Review

Concurrent Engineering: Research

and Applications
Research and development techniques 2018, Vol. 26(3) 215–230
Ó The Author(s) 2018
for early-warning satellite systems Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

using concurrent engineering DOI: 10.1177/1063293X18768668

journals.sagepub.com/home/cer

Fuyu Sun, Hua Wang and Jianping Zhou

Abstract
An early-warning satellite system is a complex project that requires the participation of many aerospace academies and
scientific institutions. In terms of software programming, this study proposes a new simulation integrated management
platform for the analysis of parallel and distributed systems. The platform facilitates the design and testing of both appli-
cations and architectures. To improve the efficiency of project development, new early-warning satellite systems are
designed based on the simulation integrated management platform. In terms of project management, this study applies
concurrent engineering theory to aerospace engineering and presents a method of collaborative project management.
Finally, through a series of experiments, this study validates the simulation integrated management platform, models, and
project management method. Furthermore, the causes of deviation and prevention methods are explained in detail. The
proposed simulation platform, models, and project management method provide a foundation for further validations of
autonomous technology in space attack–defense architecture research.

Keywords
early-warning satellite system, simulation integrated management platform, modeling method, collaborative project man-
agement, concurrent engineering

Introduction these advantages, space-based early-warning systems

In modern warfare technology, ballistic missiles are
important weapons that are being researched and
developed by several countries (Simon and Dan, 2012).
In addition, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS),
which are used to detect, intercept, and destroy enemy
ballistic missile warheads with loss of offensive capabil-
ity, is becoming more advanced, and their weaponry
and control capabilities are increasingly powerful
(Handberg, 2015).
Space-based early-warning systems play an impor-
tant role in BMDS and present several advantages
compared with ground-, sea-, and air-based early-warn-
ing systems. For instance, they are not restricted by
national boundaries and geographical conditions and
have a wider detection range. Moreover, they have the
ability to perform all-weather monitoring at key
regions, with more powerful detection and coverage
(Garrett et al., 2011). It is also difficult to interfere with
or attack systems that are operating in space. Due to
are attracting significant attention.
Contemporary research on early-warning satellite
systems has focused on the following aspects: (1) the
tracking algorithm, which is mainly related to single/
multiple target tracking and to the enhancement of the
tracking accuracy (Buontempo, 2015; Li and Jilkov,
2010); (2) the optimal design of the constellation con-
figuration, mainly to improve the ground or space cov-
erage (Li et al., 2016; Meziane et al., 2016); and (3) the
satellite scheduling method, mainly in view of routine
missions and unexpected missions, and the planning
and scheduling of satellite-borne sensors (Luo, 2015;
College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of
Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan, China
Corresponding author:
Fuyu Sun, College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National
University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, Hunan, China.
Email: sunfuyu89@126.com
216
Xhafa et al., 2012). Most contemporary research is lim-
ited to specific parts, and the literature lacks studies on
the simulation of entire systems and the relations
among subsystems. To fill the research gaps in this
domain, we study the characteristics of an early-
warning satellite system by employing concurrent engi-
neering for software programming and project manage-
ment. In this study, we lay the foundations for a real
system and follow-up development.
The simulation of early-warning satellite systems is a
complicated task. It is necessary to verify the reliability
and security of the mission through a distributed simu-
lation (Cai et al., 2007). Several countries or space
agencies have invested time and resources in building
suitable simulation platforms in related domains
(Garrett et al., 2011). These platforms play a highly
important role in the ground tests.
Due to the large number of domains in the field of
distributed systems, developing a universal simulator is
impractical and unfeasible. Naturally, all researchers
set their own objectives and requirements; therefore,
each simulator is developed for a specific purpose
(Chaudron et al., 2014). As existing simulators gener-
ally do not fulfill the requirements of a new project,
researchers typically modify an existing simulator or
code a new one. However, coding a simulator anew is a
very complex task.
Moreover, a project such as an early-warning satel-
