JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS

High-Precision Adaptive Predictive Entry Guidance for Vertical

Rocket Landing

Zhang Bojun,∗ Liu Zhanchao,† and Liu Gang‡

Beihang University, 100191 Beijing, People’s Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450
The vertical landing and recovery of rockets are now considered an important solution in the field of reusable
launch vehicles. This paper focuses on guided atmospheric entry to reach an expected landing site before landing with
powered descent. Using the characteristic of predictive algorithms that the onboard model can be changed easily, a
new predictive entry guidance algorithm based on the dual-channel attitude control of a low-lift entry vehicle is
proposed. Because the accuracy of the predictive guidance entirely depends on the discrepancies between the onboard
dynamic model and the real environment while the rocket enters the atmosphere, an onboard adaptive identification
method of aerodynamic deviation is added to decrease the methodological error. Simulation results show that the
adaptive predictive entry guidance performance is no longer dependent on knowledge of aerodynamic and density
dispersion. The adaptive aerodynamic fitting method repeatedly adapts the onboard model to varied environments in
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450

real time, decreasing the traditional predictive algorithms’ guidance error from kilometer- to meter-scale precision.

Nomenclature 2010s. After the space shuttle and manned spacecraft, the Falcon 9
CD = drag coefficient rocket was developed by SpaceX; this rocket is the first orbital rocket
CL = lift coefficient that has been reused and offers a new RLV solution. On 23 December
D = drag force, N 2015, the Falcon 9 rocket completed its first recovery mission with a
KD = drag aerodynamic acceleration deviation coefficient vertical landing at the launch site after stage separation. On 8 April
KL = lift aerodynamic acceleration deviation coefficient 2016, in the SES-10 mission, the rocket landed on a ship for the
L = lift force, N first time. On 30 March 2017, SpaceX used the reusable core vehicle
r = radial distance, m (RCV) that was recovered from the CRS-8 mission to complete a
t = current guidance time, s mission, and subsequently recovered it again. In recent years, many
ts = stop guidance time, s companies have unveiled new RLVs, such as New Shepard of
α = angle of attack, rad Blue Origin and the new-generation Long March rocket of China. With
αk = angle-of-attack coefficient the need for future rocket development, the robustness, reliability,
β = sideslip angle, rad and autonomy of entry guidance systems are increasingly gaining
βk = sideslip-angle coefficient attention.
γ = flight-path angle, rad The Falcon 9 rocket exhibits an innovative approach for solving
θ = longitude, rad the RLV controllable recovery problem [1]: the rocket is equipped
ρ = density with a grid wing and an expandable support structure. This extra
σ = bank angle, rad equipment ensures that the RCV is upright during entry into the
ϕ = geocentric latitude, rad aerosphere during the descent phase and landing phase. This means
ψ = heading angle, rad that the control method for the RCV is distinct from the bank-to-turn
(BTT) method for the space shuttle and manned spacecraft in flight.
By deploying four grid wings around the RCV, the rocket can
Subscripts
simultaneously control both pitch and yaw attitude. To solve the
f = value of a variable at termination of entry phase problems of high dynamic pressure and heat during the atmospheric
m = value of a variable in onboard mode entry phase and to make a precise landing, the RCV must burn two or
t = waypoint index three times to slow down. Both returns to the launch site and the ship
are shown in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 1, typical RCV recovery processes can be divided
into two types: recovery at the launch site and recovery on a ship.
I. Introduction Obviously, the method of recovery at the launch site requires burning

