Satellites or other spacecraft are commonly mounted to a launch-vehicle upper stage that places the satellite in orbit during the final launch or boost phase. Such upper stages have been stabilized by spinning the spacecraft and launch vehicle upper stage together about a spin axis. However, the spacecraft and launch vehicle each typically contain a propellant tank having fluid therein that dissipates kinetic energy, leading to instability. Such instability causes the system's spin axis to deviate from its desired longitudinal orientation, coning further outward during the course of the spin. Even a few degrees of coning can result in several kilometers of error in the final orbit. Incorporating sufficient propellant margin to accommodate such coning can require on the order of about 100 kg of fuel, which the upper-stage tanks may not be able to accommodate. Furthermore, large cone angles can cause significant error in not only altitude but also orbital inclination and ascending node. If the coning becomes severe enough, a complete tumble can result. If this occurs, the spacecraft is generally lost, causing a premature end of the mission. Furthermore, substantial time and resources may be required to predict the coning behavior of a given spacecraft and launch vehicle upper stage. If the launch vehicle and spacecraft (payload) fluid motions are incompatible, extensive analysis, testing and the like may be required.
A spacecraft system is provided that includes a spacecraft/launch-vehicle stack having an upper stage of a rocket-powered launch vehicle providing a final boost phase during launch. The stack also includes a payload structure, such as a satellite, rotatably interconnected with the upper stage. The upper stage and the payload structure together define a central axis that is generally coincident with the thrust axis during launch. The stack has an axis of maximum moment of inertia that is not parallel to the central axis. The stack has internal damping such that unstable nutation occurs if the upper stage and the payload structure rotate together about the central axis at the same rotational rate and in the same direction. The system includes a controller that rotates the payload structure relative to the upper stage during the final boost phase to alleviate coning motion of the stack.
A spacecraft is also provide that includes a payload structure and an upper-stage launch vehicle rotatably interconnected with the payload structure for rotation relative to the payload structure about a spin axis. The launch vehicle includes a rocket motor that powers the launch vehicle during its final ascent stage. The spacecraft includes a powered actuator configured to rotate the launch vehicle relative to the payload structure. A release mechanism is selectively actuated to separate the payload structure from the launch vehicle, and a controller actuates the powered actuator and rotates the payload structure relative to the launch vehicle during the upper launch stage.
A spacecraft is further provided that includes a payload structure and an upper-stage launch vehicle without a rotational joint—that is, connected in the traditional manner—but with a momentum wheel, reaction wheel, or wheels, or other similar device for storing angular momentum. Through its impact on the dynamics of the coupled spacecraft/launch-vehicle/wheel system, this wheel or wheels stabilize the combined spacecraft and launch vehicle system during the final boost phase. This impact is mathematically substantially identical to what can be achieved with a rotational joint but may utilize existing actuators on the spacecraft or payload, leading to an overall lighter solution.
These and other features, advantages, and objects of the present invention will be further understood and appreciated by those skilled in the art by reference to the following specification, claims, and appended drawings.
For purposes of description herein, the terms “upper,” “lower,” “right,” “left,” “rear,” “front,” “vertical,” “horizontal,” and derivatives thereof shall relate to the invention as oriented in
Spacecraft Dynamics
A familiar principle in spacecraft dynamics is that a rigid body spinning about an axis aligned with its minimum moment of inertia is unstable in the presence of energy dissipation. This configuration represents a kinetic-energy maximum, such that any loss of energy forces the system to diverge from this spin. With reference to
In general, fluid motion in the satellite payload is responsible for coning growth, although fluids, such as cryogenics, in some upper-stage launch vehicle designs can also contribute to coning growth. Fuel tanks, heat pipes, and other fluid-filled cavities are naturally dissipative subsystems that interact with the spacecraft body in a way that transforms kinetic energy into heat and ultimately radiates it to space. This interaction depends largely on the rigid-body gyroscopic dynamics. The nutation mode, if coupled strongly with the fluid modes, can efficiently transfer kinetic energy into the fluid. Thus, the problem is one of forced resonance, where the forcing frequency is that of the nutation mode.
Spherical fuel tanks and simple heat pipe designs are readily analyzed, or at least their performance can be bounded based on prior flight data. Furthermore, spherical tanks tend to be relatively weak dampers. However, state-of-the-art-spacecraft often incorporate non-spherical tanks for volume efficiency, and such tanks rarely include baffles due to the weight of the baffles. Although such baffles can break up the fluid modes and reduce their coupling with the notational dynamics, such baffles are not generally included due to the aforementioned weight of the baffles. In addition, low spin speed dynamics can increase surface tension effects in the fluid dynamics. When the bond or Eötvös number is low, these effects can dominate the spinning dynamics, with the result that slosh damping is unexpectedly high.
Prior art dual-spin satellites generally include a spinning part (a rotor), and a non-spinning part (a platform) for stabilization. Such satellites' attitude dynamics can be stabilized when the rate of energy dissipation on the platform exceeds that of the rotor. This technique has been generalized to apply to any number of rotating bodies with relative spin rates. The rotating part of the system acts something like a momentum wheel, adding gyroscopic stiffness to the system and effectively augmenting the dynamics so that the system behaves as if it were a maximum axis spinner, naturally stable, rather than an unstable, minor axis spinner. Thus, the coning growth rate can be reduced, or even reversed.