lite system requires the participation of many aerospace
academies and scientific institutions. It is important to
attain efficient management for such complex projects.
To date, many researchers have accomplished consider-
able work on the key technologies in the field of con-
current engineering, and most of them have focused on
collaboration and team work (Aleisa et al., 2011;
Cosxkun et al., 2016; Prasad, 1999). Some researchers
have applied concurrent engineering technology to
aerospace engineering. For example, Ahmed et al.
(2013) presented a transformation process toward lean
product development in the aerospace industry, and
Gabriel et al. (2012) examined particular issues associ-
ated with the application of contingencies and margins
in the concurrent engineering environment with consid-
eration of resource management techniques and stan-
dards in the aerospace industry. Imbert and Li (2010)
proposed a new approach for product development in
the spacecraft production industry using aerospace
concurrent engineering, with the primary focus on the
technology itself, its optimal design, and environment
impact. These research results provide important theo-
retical support for the development, management, and
production of complex engineering systems, particu-
larly for aerospace engineering projects.
In this study, concurrent engineering is combined
with modern advanced simulation technology to
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)
analyze the research and development techniques of
early-warning satellite systems. In terms of software
programming, we propose a new simulation integrated
management (SIM) platform, which is oriented toward
analyzing and studying parallel applications on distrib-
uted systems in the aerospace domain (in the present
study, application to an early-warning satellite system).
SIM has been designed to provide flexibility, accuracy,
performance, and scalability. These features make it a
powerful simulation platform for designing, testing,
and analyzing both actual and potential architectures.
Simulation systems range from a single computing
node to a complete high-performance distributed sys-
tem. Regarding project management, this study ana-
lyzes the project characteristics of an early-warning
satellite system and presents a method of collaborative
project management that combines organization, inte-
gration, time, communication, and risk. This simula-
tion platform and project management method have
been applied to numerical simulations by the China
Manned Space Engineering Office (Zhou, 2011).
The remainder of this study is structured as follows.
In section ‘‘Requirements,’’ specific requirements
regarding the application, simulator, and project man-
agement are presented. In section ‘‘The SIM platform,’’
the SIM platform is introduced, and its features, archi-
tecture, operation process, and modeling specifications
are discussed. In section ‘‘Modeling method,’’ the trans-
formation method of an early-warning satellite
system is described, from the mathematical model to
the SIM-compatible simulation module. In section
‘‘Experimental design,’’ an experimental design to test
the performance of the proposed system is presented.
Section ‘‘Collaborative project management’’ intro-
duces the collaborative project management approach
in terms of organization, integration, time, communica-
tion, and risk. In section ‘‘Main results and analysis,’’
the experimental results and analysis are presented.
Finally, in section ‘‘Conclusion and future work,’’ the
conclusions to this study and ideas for future work are
discussed.
Requirements
We analyze the requirements of early-warning satellite
systems in terms of the simulation platform, modeling,
and project management. This facilitates the identifica-
tion of specific follow-up tasks.
Simulation platform requirements
Considering the common problems of simulation plat-
forms for different types of aerospace missions, it is
necessary to understand the structure of a new platform
and the relationship among function layers prior to the
Sun et al.
design process. It is imperative that we ensure sufficient
versatility, standardization, and extendibility of the
platform (Sun et al., 2017). Special attention should be
paid to the following key points:
1. The missile attack–defense architecture includes
ground-based, air-based, and space-based early-
warning systems. Furthermore, space-based early-
warning systems usually refer to low earth orbit
(LEO), geostationary orbit (GEO), and high earth
orbit (HEO) early-warning constellations. In total,
several dozen satellites are usually involved. We
need to develop models for each satellite, as well as
for satellite-borne sensors, constellation schedul-
ing, communication links, and other aspects.
Understandably, the entire missile attack–defense
architecture is extremely complex, requiring the
specialization and cooperation of multiple agents.
A simulation platform with strong model adapt-
ability can simplify the development of the model-
ing process and could ensure the smooth
implementation of system integration.
2. In space-based early-warning system simulation
