Aerospace Science and Technology 14 (2010) 199–202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Quaternion based model for momentum biased nadir pointing spacecraft

Yaguang Yang
NRC, Rockville, MD 20850, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, we propose a quaternion based spacecraft model that describes the nadir pointing
Received 12 August 2008 spacecraft with momentum wheel under gravity gradient torque disturbance. This state space model uses
Received in revised form 14 December 2009 only three components of the quaternion. From this nonlinear model, we derive a linearized state space
Accepted 17 December 2009
model for the spacecraft system. We show that unlike all existing quaternion models, this linearized state
Available online 28 December 2009
space model is fully controllable. Therefore, all modern control system design methods can be directly
Keywords: applied to the attitude control system design for momentum biased nadir pointing spacecraft.
Quaternion Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
Attitude control
Spacecraft

1. Introduction
The quaternion based model has several advantages over the
Euler angle based model. For example, the quaternion based model
is uniquely defined because it does not depend on rotational se-
quence, while a Euler angle based model can be different for dif-
ferent rotational sequences. Therefore, a Euler angle based model
is not uniquely defined, is sometimes inconvenient, and may be
error-prone if different groups of people are working on the same
project. In practice, an agreement has to be reached between dif-
ferent design groups working on the same project. Another attrac-
tive feature of quaternion based model is that a full quaternion
model does not have any singular point in any rotational sequence.
Therefore, quaternion model-based control design methods have
been discussed in a number of papers. In [6], Lyapunov func-
tion was used to design model-independent control law, model-
dependent control law, and adaptive control law. In [1,5], Lyapunov
functions were used to design control systems under the restric-
tion of control input saturation. Though Lyapunov function is a
powerful tool in global stability analysis, obtaining a control law
and the associated Lyapunov function for the nonlinear systems is
postulated by intuition, as noted in [3]. Moreover, these designs
are focused on the global stability but not focused on the per-
formance of the control system. In [3,8], quaternion based linear
error dynamics are adapted to get desired performance for the at-
titude control system using classical frequency domain methods.
Since state space time domain design methods, such as optimal
control and pole assignment, are more attractive than the classical
frequency domain design methods, in [9], Zhou and Colgren de-
rived a linearized state space model and investigated modern de-
E-mail address: yaguang.yang@verizon.net.
sign methods. Their analysis shows that the linearized state space
representation of the full quaternion model using all four compo-
nents of quaternion is uncontrollable. Therefore, pole assignment
can only be achieved in controllable subspace in the linearized
state space quaternion model using all four components of quater-
nion. Moreover, the stability of the linearized closed loop system
is unknown because an uncontrollable eigenvalue is on the imagi-
nary axis. Another restriction in the existing quaternion modeling
and controller design methods is that the investigation was fo-
cused on inertia pointing spacecraft without using reaction wheel
while many low earth orbit spacecrafts are nadir pointing and use
momentum wheel.
In this short paper, we propose a quaternion based model
for nadir pointing spacecraft with momentum wheel. This is a
more general model than inertia pointing spacecraft without a
momentum wheel discussed in many literatures. This model in-
cludes three important features of many low orbit nadir pointing
spacecrafts: (1) an additional term for the momentum wheels is
incorporated to the nonlinear dynamic equations, (2) the local ver-
tical local horizontal frame is used as the reference frame and
the rotation between local vertical local horizontal frame and in-
ertia frame is considered in the model similar to the treatment in
[4] for Euler angle based models, and (3) gravity gradient torque
which is a dominant and predictable disturbance for low orbit
spacecraft is included to make the model more accurate. We will
show that by using only vector component of the quaternion, the
linearized spacecraft model is fully controllable. Therefore, the de-
rived model is not only more accurate compared to existing full
quaternion spacecraft model, but it is also easier to be used in
controller design because all modern state space control system
design methods can be used directly. The stability of the designed
closed-loop spacecraft system is guaranteed because the linearized
control system is fully controllable. The cost of using only three