Nutational Stability of Multi-Body Spinners
The following is for a vehicle with m bodies that are free to spin about a common axis. This derivation follows A. J. Iorillo's 1965 result. Let H0 represent the system angular momentum about this spin axis. The ith body has a spin inertia Ii and a frame Bi fixed in the ith body has an angular velocity vector ωBi/N in an inertial frame N. For notational simplicity, the scalar It represents the inertial angular velocity of each body about the spin axis. The bodies are assumed to be of sufficient balance and symmetry that the total vehicle transverse inertia It (the aggregate of the collection of spinning bodies) with respect to the vehicle mass center is constant in any of the Bi frames. The component of ωBi/N transverse to the spin axis is ω0. The inertial nutation frequency ω0 of such a system is then:
The angular momentum and kinetic energy are expressed as:
Assuming no external torques, so that angular momentum is constant in N, leads to:
The rate of energy dissipation Ė is therefore:
Substituting from equation (4) leads to:
where λi=λ0−ωi is the nutation frequency observed in the ith rotating body frame Bi. Therefore:
Substituting (7) into (4) yields:
Because Ėi is negative when kinetic energy is being dissipated, the right-hand side of this relation is negative, indicating that the transverse rate ω0 (a manifestation of coning) decreases when
Under these conditions, the collection of spinning bodies tends toward an equilibrium spin about the common spin axis; i.e., the attitude dynamics are passively stable. Thus, the passive energy dissipation in the ith body Ėi is stabilizing if the inertial spin ωi is (a) opposite ω0 or (b) in the same direction as ω0 but slower. If the sign of H0 is taken to be positive (which requires only that an inertial coordinate system be defined in which this is true), then passive stability requires only that λ0>ωi. This inequality has come to be known as the Iorillo criterion. In the context of this invention, a spinning body as described here may be a satellite mounted to a launch vehicle through a rotational joint, the launch vehicle itself, and/or other bodies (such as reaction wheels or momentum wheels) that provide similar momentum augmentation.
For the case of a launch vehicle with a spinning payload m=2, let the subscript p indicate the payload, and u indicate the upper stage. The Iorillo criterion is then:
Coning does not grow when any of the following three conditions is met:
λp, λu<0
Sensibly, these conditions assume that H0 (and hence ω0) is positive and that the Ėi are negative. Nevertheless, Equation (9) captures the general case for arbitrary parameters.
Introduction of Stabilizing Energy Dissipation with a Passive Damper
The Iorillo criterion has led to the development of explicit energy-damper hardware for space applications, from simple tuned-mass dampers to more sophisticated mercury-filled rings. The criterion does not require a particular design, only that energy dissipation result in torques of a certain magnitude that are applied within the appropriate rotating frame.
The equations of rotational motion of the two bodies, in more general terms, are
where the dyadics Ip and Iu represent the payload and upper stage inertia about their respective mass centers; the vectors ωp and ωu represent the angular velocity of the payload-fixed frame and the stage-fixed frame in N; τj represents the torque applied at the joint; and τdp and τdu represent the damping torques applied by internal energy-dissipating processes on the payload and the upper stage, respectively. The orientation, or attitude, of the payload frame relative to the upper-stage frame depends on the relative angular velocity ωp/u, and it can be computed by propagating any attitude representation (such as a quaternion). The direction-cosine matrix uQp can be used as an attitude representation. Its derivative is given by the differential equation:
u{dot over (Q)}p=(ωp/u)xuQp (12)
where the superscript x indicates the skew-symmetric cross-product matrix in the components of the argument, i.e.:
With this formulation, a differential equation in the small attitude motions of the interface stiffness and damping can be developed and the energy dissipation rate established.
The energy-dissipation rate of an explicit damping device is often well understood. That is, E (t) can be a relatively simple function of the system parameters. For example, given an n degree-of-freedom system described by the n×n mass, damping and stiffness matrices M, C, and K, and the equations of motion for free vibration in physical coordinates are:
M{umlaut over (x)}+C{dot over (x)}+Kx=0 (14)
The energy (the sum of kinetic and potential) is:
and the derivative is:
Ė={dot over (x)}TM{umlaut over (x)}+{dot over (x)}TKx=−{dot over (x)}TC{dot over (x)} (16)
Considering only the kinetic-energy dissipation rate to be relevant adds the term −{dot over (x)}Tkx, but this term is oscillatory and, in a gross sense, the sum is represented adequately with −{dot over (x)}TC{dot over (x)}. Thus, a prediction of the modal damping yields a simple estimate of the dissipation rate of an explicit damping device that can be represented as a linear system.
Active Actuation to Introduce Stabilizing Energy Dissipation
In the case of a simple rotational joint, the interface torque τj in equations (10) and (11) consists of a motor torque about the spin axis and constraint torques normal to the spin axis. These constraint torques merely ensure that the two rotating bodies stay connected. However, incorporating actuators in series with the rotational joint opens up many more possibilities for τj. These actuators may be electromechanical, hydraulic, or any number of other technologies. In particular, τj can be driven in a way that applies torques to each body characteristic of a stable dual-spin system.