R ESEARCH about reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) has

experienced two stages. The first stage started in the 1970s.
The main study was aimed at the entry of space shuttles and manned
spacecraft, and used the classical guidance law based on the drag
acceleration profile. The second development upsurge arose in the
Received 17 December 2018; revision received 28 April 2019; accepted for
publication 19 May 2019; published online Open Access 6 September 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc. All rights reserved. All requests for copying and permission to reprint
should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the eISSN 1533-
6794 to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions
www.aiaa.org/randp.
*School of Instrumentation Science and Opto-Electronics Engineering;
zhangbj_8611@126.com.
†
Lecturer, School of Instrumentation Science and Opto-Electronics
Engineering; liuzc@buaa.edu.cn.
‡ categories: trajectory planning–tracking guidance methods and
Professor, School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering;
lgang@buaa.edu.cn.
Article in Advance / 1
one more time than the other type, and will consume more
propellants. When the RCVenters the atmosphere, the initial velocity
of recovery at the launch site is very low because the RCV must have
sufficient propellants to decelerate, and in the other condition, it is
the opposite. Therefore, during the entire entry phase, one is the
gravitational acceleration process, but the other is the aerodynamic
deceleration process, and the guidance algorithm must be very robust
to adapt to varied conditions.
In both types of recovery, due to the low engine startup height in the
final precise landing phase, a large positional deviation will cause the
RCV to be unable to land accurately [2,3]. Therefore, it is necessary
to propose an entry aerosphere guidance method that is suitable for
the vertical recovery of the RCV to meet the terminal constraint
requirements.
Until now, many guidance methods for the entry phase have been
proposed. The entry guidance methods can be divided into two
Predictor–corrector guidance methods [4]. The predictor–corrector
 2 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG

Fig. 1 Typical RCV recovery process.

guidance method has evolved to exhibit great potential. The most dθ V cos γ sin ψ
notable strengths of these methods include their capability to adapt to
(2)
dt r cos ϕ
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450

large trajectory dispersions and their independence of both a

preplanned reference trajectory and a separate trajectory planner and
tracking law [5]. dϕ V cos γ cos ψ
For various reasons, the traditional predictor–corrector guidance
(3)
dt r
method is not directly used in the RCV vertical recovery. First, as an
entry vehicle, a space shuttle has a considerably higher lift-to-drag
(L∕D) ratio than an RCV, which means that an RCV has limited
maneuver ability and that it can only meet the location requirements dV

−X − gr sin γ − gϕ cos γ cos ψ  CV (4)
of the recovery point. Second, an RCV looks such as an arrow with a dt
grid wing, and can simultaneously control both pitch and yaw
postures. The existing prediction guidance method is based on the
space shuttle or Mars detector [6], which used the BTT method [7,8];
2 
dγ Y V cos γ
thus, the corresponding dynamic equation must also be modified.
 − gr  gϕ sin γ cos ψ  Cγ (5)
Finally, as shown in Fig. 1, when an RCV returns, the engine is on the dt V r V
front, the reentry environment is complex, the aerodynamic model is
difficult to determine, and the error associated with the guidance
method is large; therefore, it is difficult to achieve high-precision
landing. Kozynchenko proposed a pneumatic recognition algorithm dψ Z V

−  cos γ sin ψ tan ϕ  gϕ sin γ cos ψ  Cψ (6)
for a model with uncertain aerodynamics [9]. However, the author dt V cos γ r
performed only a plane trajectory analysis that is not applicable for an
RCV. Therefore, because the aerodynamic coefficient is large and in which r is the radial distance from the planet center to the vehicle; θ
there is a requirement for high accuracy, it is necessary to improve the and ϕ are the longitude and geocentric latitude, respectively; V is
current predictor–corrector method to adjust for the complex the planet relative velocity; γ is the flight-path angle of the planet
environment. relative velocity vector; and ψ is the heading angle of the same
This paper provides an adaptive predictive entry guidance
velocity vector, measured clockwise in the local horizontal plane
method with the RCV during atmospheric entry. The algorithm first
from the north. The gravitational acceleration components gr and gω ,
focuses on applying the predictor–corrector algorithm to the RCV,
considering only the J 2 zonal terms, are
which configures the grid wing, changes the control variable from σ
to α and β, and then sets coefficients αk and βk to control α and β 
2 
μ R
for the entire entry phase. Second, based on an analysis of gr
2 1  J2 0 1.5–4.5sin2 ϕ (7)
the error between the onboard model calculation results and the r r
measured data, an onboard adaptive aerodynamic fitting method is
designed. This algorithm combines all kinds of aerodynamic
deviations into two acceleration deviation coefficients (KD and KL ) 
2 
μ R0
to correct the prediction and reduce the error of the method. gϕ
J 2 3 sin ϕ cos ϕ (8)
Considering that the RCV is not a lifting body and has an insufficient r2 r
control force to meet both terminal velocity and position
requirements. This algorithm only focuses on the terminal position in which μ is the gravitational parameter; R0 is the equatorial radius of
constraint. The numerical results show that the adaptive predictive the planet; for Earth, the zonal coefficient J2 is taken to be
entry guidance algorithm can accurately identify aerodynamic J2
0.00108263; Cv , Cr , and Cψ account for the contribution of
acceleration errors and greatly improve the accuracy of predictive Coriolis acceleration and convected acceleration; and ωe is the
guidance. self-rotation rate of a planet.