1270-9638/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

doi:10.1016/j.ast.2009.12.006
200 Y. Yang / Aerospace Science and Technology 14 (2010) 199–202

components of the quaternion in the model is that, similar to Eu- ω̇ I = ω̇ + Ȧlb ωlvlh + Alb ω̇lvlh
ler angle representation, the reduced model has a singular point at
= ω̇ − ω × Alb ωlvlh
α = ±π , where α is the rotation angle around the rotation axis.
b
However, this singular point is the farthest point to α = 0 where = ω̇ − ω × ωlvlh (4)
the linearization is carried out. Therefore, the model and designed
controller work well in practice. where we assume that ω̇lvlh is small and can be neglected.1 Using
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents Eqs. (3) and (4), we can rewrite Eq. (2) as
the nonlinear model of the momentum biased nadir pointing  b
 b b
 
spacecraft system with a term of the general disturbance torque.
J ω̇ = J ω × ωlvlh − ω × ( J ω) − ω × J ωlvlh − ωlvlh × ( J ω)
b
 b  b
Section 3 derives the linearized model for the momentum biased − ωlvlh × J ωlvlh − ω × H − ωlvlh × H + Td + u
nadir pointing spacecraft with the gravity gradient disturbance  b

which is the dominant and predictable disturbance torque for low = f ω, ωlvlh , H + T d + u . (5)
earth orbit spacecrafts. The conclusions are summarized in Sec- Let
tion 4. 

T
 T T α α
q = [q0 , q1 , q2 , q3 ] T = q0 
q = cos , ê T sin
2. The system equations 2 2
be the quaternion representing the rotation of the body frame rel-
Let × denote the cross product of any two 3-dimensional vec- ative to LVLH frame, where ê is the unit length rotational axis and
tors x = [x1 , x2 , x3 ] T and y = [ y 1 , y 2 , y 3 ] T . Let Ω(x) be a skew- α is the rotation angle about ê. Therefore (see [2])
symmetric matrix function of x defined by ⎡ 2q2 − 1 + 2q2 ⎤
2q1 q2 + 2q0 q3 2q1 q3 − 2q0 q2
  0 1
0 −x3 x2 A lb = ⎣ 2q1 q2 − 2q0 q3 2q20 − 1 + 2q22 2q2 q3 + 2q0 q1 ⎦ .
Ω(x) = x3 0 −x1 . (1)
2q1 q3 + 2q0 q2 2q2 q3 − 2q0 q1 2q20 − 1 + 2q23
−x2 x1 0
Since (see [8])
The cross product of x × y can then be represented by a matrix
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
multiplication Ω(x) y, i.e., q̇0 0 −ω1 −ω2 −ω3 q0
⎢ q̇1 ⎥ 1 ⎢ ω1 0 ω3 −ω2 ⎥ ⎢ q1 ⎥
x × y = Ω(x) y . ⎣ ⎦= ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
q̇2 2 ω2 −ω3 0 ω1 q2
It is well known that the dynamic equation of motion of a mo- q̇3 ω3 ω2 −ω1 0 q3
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
