See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284345092

Guidance Summary and Assessment of the

Chang'e-3 Powered Descent and Landing

Article in Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets · November 2015

DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

CITATIONS READS

4 272

3 authors, including:

Shuang Li Xiuqiang Jiang

Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronau… Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronau…
70 PUBLICATIONS 503 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Planetary landing GNC View project

Uncertainty Quantification and Robust Optimal Guidance for Mars Entry and Safe Landing View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiuqiang Jiang on 21 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS
Vol. 53, No. 2, March-April 2016

Guidance Summary and Assessment of the Chang’e-3

Powered Descent and Landing

Shuang Li,∗ Xiuqiang Jiang,† and Ting Tao‡

Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, People’s Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
On 14 December 2013, Chang’e-3 successfully touched down on the surface of the moon, setting off its roaming
exploration activities. Before this significant step, years of design, development, and testing of the Chang’e-3 powered
descent and landing guidance, navigation, and control system were conducted to prepare for the most challenging
robotic spacecraft landing endeavor attempted on the moon to date. In this paper, the mission and system design of
Chang’e-3 are first described. Then, the guidance algorithms of powered descent and soft landing are summarized
and assessed in detail. The powered descent and landing guidance technologies developed for Chang’e-3, including
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

autonomous hazard detection and avoidance, lay the critical foundation for future lunar pinpoint soft-landing
missions.

I. Introduction
T HE Chinese Lunar Exploration Program (CLEP) is one of the
major projects of the National Medium- and Long-Term
Program for Science and Technology Development. The CLEP has
been divided into three main operational phases: lunar orbiting, soft
landing, and sample return. As the first Chinese lunar probe,
Chang’e-1 was launched into the Earth–moon transfer orbit in
October 2007 and successfully completed the prescribed 16-month
orbiting exploration mission. Initially built as the backup spacecraft
of Chang’e-1, Chang’e-2 was launched on 1 October 2010 and
achieved more fruitful exploration outcomes than her predecessor,
Chang’e-1. Chang’e-2 accomplished all scheduled lunar exploration
goals, which mainly included circumlunar flight exploration, close-
range predetection of the potential landing zone, and some key
technical validation testing for Chang’e-3. After that, a series of
extended tasks were successfully conducted, of which the targeting to
the L2 Lagrange point of Sun–Earth and the flyby of Asteroid 4179
Toutatis were the highlights [1,2]. Chang’e-3, China’s first lunar
surface exploration mission using both a lander and a rover, is
considered a critical step in the CLEP project, because its mission
objective is to achieve pinpoint soft landing and roaming exploration
on celestial bodies beyond the Earth.
On 2 December 2013 at 01:30 Beijing Time (BJT), Chang’e-3 was
launched into space with the gross weight of 3780 kg by a Long
March III B (CZ-3B) launch vehicle from the Xichang Satellite
Launch Center. Chang’e-3 separated from the launch vehicle 1138 s
after the lift-off and accurately entered into the prescribed Earth–
moon transfer orbit with the perigee of 210.3 km, the apogee of
369,109.2 km, and the orbital inclination of 28.5 deg [2,3]. To
eliminate Earth–moon transfer orbit deviations, three midcourse
corrections were scheduled for 14, 38, and 88 h after separation. The
third midcourse correction was cancelled because the requirements
of near-moon braking and subsequent orbit control had been
completely met, which was attributed to the high-accuracy orbit
Received 17 November 2014; revision received 16 November 2015;
accepted for publication 17 November 2015; published online 22 February
2016. Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for
personal and internal use, on condition that the copier pay the per-copy fee to the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). All requests for copying and permission to
reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN
0022-4650 (print) or 1533-6794 (online) to initiate your request.
*Professor, Space New Technology Laboratory, Department of
Astronautics Engineering, College of Astronautics; lishuang@nuaa.edu.cn
(Corresponding Author).
†
Ph.D. Candidate, Space New Technology Laboratory, Department of
Astronautics Engineering, College of Astronautics; jiangxq@nuaa.edu.cn.
‡ briefly introduced, and the guidance algorithms of powered descent
Master Candidate, Space New Technology Laboratory, Department of
Astronautics Engineering, College of Astronautics; 940191815@qq.com.
258
injection of the CZ-3B launch vehicle and the accurate execution of
the first two midcourse corrections. On 2 December at 15:50, the first
midcourse correction was executed by use of the 8 × 150 N thrusters
under the command of Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC).
On 3 December at 16:20, the second midcourse correction was
implemented using the 7500 N variable-thrust main engine. After that,
both the 150 N thrusters and the newly developed 7500 N variable-
thrust main engine were accurately calibrated onboard to prepare for
subsequent near-moon braking, deorbit and powered descent
operations. As the main thruster designed for Chang’e-3 Earth–moon
orbit transfer and powered descent, the variable-thrust main engine has
a large variable range of thrust from 1500 to 7500 N [2,3]. On
6 December at 17:53, Chang’e-3 was captured by the moon through
one near-moon braking using the 7500 N variable-thrust engine. The
spacecraft accurately entered a 100 × 100 km circumlunar orbit. Four
days later, on 10 December at 21:24, the deorbit braking maneuver
using the 8 × 150 N thrusters successfully targeted Chang’e-3 to a
100 × 15 km elliptical orbit, which occurred on the back of the moon.
After another four days, on 14 December at 20:59:52, the lander
initiated the powered descent from an altitude of ∼15 km above the
lunar surface, for which both the variable-thrust main engine and the
150 N thrusters were used. By means of accurate autonomous
operation of the guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) system,
Chang’e-3 completed the powered descent braking, attitude ad-
justment, and hazard avoidance according to the prescribed flight
procedure and made a precise, safe soft landing [3,4]. Finally, on
14 December at 21:11:17, Chang’e-3 successfully touched down at
19.51256°W and 44.11884°N in the east of Sinus Iridum, with a
landing error of approximately 89 m from the landing site preselected
and uploaded 10 min before the beginning of powered descent, and
commenced its lunar surface exploration activities [3,4]. The complete
flight profile of Chang’e-3 is depicted in Fig. 1 [2,3].
One of the huge challenges of the Chang’e-3 mission comes from
the powered descent and soft landing on the surface of the moon
when compared with Chang’e-1 and Chang’e-2 missions. Therefore,
the successful execution of a powered descent from about 15 km to
about 3 m above the lunar surface was the key of the entire flight
mission. The powered descent phase lasted about 720 s, in which a
complex sequence of events (active braking, attitude adjustments,
and autonomous hazard avoidance) enabled the most complex
robotic spacecraft landing endeavor attempted on the moon to date. It
should be pointed out that Chang’e-3 is not only the first robotic
spacecraft that adopted autonomous hazard detection and avoidance
technology, but also is the spacecraft that achieved the highest
landing precision on the moon to date. The landing errors of all past
successful lunar landing missions are summarized in the Table 1
[5–18].
In this paper, the mission and system design of Chang’e-3 are
and soft landing are summarized. The rest of this paper is structured
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO 259
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

Fig. 1 Flight profile of Chang’e-3 mission.

