MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035313795 · doi:10.2514/1.46441

Geometric Approach to Spacecraft Attitude Control Using Magnetic and Mechanical Actuation

2010· article· en· W2035313795 on OpenAlexaff
James Richard Forbes, Christopher J. Damaren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftReaction wheelAttitude controlControl theory (sociology)Control moment gyroscopeTorqueActuatorMagnetic fieldPhysicsInertial frame of referenceQuaternionAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringControl (management)Classical mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I T IS well known that spacecraft in low Earth orbit can generate control torques via the interaction of theEarth’s geomagneticfield and onboard magnetic dipole moments (created via current-carrying coils) [1,2]. As mentioned in [3], the major shortcoming of magnetic actuation (as the only onboard actuator) is that control torques can only be applied to the spacecraft in a plane orthogonal to the instantaneous direction of the Earth’s magnetic field, which in turn means that the spacecraft is instantaneously underactuated. Recently, in [4,5], inertial pointing of a spacecraft using solely magnetic actuation was considered. It was shown that stabilization can be obtained while employing a quaternion and angular velocity proportional derivative (PD) type of control law. Owing to the timevarying nature of the system, the control gains are shown to be limited, which in turn leads to closed-loop performance limitations. Stability (and proof thereof) relies on averaging theory [6], which physically translates to the system possessing certain dynamic properties on average. In particular, it is assumed that on average control torques can be applied to the spacecraft in any direction owing to the fact the magnetic field is changing direction as the spacecraft orbits the Earth. Modern spacecraft are usually endowed with magnetic torquers and some type of mechanical actuator, such as reaction wheels. The magnetic torquers are usually used for detumbling of the spacecraft upon egress from the launch vehicle, as well as momentum dumping of reaction wheels. Reactionwheels are used for fine attitude control. Seldom are both magnetic torquers and reaction wheels intended to work together harmoniously in concert. Having both actuation systems work simultaneously can lead to power savings (depending on, among other things, orbit inclination, control scheme and gains, etc. [7]), as well as reduce reaction wheel torque requirements. Additionally, although most spacecraft are equipped with redundant reaction ormomentumwheels, failure of both primary and secondary wheels in one axis is possible, as discussed in [8]. Upon the failure of primary and redundant pitch axis wheels, the attitude control system of RADARSAT-1was redesigned (and subsequently uploaded while on orbit) to use the remaining wheels and magnetic actuation together, thus saving themission.Attitude control of spacecraft using two actuation systems was also considered in [9,10]. Motivated by [4,5], in [9] the same magnetic control law was augmented with reaction wheels; sufficient conditions were given such that the gain limited nature of the magnetic control law was relaxed, leading to better closed-loop system performance. In [10] the attitude control of a spacecraft using both magnetic torquers and thrusters based on a linear time-periodic model was considered, leading to linear timeinvariant and linear time-periodic control designs. Actuator saturation was also considered. In this paper we consider the control of a spacecraft using both magnetic and mechanical actuation in tandem. We present a geometric scheme whereby the control vector is decomposed into orthogonal and parallel components with respect to the orientation of the instantaneous magnetic field vector. The spacecraft magnetic torquers apply the orthogonal control component, while the remaining parallel component is applied by mechanical actuators, specifically, reaction wheels. We show that our control decomposition is not limited to spacecraft equipped with three wheels, but those equipped with one, two, or three wheels. Additionally, saturation of the torque rods is considered. The effectiveness of our method is shown to work well in simulation while employing an adaptive tracking controller.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207