mentum biased spacecraft is described as follows: q0 −q1 −q2 −q3 0
1 ⎢q q0 −q3 q2 ⎥ ⎢ ω1 ⎥
= ⎣ 1 ⎦⎣ ⎦ (6)
J ω̇ I = −ω I × ( J ω I + H ) + T d + u 2 q2 q3 q0 −q1 ω2
q3 −q2 q1 q0 ω3
= −Ω(ω I )( J ω I + H ) + T d + u (2) 
using the fact that q0 = 1 − q21 − q22 − q23 , we have
where
⎡ ⎤
    1 − q21 − q22 − q23 −q3 q2
J 11 J 12 J 13 q̇1
1⎢
⎢
 ⎥
⎥
J= J 21 J 22 J 23 q̇2 = ⎢ q3 1 − q21 − q22 − q23 −q1 ⎥
J 31 J 32 J 33 2⎣  ⎦
q̇3
−q2 q1 1 − q21 − q22 − q23
is the inertia matrix, ω I = [ω I1 ω I2 ω I3 ] T is the angular velocity  
ω1
vector of the spacecraft with respect to an inertial frame, rep- · ω2
resented in the spacecraft body frame, vector T d is the total ef-
ω3
fected disturbance torque due to gravitational, aerodynamic, solar
1
radiation, and other environmental torques in body frame, vec- = Q ω = g (q1 , q2 , q3 , ω). (7)
tor u = [u 1 u 2 u 3 ] T is the control torques in body frame, vector 2
H = [h1 h2 h3 ] T = [0 h2 0] T is the angular momentum of the mo- It is easy to verify
mentum wheel. ⎛ ⎞
For a nadir pointing spacecraft, the attitude of the spacecraft is 1 − q21 − q22 − q23 −q3 q2
⎜  ⎟
represented by the rotation of the spacecraft body frame relative to det( Q ) = det ⎜
⎜ q3 1 − q21 − q22 − q23 −q1
⎟
⎟
⎝  ⎠
the local vertical and local horizontal (LVLH) frame. Therefore we
−q2 q1 1 − q21 − q22 − q23
will represent the quaternion and spacecraft body rate in terms of
the rotations from spacecraft body frame relative to LVLH frame. 1
= . (8)
Let ω be the body rate with respect to LVLH frame represented in 1 − q21 − q22 − q23
the body frame, ωlvlh = [0 ω0 0] T be the orbit (and LVLH frame)
rate with respect to the inertial frame, represented in LVLH frame. Hence Q is always a full rank matrix except for α = ±π . This
Let Alb represent the transformation matrix from LVLH frame to means that unless α = ±π , the kinematics equation of motion
the spacecraft body frame. Then, ω I can be expressed by using quaternion can be simplified from (6) to (7) and ω =
2Q −1 [q̇1 , q̇2 , q̇3 ] T .
ω I = ω + Alb ωlvlh The main advantages of using (7) instead of (6) are as follows:
b (a) the system dimension is reduced from 7 to 6, yielding a simpler
= ω + ωlvlh (3)
b
where ωlvlh is the LVLH frame rate with respect to the inertial 1
This assumption is true as long as the orbit eccentricity is small, i.e., the orbit
frame, represented in the body frame. ω̇ I is given by is close to a circle.
 Y. Yang / Aerospace Science and Technology 14 (2010) 199–202 201