as follows. Section II introduces the Chang’e-3 mission objectives so on. Based on the previously mentioned considerations, an
and technical challenges. The development of Chang’e-3 powered allowable landing area (shown in Fig. 2) was finalized in the Sinus
descent and landing GNC is depicted at length in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, Iridum, which is the relatively flat region between latitude 42.6° ∼
the guidance scheme and detailed guidance algorithms used by 45.6°N and longitude 18.2° ∼ 34.6°W [3]. Before the beginning of
Chang’e-3 are described, and the corresponding simulation results powered descent, a landing site was selected and confirmed by the
are analyzed and assessed. Finally, conclusions are given in Sec. V. ground control center based on the Chang’e-3 orbit and uploaded to
Chang’e-3 10 min before the beginning of powered descent.
As China’s first lunar landing exploration mission, Chang’e-3
II. Mission Objectives and Technical Challenges encountered many technical challenges in the initial mission design
The engineering goal of Chang’e-3 was to achieve lunar pinpoint phase. The main challenges came from the following aspects [2]:
soft landing and roaming exploration. The major scientific goals were 1) Uncertainties of the lunar surface environment: Uncertainties
to survey the lunar topography and geological structure, investigate mainly affect the design boundary conditions of Chang’e-3 and the
the substance compositions and available resources, and perform environmental simulation method for ground test verification.
astronomical observation on the surface of the moon. The entire flight Moreover, lunar surface uncertainty is a key factor impacting success
process of this mission was divided into five subphases: launch, of the entire landing mission. The more complex the terrain is, the
Earth–moon transfer, circumlunar, powered descent, and surface more difficult it is to achieve a successful soft landing.
operation, as shown in Fig. 1 [2,3]. During the initial design of 2) Powered descent braking only by the propulsion system:
Chang’e-3 mission, a series of constraints were taken into account to Because there is no atmosphere to be used for aerobraking, the
determine an appropriate landing site, which includes the scientific deceleration process of powered descent only relies on the main
value, terrain, lighting conditions, telemetry track and command propulsion system onboard Chang’e-3. To achieve the engineering
(TT&C), launch-window constraints, initial orbit of powered goal of soft-landing spacecraft on the surface of the moon, a new main
descent, regression of circumlunar orbit plane and lunar rotation, and engine with the capability of variable thrust and a large enough
velocity increment (Δv) must be provided, which inevitably results in
a series of challenges in developing new propulsion systems and
Table 1 Landing error summary of all successful lunar reducing the dry mass of Chang’e-3 [19].
landing missions
3) Autonomous GNC of powered descent and soft landing:
Launch date Because the flight state of Chang’e-3 is changing rapidly and TT&C
Missions Manned or not (yyyy.mm.dd) Landing error delay cannot be ignored during the powered descent and landing,
Apollo 11 Manned 1969.07.16 ∼6.6 km real-time remote control is inappropriate during the powered descent
Apollo 12 Manned 1969.11.14 ∼160 m and landing phase. Therefore, the onboard GNC system must have
Apollo 14 Manned 1971.01.31 ∼340 m the capability of autonomously steering the lander to the prescribed
Apollo 15 Manned 1971.07.26 ∼550 m landing site and achieving pinpoint soft landing without any ground
Apollo 16 Manned 1972.04.16 ∼280 m support [20].
Apollo 17 Manned 1972.12.07 ∼400 m 4) Buffer system for landing impact load: A soft-landing buffer
Surveyor 1 Unmanned 1966.05.30 ∼18.96 km
system must be capable of absorbing the landing impact load. At the
Surveyor 3 Unmanned 1967.04.17 ∼2.76 km
Surveyor 5 Unmanned 1967.09.08 A few km same time, the landing stability and the launch volume constraint
Surveyor 6 Unmanned 1967.11.07 should be considered in the specific design of the landing buffer
Surveyor 7 Unmanned 1968.01.07 mechanism [21].
Luna 9 Unmanned 1966.01.31 A few km to tens of km 5) Thermal control system on the surface of the moon: Thermal
Luna 13 Unmanned 1966.12.21 control is essential to the entire landing process and surface
Luna 16 Unmanned 1970.09.12 operation. Chang’e-3 faces a survival challenge in the lunar ex-
Luna 17 Unmanned 1970.11.10 treme temperatures, ranging from
120 to −180°C. The thermal
Luna 20 Unmanned 1972.02.14 control system must be able to keep the probe’s internal temperature
Luna 21 Unmanned 1973.01.08
between −20 and
55°C [22]. Furthermore, exterior equipment is
Luna 24 Unmanned 1976.08.09
Chang’e -3 Unmanned 2013.12.02 ∼89 m also required to be able to survive in the severe temperature
environment.
 260 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
Fig. 2 Allowable landing area for Chang’e-3.
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
The main requirements for the powered descent and landing GNC
system can be summarized as follows [2–4,20]: 1) The lander must
have the capability to autonomously perform the powered descent
and landing operations with the landing error no larger than 6 km.
2) The lander must have a relatively complete hazard detection and
avoidance capability and be able to achieve a highly reliable safe
landing. 3) The onboard GNC system must autonomously command
the variable-thrust engine and thrusters to work cooperatively and to
ensure an accurate safe landing with minimum fuel consumption.
4) Attitude, velocity, and angular rate errors should meet the
predesigned performance specifications. Vertical and horizontal
velocity at landing should be less than 3.8 and 1 m∕s, respectively;
triaxial attitude errors and angular rate should be less than 4 deg and
1 deg ∕s, respectively.
To meet the mission objectives and requirements mentioned
previously, many innovative designs were conducted for Chang’e-3
mission: 1) To ensure safe landing, both two-dimensional (2-D) optical
gray-image-based coarse hazard avoidance and three-dimensional
(3-D) laser-elevation-image-based precise hazard avoidance were used
to execute a relay hazard-avoidance mode [3,4]. 2) A 7500 N variable-
thrust main engine was newly developed to meet the requirement of
powered descent braking. To ensure enough maneuver capability,
Chang’e-3 was equipped with 16 × 150 N and 12 × 10 N thrusters
[19,23]. 3) To satisfy the constraint of lander dry mass (maximum
1220 kg), innovative materials and lightweight structure were adopted
in the component unit design, and a highly integrated design was
applied to the GNC hardware [3]. The main configuration and major
elements are depicted in Fig. 3 [2–4]. 4) To eliminate systematic errors
as much as possible, some key units, such as the inertial measurement
unit (IMU) and all thrusters, were accurately calibrated onboard
[19,24]. 5) Many components were integrated into the GNC system,
Fig. 3 Major elements of Chang’e-3.
which included gyroscope, accelerometer, sun sensor, star sensor, laser
range sensor, microwave range sensor, microwave velocity sensor,
optical imaging sensor, laser three-dimensional imaging sensor,
gamma shutdown sensor, image processing computer, and high-
performance GNC computer. At the same time, innovative guidance
navigation strategies and flight software were also developed for the
powered descent and landing [2,4,20]. All these developments and
improvements enabled Chang’e-3 to have the capability of completely
autonomous powered descent and precise landing guidance.
III. Chang’e-3 Powered Descent and Landing
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Overview
A. Development and Improvement of Chang’e-3 Powered Descent
and Landing Guidance
The Chang’e-3 mission was approved in March 2008 and
scheduled to be launched in December 2012. The initial soft-landing
powered descent scheme is shown in Fig. 4 [25–27]. In the initial
design, the entire soft-landing process was intentionally divided into
six subphases: main braking phase, attitude adjusting phase, vertical
descent phase, hover and hazard-avoidance phase, slow descent
phase, and free-fall phase. The first five subphases are also known as
the powered descent and controlled landing [25–29]. Based on the
newly developed variable-thrust engine, the guidance and control
process was designed as follows. In the main braking phase, the main
engine works at the maximum constant throttle state. To satisfy the
constraint of fuel optimization, a polynomial guidance law was
initially adopted to control the attitude of the lander and to track the
expected velocity direction until arriving at the altitude of 2 km above
the lunar surface. During this period of time, the angle between the
vertical axis of the lander and the normal direction of the lunar surface
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
Fig. 4 Initial scheme of Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing.
will gradually decrease under the joint action of thrust and lunar
gravity. At an altitude of about 2 km, the proportional–integral–
differential (PID) control mode will be triggered to perform quick
attitude adjustments, and then the angle between the vertical axis of
the lander and the normal direction of the surface will be further
reduced to zero. Subsequently, the lander with a vertical attitude
drops from the altitude of 2 km to 100 m above the lunar surface,
during which the constraints of fuel optimization and the zero
terminal velocity should be satisfied simultaneously. Then, the lander
will hover at an altitude of 100 m above the surface of the moon,
image the landing area below the lander, identify the potential
hazards of the terrain, and select an eligible safe landing site. After
that, the lander will be directed to the waypoint above the safe landing
site by PID guidance, which is a horizontal hazard-avoidance
maneuver. Finally, the lander will begin vertical slow descent from
the altitude of about 100 m to about 4 m; both the terminal velocity
and attitude angles should be controlled to zero. At the altitude of 4 m
above the safe landing site, the main engine will be shut down, and
then the lander will freely fall and touch down on the lunar surface.
The shutdown signal of the main engine comes from the triggering of
the gamma sensor, which makes the onboard autonomous GNC
system automatically switch to the noncontrol mode.
After the initial scheme design, the powered descent and soft-
landing guidance algorithms were validated by strict ground
simulation and testing, as shown in Fig. 5 [30]. Unfortunately, the
2-D gray-image-based hazard detection and avoidance scheme failed
in the first-round ground testing, which resulted in redesigning the
obstacle detection and avoidance scheme. Therefore, the Chang’e-3
Fig. 5 Hazard detection and avoidance testing on ground.
261
mission was postponed to the end of 2013. In addition, the fuel
consumption of the initial powered descent scheme was not optimal
and still needed to be improved. Especially during the hovering and
obstacle avoidance phase, it is necessary for the lander to identify
smaller obstacles and search for the nearest safe landing site in a
relatively large image, which leads to a larger amount of calculation,
lower success rate of obstacle recognition, and longer hovering time.
At the same time, only horizontal maneuvering is implemented
during the hazard-avoidance phase, and the altitude remains un-
changed using antithrust of the main engine, which further increases
the fuel consumption. Both theoretical analysis and experiment
testing show that 2-D gray-image-based hazard detection and
avoidance scheme is more suitable for detecting larger obstacles in a
larger range, but it is difficult to identify smaller ones. To ensure the
success of the soft-landing mission, one had to strengthen the lander’s
capability of autonomous hazard detection and avoidance while
reducing the fuel consumption. Finally, a new coarse–precise-relay
hazard detection and avoidance scheme was proposed to replace the
old one. In this new scheme, the gray-image-based coarse obstacle
detection and avoidance is first performed in a relatively large flight
range, and then the 3-D digital-elevation-map-based precise obstacle
detection and avoidance is adopted in a relatively small range [4].
To efficiently reduce the fuel consumption, the lander only performs
transient hovering during the precise avoidance imaging. Horizontal
maneuvering and vertical descent are carried out simultaneously in
other subphases of hazard detection and avoidance, which proved the
best and successful choice for Chang’e-3 flight mission.
 262 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
B. Chang’e-3 Powered Descent and Landing Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Modes
China’s Chang’e-3 is the first spacecraft after Apollo’s mission to
implement the lunar soft-landing mission. The engineering goals of
Apollo were a safe landing on the surface of the moon and returning
to the Earth. Both autonomous guidance (known as the P mode) and
man-in-the-loop guidance were employed in the Apollo landing
missions [31]. However, Chang’e-3 was required to automatically
achieve the fuel-minimum powered descent and a pinpoint soft
landing. Both China’s Chang’e-3 and NASA’s Mars Science
Laboratory (MSL)/Curiosity recently succeeded in performing soft
landings beyond the Earth [32]. Compared to the 20 km landing
requirement of MSL/Curiosity, Chang’e-3 necessitates higher
landing precision (6 km) and autonomous hazard detection and
avoidance capability. To achieve the pinpoint lunar soft landing
autonomously and simplify the GNC system design, the complete
powered descent and landing process of the Chang’e-3 is
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
intentionally divided into seven subphases according to the different
guidance and control modes, which are shown in Fig. 6 [2].
Chang’e-3 prepared for powered descent and soft-landing
operations about 10 min before the beginning of the powered descent.
In the landing preparation stage, BACC uploaded the ignition time
(14 December 2013 at 20:59:52 BJT), the initial states (position
19.0464°W, 28.9989°N, altitude 14.884 km, velocity 1695.7 m∕s),
the terminal landing states (position 19.509°W, 44.12°N, altitude
2 m, velocity 0 m∕s, limit angle of 14 deg between the vertical axis of
the lunar lander and the direction of gravity), and the target attitude
before ignition (pitch angle, 85 deg; yaw angle, 0 deg; roll angle,
0 deg) to the lander [3]. After that, Chang’e-3 completed a series of
actions according to the commands preloaded from the ground
control center, which includes switching from the sun-oriented mode
to the landing preparation mode, folding the two solar panels, and
directing the main engine nozzle forward. The following guidance
and control operations of the powered descent and landing phase
were completely autonomously fulfilled by the onboard GNC
system.
Chang’e-3 began the primary deceleration (the first subphase of
powered descent) at 20:59:52, when the 7500 N main engine ignited
and worked with a constant thrust. At that moment, the primary
deceleration mode was triggered by the GNC system onboard the
Fig. 6 Schematic of Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing.
lander, with total mass of 2822 kg [3]. The main task of this phase was
deceleration. The lander’s velocity was reduced from ∼1.7 km∕s to
∼70 m∕s, and the altitude was reduced from ∼15 to ∼3 km above the
lunar surface. At the same time, the pitch angle of the lander dropped
from ∼85 to ∼65 deg under the joint function of thrust and lunar
gravity. About
316 s after the beginning of the powered descent,
the landing camera mounted at the bottom of the lander turned on and
started monitoring the landing process by taking 12 pictures per
second. IMU-based autonomous navigation was adopted, along with
velocimeter and ranging measurements. At an altitude of ∼8 km, the
laser ranging sensor and microwave ranging sensor measurements
were introduced to correct the bias and drift of IMU and to obtain
high-precision navigation information [3,20]. When the lander
dropped to an altitude of ∼4 km, the microwave velocimeter was
used to further improve the accuracy of the velocity information. It
should be stressed that the microwave velocimeter sensor was very
critical to the success of landing mission, and the probability of
success sharply dropped to only about 10% if it did not work
correctly. Because most of the fuel onboard the lander was consumed
during this phase, the factor of fuel consumption must be taken into
account in the guidance design. An adaptive explicit guidance law
was adopted for the entire primary deceleration phase because the
original polynomial guidance was not optimal.
To seamlessly connect the terminal state of the primary
deceleration phase to the initial state of the approaching phase, the
quick attitude adjusting phase was added intentionally. About