CV
ω2e rcos2 ϕ sin γ − cos ϕ sin ϕ cos ψ cos γ (9)

II. RCV Entry Dynamic Model
The three-dimensional equations of the motion of an RCV inside
the atmosphere of an ellipsoidal rotating planet are [10,11]
ω2e r
Cγ
2ωe sin ψ cos ϕ  cos ϕsin ϕ cos ψ sin γ  cos ϕ cos γ
dr V

V sin γ (1)
dt (10)
 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG 3

ω2e r cos ϕ sin ϕ sin ψ In Eqs. (14) and (15), αmax and βmax are the attack-angle and the
Cψ
2ωe sin ϕ − cos ψ tan γ cos ϕ  (11) sideslip-angle limits, respectively, which are obtained by analyzing
V cos γ
the aerodynamic parameters of the grid wing; most of the time, these
X, Y, and Z in Eqs. (4–6) are aerodynamic drag, lift, and yaw terms are equal. In addition, ts is the standard trajectory stop guidance
accelerations (not forces), respectively. Note that, during the RCV time, and t is the current guidance time. In this way, the curves of α
atmosphere reentry, there is a rocket-bottom alignment velocity and β will be diagonal lines that change over time and are truncated at
vector. Therefore, angle of attack α and sideslip angle β are defined as αmax and βmax .
the angle between the rocket bottom (not the rocket head) and the
velocity vector, and thus, aerodynamic acceleration is as follows: X is III. New High-Precision Predictive Entry Guidance
aligned in the direction of the center of mass to the rocket bottom; Y is Method
perpendicular to X in the normal plane; and X, Y, and Z constitute a
right-hand coordinate system (shown in Fig. 2). To improve the guidance accuracy, it is necessary to decrease the
The aerodynamic acceleration equations are methodical error between the onboard model and the actual flight
conditions. Thus, the adaptive predictive entry guidance is divided
2 3 2 3 into two phases: an onboard adaptive aerodynamic fitting phase and a
X CD qS predictive-guidance phase. The research framework of this algorithm
6 7 16 7
4 Y 5
4 CL αqS 5 (12) is shown in Fig. 3.
m
Z CL βqS The method of fitting the deviation phase is designed to calculate
the aerodynamic acceleration deviations K D and KL (which are
defined as lift and drag acceleration deviations, respectively)
in which the dynamic pressure q is defined as
onboard. The predictor–corrector phase uses the coefficient to revise
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450

the error associated with the method to improve the guidance

1
q
ρV 2 (13) accuracy.
2
A. Onboard Adaptive Aerodynamic Fitting Method
CD and CL in Eq. (12) are the aerodynamic drag and lift coefficients,
respectively. Because the RCV is a symmetric rotational structure, we In Eqs. (12) and (13), the atmospheric parameters, the
can use CL to describe both the lift and yaw force coefficients. aerodynamic coefficient, and the current mass of the rocket will
Most existing predictive-guidance algorithms are based on affect the current aerodynamic acceleration. Even though these
the quasi-equilibrium glide condition [9]. However, an RCV is not parameters are difficult to measure and vary greatly, the predictor
controlled by BTT; thus, in Eqs. (4–6) and (12), X, Y, Z, α, and β are guidance algorithm must combine them. As such, the precision of the
used instead of L, D, and σ. In Eq. (12), it can be considered that α and predictive-guidance algorithm depends entirely on the error between
β can control the direction and value of aerodynamic acceleration, the binding and actual parameters.
and ultimately determine the flight path of the rocket. Considering Therefore, the aerodynamic acceleration equation can be written as
the process of RCV reentry into the atmosphere, the atmospheric 2 3 2 3
Xm K C ρ rV 2S
density increases during the descent phase, thereby increasing the 1 6
6 7 D Dm m m
7
aerodynamic acceleration. However, when approaching shutdown, 4 Ym 5
4 KL CLm αρm rV 2 Sm 5 (16)
2mm 2
the RCV does not want a large deviation in the attitude angle because Zm K L CLm βρm rV Sm
it is not conducive to engine startup and attitude control. Therefore,
control parameters αk and βk are introduced to control the curve of α in which the subscript m refers to the binding data onboard;
and β throughout the reentry: ρm r refers to the binding atmospheric density curve; K D and K L are
 the aerodynamic acceleration deviations; and X m , Y m , and Zm
−αK t − ts  if jαj ≤ jαmax j are aerodynamic drag, lift acceleration, and yaw acceleration,
α
(14)
αmax if jαj ≥ jαmax j respectively, which are calculated from binding data.