missions, different types of constellation configura-
tions, satellite-borne sensors, and ballistic missiles
must be tested (Hu et al., 2017). The experimental
results generated by a combination of different
types of objects must be analyzed. If the models
cannot be separated from the platform, we would
need to modify the internal code of the platform;
this would lead to an unacceptable workload.
3. The absence of a good interface complicates the
experimental design and may increase the occur-
rence of mistakes. Moreover, regarding complex
aerospace engineering system simulations, particu-
larly ballistic missile attack–defense system simula-
tions including hundreds of models, if there is no
friendly user interface, the task of experimental
design will become very difficult and repetitive,
and it would be extremely easy to make mistakes.
Model requirements
The realization of an early-warning satellite system sets
higher requirements for the project system, such as
higher precision of satellite orbital predictions, more
powerful satellite-borne sensor detections, shorter
response periods for orbital determination, and higher
precision key-point estimations. Aspects of the entire
project that need to be verified should be presented,
such as full mission profile verification, mission soft-
ware verification, deviation analysis strategy, and the
visualization display for mission scenarios.
217
Project management requirements
Aerospace engineering is recognized as a multidisciplin-
ary science. Moreover, an early-warning satellite system
involves the participation of many scientific institu-
tions. Functional division and organization manage-
ment that is clear, rational, and concise will be
advantageous in the initial project stages.
Integration is an important segment of system simu-
lations. In macro terms, integration management
includes the project quality, scope, cost, time, and other
elements; from a micro perspective, it also includes the
model assembly, experimental design, system debug-
ging, and other project-specific jobs. The purpose of
integration management is to manage all aspects of the
project through composition, coordination, and inte-
gration, thus facilitating the development of the overall
program and the implementation plan of the specific
stage (Demoly et al., 2013). This will ensure the overall
success of the project.
The constraints of aircraft launch times and launch
windows must be considered in aerospace missions.
Therefore, time management in the development of the
project is very stringent. The institutions involved in the
project development stage may be located in different
cities; the ground stations, marine surveillance ships,
and command posts in the launch and in-orbit opera-
tion stages may be distributed across the country and
even around the world. Strong communication manage-
ment is required to achieve effective communication
and ensure correct and credible information (Maier
et al., 2008).
Aerospace projects usually have the high-risk char-
acteristics of high costs, technical complexity, and
numerous uncertainties (Watson et al., 2006). One of
the top priorities of risk management is to take full
account of various emergencies and make contingencies
to minimize the risks.
The SIM platform
Basic architecture
A simulation platform is the key to an overall simula-
tion system. To integrate different types of models, a
simulation platform should provide support for differ-
ent simulation applications. The universalization, stan-
dardization, and scalability of the simulation platform
will reduce the difficulties of developing the system and
the time frame required for the establishment of the
model. Therefore, the quality of a platform is the eva-
luation standard for a simulation system. The universa-
lization of a simulation system refers to its ability to
adapt to several types of applications. In this study,
various ground tests were considered for early-warning
218
Figure 1. Global architecture of the SIM platform.
satellite systems. Standardization emphasizes the speci-
ficity among functional layers and is the criterion for
platform–platform and platform–model connections.
Scalability requires the SIM platform to cooperate with
other simulation tools by performing different roles.
There are two main scenarios: integrating an external
simulator within SIM and integrating the SIM frame-
work within another simulator. Figure 1 shows the glo-
bal architecture of SIM.
The SIM platform integrates the management of the
models, experiments, distribution, operations, data,
and nodes. Model management can unify different
types of models by conducting operations using entire
models or by amending the information of a single
model. The design of module is based on a layered
design theory that separates the platform from the
models, model description, and model realization; this
is convenient for modeling, experiment designs, and the
subsequent construction of a simulation system.
Experiment management is mainly applied for the
assembly of models using visualization software,