487 s after the beginning of the powered descent (i.e., at 21:08:07),
the onboard GNC system automatically switched to the quick attitude
adjusting mode. The main engine worked in controllable thrust mode
from then on, and its thrust magnitude was designed to be almost
equal to the lunar gravity of the lander. During this phase, the pitch
angle of the lander was quickly adjusted from ∼65 to ∼9 deg, while
both the yaw angle and roll angle were kept at 0 deg. The attitude
angle errors and angular rate errors were required to be less than 1 deg
and 0.5 deg ∕s, respectively. During this period of time, the velocity
increase along the vertical direction due to lunar gravitational
acceleration was avoided, and the lander descended from ∼3 to
∼2.4 km above the lunar surface [3,20]. At the same time, the
horizontal velocity was gradually reduced to ∼50 m∕s. According to
the uniform transition requirement of the main engine thrust and
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
landing attitude, the guidance law was designed based on linear
variation of the magnitude and direction of thrust, and the related
guidance parameters were set according to the terminal states of
the primary deceleration phase and the initial states of the
approaching phase.
About
503 s after the beginning of the powered descent, the
GNC system started working in the approaching descent mode. The
major mission of this phase was to perform coarse hazard detection
avoidance, in which the lander descended from ∼2.4 km to ∼100 m
above the lunar surface. The aims of coarse avoidance were to
exclude extremely dangerous large-scale obstacles and to provide
potential safe landing regions for the following precise avoidance.
The operation of coarse avoidance greatly reduced the risk that
obstacles identified by subsequent fine avoidance were too hard to
avoid when the lander was very close to the lunar surface, and it
effectively improved the overall probability of safe landing.
According to the requirements of coarse avoidance, the line-of-sight
of the imaging sensor was intentionally offset 40 deg in order to
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
ensure the 30 deg field of view of the optics imaging sensor was
directed toward the landing area. In addition, 40 deg offset can
effectively make the imaging sensor free of the effect of main engine
plume and result in an optical range-of-imaging sensor that is as short
as possible. Meanwhile, the nominal pitch angle of the approaching
descent phase was set to 9 deg to further ensure that the preselected
landing area was in the field of view of the optics imaging sensor. The
gray images of the lunar surface were obtained by the imaging sensor,
and then large obstacles, such as craters and stones larger than 1 m,
were detected by the image-processing computer. Taking optimal
fuel consumption into account, the onboard GNC automatically
selected the nearest safe landing site as the target point to perform the
subsequent obstacle avoidance guidance. The new landing site was
approximately 80 m from the original landing site. To ensure the
landing site was in the field of view of imaging sensor during the
approaching phase, the lander adopted a 45 deg angle dropping
trajectory and gradually approached the reselected landing site. The
lander was directly targeted to the terminal point of coarse avoidance
and finally reached the altitude of ∼100 m above the reselected
landing zone [20]. Because the lander had a relatively large velocity
during the coarse hazard avoidance, the onboard GNC system must
have the capability of fast imaging and online computing. The final
velocity and attitude adjusting was accomplished at the altitude of
∼100 m above the landing site, both triaxial velocities and attitude
angles relative to the lunar surface became zero. In addition, the
lander returned images taken by the landing camera at a rate of one
per five second from then on.
About
628 s after the beginning of the powered descent, the
onboard GNC system transitioned to the hovering mode. The lander
hovered at about 100 m above the lunar surface while maintaining
the zero velocity and attitude. Attitude stabilization was achieved by
the 10 N attitude thrusters. The first task of this phase was to use the
measurement of the laser imaging sensor to construct the high-
precision 3-D imaging of the 50 × 50 m2 area under the lander. Next,
the onboard GNC system detected craters larger than 20 cm and
slopes steeper than 8 deg (10 m baseline) and determined the nearest
safe landing site. Finally, the relative position information of the
selected safe landing site at the imaging moment can be easily
obtained [4].
About
644 s after the beginning of the powered descent phase,
the GNC system started working in the hazard-avoidance mode. The
main task of this phase was to perform precise hazard avoidance. The
lander descended from ∼100 to ∼30 m above the lunar surface
during this period of time. The precise hazard avoidance moved the
landing site approximately 10 m further to the northeast. To ensure
the accuracy of obstacle avoidance and the optimality of fuel
consumption, several 150 N thrusters were used to execute the
horizontal avoidance maneuvers according to the position
information of the preselected safe landing site. At the same time,
the lander descended with the vertical velocity of 1.5 m∕s until it
reached an altitude of ∼30 m above the safe landing site.
About
666 s after the start of the powered descent, the GNC
system transitioned to the constant low-velocity descent mode. The
263
major task of this phase was to eliminate the horizontal velocity and
align the attitude of the lander with the normal direction of the
surface without changing the current horizontal position. Because
the moon dust provoked by the thruster would inevitably affect the
external measurements from an altitude of ∼20 m above the
surface, the laser ranging sensor, microwave ranging sensor, and
velocimeter sensor were shut down in this mode, and only the IMU
was adopted to provide the position, velocity, and attitude
information. The lander descended at the constant velocity of 2 m∕s
from ∼30 to ∼2 m above the lunar surface during this period of time.
When it reached the altitude of 2.88 m above the surface of the
moon, the gamma sensor gave a shutdown signal. Then, engine and
thrusters were turned off. If the gamma sensor did not work
normally, backup measures were in place. The shutdown signal of
engine and thrusters could also be produced according to the degree
of saturation of the accelerometer, the foot touchdown signal, and a
preset off time. After that, the GNC system switched to the
uncontrolled mode (
685 s after the start of the powered descent),
and the lander freely fell from the altitude of ∼2 m and touched
down on the surface. The vertical and horizontal velocities were
required to be less than 3.8 and 1 m∕s, respectively, and triaxial
attitude angle and angular velocity were required to be less than
4 deg and 1 deg ∕s, respectively [20].
On 14 December 2013 at 21:11:19 BJT, Chang’e-3 safely landed at
19.51256°W, 44.11884°N; the elevation of the landing site is
2615.451 m below sea level. Both the actual landing site and the
preselected landing site are depicted in the digital orthoimage map
shown in Fig. 7, which was generated from Chang’e-3 descent
camera images [17]. The entire flight of powered descent and landing
lasted 687 s, and the total flight range was 456.704 km. Remote radio
telemetry and image matching showed that the landing error of
Chang’e-3 was less than 100 m with respect to the original landing
site selected before powered descent, and autonomous obstacle
avoidance error was less than 1.5 m with respect to the new safe
landing site. Although the position errors relative to the selected safe
landing sites were less than 1.5 m, the inertial navigation errors were
on the order of 100 m or more. The triaxial landing velocities were
−1.969, −0.016, and 0.033 m∕s respectively, and the triaxial attitude
angles (roll, pitch, and yaw) were −1.225, 1.501, and 1.479 deg,
respectively. The solar elevation angle at landing was 24.4 deg
[3,4,18].
The elevation map obtained by the 3-D laser imaging sensor
showed that there were some 1 to ∼2 m craters in the northwest,
north, and southeast of the landing site, and there were also some 0.2
Fig. 7 Digital orthoimage map of Chang’e-3 landing area.
 264 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
to ∼0.5 m holes and stones in the southwest, south, and east of the
landing area. Chang’e-3 autonomously chose the relatively flat
middle zone as the safe landing site, which was approximately 4.8 m
away from the subsatellite point along the northeast direction, as
shown in Fig. 8 [4,17]. As observed in Fig. 9 [2,3], there were no large
obstacles in the 20 × 20 m2 area centering on the landing site. Both
the height of stones and the depth of the craters were less than 20 cm,
and the slope was less than 2 deg, which completely satisfied the
expected safety requirements of the lunar soft landing [3,4].
C. Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Configuration and
Function
Chang’e-3 was equipped with a large number of sensors and
actuators in order to ensure the success of the pinpoint lunar landing
mission. The detailed GNC system configuration and function are
depicted in Fig. 10 [4,20], and the attitude control mode and
algorithms adopted by Chang’e-3 are shown in Fig. 11 [4,20,33].
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
1. Navigation and Hazard Detection Sensors
Six types of sensors were employed by Chang’e-3.
1) Sun sensors: The sun sensors were adopted to support the sun
orientation operation and for attitude measurement relative to the sun.
2) Star sensors: The star sensors were used for global attitude
measurement relative to the inertial space.
3) Inertial measurement unit (IMU): As one of the major
measurement elements during the powered descent and landing, IMU
was adopted for attitude and orbit measurement. There were six
single-degree-of-freedom rate-integrating gyroscopes, which were
used for measuring the triaxial attitude angular velocity of Chang’e-3
in the inertial reference space. Any three of them could complete the
attitude measurement independently. Four accelerometers were
equipped to measure the nongravitational acceleration of the lander.
The gauging axes of three accelerometers were parallel to the three
principal axes of inertia of the lander, respectively. Another
accelerometer was equipped slantingly.
4) Ranging sensors: Ranging sensors included a laser ranging
sensor and a microwave ranging sensor. They were used to measure
the distance between the lander and the lunar surface along their line-
of-sight direction during the powered descent and landing. The
Fig. 8 Terrain of Chang’e-3 landing site (imaged by lunar
reconnaissance orbiter camera).
Fig. 9 Chang’e-3 safely landed on the surface of moon (imaged by Yutu
rover panorama camera).
related position information then could be obtained according to the
attitude measurement information.
5) Velocimeter: Microwave velocimeter was adopted to measure
the velocity of the lander along its line-of-sight direction during the
powered descent and landing. The other related velocity information
could be obtained according to the measurement information.
6) Imaging sensors: Imaging sensors included an optical imaging
sensor and a laser imaging sensor. The optical imaging sensor was
used to obtain the gray images of the lunar surface for coarse hazard
avoidance. The laser imaging sensor was adopted to obtain the 3-D
digital elevation map (topographic map) of the lunar surface for
precise hazard avoidance.
2. Actuators
Two types of actuators were employed by Chang’e-3.
1) Variable thrust main engine: A new variable-thrust engine, with
the range of thrust from 1500 to 7500 N, was developed in order to
implement braking, deceleration, and hovering for the powered
descent process and hazard maneuver. The specific impulse of this
liquid bipropellant thruster is 3028 N · s∕kg (i.e., 309 s), and the
accuracy of thrust regulation is 6.25 N [19,23].
2) Attitude thrusters: Bipropellant attitude thrusters were equipped
with two different magnitudes of 12 × 10 N and 16 × 150 N. The
10 N thrusters were used for attitude maneuvers, and the 150 N
thrusters were employed for midcourse correction in the Earth–moon
transfer and for horizontal maneuvers in the hazard avoidance.
3. Onboard Computers
Chang’e-3 was equipped with two onboard computers. One was
used for GNC computing, and the other was used for image
processing.
1) Image-processing computer: The image data from the two
imaging sensors were handled by the image processing computer,
which was used to detect hazard and determine an appropriate
landing site. According to the navigation data from the GNC system,
the image processing computer output the relative position data of the
selected landing site to the GNC computer for subsequent hazard-
avoidance operation, and so the image-processing computer played a
very important role in hazard detection and avoidance.
2) GNC computer: All the data from the image-processing
computer, sensors, and actuators were input to the GNC computer to
perform GNC calculations. Based on the position, velocity, and
attitude information of the lander relative to the selected landing site,
the GNC computer produced the control signals to actuators
according to different guidance and control modes.
IV. Guidance Scheme and Performance Analysis
To achieve the engineering goal of Chang’e-3 landing mission, a
large number of new powered descent operations and GNC modes
were developed, as shown in Figs. 6 and 10 [2,4,20]. The primary