−βK t − ts  if jβj ≤ jβmax j
β
(15)
βmax if jβj ≥ jβmax j

Fig. 2 Landing and Body coordinate system. Fig. 3 Adaptive aerodynamic fitting method research framework.
 4 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG

8
Table 1 Deviation values >
< GV
−gr sin γ− gϕ cos γ cos ψ
>
Gγ
Vr − gr cosV γ  gϕ sin γ cos ψ
2
Parameter Values (19)
ρ 20% >
>
: Gψ
V cos γ sin ψ tan ϕ  gϕ sin γ cos ψ
CD 20% r
CL 20%
m, kg 10
V, m∕s 50 3) In Eq. (18), it can be found that the drag and lift aerodynamic
X, m 5000
acceleration errors are only related to coefficients KD and KL .
Therefore, Eq. (16) can be substituted into Eq. (18), which simplifies
the calculation of the deviation coefficient.
Table 2 Guidance binding parameters In this section, the adaptive aerodynamic fitting method under the
current state is derived. In the actual calculation, the coefficients are
Parameter Values fit in each step and used as the entire entry phase deviation.
ρ 1.225e–r∕7717
CD 0.6 B. RCV Entry Predictive-Guidance Model
CL 0.3
m, kg 32,677 In Eq. (12) and Fig. 3, it is apparent that the control values are α and
αmax and βmax , rad 0.1 β, which are determined by coefficients αk and βk . Obviously, these
two coefficients will affect the longitude and latitude of the landing
point, respectively; thus, the linear iteration method cannot be used to
determine them. Therefore, their values can be iterated by calculating
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450

After introducing the deviation coefficient, coefficient fitting can

be performed with the following steps: the partial derivatives.
1) At the ith control correction, record the current state At the ith step, the partial derivatives are first calculated by Eq. (20)
ri ; θi ; ϕi ; V i ; γ i ; ψ i ; based on the current control values αk and βk , and used to form the Jacobian matrix:
predict the next step state rt ; θt ; ϕt ; V t ; γ t ; ψ t .
2) At the next control correction, record the state i  1
ri1 ; θi1 ; ϕi1 ; V i1 ; γ i1 ; ψ i1 ; in Eqs. (12) and (16), the errors of
[V, γ, ψ] are related to the aerodynamic acceleration error between the
actual value and the value calculated onboard. If the error of
aerodynamic acceleration is null and the aerodynamic lift and yaw
coefficients are the same, then the following equation is obtained:

V t − V i1
0
(17)
cos γ t cos ψ t − cos γ i1 cos ψ i1
0

Substituting Eqs. (4–6) into Eq. (17) and ignoring acceleration due to
the rotation of Earth, Eq. (18) is derived:
8
>
< V i −X m GV
V i1
   
(18)
: cos γ i  V Gγ cos ψ i − V cosγ Gψ
cosγ i1 cosψ i1
Ym Zm
>

The parameters GV , Gγ , and Gψ are the vectors of gravity

acceleration: Fig. 5 Comparison of measured and fitting deviations.

Fig. 4 Measured and fitting deviations.

 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG 5
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450

Fig. 6 Launch coordinate system trajectory.