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)
configuration of connections among models, and deter-
mination of model attributes. This module establishes a
communication bridge between the user and the simu-
lation system. A good user interface creates a pleasant
user experience and simplifies the entire process of
simulation experiments. Note that a layered design the-
ory is also used for the experiment management, with
models and model connections separated to increase
the flexibility of the test design and the reusability of
the models.
The idea of ‘‘distributed calculation, concentrated
management’’ has been adopted for the distribution
management. Thus, each model and its parameters are
distributed to each node based on the simulation sce-
narios. The user can either operate the models on the
node or operate the models remotely through the com-
puter itself. Related information is presented on the test
interface.
The operation management considers the responsi-
bility of driving different types of models and distribu-
ted scheduling. Moreover, operation management can
Sun et al.
Figure 2. Organizational structure relationships.
be employed to monitor the state of a node and save
data at a breakpoint.
Data management is deployed on the management
node and is responsible for collecting simulation data
from the computing nodes and displaying them in the
form of a diagram or report. Data management
requires a real-time data display and centralized data
processing.
Node management is applied on each computing
node to guard the node, conduct the model scheduling,
and report the node’s state. Such functions are con-
ducted in cooperation with the management node.
Operation process
The SIM platform combines the functions of modeling,
simulation, and evaluation. The application of the SIM
platform is now described according to the aforemen-
tioned functions. The relationships within the organiza-
tional structure are shown in Figure 2.
Modeling. Users apply the model development tool to
create a model program framework. The core algo-
rithm of the model design can be found in the model
algorithm library, and a debugging environment is pro-
vided alongside a model debugging tool. The model is
then stored in the library by means of the model man-
agement tool.
According to the simulation requirements, specific
models can be selected from the aerospace model
library. After the visual assembly and configuration of
the parameters according to the aerospace parameter
library, an experimental scenario file is output and
saved to the scenario simulation library.
219
Simulation. Users operate the distribution management
tool to obtain the scenario file from the simulation sce-
nario library. The scenario file contains model informa-
tion, distribution information, and so on. The node
management tool participates in the distribution pro-
cess. The operation management tool is applied to
drive the model on each node, with the cooperation of
the node management tool. The distribution manage-
ment tool and the operation management tool are
assisted by the distribution middleware.
Evaluation. The data management tool obtains the
model output from each node and can save data at
breakpoints during model operation. In addition, it
can collect results from all nodes at the end of the
experiment. All data are saved to the experiment
database.
Modeling specifications
Currently, the SIM platform can drive three types of
models, hereafter referred to as Models A, B, and C.
Model A is a type of simulation subsystem software
that can independently operate in a Windows environ-
ment. It exists in the form of an executable program
(.exe). The connections of Model A include basic model
information, initial parameters, inputs, outputs, and
specific files related to the executable program. SIM
drives Model A by means of memory mapping. The file
mapping of the memory, which is assigned based on the
model name, responds to control commands to com-
plete the model initialization, operation, stopping, time-
hopping, and data recycling, among other functions.
Model B exists in the form of a dynamic link library
(.dll), which is mainly composed of three special
220
functions (see Appendix 1). The data interface of
Model B must be standardized for user interaction.
The forms of the model ports are pParam, pInput, and
pOutput. The pParam port is the pointer for the initia-
lization parameters, representing specific constant
parameters that describe the model characteristics. In
addition, pInput is used to reserve the parameters
whenever any changes are imported into the model.
Similarly, pOutput is used to reserve the parameters
exported from the model. Model C denotes models
constructed in MATLAB (.m). These have no fixed
program template, but do require fixed files.
In this study, early-warning satellite system models
were developed in the form of Model B. Thus, we focus
on the modeling and driving method of Model B. The
simulation engine deals with different types of models
in various approaches. For Model B, the most impor-
tant part of the engine is the callback function. This is