GNC
Inertial Attitude
Computer
Navigation Algorithm
Position & Attitude
for Imaging
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
Attitude, Acceleration,
Velocity, Range
Measurements
Navigation Sensors
Dynamic Model & Terrain Model
( IMU, Ranging Sensors,
Velocimeter, etc. )
Fig. 10 Schematic of Chang’e-3 GNC configuration and function.
Guidance
Command Pulse width
PID/PD
modulation
Sensors Thrusters
Chang'e-3 Lander
Disturbance
Fig. 11 Schematic of Chang’e-3 attitude control.
guidance requirements for the pinpoint lunar soft landing can be
summarized as autonomy and fuel optimization. The properties of
robustness and precision are also desired in the guidance design.
Because the entire powered descent and landing process of Chang’e-
3 was deliberately divided into seven subphases according to the
detailed flight operations, multiple guidance laws and control modes
were required. Three main guidance laws were developed in the
Chang’e-3 landing mission, which included an adaptive explicit
guidance law based on linear tangent guidance, a modified
polynomial guidance law, and a classical PID guidance law. In
addition, the target landing point selection and hazard avoidance also
relied upon the appropriate guidance and control algorithms [4,20].
In the following sections, the detailed guidance algorithms adopted in
the Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing phase are described, and
the corresponding guidance performances are assessed by computer
simulation.
A. Adaptive Explicit Guidance for Primary Deceleration Phase
Because most of the onboard fuel is consumed during the primary
deceleration, the issue of fuel optimization must be taken into account
in the guidance design of the primary deceleration phase. Linear-
tangent-based adaptive explicit guidance (LTAEG) was developed
for Chang’e-3 landing mission, which is based on linear tangent
guidance [34]. Ground testing indicated that the fuel consumption of
LI, JIANG, AND TAO 265
Thrusters Command
Attitude Control
Attitude Command
Main Thrust Command
Guidance Law
Target Position
Image Processing Computer
( Obstacle Detection &
Safe Landing Site Selection )
Gray Image
Digital Elevation Map
Optical Imaging Sensor
Laser 3-D Imaging Sensor
Actuators
for Lunar Soft Landing ( Main Engine & Thrusters )
the LTAEG guidance was almost the same as that of the optimal
guidance. Therefore, it can be considered as a suboptimal guidance
law from the viewpoint of fuel consumption. Within each iterative
guidance cycle, the terminal-state variables of the primary
deceleration phase were predicted by the GNC computer according
to the dynamics model and current-state variables of the lander, and
then the direction of thrusters was automatically adjusted according
to the deviation between the predicted terminal-state variables of the
primary deceleration phase and the nominal initial-state variables of
the approaching phase. This required several iterations until the
External predicted states equaled the nominal state. The iterative convergence
time was typically less than 0.1 s.
LTAEG guidance is mainly composed of three parts: linear tangent
guidance, parameter adaptation, and target position and velocity
adaptation. The detailed LTAEG guidance law is depicted in Fig. 12
[4,20,35]. Here, λC is the command thrust direction, λR is the
reference thrust direction, λ_ is the rate of change of the actual thrust
direction, k · k denotes the L2-norm or Euclidean norm, F∕m
stands for the thrust-to-weight ratio, gm is the gravity acceleration of
the moon, and kr and kv are the adaptive parameters of the desired
position and velocity, respectively.
The linear tangent guidance law generates a nearly linear attitude
command that is conducive to the realization of attitude control.
However, it also has the inherent defects of the predictor–corrector
methods. It needs a highly precise system model to predict the
terminal-state variables of the lander. There are many parameters that
cannot be accurately determined in advance, such as engine thrust,
specific impulse, and thrust-to-weight ratio, which inevitably
degrades the accuracy of the dynamics model. To better accom-
modate the requirements of the lunar pinpoint landing, the traditional
linear tangent guidance law was modified in the Chang’e-3 landing
mission. The parameters with uncertainties mentioned previously
were estimated online by the least-squares method according to the
acceleration measurements, which greatly improved the robustness
and adaptability of the linear tangent guidance to the uncertainties in
the mass consumption and engine parameters [4,20]. The guidance
process of the primary deceleration phase is reconstructed using the
nominal parameters of Chang’e-3 powered descent listed in Table 2
[3,20], and the corresponding simulation results are shown in
Figs. 13a–13f. It should be pointed out that simulated sensor data and
 266 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

Fig. 12 LTAEG guidance law.