2 3 2 3
∂θ ∂θ θf − θα θf − θβ In Eq. (21), dαk and dβk are the increments of coefficients αk and
6 ∂α ∂β 7 6 Δα ΔβK 7 βk . These equations can be solved using the elimination method.
6 K7 6 7
JαK  ΔαK ; βK  ΔβK 
6 K 7
6
K
7 Because Eqs. (1–6) are nonlinear, Eq. (21) may have to be calculated
4 ∂ϕ ∂ϕ 5 4 ϕf − ϕα ϕf − ϕβ 5 two or three times before Δθ and Δϕ achieve their required
∂αK ∂βK ΔαK ΔβK accuracies.
(20)
in which θf and ϕf are the longitude and the geocentric latitude,
respectively, at the termination of the entry phase; and θα , ϕα , θβ , and IV. Evaluation via Monte Carlo Simulation
ϕβ are the calculated partial derivatives. The phase endpoint is A. Guidance Binding Parameters and Deviation Value
predicted once using the current αk and βk , and the errors of the phase
endpoint longitude and the geocentric latitude are written as Δθ and To best simulate the environment and the possible deviations of the
Δϕ. Then, the simultaneous equations are shown as Eq. (21): actual flight, the main function uses relatively accurate atmospheric
parameter interpolation tables to calculate the current state. Multiple
2 3 deviations are introduced for the combined calculation, as shown in
∂θ ∂θ " # " #
6 ∂α 7 Table 1, in which V and X are the initial velocity and the position
6 K ∂βK 7 dαK Δθ
6 7
(21) deviation, respectively, which are random values within a given
4 ∂ϕ ∂ϕ 5 dβK Δϕ interval and have random directions. Then, we obtain new
∂αK ∂βK r; θ; ϕ; V; γ; ψ as initial values.

Fig. 7 Curves of α and β during entry.