 
model, (b) the linearized system is controllable, (c) the stability   − J 13 ω0 0 J 11 ω0
b
analysis can be directly conducted based on the linearized sys- JΩ ω lvlh = − J 23 ω0 0 J 21 ω0
tem (there is no uncontrollable unstable pole, see [9]), and (d) all − J 33 ω0 0 J 31 ω0
 
closed loop eigenvalues can be assigned to any position by appro- 0 0 J 11 ω0
priate control law because the linearized system is controllable. ≈ 0 0 0 , (16)
− J 33 ω0 0 0
 
3. Linearized system
 0 − J 32 ω0 J 22 ω0
b
Ω Jω J 32 ω0
lvlh = 0 − J 12 ω0
It is difficult to design controller directly from the nonlinear − J 22 ω0 J 12 ω0 0
spacecraft system model described by (5) and (7). The common  
0 0 J 22 ω0
practice is to design the controller using a linearized system and
then check if the designed controller works for the original non-
≈ 0 0 0 , (17)
linear system. For a nadir pointing spacecraft system, we need the − J 22 ω0 0 0
 
closed loop spacecraft system to meet the following conditions:  b  J 31 ω0 J 32 ω0 J 33 ω0
(a) the spacecraft body rate with respect to LVLH frame is as small Ω ωlvlh J = 0 0 0
as possible, ideally, ω = 0; and (b) the spacecraft body frame is − J 11 ω0 − J 12 ω0 − J 13 ω0
aligned with LVLH frame with an error as small as possible, ide-  
0 0 J 33 ω0
ally, q1 = q2 = q3 = 0. Since the rotation axis length is always 1, ≈ 0 0 0 , (18)
this implies that the rotation angle α = 0. Therefore the linearized − J 11 ω0 0 0
model is the first order model of Taylor expansion of the nonlinear  
0 0 h2
system (5) and (7) about ω = 0 and q1 = q2 = q3 = 0. By using
Ω( H ) = 0 0 0 . (19)
quaternion representation of Alb , assuming J is almost diagonal
−h2 0 0
(which is almost always true in real spacecraft designs), and ne-
glecting high order terms of q1 , q2 and q3 , we have the following Therefore

relations: ∂ f 
⎡ ⎤ 
2q1 q2 + 2q0 q3  ∂ω  ω = 0
ωb
= A lb ωlvlh = ⎣ 2q20 − 1 + 2q22 ⎦ ω0  
q1 = q2 = q3 = 0

lvlh  ω≈0 0 0 (− J 11 + J 22 − J 33 )ω0 + h2
2q2 q3 − 2q0 q1 q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 = 0 0 0 .
  ( J 11 − J 22 + J 33 )ω0 − h2 0 0
2q3
∼
= 1 ω0 , (9) (20)
−2q1 For many applications, we need to model disturbance torque
 
  2( J 22 − J 33 )q1 T d in the linearized model. For low earth orbit spacecraft, aero-
b
−ωlvlh b
× J ωlvlh  ω≈0 ∼
= −ω02 0 , (10) dynamic torque and gravity gradient torque are the dominant dis-
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 2( J 22 − J 11 )q3 turbance torques. It is difficult to model the aerodynamic torque
and because it is related to solar activity, geomagnetic index, space-
  craft geometry, spacecraft attitude, spacecraft altitude, and many
 2h2 q1 other factors, but it is known that the gravity gradient torque can
−ω b
lvlh × H ω ≈ 0 = −ω0 0 . (11) be modeled by (see [4])
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 2h2 q3 ⎡ ⎤
3ω02 ( J 33 − J 22 )φ
Using (9), (10), and (11), by direct calculation, we have
 T gg = 3ω02 ( J 33 − J 11 )θ ⎦
⎣ (21)
∂ f   b
  b
  b
 0
= − JΩ ω + Ω Jω −Ω ω J
∂ω  ω ≈ 0 lvlh lvlh lvlh
where φ and θ are roll and pitch Euler angles. For small Euler
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0
angles (see [7]), φ = 2q1 and θ = 2q2 , this gives
+ Ω( H ), (12) ⎡ ⎤
 6ω02 ( J 33 − J 22 )q1
∂ f 
T gg = 6ω02 ( J 33 − J 11 )q2 ⎦ .
⎣ (22)
∂q  ω ≈ 0
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 0

∂    b   Assuming T d = T gg , and combining Eqs. (5), (13), (14), (15),
=  b
−ωlvlh × J ωlvlh b
− ωlvlh ×H (20), and (22), we have the quaternion based linearized spacecraft
∂q ω ≈ 0
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 system described by
  ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
2ω02 ( J 33 − J 22 ) − 2h2 ω0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 q̇1
= 0 0 0 , ⎢0 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ q̇2 ⎥
0 0 2ω02 ( J 11 − J 22 ) − 2h2 ω0 ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ q̇3 ⎥
(13) ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
 ⎢0 0 0 J 11 J 12 J 13 ⎥ ⎢ ω̇1 ⎥
⎣0 ⎦ ⎣ ω̇ ⎦
∂ g  1 0 0 J 21 J 22 J 23 2
= I3, (14)
∂ω  ω ≈ 0 2 0
⎡
0 0 J 31 J 32 J 33 ω̇3
⎤⎡ ⎤
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 ⎡ ⎤
 2 q1 0
∂ g  ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
0 ⎥ ⎢ q2 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
= 03 (15) ⎢ 2 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
∂q  ω ≈ 0 ⎢ 1 ⎥⎢ q ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
q1 ≈ q2 ≈ q3 ≈ 0 =⎢
⎢
0 0 0 0 0 2 ⎥⎢
⎥
3
⎥+⎢ ⎥ (23)
⎢ f 41 0 0 0 0 f 46 ⎥ ⎢ ω1 ⎥ ⎢ ux ⎥
where I 3 is a (3 × 3)-dimensional identity matrix, 03 is a (3 × 3)- ⎣ 0 f 52 0 0 0 0 ⎦⎣ω ⎦ ⎣u ⎦
2 y
dimensional zero matrix. (12) can be simplified further as follows: 0 0 f 63 f 64 0 0 ω3 uz
202 Y. Yang / Aerospace Science and Technology 14 (2010) 199–202

