Multidiscplinary Modeling and Design
of a Space System
John T. Tester, David G. Robinson
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
Abstract
A concurrent engineering approach is applied t o the
design of a la.rge flexible space structure. A full sys-
t.cm model is developed using bond graphs incorpo-
rating orbital and ballistic dynamics, controls, optics
and vibra.tion a.nalyses. Design of experiments tech-
niques a.re used to analyze the entire system and de-
t,eriiiine the optimum set of design parameters .
I. DESIGN OBJECTIVE
The goal of this effort was to apply the systems
engineering pa.ra.digm to the modeling and design of
a. la.rge flexible space structure [2]. The objective of
t,he design effort involved the simultaneous design of
the control algorithm, structural characteristics and
opt,ic.iI,l geoii1et.r.y. Tlie system size and mass were
limited by current space shuttle caapabilities. The
sat.ellik was required to track the missile plume of an
ICBM with minimum line of site error and transmit
tlie position da.ta to earth.
’l’lic first phase of the design effort involved the se-
lect,ion of a preliminary configuration and the identifi-
cation of performance objectives and measures upon
which to ba.se decisions. Preliminary design results
suggested a cassegrainain optical system mounted in
a. large tetrahedron support structure. Control was
t.o hc provided via momentum wheels. System engi-
neering t.echniques were used to form specific perfor-
nji>.iic(:objcct,ives and measures. This problem defi-
nition process identified the design variables required
for the si1bsystem and system simulation models.
To accomplish the requirements listed above, the
follou~ingobjectives were established:
1 .Minimize inass
2. R4 a.si mi z e i in a ge quality
3.R4ininiize blurring
4.Rlasiinize power to detector plate
5.A4 i 11i mi ze t ra.cking error
‘ 1 7 1 as\ociat
~ cd performance measures were defined:
446
CH3051-0/91/0000-0446 $1.00 0 1991 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tennessee Technological University. Downloaded on April 07,2022 at 15:32:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1. System mass (SM)
2. Optical mean tracking error (MTE)
3. Inverse of the light intensity upon the tletcct.or
(IW
4. Signal-to-noise ratio of light inknsity at the det.cc-
tor (IVR)
MTE is simply the misalignment of the satellite’s
optical axis with respect to the target missile location.
The ILI is the inverse of the light image intsensity
produced on the satellite’s detector plate. The I V l t
is an attempt to capture the “blurriness” of a n I I i l i l g e
by dividing the intensity of the light image h j Llic
variance of the ray trace positions on tlic detector
plate for each time increment.
11. SYSTEM MODELING
The behavior of the satellite was siiniilated liy cre-
ating and manipulating a computer model of the coiii-
plete system. The system model was actually coni-
posed of six sub-models, all of which were int#ricately
coupled and simultaneously exercised throughout, the
design process. These models simulated the sat.ellik
flexible structure, the optical imaging system, t.lie 1110-
mentum wheel controlling subsystem, the t,ai
bit and the satellite orbit chara.cterist.ics. Encli s i i h -
model was developed a.t two levels. Very d ~ t ~ i ~ i l d
models were developed using eit.lier soft.wnrc rle\.el-
oped by the engineering tea.m or csisting soft.\vai.c
packages such as NASTRAN. In parallel with 1.liese
efforts, reduced order models were developcd using
bond graphs. This second effort was of t.renientlous
benefit during the design process. Increased coiiiiiiii-
nication among team members resiilted along wit11
increased efficiency of analysis a.s a result, of iisiiig a
common modeling language. T l i e cfl‘ect, ol‘ tlcvelol>-
ing bond graph models for the s u b s y s k m s was t.lie
relatively easy development of a model of t.lic ci1t.ii.e
system. The bond graph software !LNl’OR,‘I’ [5] was
used to build and exercise the resulting s y s k m itiotlel.
This model is depicted in its entire1.y iii t.lie figiirc
 below. Each of the subsystem models are briefly dis-
cussed i n the following.
Structural Model - A structure was necessary to con-
nect the optical subsystem to the controllers. This
structrire was a flexible beam tetrahedron assembly.
The structure had mass and inertia, as did the op-
tical system and the momentum wheel controllers.
