Integrated controls-structures design methodology development for a class of flexible spacecraft
Future utilization of space will require large space structures in low-Earth and geostationary orbits. Example missions include: Earth observation systems, personal communication systems, space science missions, space processing facilities, etc., requiring large antennas, platforms, and solar arrays. The dimensions of such structures will range from a few meters to possibly hundreds of meters. For reducing the cost of construction, launching, and operating (e.g., energy required for reboosting and control), it will be necessary to make the structure as light as possible. However, reducing structural mass tends to increase the flexibility which would make it more difficult to control with the specified precision in attitude and shape. Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodology for designing space structures which are optimal with respect to both structural design and control design. In the current spacecraft design practice, it is customary to first perform the structural design and then the controller design. However, the structural design and the control design problems are substantially coupled and must be considered concurrently in order to obtain a truly optimal spacecraft design. For example, let C denote the set of the 'control' design variables (e.g., controller gains), and L the set of the 'structural' design variables (e.g., member sizes). If a structural member thickness is changed, the dynamics would change which would then change the control law and the actuator mass. That would, in turn, change the structural model. Thus, the sets C and L depend on each other. Future space structures can be roughly divided into four mission classes. Class 1 missions include flexible spacecraft with no articulated appendages which require fine attitude pointing and vibration suppression (e.g., large space antennas). Class 2 missions consist of flexible spacecraft with articulated multiple payloads, where the requirement is to fine-point the spacecraft and each individual payload while suppressing the elastic motion. Class 3 missions include rapid slewing of spacecraft without appendages, while Class 4 missions include general nonlinear motion of a flexible spacecraft with articulated appendages and robot arms. Class 1 and 2 missions represent linear mathematical modeling and control system design problems (except for actuator and sensor nonlinearities), while Class 3 and 4 missions represent nonlinear problems. The development of an integrated controls/structures design approach for Class 1 missions is addressed. The performance for these missions is usually specified in terms of (1) root mean square (RMS) pointing errors at different locations on the structure, and (2) the rate of decay of the transient response. Both of these performance measures include the contributions of rigid as well as elastic motion.