the bridge between the platform and the models. At the
beginning of each simulation step, the simulation
engine can run the callback function to achieve the pur-
pose of driving the models.
The callback function is mainly composed of four
branch statements. It is only necessary to embed the
model functions of the Model B template (Listings 1 to
3) into the corresponding branch. The callback func-
tion contains platform instructions, and the simulation
engine drives the models according to these instruc-
tions. The callback function is given in Listing 4.
Modeling method
In the process of modeling an early-warning satellite
system, it is very important to consider the complicated
satellite dynamics and sensor detection conditions, the
high precision of the orbital determination, and the
estimation of key points. These factors require the cor-
relation modules to be sufficiently accurate. Regarding
the modeling, the developed program must conform to
the standard of each module type, particularly that of
the module ports. According to the requirements of the
system simulation, we built a SatDynamics module,
SensorDetect module, MisTrajDetermine module, and
MisKeyPointEst module according to the relevant
mathematical models.
Figure 3 shows the flow of information among the
modules. The SatDynamics module can be initialized
through the configuration file of the constellation,
which contains the orbit and attitude parameters of
each satellite at the initial time. In addition, the outputs
of the module are the orbit and attitude parameters of
each satellite, except for the state calculated through
extrapolation at each simulation time. The input of the
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)
Figure 3. Information flowchart of modules.
SensorDetect module is partially obtained from the
SatDynamics module and target orbital information,
which is loaded in the form of a configuration file. The
outputs of the module are observational data regarding
the target. The input of the MisTrajDetermine module
is partially obtained from the SatDynamics module and
SensorDetect module. The outputs of this module are
the target orbital estimation parameters after the filter-
ing process. The input of the MisKeyPointEst module
is partially obtained from the MisTrajDetermine mod-
ule and SensorDetect module. Information on the
launch and landing points of the target and other key
points is calculated based on the target orbital estima-
tion parameters.
In the process of modeling, we used a model tem-
plate to restrict the module ports. The aforementioned
modules were developed in the form of Model B. Each
module included the initial function MdlInit, step func-
tion MdlSim, and reprocessing function MdlEnd. The
three functions have a unified form, which makes mod-
ule development more convenient.
Figure 4 illustrates the class diagram of the early-
warning satellite system. From the diagram, we can
observe that the entire simulation system consists of
the SIM platform and the SatDynamics, SensorDetect,
MisTrajDetermine, and MisKeyPointEst modules.
The SatDynamics module includes the CSat Dynamics_
init, CSatDynamics_sim, and CSatDynamics_ end func-
tions. CSatDynamics_sim includes several functions that
refer to basic satellite dynamics, such as the coordinate sys-
tem transformation, orbital/attitude parameter transforma-
tion, and satellite orbital element prediction. This module
is the foundation and the key point for establishing the sys-
tem, and most of its outputs are used by other modules.
The SensorDetect module includes the CSensor
Detect_init, CSensorDetect_sim, and CSensorDetect_
end functions. This module simulates the satellite-borne
sensor operation principle for the calculation of satellite
Sun et al.
Figure 4. Class diagram of the early-warning satellite system.
observations using target orbital information. To simu-
late an actual disturbance, a random error is added to
the observational parameters.
The MisTrajDetermine module aims to mitigate
the effects of the observational random error in
order to determine the target. It consists of the
CMisTraj Determine_init, CMisTrajDetermine_sim,
and CMis TrajDetermine_end functions. The CMisTraj
Determine_sim function is encapsulated by two orbital
determination methods for single/dual satellite detec-
tion; these include specific filtering algorithms.
The MisKeyPointEst module includes the CMisKey
PointEst_init, CMisKeyPointEst_sim, and CMisKey
PointEst_end functions. This module is mainly used to
calculate the target launch/landing location using the
estimated target orbital parameters. Thus, the SIM
platform executes model management, experiment
management, distribution management, operation
management, data management, and node manage-
ment functions.
Experimental design
Testing is highly important in the verification of simula-
tion platforms. By analyzing the results of experiments,
the advantages and disadvantages of the platform and
the models can be identified. Regarding the models, we
221
can draw specific significant conclusions that could be
useful in future modeling studies. Moreover, the experi-