 6 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG
Fig. 8 Shutdown point deviation.
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450
Following Eq. (16), the guidance binding parameters are shown in
Table 2.
In Table 2, the binding parameters are very simple; thus, there must
be a large error during the entry phase. The parameters αmax and βmax
are estimated values that limit α and β.
B. Result of the Adaptive Aerodynamic Fitting Method
Under the effects of various deviations, the measured and fitted
deviations of a trajectory are shown in Fig. 3.
KD and K L are measured deviations. In Fig. 4, it is apparent that
coefficients K Dm and KLm are produced as straight lines twice. This is
because, in the beginning, the RCV flies high and atmospheric
density is very low, leading to very few aerodynamic forces.
Therefore, the predicted velocity at each step is not much different
from the measured velocity, for which the adaptive aerodynamic
fitting method does not work. At the end of the flight, stop guidance
time ts was reached, which is designed to prevent deviation near the
end of the flight due to a high attack angle, which affects the flight
stability.
Figure 5 shows that, when the adaptive aerodynamic fitting
method is working, the difference between the measured and fitting
deviations is small and the algorithm achieves the expected results.
C. Results of the Monte Carlo Simulation
To verify the effectiveness of the method proposed in this paper,
Fig. 6 shows the trajectory of the RCV vertical recovery at the launch
site, which is under a launch coordinate system because γ is steep, and
the latitude and longitude change only slightly.
Figure 6 shows that, with the guidance method, the RCV flies
directly toward its intended landing point. In Fig. 7, α and β are shown
during entry. It is apparent that α and β gradually decrease as height
decreases, and are visibly limited by amplitude in the upper
atmosphere.
The results of 1000 Monte Carlo simulations are shown in Fig. 8 as
the X and Z direction position deviations under the launch coordinate
system.
The deviation analysis of the shutdown point along the X and Z
axes is shown in Table 3. The deviation of the final shutdown point is
very small, and a meter-scale guidance precision can be attained,
which is better than a typical predictor–corrector entry guidance
algorithm.
Table 3 Deviation analysis
Recovery at launch site Recovery on ship
X Z X Z
Mean value –9.9 15.7 13.8 –10.6
Variance 1.7 21 39.6 56.3
V. Conclusions
In this paper, a high-precision adaptive predictive entry guidance
method for the vertical recovery of an reusable core vehicle (RCV)
is presented. Based on the characteristic of predictive algorithms
that the onboard model can be changed easily, the dynamic model
of predictive guidance is modified to make the method suitable for
RCV vertical recovery. In addition, an adaptive aerodynamic fitting
method is added to decrease the discrepancies between the onboard
model and the actual environment before the predictive phase. The
fitting method used the output value of inertial measurement unit as
input directly. Thus, a filter is needed to decrease the measurement
error, which will be calculated into the KD and KL . The simulation
results demonstrate that the algorithm is very robust and provides
better accuracy than the traditional prediction guidance algorithm.
The deviation analysis shows that the adaptive predictive entry
guidance method is suitable for the two methods of RCV vertical
recovery.
The development of an entry guidance algorithm that uses a
numerical predictor–corrector algorithm to develop a reference
trajectory is promising. The problem of guidance deviation caused
by then the conformity between the binding model and the actual
flight environment is solved by adding the onboard aerodynamic
acceleration fitting method before the predictive-guidance calculation.
With the adaptive aerodynamic fitting method and the new iteration
method, when both α and β are added, even though the required
computational time and resources are more than the requirements of a
typical predictor–corrector guidance method, the adaptive predictive
entry guidance method has better precision.
References
[1] Horvath, T. J., Aubuchon, V. V., Rufer, S., Campbell, C., Schwartz, R.,
Mercer, C. D., Tack, S., Spisz, T. S., Gibson, D., Osei-Wusu, K., et al.,
“Advancing Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Technology Readiness:
Infrared Observations of the SpaceX Falcon 9 First Stage,” 2017 AIAA
SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, AIAA Paper 2017-
5294, Sept. 2017,
doi:10.2514/6.2017-5294
[2] Lu, P., “Propellant-Optimal Powered Descent Guidance,” Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2017, pp. 813–826.
doi:10.2514/1.G003243
[3] Lu, P., “Adaptive Powered Descent Initiation and Fuel-Optimal
Guidance for Mars Applications,” 2018 AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference, AIAA SciTech Forum, AIAA Paper 2018-
0616, Jan. 2018.
doi:10.2514/6.2018-0616
[4] Wang, T., Zhao, H. B., Zeng, L., and Tang, G. J., “A Robust Predictor-
Corrector Entry Guidance,” Aerospace Science and Technology,
Vol. 66, July 2017, pp. 103–111.
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2017.03.010
 Article in Advance / BOJUN, ZHANCHAO, AND GANG
[5] Lu, P., “Entry Guidance: A Unified Method,” Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2014, pp. 713–728.
doi:10.2514/1.62605
[6] Kluever, C. A., “Entry Guidance Performance for Mars Precision
Landing,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 6,
2008, pp. 1537–1544.
doi:10.2514/1.36950
[7] Casoliva, J., Lyons, D. T., Wolf, A. A., and Mease, K. D., “Robust
Guidance via a Predictor-Corrector Algorithm with Drag Tracking for
Aero-Gravity Assist Maneuvers,” AIAA Paper 2008-6816, Aug. 2008.
doi:10.2514/6.2008-68s16
[8] Lafleur, J. M., “The Conditional Equivalence of ΔV Minimization and
Apoapsis Targeting in Numerical Predictor-Corrector Aerocapture
Guidance,” NASA, Johnson Space Center TM-2011-216156, Houston,
TX, Aug. 2011.
Downloaded by 93.179.90.176 on September 16, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A34450
7
[9] Kozynchenko, A. I., “Analysis of Predictive Entry Guidance for a Mars
Lander Under High Model Uncertainties,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 68,
Nos. 1–2, 2011, pp. 121–132.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.08.005
[10] Miele, A., Zhao, Z. G., and Lee, W. Y., “Optimal Trajectories for the
Aeroassisted Flight Experiment. Part 1: Equations of Motion in an
Earth-Fixed System,” NASA CR-186134, 1989.
doi:10.1016/0094-5765(90)90116-3
[11] Shen, Z. J., and Lu, P., “On-Board Generation of Three-Dimensional
Constrained Entry Trajectories,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2003, pp. 111–121.
doi:10.2514/2.5021
C. Bonnal
Associate Editor