As an example, consider that τj, as applied by the actuators, is chosen to be:
τi=τdu (17)
Where it is assumed (for this example only) that τdu is known. Then the equations of motion become:
In this example, the payload's damping is increased, while that of the upper stage is zeroed out. Therefore, with sufficiently low ωp, this system would be stable.
The Iorillo criterion makes no demands on the design of the energy-dissipating damper. Thus, the torques characteristic of any damper can be applied, physically realizable or not, through τj. The present example proceeds with a mathematically convenient damper model, the Kane Damper, to show how such behavior can be incorporated. Other damping equations are, of course, just as valid.
The Kane damper is a mathematical model consisting of a spherical inertia Id (the inertia matrix is diagonal, and all nonzero entries are equal) and a damping constant c. Because it is spherical, the damper's inertia matrix is constant in all frames. Therefore, in developing the equations of motion, the derivative of the damper's angular momentum is taken with respect to any convenient frame. For the payload:
and
τkp=cp(ωdp−ωp) (21)
where ωdp is the angular velocity of the spherical body. By inspection, the damper's torques are effective until the system reaches a relative equilibrium in which ωdp=ωp.
Similar equations can be developed for the upper stage. The joint torque is chosen to be:
τi=cp(ωdu−ωp)−cu(ωdu−ωu) (22)
The resulting system equations of motion are therefore:
The active compensation now includes six states, the angular velocity of the two virtual damper bodies described in equations (20) and (21). It remains for the user to select the damping coefficient and the dampers' virtual inertias. The selection is such that the Iorillo criterion is satisfied for the angular velocities imposed by other system requirements, such as separation kinematics and thermal/power constraints.
Utilizing Dual Spin Dynamics to Stabilize Spacecraft
As discussed above, a stack (
With reference to
With further reference to
With reference to
With further reference to
In a preferred embodiment, the controller 8A or 8B provides a signal to the PSA to spin the payload 2 relative to the upper stage 3 at the beginning of the upper stage of the launch. The signal to spin the PSA could be given at about the same time as the rocket motor 16 of launch vehicle 3 is actuated. Alternately, the payload structure 2 could be spun up by the PSA immediately prior to firing of the rocket motor 16. In addition, the payload structure 2 may be spun up some time after actuation of the rocket motor 16. In general, the rocket motor 16 will be fired for a relatively short period to provide a “delta V” burn, followed by “coasting” of the launch vehicle structure 1. Thus, in general, the upper stage of the launch operation includes both a delta V portion, and a coasting portion. Upon completion of the coasting stage, the payload structure 2 is separated from the launch vehicle 3, and a final delta V is provided by a rocket motor on the payload structure 2 to place the payload structure 2 in the target or injection orbit.
With further reference to
The controller 8A or 8B is programmed to actuate the attitude control system 31 to stabilize the system during the upper stage of the launch. The attitude control system 31 can be actuated immediately prior to firing of the rocket motor 16, or after actuation of the rocket motor 16. Alternately, the attitude control system 31 could be actuated at about the same time as the rocket motor 16 of launch vehicle 3.
The general principles governing control of a space vehicle utilizing a momentum wheel attitude control system 31 are known. Thus, the controller 8A or 8B is programmed to control the attitude of the satellite 30 and launch vehicle 3 during the upper stage of the launch in substantially the same manner as when the satellite 30 is in orbit. However, the controller takes into account the added mass, damping characteristics and the like of the launch vehicle 3 in determining the proper control inputs. In addition, the mass of the system changes substantially as the propellant of rocket motor 16 is burned, such that the control inputs vary to account for the changing dynamic properties of the system.
In the foregoing description, it will be readily appreciated by those skilled in the art that modifications may be made to the invention without departing from the concepts disclosed herein. Such modifications are to be considered as included in the following claims, unless these claims by their language expressly state otherwise.
The present application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/439,834, entitled SPIN STABILIZED SPACECRAFT, filed on Jan. 14, 2003, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3955858 | Poubeau | May 1976 | A |
4071211 | Muhlfelder et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4288051 | Goschel | Sep 1981 | A |
4300737 | Byrne et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
4618112 | Keigler | Oct 1986 | A |
4824052 | Smay et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
5064152 | Maute | Nov 1991 | A |
5163640 | Altobelli | Nov 1992 | A |
5169094 | Maute et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5249783 | Davis | Oct 1993 | A |
5305981 | Cunningham et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5332070 | Davis et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5582369 | Blancke | Dec 1996 | A |
5647561 | Robinson et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5655757 | Starkovich et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5803213 | Davis et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5887858 | Su | Mar 1999 | A |
5918865 | Osterberg | Jul 1999 | A |
5947240 | Davis et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6003849 | Davis et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6022005 | Gran et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6354576 | Jacobs et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2526397 | Nov 1983 | FR |
2166103 | Apr 1986 | GB |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040135035 A1 | Jul 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60439834 | Jan 2003 | US |