Torque inputs to the frame were transmitted to the
optical system to keep it aligned with the missile im-
age; unfortunantly, these inputs also produce struc-
tural vibrations in the beams. These vibrations dis-
place the optical system, thus misaligning the image
on the optical axis. The vibration was modeled us-
ing modal analysis techniques and implemented using
hond graphs. The structural vibrations/modal bond
graph is the dominant portion of the upper-right por-
tion of the figure.
Opt.ical Rlodcl - Much of the total system perfor-
iiiaiicc i l l formation was obtained through the optical
sii1,systein model. The purpose of this system was
to focus Ilie light of the missile image onto an image
plane, where a. light-sensitive detector plate was lo-
cat.ed. ‘The optical simulation utilized exact ray trac-
ing t.echniques [l], and is a FORTRAN subroutine
wit.hin t.hc bond graph (labeled O P T in the figure).
A t,arget missile is represented as a moving point
source of light. A perfect image occurs when all the
(.raced rays converge to a single point on the detector.
I f tlerociis or off-axis abberations occur, the rays will
not, convcrgc, yielding a scatter of points on the two-
tlimcnsional detector plate. The positions of these
point,s at, a given instant of time are captured in the
simiilation for the calculation of MTE.
A second aspect of the optical model was the mea-
surcment. of the light intensity sensed on the detector
plat,e. The light ima.ge intensity, used to estimate ILI,
\t‘iis niat.lieinatically calculated in a part of the opti-
cal motlcl sepa.ra.t,efrom the ray tracing portion. IVR
iisctl bot.li ray tra.ce and image intensity results in its
c;ilciilat ion.
Alissilc Orhit.al Model - The missile dynamics model
siiiiiilat.cs t.he launch ofa two stage Titan I11 mis-
sile. T h e simulation starts at launch and ends at
second s h g e burnout as only the boost portion of
t,he missile launch is of interest. This model is based
on t,he assumption of only two forces acting on the
missile: gra.vity and thrust and uses bond graphs to
iniplement free body dynamics principles. The mis-
sile honti graph is in the lower-left portion of figure
11el o\\, .
447
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tennessee Technological University. Downloaded on April 07,2022 at 15:32:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Satellite Rigid Body Rotation Model- The satellite’s
rotation about its center of mass was modeled inde-
pendently of the vibrations and the orbital model.
The bond graph, located lower-center in the figure be-
low, has no linear, translational mass inertance; only
rotational mass inertia is necessary for the applica-
tion of momentum wheel controllers.
Satellite Orbital Model - The satellite orbit(a1 inodel
is used t o provide the position of the satellite i n in-
ertial space. The only force acting on the satellite
is that of gravity (Note: the torque input from the
momentum wheel controllers changes the orientation
of the satellite, not the orbit position). The model
requires an initial condition for the orbital altitude:
anywhere from low-earth to geosynchronoiis orbit.
The bond graph is located above t,he hallistic mis-
sile portion of the bond graph.
Controls Model- The satellite attitude was cont3rolled
via three momentum wheel controllers. h4omentuln
wheels provide the torque input to the system to pro-
duce rotation of the satellite about its physical, prin-
cipal axes. This motion allows the satellite’s telescope
to remain centered on the target image during the
missile launch. The momentum wheels were modeled
as three rigid rotating masses, attached to each of the
satellite’s base spars. The controls model is not a sin-
gle bond graph; instead, it is represented by the threc
torque inputs and connections off each 0-junct.ion i n
the rigid body rotation model.
System Model- The subsystem models were iiite-
grated into a single system model. This system in-
cluded not only the satellite’s subsystems, but that
of its orbit and the missile ballistic niodel as well.
The development of the system model had a num-
ber of benefits. First, the development process itself
increased communication flow a.mong tea.m members.
A common language was availa.ble which incrcasetl er-
ficiency; engineers were discussing int.eract,ioil i n tlis-
cipline neutral terms (power a.nd flow rat.lier t # l i a i i
loads, temperature, velocit,y or current). This L’C-
suiting system model a.llowed the engineers t.o t.al;e
an objective view of importance of their subsyst,eni
modeling and design efforts on the overall s y s h i i de-
sign effort. ‘Extraneous’ modeling and ana.lysis were
greatly reduced. Bond graphs allows the system en-
gineer to literally see where these manipula.tions take
place and investigate the subsystems intera.ct,ions i n
a logical manner. Synergistic effects are captured t,o
an extent not possible when modeling at the siihsys-
tem level and the result is that opt,imizat,ion can be
accomplished a t the system level.