navigation algorithms were not included in the following guidance horizontal velocity, as shown in Fig. 13c, is decreased from
simulations. ∼1.7 km∕s at the perilune to almost 70 m∕s at the end of the primary
Figure 13 depicts the simulation curves of the key guidance deceleration phase. The terminal altitude, shown in Fig. 13a, is 3 km
parameters during the primary deceleration phase of Chang’e-3. It above the surface in accordance with nominal altitude. The change of
can be seen from Figs. 13a and 13b that both the altitude and vertical thrust direction angle from 85 to 65 deg in Fig. 13d is also the same as
velocity of the lander first increase and then decrease in the initial the nominal value. Though there are certain deviations, both the
phase of primary deceleration. The reason lies in the fact that the terminal vertical velocity and the terminal horizontal velocity are
optimal thrust direction angle of the lander at the perilune is about very close to their nominal values, which can be seen in Table 3.
85 deg, according to the LTAEG guidance, not the normal value of
90 deg. In this case, engine thrust produces a lift component along the B. Linear Guidance for Quick Adjusting Phase
vertical direction, which results in the phenomenon of flight altitude According to the mission requirements of Chang’e-3 powered
and vertical velocity of the lander first increasing and then decreasing descent and landing, the approaching phase starts at the altitude of
in the initial phase when the orbital velocity is still large. As shown in 2.4 km with the thrust direction angle of about 9 deg [20]. At the same
Fig. 13e, the mass of the lander gradually decreases with continuous time, main engine thrust is required to decrease from 3000 N to
fuel consumption. At the same time, the 7500 N main engine has been accommodate the subsequent low acceleration and velocity flight.
working under the constant thrust state during the primary Therefore, there are huge state differences between the terminal state
deceleration phase. Therefore, the magnitude of corresponding of the primary deceleration phase and the initial state of the
braking acceleration, as shown in Fig. 13f, gradually increases from approaching phase. As mentioned previously, the quick adjusting
2.658 to 4.642 m∕s2 . Under the command of the guidance and phase is included to make the state of the lander smoothly transition
control system, the thrust direction angle of the lander gradually from the terminal state of the primary deceleration phase to the initial
decreases in accordance with a nearly linear mode, which is clearly state of the approaching phase. To make the engine thrust and attitude
depicted in Fig. 13d. With the increasing of thrust acceleration and of the lander uniformly transfer and easy for engineering
decreasing of thrust direction angle, the vertical component of thrust implementation, a linear guidance law was developed to steer the
increases and the horizontal component remains unchanged, which thrust magnitude and direction [20]. The thrust magnitude and thrust
makes the descent velocity of the lander decrease slowly until it direction angle are designed to change linearly, and the guidance
reaches the maximum value of 57 m∕s. At the same time, the parameters are jointly determined by the terminal state of the primary
deceleration phase and the initial state of the approaching phase.
The linear guidance law developed for the quick adjusting phase
Table 2 Initial parameters of Chang’e-3 can be expressed as follows [35]:
powered descent
λR
t − tR λ_ C
Parameters Nominal value λC  (1)
Position Longitude 19.0464°W kλR
t − tR λ_ C k
Latitude 28.9989°N
Height 14,884 km
Triaxial velocity Tangential velocity 1695.7 m∕s aC  afd
a_ C · t − tR  (2)
Lateral velocity 0 m∕s
Vertical velocity 0 m∕s in which λC is the command thrust direction, aC is the command
Attitude angle Pitch angle 85 deg acceleration magnitude, λR is the reference thrust direction, t denotes
Yaw angle 0 deg the guidance time, tR stands for the reference guidance time, λ_ C is the
Roll angle 0 deg
Mass 2822 kg
rate of change of the command thrust direction, afd is the terminal
Specific impulse 309 s acceleration magnitude of primary deceleration phase, and a_ C is the
rate of change of the command acceleration magnitude.
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO 267

16000 10

14000 0

12000 -10

Vertical Velocity [m/s]

Height [m]

10000 -20

8000 -30

6000 -40

4000 -50

2000 -60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time [s] Time [s]
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

a) Altitude b) Vertical velocity

1800 85

1600

1400 80

Thrust Angle (Pitch) [deg]

Horizontal Velocity [m/s]

1200

1000
75
800

600
70
400

200

0 65
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time [s] Time [s]
c) Horizontal velocity d) Thrust direction angle

3000 5

2800
4.5
Thrust Acceleration [m/s2]

2600

4
Mass [kg]

2400

2200
3.5

2000
3
1800

1600 2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time [s] Time [s]
e) Mass f) Thrust acceleration
Fig. 13 Guidance curves of primary deceleration phase.

The guidance parameters λR and λ_ C are defined as follows:

λR  afd (3) Table 3 Nominal terminal values and actual flight

data of Chang’e-3 primary deceleration

aia − afd Parameters Nominal value Flight data

λ_ C  (4)
ΔtC Terminal altitude 3 km 3 km
Thrust direction angle 65 deg 65 deg
Terminal vertical velocity 50 m∕s 46.7 m∕s
in which aia is the desired initial acceleration direction of the Terminal horizontal velocity 70 m∕s 74.8 m∕s
approaching phase, which was planned on the ground and uploaded
 268 LI, JIANG, AND TAO

to the lander before launch; afd is the terminal acceleration direction
of the primary deceleration phase; and ΔtC denotes the quick
adjusting time, which is closely related to the angular velocity of
attitude maneuver and the separation angle between aia and afd .
The guidance process of the quick adjusting phase is
reconstructed, and the corresponding simulation results are shown
in Figs. 14a–14f. It can be observed from Fig. 14, both the thrust
magnitude and thrust direction angle of the lander are targeted to the
expected value in a linear manner. At the same time, both the altitude
and velocity of the lander also decrease gradually to the initial state
of approaching phase. The whole transition process of altitude,
velocity, attitude, and thrust are fairly gentle and smooth, which lays a
good foundation for the subsequent hazard-avoidance operations.
The linear guidance algorithm is simple and reliable, though it is
not optimal or suboptimal from the viewpoint of the fuel
consumption.
C. Coarse Avoidance Guidance for Approaching Phase
The aim of the approaching phase is to perform the coarse hazard
avoidance at the minimum cost of fuel consumption. It can be divided
into two subphases, hazard detection (including target landing point
selection) and a coarse hazard-avoidance maneuver.

3000 -36

2900 -38
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

Vertical Velocity [m/s]

2800 -40
Height [m]

2700 -42

2600 -44

2500 -46

2400 -48
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] Time [s]
a) Altitude b) Vertical velocity

75 7500

7000
70
6500
Horizontal Velocity [m/s]

65
6000
Thrust [N]

60 5500

55 5000

4500
50
4000
45
3500

40 3000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] Time [s]
c) Horizontal velocity d) Thrust magnitude

70 1610

1605
60
1600
50
Thrust Angle [deg]

1595
Mass [kg]

40 1590

30 1585

1580
20
1575
10
1570

0 1565
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [s] Time [s]
e) Thrust direction angle f) Mass
Fig. 14 Guidance curves of quick adjusting phase.
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
1. Gray-Image-Based Hazard Detection
Various optical image sensors, such as charge coupled device
(CCD) and complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS), are
widely applied in the aerospace industry due to their obvious
advantage of small size and low power consumption. Imaging-
sensor-based hazard detection belongs to the passive hazard
detection method, which is very simple and feasible under certain
lighting conditions. Because the texture and color of the lunar surface
is relatively simple, the shape, size, and location distribution of
obstacles can be easily determined using the relatively simple
edge detection principle when the lander state at imaging is
known in advance. In fact, the image-based hazard detection
approach is only suitable for identifying larger obstacles in a wide
range, when the field of view of sensor and size of the obstacles are
considered.
The hazard detection algorithm adopted by Chang’e-3 involves the
following five steps [4,36,37]: 1) image histogram analysis; 2) K-
means clustering-based image thresholding (K means clustering is a
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
famous and efficient partition clustering algorithm, K denotes the
needed cluster number); 3) obstacle recognition according to brighter
and darker textures; 4) obstacle distribution and edge detection; and
5) edge closing of the hazardous area. Computer simulation of coarse
hazard identification is implemented according to the gray image
obtained by Chang’e-3 optical landing camera [4], and the
corresponding results are shown in Fig. 15. Ground testing shows that
the grey image-based hazard detection method depends heavily upon
the illumination condition. The detection rate of the typical obstacles
on the lunar surface, such as big crater and stones, is significantly
high in the case of good lighting conditions and appropriate sun
elevation angle. On the contrary, the phenomena of missing detection
Fig. 15 Gray-image-based coarse hazard detection. (Note: Fig. 15a is captured from [4,20,35].)
269
or false detection will appear, especially when lighting conditions are
not ideal.
2. Spiral-Search-Based Target Landing Point Selecting
The entire landing area was divided into hazardous zones and safe
zones according to the obstacle distribution map obtained by the
image-based hazard detection algorithm addressed in Sec. IV.C.1.
After that, Chang’e-3 adopted a spiral search strategy to find the
nearest safe landing site, in which the spiral search was conducted
centering on the preselected landing site. As depicted in Fig. 16, the
basic process of this search strategy can be described as follows
[4,20,25,38,39]:
Step 1: Determine the necessary minimum zone to achieve a safe
landing. The minimum safe landing zone is set with the size of
the lander and control deviation taken into account.
Step 2: Perform the spiral search. The spiral search is performed
outward centering on the preselected landing site, as shown in
Fig. 16a. This search is performed spirally outward until the
stopping condition defined in step 3 is met. If there is no safe
landing zone completely satisfying the requirements of step 3,
the zone with optimal index is selected as the safe landing zone
according to the weighted hazard distribution and safe radius.
Step 3: Select a safe landing site. The safe landing site is selected
according to the risk coefficient of each small zone identified in
step 2. Many factors are considered in the coefficient calculation
process, which include the distribution and density of obstacles
and the maximum tolerance of the lander. If the risk coefficient
exceeds the preset threshold, it indicates that the current zone is
not suitable for safe landing, then the search returns to step 2 and
continues with subsequent searching. Otherwise, the current
 270 LI, JIANG, AND TAO

zone is selected as a safe landing area, and the coordinate of the
regional center is considered as the target landing point.
Computer simulation results of the safe landing point selection
using the spiral search strategy are shown in Fig. 16b. The gray image
obtained by the optical landing camera of Chang’e-3 is used in this
simulation. The coordinate of the center of the safe landing zone
determined here will be utilized for the following coarse obstacle
avoidance guidance.
of view, thrust magnitude, descent height, and approaching time were
considered in the approaching guidance design, and then the thrust
direction angle was eventually selected as 9 deg to satisfy the imaging
requirements. As Chang’e-3 adopted the 45 deg descent trajectory,
the total acceleration exerted on the lander must be opposite the
velocity vector [35,39]. Therefore, the magnitude of thrust
acceleration aF and the magnitude of lunar gravity acceleration gm
should satisfy the following relationship [4]:

3. Modified Polynomial Guidance for Coarse Avoidance

gm
The polynomial guidance first developed for the Apollo mission is aF  (5)
a robust and suboptimal guidance law. Only current- and target-state cos α − tan β sin α
variables of the lander are utilized in the guidance calculation, which
is quite simple and qualified for hazard-avoidance guidance after a
target landing point is determined. However, there exists undesired in which α is the thrust direction angle, defined as the separation
singularity of guidance time, altitude, and velocity in the classic angle between the direction of thrust and the direction op-
polynomial guidance [25,40,41]. In Apollo landing guidance, posite of lunar gravity acceleration, and β is the separation angle
between the velocity direction of the lander and the horizontal
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

tolerance protection was only conducted for guidance time.