mental results provide baselines for estimating the
validity of the platform and the models.
We conducted a series of tests on the early-warning
satellite system. These tests focused on the satellite con-
stellation module, sensor detection module, orbital
determination module, and key-point estimation mod-
ule. The orbital data of the target were calculated via
the STK software. The results were then fed into the
sensor detection module as input from a data file.
After adding the models into the model base as
planned, we designed experiments using the experiment
management tool of the SIM platform. Note that the
interface between the modules must be matched cor-
rectly. In the event of a data type mismatch, SIM will
issue a warning regarding the nature of the error.
Before the final experiment, we needed to test each
module independently to ensure the validity of the mod-
els. The SIM debugging tool helped us to complete this
task, shortening the model development period, and
making the process more pleasant. Figure 5 shows the
interface of the experimental design tool.
The main aim of the testing is to solve the problem
of top-level and subsystem design based on the project
requirements. The purpose of the testing is divided into
four levels: (1) help experts work out the preliminary
222
Figure 5. Interface of the experimental design tool.
overall plan and technical indicators; (2) provide sup-
port for the joint simulation, and verify the interface
correctness and compatibility of the subsystems; (3) lay
the foundation for BMDS and subsequent operational
missions; and (4) make preparations for technical inno-
vation and mission evaluation.
The test procedure includes a monitoring strategy
analysis, normal operational process simulation, emer-
gency simulation, and other thematic simulations:
1. Monitoring strategy analysis. Analyze the structure
and deployment of the early-warning satellite con-
stellation, analyze the space coverage ability of the
constellation, and analyze the observation and
scheduling strategy of the constellation with respect
to the multiple targets.
2. Normal operational process simulation. Verify the
monitoring strategy, correctness of the interface
between subsystems, and convergence of each flight
phase and control command. The test period cov-
ers the entire mission process.
3. Emergency simulation. Research the influence of
satellite voidness and measurements regarding the
sudden emergence of new targets.
4. Other thematic simulations. Improve the precision
of short-arc orbital determination based on
the data fusion of ground-based, sea-based, and
air-based systems. Verify the correction and
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)
suitability of the technical requirements and preci-
sion index.
Collaborative project management
An early-warning satellite system requires the participa-
tion of many aerospace academies and scientific institu-
tions. It is important to achieve reasonable and efficient
management for such a complex project. This section
mainly discusses the management of the organization,
integration, time, communication, and risk.
Organization management
As shown in Figure 6, China Aerospace Science and
Industry Corp. (CASIC) plays the role of project mas-
ter for the overall design. The expert team is mainly in
charge of the design, decision, and evaluation.
Moreover, the project team concentrates on the practi-
cal implementation. The early-warning satellite system
can be divided into five subsystems: HEO satellite sys-
tem, LEO satellite system, space-borne sensor system,
telemetry track and command system, and ground con-
trol system. The relationship between CASIC and the
other teams relies on information feedback and mission
assignment. Moreover, the relationship between the
expert team and project team relies on information
feedback and project review.
Sun et al.
Figure 6. Organizational structure of project
Integration management
The main processes in this project are the execution and
control of the simulation. The integration management
Figure 7. Process of project programming.
223
plan is the prerequisite and foundation for the project
implementation. The lifecycle, contributory factors,
and entire system must be considered in accordance
with the project management system. The process of
project programming is shown in Figure 7.
Time management
Figure 8 shows the execution process of the plan. The
dynamic management and project assessment should
be strengthened in terms of the overall plan, stage
division, technical program, technical economics,
development process, major experiment items, and
design. Potential risks and technical difficulties within
the project organization and implementation must be
considered before the formation of the project plan.
The project must proceed according to the plan after
clearing the main mission nodes, risk, quality control
level, and other detailed requirements. Furthermore,
suggestions from the research and development units
are also important and must be taken into full
consideration.
224 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)

