. Rogers, and S. B. Gabriel, “Explicit model predictive control approach for low-thrust spacecraft proximity operations,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1780–1790, 2014.
- Q. Li, J. Yuan, B. Zhang, and C. Gao, “Model predictive control for autonomous rendezvous and docking with a tumbling target,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 69, pp. 700–711, 2017.
- D. Limon, I. Alvarado, T. Alamo, and E. Camacho, “Mpc for tracking piecewise constant references for constrained linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 2382–2387, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109808001106
- D. Limon, T. Alamo, D. M. Raimondo, D. M. De La Peña, J. M. Bravo, A. Ferramosca, and E. F. Camacho, “Input-to-state stability: a unifying framework for robust model predictive control,” Nonlinear Model Predictive Control: Towards New Challenging Applications, pp. 1–26, 2009.
- D. Limon, A. Ferramosca, I. Alvarado, and T. Alamo, “Nonlinear MPC for tracking piece-wise constant reference signals,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 3735–3750, 2018.
- M. Maiworm, D. Limon, and R. Findeisen, “Online learning-based model predictive control with gaussian process models and stability guarantees,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 8785–8812, 2021.
- M. Mammarella, E. Capello, H. Park, G. Guglieri, and M. Romano, “Tube-based robust model predictive control for spacecraft proximity operations in the presence of persistent disturbance,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 77, pp. 585–594, 2018.
- J. M. Manzano, D. Limon, D. M. de la Peña, and J.-P. Calliess, “Robust learning-based MPC for nonlinear constrained systems,” Automatica, vol. 117, p. 108948, 2020.
- C. P. Mark and S. Kamath, “Review of active space debris removal methods,” Space Policy, vol. 47, pp. 194–206, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964618300110
- D. Morgan, S.-J. Chung, and F. Y. Hadaegh, “Model predictive control of swarms of spacecraft using sequential convex programming,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1725–1740, 2014.
- C. E. Oestreich, R. Linares, and R. Gondhalekar, “Tube-based model predictive control with uncertainty identification for autonomous spacecraft maneuvers,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 6–20, 2023.
- A. Richards and J. How, “Performance evaluation of rendezvous using model predictive control,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2003, p. 5507.
- J. Sanchez, F. Gavilan, and R. Vazquez, “Chance-constrained model predictive control for near rectilinear halo orbit spacecraft rendezvous,” Aerosp Sci Technol, vol. 100, p. 105827, 2020.
- J. Sanchez, F. Gavilan, R. Vazquez, and C. Louembet, “A flatness-based predictive controller for six-degrees of freedom spacecraft rendezvous,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 167, pp. 391–403, 2020.
- G. Sarego et al., “Deployment requirements for deorbiting electrodynamic tether technology,” CEAS Space J., vol. 13, p. 567–581, 2021.
- M. Shan, J. Guo, and E. Gill, “Review and comparison of active space debris capturing and removal methods,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 80, pp. 18–32, 2016.
- S. Stoneman and R. Lampariello, “A nonlinear optimization method to provide real-time feasible reference trajectories to approach a tumbling target satellite,” in ISAIRAS 2016, vol. 13, 2016.
- G. Sánchez-Arriaga et al., “The e.t.pack project: Towards a fully passive and consumable-less deorbit kit based on low-work-function tether technology,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 177, p. 821–827, 2020.
- Y. Wang and S. Boyd, “Fast model predictive control using online optimization,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 18, no. 2, 2009.
- K. Yamanaka and F. Ankersen, “New state transition matrix for relative motion on an arbitrary elliptical orbit,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 60–66, 2002.
- L. Zhang, S. Zhang, H. Yang, H. Cai, and S. Qian, “Relative attitude and position estimation for a tumbling spacecraft,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 42, p. 97–105, 2015.
Sponsor
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.