Therefore, a modified fourth-order polynomial guidance was direction.
Then, the radial and downrange components of the command
developed for Chang’e-3 landing mission, which is completely free
acceleration can be easily obtained as follows:
of singularity. In Chang’e-3 landing guidance, tolerance protection
was conducted for guidance time, altitude, and velocity in order to
avoid the undesired singularity [20]. The validation of modified
polynomial guidance was confirmed by Chang’e-3 flight mission. ax  aF cos α − gm (6)
One goal of coarse avoidance is to control the terminal velocity of
the lander close to 0 m∕s with minimum fuel consumption; another
goal is imaging and coarse hazard avoidance. The constraints of field az  −aF sin α (7)

Planned Landing Site

a)

Starting Area

Target Area

b)
Fig. 16 Search strategy and result: a) schematic of spiral search strategy, and b) safe landing area selection results of coarse avoidance. (Note: the left
figure in Fig. 16b is the searching result based on hazard distribution map. For more visualized, the right figure in Fig. 16b depicts the result in grey image.)
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
According to the mission planning, the radial and downrange
acceleration need to remain constant during this period of time.
Therefore, the descent height and flight range, respectively, can be
obtained as follows:
v2xf − v2x0
sx  (8)
2ax
v2zf − v2z0
sz  (9)
2az
in which vxf and vzf are the terminal radial and downrange velocities
of approaching phase, respectively, and vx0 and vz0 are the initial
radial and downrange velocities of the approaching phase,
respectively. Therefore, the reference guidance time of approaching
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
phase can be obtained by
vxf − vx0
Ta  (10)
ax
As mentioned previously, the designed guidance acceleration
remains unchanged during the approaching phase. Therefore, the jerk
should be zero. The constraint equation of the time to go tgo can be
simplified as [4,35]
atGz t2go − 3vtGz
vGz tgo
4rtGz − rGz   0 (11)
in which rtGz , vtGz , and atGz are the target downrange position,
velocity, and acceleration, respectively, and rGz and vGz are the
downrange position and velocity, respectively.
The detailed analytical expression of the time to go can be directly
obtained by solving the quadratic equation defined in Eq. (11). The
command acceleration can be formulated as
r −r v
vG
acG  12 tG 2 G − 6 tG
atG (12)
tgo tgo
in which rtG , vtG , and atG are the target position, velocity, and
acceleration, respectively, which were derived according to the
constraints mentioned previously, and rG and vG are the actual
position and velocity, respectively, which are derived from the
navigation system.
In each guidance loop, the expected time to go can be obtained
by subtracting the guidance time from the reference guidance time.
The expected height and velocity can be computed according to the
reference guidance parameters. The expected time to go, height, and
velocity are compared with the time to go from the modified
polynomial guidance and the height and velocity from the navigation
system. If the difference between them is smaller than the prescribed
threshold, the approaching guidance is terminated, and the hovering
guidance is triggered.
Computer simulation of the modified polynomial guidance is
performed for coarse avoidance, and the corresponding results are
shown in Fig. 17. It is easy to observe from Fig. 17 that the modified
polynomial guidance works well, and a high guidance precision can
be obtained at the cost of suboptimal fuel consumption. Figures 17a–
17c show that the altitude of the lander gradually decreases from
2.4 km to 100 m, and the terminal velocities are controlled to the order
of several centimeters per second, which completely meet the
expected requirements of engineering. It should be pointed out that
the adjustment of thrust direction angle is quickly accomplished once
a new safe landing area is selected at the beginning of the coarse
hazard-avoidance phase. After that, the thrust direction angle is
271
always kept at 9 deg to satisfy the various constraints mentioned
previously.
D. Proportional–Integral–Differential Guidance and Hazard Detec-
tion Strategy for Hovering Phase
1. Proportional–Integral–Differential Guidance Strategy for Hover-
ing Phase
Chang’e-3 lander hovered no more than 10 s once the coarse
hazard avoidance was completed. The main task of the hovering
phase is to use the 3-D imaging sensor to obtain high-precision 3-D
topography and autonomously select a safe landing site [4,20,42,43].
Because the initial height is considered as the guidance target of the
hovering phase, the variable-thrust engine is controlled to offset the
effect of the lander gravity and keep the height of the lander
unchanged. To maintain a stable hovering state and facilitate accurate
imaging, the horizontal velocity of the lander should be cancelled.
Meanwhile, the thrust attitude angle gradually reduces from 9 to
0 deg as planned, and the position deviation caused by the attitude
maneuver must be corrected. The position-keeping control is
required when the laser imaging begins.
Classical proportional–integral–differential/proportional–differ-
ential (PID/PD) guidance algorithms are adopted during hovering
and subsequent phases in which the inner-loop control is combined
with the outer-loop control. Outer-loop control involves the main
engine and attitude maneuvers, and inner-loop control is achieved
using the horizontal thrusters. Chang’e-3 succeeded in applying the
PID/PD guidance and control laws to the hovering, precise
avoidance, and constant low-velocity phases.
The precise avoidance process of Chang’e-3 is performed
following the coarse hazard avoidance and is limited to a 50 × 50 m2
area of lunar terrain centered on the current subsatellite point. Craters
larger than 0.2 m and slopes steeper than 8 deg are identified and
avoided. Because the hazard detection and safe landing site selecting
are the prerequisite for hazard avoidance, laser 3-D elevation-map-
based hazard detection and safe landing site selection is first
introduced in the following Sec. IV.D.2. The PID guidance for
hovering and hazard avoidance is left for Sec. IV.E.
2. Three-Dimensional Elevation-Map-Based Hazard Detection and Safe
Landing Site Selecting
Laser radar is a kind of active hazard detection sensor, which can
obtain the high-precision 3-D elevation data of the landing area. The
hazard detection and safe landing site selection algorithm adopted by
Chang’e-3 includes the following four steps [4,25,38,42–44]:
1) construct the 3-D elevation model according to the measured
values of laser radar; 2) determine the reference level plane;
3) compute the hazard cost map of the landing area; and 4) apply the
spiral search method to locate the safe landing area, as stated in
Sec. IV.C.2. The step of constructing the reference level plane is very
important and is the cornerstone of subsequent obstacle detection.
Least-squares fitting is adopted to construct the reference level plane
in the Chang’e-3 landing mission.
Because the elevation data of Chang’e-3 is not available, a
simulated model of digital elevation is built up according to the
approximate correspondence between the elevation difference and
the image gray value of the landing zone. The gray image obtained by
the landing camera onboard Chang’e-3 is shown in Fig. 18a, and the
corresponding simulated elevation map of landing area is depicted in
Fig. 18b. Because the fitting of the reference level plane is the key of
3-D elevation-map-based hazard detection, it must be completed
first. The reference level plane obtained by the least-squares method
is shown in Fig. 18c. Then, we can easily obtain the 3-D hazard
elevation map and hazard cost map of potential landing areas
according to the reference level plane, which are depicted in Figs. 18d
and 18e, respectively. Next, the spiral search method described in
Sec. IV.C.2 is adopted to find a safe landing site from the hazard cost
map. A potential safe landing area is selected by comprehensively
considering fuel consumption and lander maneuver capability, which
is shown in Fig. 18f. The final selected landing site is taken as the
 272 LI, JIANG, AND TAO

2500 0

-5
2000
-10

Vertical Velocity [m/s]

-15
1500
Height [m]

-20

1000 -25

-30
500
-35

0 -40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time [s] Time [s]
a) Altitude b) Vertical velocity
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

50 10

9.8
40
9.6
Horizontal Velocity [m/s]

9.4

Thrust Angle [deg]

30
9.2

20 9

8.8
10
8.6

8.4
0
8.2

-10 8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time [s] Time [s]
c) Horizontal velocity d) Thrust direction angle
1580 3050

1560
3000
1540

2950
Thrust [N]
Mass [kg]

1520

1500
2900

1480
2850
1460

1440 2800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time [s] Time [s]
e) Mass f) Thrust
Fig. 17 Modified polynomial guidance curves of coarse avoidance phase.

guidance target for the horizontal avoidance maneuver in the precise
avoidance phase.
E. Proportional–Integral–Differential Guidance for Precise Hazard
Avoidance
During precise hazard avoidance, the lander was targeted to a height
of 30 m above the landing site with the terminal horizontal velocity of
0 m∕s according to the relative position information of the safe landing
site derived in the hovering phase [4,20]. Because the process of
precise avoidance is a combination of horizontal avoidance maneuvers
and low-velocity descent, the guidance algorithms can be decoupled
and divided into two simultaneous processes, horizontal avoidance
guidance and vertical velocity control. The starting point of PID
guidance is the initial hovering point, and the terminal target point is
given by the imaging processing computer.
The precise hazard-avoidance guidance algorithm adopted by
Chang’e-3 can be formulated as follows [4,35]:
acmd  cI rt − r
cP vt − v
cD at − a
gm (13)
in which cP , cI , and cD are the PID guidance coefficients, rt , vt , and
at are the target position, velocity, and acceleration, respectively. The
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO 273
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

a) Gray image from landing camera onboard Chang'e-3 b) Simulated elevation map of the landing area

c) Fitting the reference level plane d) Hazard elevation map based on the reference level plane
50 50
0.2 0.2
45 45
0 0
40 40
-0.2 Target Area -0.2
35 35
-0.4 -0.4
30 30
-0.6 -0.6
Y(m)