I Design Variables I Optimum
I Orbit radius I 9.723.840 meters
Settlin,g time I 1 second
Beam diameter I 5 centimeters
Primary mirror diameter 1.5352 meters
Performance Measures O D t i m u m
AlTE -.39158
ILI -.8003774
IVR 2.0269969
SA4 -.7119192
111. O P T I M I Z A T I O N
A methodical approach was needed to arrive a t the
optimal values for the system design. A design of ex-
periemen ts (DOE) technique involving response sur-
face methodology (RSM) was selected. The system
compr~tersimulation had 4 design variables. These
were determined after examining the original 23 vari-
ables, 4 performance measures, and the interaction
matrices produced from an interpretive structural
modeling analysis [3]. The RSM central composite
design required 25 variable value settings for the data
collection process. This data was fitted t o a sec-
ond order, multiresponse, empirical math model us-
ing A NOVA techiniques. Lastly, the empirical model
was simultaneously optimized over the design space
through the use of a statistical distance function [4].
The bond graph system model allowed the system-
a t i c change of variables values. The basic system
model i n ENPORT stayed the same; only the values
w i t h i n its framework were altered for each simulation
run.
IV. R E S U L T S
The optimal design settings and performance re-
sults are listed in the above table. The performance
results are listed in unitless values, since the opti-
miza t,ion process used standardized design variable
settings and outputs.
The relatively low earth orbit reflects the need for
the shortmestpractical distance between the missile
a n d the sat,ellit,e. This need is due to the maximiza-
t,ion of light incident upon the detector plate. The
earlier regression analysis proved the time response
was a significant factor only in the MTE. Similarly,
the beam diameter was a significant factor in only
the syst.em mass, which was also minimized. These
two isolated design variables were therefore driven to
t,lieir minimum values. The only two design variables
which truely coupled in the optimization process were
t,lierefore the orbit radius and the primary mirror di-
Authorized licensed use limited to: Tennessee Technological University. Downloaded on April 07,2022 at 15:32:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ameter. These variables were optimal for the system
I performance at values close to their minimums.
I The above activity concluded one complete design
iteration for the satellite. Clearly, more refinement
is in order, following along the same procedure of
simulation, data collection, optimization and results
analysis. Many assumptions were made during the
research that were not mentioned in this article. For
example, all performance measures were equally con-
sidered in the optimization process; yet, in an orbital
system, mass is clearly of top priority early in the
design process.
Obviously, more detailed analysis and modeling
will have t o be accomplished, but a strong framework
has been established to support future efforts.
V. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
The authors would like t o thank the students a n d fac-
ulty of the AFIT System Engineering graduate pro-
gram who also participated in this research: Capt,ain
Brian Cassiday, Captain Steve Gaines, Captain L a r r y
Gatschet, Captain Mario Moya, Dr. Brad Lielist, a n d
Dr. Curt Spenny.
References
[l] Briggs, Hugh C. and others. Integrated Con-
t rol/St m ct ures/Op t ics D y n a m a c Pe rjo rm n n ce
Modeling of a Segmented Reflector Telescope.
Prepublished report. Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, CA. No date.
[2] Cassiday, B. K., Gaines 11, S. O., Gat,schet,
L. L., Moya, M. N., and Tester, J . T. M i / / -
tidisciplinary Modeling and Desagn os a S p c e
Structure. MS Thesis, AFIT/GSE/ENY/SlD-l.
School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of
Technology (AU), Wright-Patterson AFB OH,
December 1991.
[3] Hill, Douglas J . and Warfield, John N. Unzfied
Program Planning IEEE Trans. Systems, M a n ,
and Cybernetics, Vol SMC-2 No 5 November
1972
[4] Khuri, A. I., and Conlon, M., “Simultaneous 01,-
timization of Multiple Responses Represented by
Polynomial Regression Functions,’’ Technomet-
rics, Vol 23, No. 4, Nov 1981.
[5] ROSENCODE Associates, Inc., The ENPORT
Quick Guide. Copyright (c) 1987, by ROSEN-
CODE Associates, Inc.
448
 i I
I I

Figure 1: Total System Model

449

Authorized licensed use limited to: Tennessee Technological University. Downloaded on April 07,2022 at 15:32:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.