where f 41 = 8( J 33 − J 22 )ω02 − 2h2 ω0 , f 46 = (− J 11 + J 22 − J 33 )ω0 + is fully controllable. This makes it possible to use all modern con-
h2 , f 64 = − f 46 , and f 52 = 6( J 33 − J 11 )ω02 , f 63 = 2( J 11 − J 22 )ω02 − troller design methods, such as optimal control design method
2h2 ω0 ; or equivalently by (LQR) and robust pole assignment method, to design the space-
craft attitude control systems.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
q̇1 1 0 0 0 0 0 −1
⎢ q̇2 ⎥ ⎢0 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ Acknowledgement
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ q̇3 ⎥ ⎢0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ The author would like to thank the reviewers for their invalu-
⎢ ω̇1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 J 11 J 12 J 13 ⎥
⎣ ω̇ ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 J 21 J 22 J 23
⎦ able comments that lead to significant improvement of this paper.
2
ω̇3 0 0 0 J 31 J 32 J 33
⎡ 1 ⎤⎡ ⎤ References
0 0 0 2
0 0 q1
⎢ 1
0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 2 ⎢
⎥ ⎢ q2 ⎥
⎥   [1] J. Boskovic, S. Li, R. Mehra, Robust adaptive variable structure control of space-
⎢ 1 ⎥⎢ q ⎥ 03 craft under control input saturation, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynam-
·⎢
⎢
0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢3
⎥+ u (24)
f 46 ⎥
2 ics 16 (1) (2001) 14–22.
⎢ f 41 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ω1 ⎥ J −1
⎣ ⎣ ⎦ [2] J.B. Juipers, Quaternions and Rotation Sequences: A Primer with Applications to
0 f 52 0 0 0 0 ⎦ ω2 Orbits, Aerospace, and Virtual Reality, Princeton University Press, Princeton and
0 0 f 63 f 64 0 0 ω3 Oxford, 1998.
[3] R. Paielli, R. Bach, Attitude control with realization of linear error dynamics,
where u is a 3-dimensional control vector. It is straightforward Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 16 (1) (1993) 182–189.
[4] M.J. Sidi, Spacecraft Dynamics and Control: A Practical Engineering Approach,
to check that the linearized spacecraft model is fully controllable.
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Therefore, all modern control design methods can be applied di- [5] R. Wallsgrove, M. Akella, Globally stabilizing saturated control in the presence
rectly, and the designed linear system is guaranteed to be sta- of bounded unknown disturbances, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynam-
ble. ics 28 (5) (2005) 957–963.
[6] J. Wen, K. Kreutz-Delgado, The attitude control problem, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 36 (10) (1991) 1148–1161.
4. Conclusion [7] J. Wertz (Ed.), Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland, 1978 (reprint 1999).
In this short paper, we have developed a reduced quaternion [8] B. Wie, Vehicle Dynamics and Control, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Reston, VA,
1998.
model for momentum biased nadir pointing spacecraft. The gravity [9] Z. Zhou, R. Colgren, Nonlinear spacecraft attitude tracking controller for large
gradient disturbance torque is also included in the model. Unlike non-constant rate commands, International Journal of Control 78 (March 2005)
the full quaternion model studied by other researchers, this model 311–325.