Y(m)

25 25
-0.8 -0.8
20 20
-1 -1
Starting Area
15 15
-1.2 -1.2
10 10
-1.4 -1.4

5 -1.6
5 -1.6

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
X(m) X(m)
e) Hazard cost map f) Safe landing area selecting
Fig. 18 Three-dimensional elevation-map-based precise hazard detection and safe landing site selecting. (Note: Fig. 18a is captured from Refs. [4,20,35].)

target height, velocity, and acceleration are functions of time, which
were planned on the ground and uploaded to the lander before the
powered descent and landing began. The target horizontal position
comes from the autonomous obstacle detection and avoidance,
and r, v, and a are the actual position, velocity, and acceleration,
respectively, that are input from the navigation system. gm denotes
the lunar gravity acceleration. Though vertical velocity control and
horizontal avoidance guidance adopt the same guidance algorithm in
Eq. (13), they have different guidance goals and coefficients. During
the vertical velocity control, position, velocity, and acceleration are
controlled to track the planned target trajectories. However, only
velocity and acceleration are controlled during the horizontal
avoidance guidance in order to eliminate the horizontal velocity as
quickly as possible and to reduce the unsafe landing factors.
The hazard-avoidance trajectories are depicted in Figs. 19a and 19b,
and the corresponding triaxial velocities and control accelerations are
shown in Fig. 19c. It can be concluded from Figs. 19a and 19b that the
lander can autonomously complete the precise hazard-avoidance
 274 LI, JIANG, AND TAO

50
contour line 0.2
45 starting point
0
target point
40
horizontal movement -0.2
35
-0.4 100
30
-0.6
80
Y(m)

25
-0.8

Z(m)
20 60
-1
15 40 25
-1.2
10 20 30
-1.4
25
5 26 35
-1.6 27
28
0 29 X(m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 30 40
X(m) Y(m)
a) Projection of the precise hazard avoidance trajectory in hazard b) 3-D trajectory of precise hazard avoidance
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

cost map

X-axis Acceleration(m/s2)
1 0.4
X-axis Velocity(m/s)

Vx Ax
0.8 0.3
0.6 0.2
0.4 0.1

0.2 0
0 -0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(s) Time(s)
Y-axis Acceleration(m/s 2)

0.5 0.2
Y-axis Velocity(m/s)

Vy Ay
0.4 0.15

0.3 0.1
0.2 0.05

0.1 0

0 -0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(s) Time(s)
Z-axis Acceleration(m/s 2)

0 1
Z-axis Velocity(m/s)

Vz Az
-1
0
-2
-1
-3

-4 -2

-5 -3
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(s) Time(s)
c) Triaxial velocity and acceleration curves for precise avoidance
Fig. 19 Guidance curves of precise hazard-avoidance phase.

maneuver and arrive at the target position above the preselected safe
landing site. When the horizontal hazard-avoidance maneuver is
finished, the lander just reaches the height of 30 m above the safe
landing site. At that time, the terminal horizontal velocity is only a few
centimeters per second, and the vertical velocity just meets the
expected magnitude of 1.5 m∕s. The guidance goal of this phase is
achieved. At the same time, the triaxial control accelerations required
are within the scope of the thrusters. As mentioned previously, the
simulated elevation map is utilized because actual flight elevation data
were unavailable, which leads to about 3 m deviation of the selected
safe landing site compared with the actual flight results. The PID
guidance developed for precise hazard avoidance is also suitable for
hovering and constant low-velocity descent.
F. Proportional–Differential Guidance for Constant Low-Velocity
Descent Phase
To ensure the precision of the terminal attitude and velocity at
landing, the constant low-velocity descent phase, from 30 to 2.88 m,
is specially designed to perform final adjusting before landing. The
guidance goal is to maintain the horizontal position and stability of
the vertical attitude. Considering the propellant consumption and
navigation position drift, the descent velocity of the lander is set to be
less than −2 m∕s until the off signal of the gamma sensor is triggered
at the height of 2.88 m [3,4,20]. The PD guidance adopted by the
constant low-velocity descent is derived from the PID guidance
utilized in the hazard-avoidance phase. The terminal parameters of
precise hazard avoidance are inherited as the initial parameters in the
simulation, and the corresponding results are shown in Fig. 20.
It can be observed from Figs. 20a and 20b that the terminal
horizontal position of constant low-velocity descent can be steered to
the target position in the presence of the initial horizontal velocity of
2 cm∕s. The lander is finally targeted to the height of 2.862 m, which
is only 1.8 cm lower than the predetermined height. The 3-D
trajectory of precise hazard avoidance and constant low-velocity
descent shown in Fig. 20b is almost identical to the actual flight
trajectory of Chang’e-3 [45]. It can be seen from Fig. 20c that the
horizontal velocities of the lander are controlled to the level of
centimeters per second, and the terminal vertical velocity is
−0.55 m∕s. Triaxial velocity deviations of the lander are less than the
expected values. In addition, the corresponding triaxial control
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO 275

30

25

20
Z(m)

15

10

0
40
45
35
40
30 35
25 30
Y(m) 20 25
X(m)
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208

a) Constant low-velocity descent trajectory b) 3-D trajectory of precise hazard avoidance and constant
low-velocity descent
0.15 0.01

X-axis Acceleration(m/s 2)
X-axis Velocity(m/s)

Vx
0.1 0

0.05 -0.01

0 -0.02
Ax
-0.05 -0.03
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time(s) Time(s)
-3
x 10
Y-axis Acceleration(m/s 2)

0.04 5
Y-axis Velocity(m/s)

Vy
0
0.02
-5
0
-10
Ay
-0.02 -15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time(s) Time(s)

0 0.5
Z-axis Acceleration(m/s 2)
Z-axis Velocity(m/s)

0
-1
-0.5
-2
-1
Vz
Az
-3 -1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time(s) Time(s)

c) Triaxial velocity and acceleration of the constant low-velocity descent

Fig. 20 Guidance curves of low-velocity descent phase.

accelerations are close to 0, and the required triaxial accelerations are developed for Chang’e-3. Though both explicit guidance and
also in the scope of Chang’e-3 thruster. Therefore, the slow uniform- polynomial guidance are the classical landing guidance algorithms,
velocity descent can be approximately achieved using the classic PD they are significantly modified to meet the special requirements of
guidance law. Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing mission.
The guidance schemes, guidance goals, time sequence, and In the premission assessment phase, the landing error of Chang’e-3
descent height of the Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing are is believed to come from the following three aspects. First, the
summarized in Table 4. Because quick adjusting, hovering, and position deviation caused by the obstacle avoidance maneuver should
hazard avoidance have never been involved in previous landing be taken into account. Second, the dynamical uncertainty and model
missions, the linear guidance and PID guidance are uniquely simplification will adversely affect the guidance performance and

Table 4 Guidance summary of Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing

Subphases Goals Guidance schemes Time sequence, s Descent height
Primary deceleration Deceleration Adaptive explicit guidance 0 15-3 km
Quick adjusting Seamless transition Linear guidance
487 3-2.4 km
Approaching Coarse hazard detection avoidance Modified polynomial guidance
503 2.4-100 m
Hovering Three-dimensional imaging PID guidance
628 100 m
Hazard avoidance Precise hazard detection avoidance PID guidance
644 100-30 m
Constant low-velocity descent Horizontal-velocity removal and attitude keeping PD guidance
666 30-2 m
 276 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
landing accuracy. Last, the threshold range of initial- and terminal-
state constraints will also inevitably degrade the guidance accuracy.
The actual flight results show that the landing error is mainly
attributed to the obstacle avoidance maneuver, especially coarse
obstacle avoidance maneuver. The position deviation due to guidance
error is less than 1 m, which is only a secondary factor [4,35].
V. Conclusions
Chang’e-3 fulfilled China’s first soft landing on an extraterrestrial
celestial body beyond the Earth and made China the third country that
has the capability of independently accomplishing the lunar soft-
landing mission. To achieve the engineering goal of Chang’e-3
landing mission, a large number of innovative powered descent and
landing operations and the corresponding GNC modes were
developed. This paper systematically addresses the mission design
and guidance algorithms of Chang’e-3 powered descent and landing.
The overall lessons learned and conclusions presented herein can
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
serve as a pathfinder for the powered descent and landing testing and
implementation of future lunar landing missions.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was supported partially by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 61273051), Innovation Funded Project of Shanghai Aerospace
Science and Technology (Grant No. SAST2015036), and
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant
No. NS2014094). The authors greatly appreciate their financial
support.
References
[1] Ye, P. J., Huang, J. C., Sun, Z. Z., Yang, M. F., and Meng, L. Z., “The
Process and Experience in the Development of Chinese Lunar Probe,”
Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2014, pp. 543–
558.
doi:10.1360/N092014-00150
[2] Sun, Z. Z., Jia, Y., and Zhang, H., “Technological Advancements and
Promotion Roles of Chang’e-3 Lunar Probe Mission,” Science China
Technological Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 11, 2013, pp. 2702–2708.
doi:10.1007/s11431-013-5377-0
[3] Sun, Z. Z., Zhang, T. X., Zhang, H., Jia, Y., Zhang, H. H., Chen, J. X.,
Wu, X. Y., and Shen, Z. R., “The Technical Design and Achievements of
Chang’e-3 Probe,” Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 53,
No. 4, 2014, pp. 331–343.
doi:10.1360/092014-37
[4] Zhang, H. H., Liang, J., Huang, X. Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, L., Guan, Y. F.,
Cheng, M., Li, J., Wang, P. J., and Yu, J., “Autonomous Hazard
Avoidance Control for Chang’e-3 Soft Landing,” Science China
Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2014, pp. 559–568.
doi:10.1360/092014-51
[5] NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, “Apollo 11 Mission Report,” NASA
TM-X-62633, 1969.
[6] NASA Johnson Space Center, “Apollo 12 Mission Report,” NASA TM-
X-74200, 1970.
[7] NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, “Apollo 14 Mission Report,” NASA
TM-X-74240, 1971.
[8] NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, “Apollo 15 Mission Report,” NASA
TM-X-68394, 1971.
[9] NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, “Apollo 16 Mission Report,” NASA
TM-X-68635, 1972.
[10] NASA Johnson Space Center, “Apollo 17 Mission Report,” NASA TM-
X-69292, 1973.
[11] Davies, M. E., and Colvin, T. R., “Lunar Coordinates in the Regions of
the Apollo Landers,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 105,
No. E8, 2000, pp. 20,277–20,280.
doi:10.1029/1999JE001165
[12] NASA Lunar, and Planetary Program Division, “Surveyor Program
Results,” NASA SP-184, 1969.
[13] Ribarich, J. J., “Surveyor Spacecraft Landing Accuracy,” Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 5, No. 7, 1968, pp. 768–773.
doi:10.2514/3.29355
[14] Siddiqi, A. A., “Challenge to Apollo: the Soviet Union and the Space
Race 1945–1974,” NASA SP-2000-4408, 2000.
[15] Shkuratov, Y., Kaydash, V., Sysolyatina, X., Razim, A., and Videen, G.,
“Lunar Surface Traces of Engine Jets of Soviet Sample Return Probes:
the Enigma of the Luna-23 and Luna-24 Landing Sites,” Planetary and
Space Science, Vol. 75, Jan. 2013, pp. 28–36.
doi:10.1016/j.pss.2012.10.016
[16] Brady, T., and Paschall, S., “The Challenge of Safe Lunar Landing,”
Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE Publ.,
Piscataway, NJ, 2010, pp. 1–14.
[17] Liu, Z. Q., Di, K. C., Peng, M., Wan, W. H., Liu, B., Li, L. C., Yu, T. Y.,
Wang, B. F., Zhou, J. L., and Chen, H. M., “High Precision Landing Site
Mapping and Rover Localization for Chang’e-3 Mission,” Science
China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–11.
doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5612-0
[18] Huang, Y., Chang, S., Li, P., Hu, X., Wang, G., Liu, Q., Zheng, W., and
Fan, M., “Orbit Determination of Chang’e-3 and Positioning of the
Lander and the Rover,” Chinese Science Bulletin, Vol. 59, Nos. 29–30,
2014, pp. 3858–3867.
doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0542-9
[19] Jing, G. M., Cao, W., Wei, Y. X., Liu, F., Wang, R., and Chen, J., “Key
Technologies and Flight Performance Analysis for Chang’e-3 Lunar
Lander Propulsion System,” Science China Technological Sciences,
Vol. 53, No. 4, 2014, pp. 385–390.
doi:10.1360/092014-44
[20] Zhang, H. H., Guan, Y. F., Huang, X. Y., Li, J., Zhao, Y., Yu, P., Zhang,
X. W., Yang, W., Liang, J., and Wang, D. Y., “Guidance Navigation and
Control for Chang’e-3 Powered Descent,” Science China Technological
Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2014, pp. 377–384.
doi:10.1360/092014-43
[21] Yang, J. Z., Zeng, F. M., Man, J. F., and Zhu, W., “Design and
Verification of the Landing Impact Attenuation System for Chang’e-3
Lander,” Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 5, 2014,
pp. 440–449.
doi:10.1360/092014-46
[22] Liu, Z. J., Xiang, Y. C., Si, D. B., Zhang, Y. W., Chen, J. X., Su, S., Lv,
W., Ning, X. W., Song, X., and Zhang, B. Q., “Design and Verification of
Thermal Control System for Chang’e-3 Probe,” Science China
Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2014, pp. 353–360.
doi:10.1360/092014-40
[23] Lei, J. P., Lan, X. H., Zhang, R. J., and Chen, W., “The Development of
7500 N Variable Thrust Engine for Chang’e-3,” Science China
Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2014, pp. 569–575.
doi:10.1360/092014-52
[24] Li, J., Zhang, H. H., Zhao, Y., Liang, J., Zhang, X. W., Guan, Y. F., and
Huang, X. Y., “In-Flight Calibration of the Gyros of the Chang’e-3
Lunar Lander,” Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 1,
2014, pp. 582–588.
doi:10.1360/092014-54
[25] Huang, X. Y., Wang, D. Y., He, Y. Z., and Guan, Y. F., “Autonomous
Navigation and Control for Pinpoint Lunar Soft Landing,” 7th
International ESA Conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control
Systems, ESA Publ., Paris, June 2008.
[26] Epp, C., Robertson, E., and Brady, T., “Autonomous Landing and
Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT),” IEEE Aerospace
Conference, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, March 2008.
[27] Paschall, S., Brady, T., Fill, T., and Sostaric, R., “Lunar Landing
Trajectory Design for Onboard Hazard Detection and Avoidance,” AAS
32th Rocky Mountain Guidance and Control Conference, American
Astronomical Soc. Paper 2009-075, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2009.
[28] Paschall, S., Brady, T., and Cohanim, B., “A Self Contained Method for
Safe and Precise Lunar Landing,” IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE
Publ., Piscataway, NJ, March 2008.
[29] Epp, C., and Tomas, B., “Autonomous Precision Landing and Hazard
Detection and Avoidance Technology (ALHAT),” IEEE Aerospace
Conference, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2007, pp. 1–7.
[30] Sun, Z. Z., Zhang, H., Jia, Y., Wu, X. Y., Shen, Z. R., Ren, D. P., Dang, Z.
L., Wang, C., Gu, Z., and Chen, B. C., “Ground Validation Technologies
for Chang’e-3 Lunar Spacecraft,” Science China Technological
Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2014, pp. 369–376.
doi:10.1360/092014-38
[31] Klumpp, A. R., “Apollo Lunar Descent Guidance,” Automatica, Vol. 10,
No. 2, 1974, pp. 133–146.
doi:10.1016/0005-1098(74)90019-3
[32] Miguel San Martin, A., Lee, S. W., and Wong, E. C., “The Development
of the MSL Guidance, Navigation, and Control System for Entry,
Descent, and Landing,” 23rd AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics
Meeting, American Astronomical Soc. Paper 2013-238, Washington,
D.C., Feb. 2013.
[33] Wang, D. Y., Huang, X. Y., and Guan, Y. F., “GNC System Scheme for
Lunar Soft Landing Spacecraft,” Advances in Space Research, Vol. 42,
 LI, JIANG, AND TAO
No. 2, 2008, pp. 379–385.
doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.08.031
[34] McHenry, R. L., Brand, T. J., Long, A. D., Cockrell, B. F., and
Thibodeau, J. R., III., “Space Shuttle Ascent Guidance, Navigation, and
Control,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1,
1979, pp. 1–38.
[35] Huang, X. Y., Zhang, H. H., Wang, D. Y., Li, J., Guan, Y. F., and Wang, P.
J., “Autonomous Navigation and Guidance for Chang’e-3 Soft
Landing,” Journal of Deep Space Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2014,
pp. 52–59.
[36] Bajracharya, M., “Single Image Based Hazard Detection for a Planetary
Lander,” IEEE Proceedings of the Fifth Biannual World Automation
Congress, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2002, pp. 585–590.
[37] Cheng, Y., Johnson, A. E., Matthies, L. H., and Wolf, A. A., “Passive
Imaging Based Hazard Avoidance for Spacecraft Safe Landing,”
Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on Artificial
Intelligence and Robotics and Automation in Space: i-SAIRAS 2001,
Canadian Space Agency Publ., Montreal, Canada, June 2001.
[38] Wu, W. R., Wang, D. Y., Li, J., Huang, X. Y., and Jin, G. Y., “Research of
the Pinpoint Landing Navigation Method in the Hazard Avoidance
Downloaded by NANJING UNIV OF AERONAUTICS/ on April 13, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33208
Phase of Lunar Landing,” Science China Information Sciences, Vol. 41,
No. 9, 2011, pp. 1054–1063.
[39] Wang, D. Y., Li, J., Huang, X. Y., and Zhang, H. H., “A Pinpoint
Autonomous Navigation and Hazard Avoidance Method for Lunar Soft
Landing,” Journal of Deep Space Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2014,
pp. 44–51.
View publication stats
277
[40] Wang, D. Y., Li, T. S., Ma, X. R., and Yan, H., “Explicit Guidance
Control for Lunar Soft Landing,” High Technology Letters, Vol. 10,
No. 7, 2000, pp. 88–91.
[41] Sun, J. W., and Cui, P. Y., “Polynomial Guidance Law for Lunar Soft
Landing,” Journal of Astronautics, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1171–1174.
[42] Johnson, A. E., Klumpp, A. R., Collier, J. B., and Wolf, A. A., “Lidar-
Based Hazard Avoidance for Safe Landing on Mars,” Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 1, Nov.–Dec. 2002,
pp. 1091–1099.
doi:10.2514/2.4988
[43] Li, S., Peng, Y. M., and Liu, Y. F., “Autonomous Obstacle Detection and
Avoidance for Planetary Landing,” Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica
Sinica, Vol. 31, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1584–1592.
[44] Johnson, A. E., Huertas, A., Werner, R. A., and Montgomery, J. F.,
“Analysis of On-Board Hazard Detection and Avoidance for Safe Lunar
Landing,” IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ,
2008, pp. 1–9.
[45] Liu, B., Xu, B., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Di, K., Tang, G., and Zhou, J.,
“Descending and Landing Trajectory Recovery of Chang’e-3 Lander
Using Descent Images,” Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 18, No. 5,
2014, pp. 981–987.
D. Geller
Associate Editor