Figure 8. Execution process of the plan.

Communication management
To ensure that the schedule is implemented at all levels,
a detailed reporting and meeting system, such as weekly
scheduling, thematic scheduling, quality analysis, and
reviews, is established according to the responsibilities
and working characteristics of each project team. Each
week, the expert team should make a detailed assess-
ment on the progress of the entire project and solve
existing problems. The process of communication man-
agement is shown in Figure 9.

Risk management
The process of risk management is shown in Figure 10.
The system consists of three submodules, namely risk
identification, risk analysis, and risk treatment
modules.
The risk identification module mainly identifies the
project risk by analyzing the project characteristics and
the risk case statistics of the early-warning satellite sys-
tem. Finally, the risk classification and index system of
the entire project are established.
The risk analysis module mainly evaluates the over-
all project risk. This module provides a comprehensive
risk evaluation in terms of cost, schedule, and
performance.
The risk treatment module mainly compares the
result of the risk analysis module with the preset risk
level. If the preset risk level has not been exceeded, the
project will continue. Otherwise, effective measures
must be taken to reduce the risk, and it will be neces-
sary to return to the second module to re-evaluate the
risk until the end of the project.
Main results and analysis
This section consists of three parts. The first deals with
the monitoring of the runtime results using the
SIM.Data software as a data management tool within
the SIM platform. The second part concerns the post-
processing of the experimental data within MATLAB.
Figure 9. Process of communication management.
In the third part, the subject of deviation analysis is dis-
cussed. This section presents several meaningful conclu-
sions on the early-warning satellite system.
Monitoring of real-time operating results using the
SIM platform
A number of important model outputs were monitored
and controlled. Figures 11 and 12 present the real-time
estimations of the launch point and landing point,
which were obtained from the key-point estimation
model. The launch point estimation maintains a high
precision at the start of the simulation. The estima-
tion results vary within a small interval around the
true value (latitude/longitude is –39.696°/100.266°).
However, the estimation of the landing point displays
the opposite trend. As the number of sampling points
increases, the landing point estimation becomes more
accurate. The results then converge and approach the
actual value (latitude/longitude is –56.464°/–13.346°).
The final estimation of the launch/landing points has
a small deviation from the actual values.
Sun et al. 225

Figure 10. Process of risk management.

Figure 11. Launch point estimation (from the key-point estimation model).
226 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)

Figure 12. Landing point estimation (from the key-point estimation model).

quickly converges to the actual value after being

Table 1. Launch/landing point estimated at the boost phase detected. However, the landing point estimation is
terminus (in ECF coordinates).
a process of iterative corrections, with hysteretic
Actual Estimation Deviation convergence to the actual value.
(°) (°) (°)

Launch Latitude –39.696 –39.431 –0.27

point
Longitude 100.266 100.547 –0.28
Landing Latitude –56.464 –56.155 –0.31
point
Longitude –13.346 –13.001 –0.35
Post-processing of experimental results in MATLAB
We now describe the post-processing and analysis of
the launch/landing points. Figure 13 shows the fitting
process of the launch/landing point estimation. We can
draw the following meaningful conclusions:
1. At the boost phase terminus, the actual launch
point of the target is –39.696° (latitude), 100.266°
(longitude) and the landing point is –56.464° (lati-
tude), –13.346° (longitude) (Table 1). The estima-
tion results from the key-point model are –39.431°,
100.547° for the launch point and –56.155°, –
13.001° for the landing point. The deviation
between the actual and estimated data is less than
0.5°. Converted into distance, the deviation of the
launch point is 38.34 km and that of the landing
point is 40.55 km. This deviation is only acceptable
for high-orbit early-warning satellite systems with
observational information of the target at the
boost phase.
2. Because the two-body gravitation model was used
for the orbital model of the target, the launch point
Deviation analysis
Launch point estimation error.
The precise modeling of the target motion during the
boost phase is difficult because of the complexity and
diversity of physical models. Hence, there are likely to
be errors in the estimation of the launch point. The
boost phase presents different characteristics from the
rising, turning, and aiming phases. Moreover, multi-
stage targets exist. It is important to select a simple and
practical model to describe the actual motion features
of the target. The method of polynomial fitting can
solve this problem, along with orbit reconstruction and
launch point estimation. However, some deviation
between the reconstructed orbit and the actual orbit
will remain.
Early-warning satellite systems typically have a detec-
tion height of 30 km or more. Therefore, it is necessary
to estimate the launch point through orbit extrapola-
tion. The difference between the extrapolated orbit and
the real trajectory will result in estimation errors.
Landing point estimation error.
Target state error at burnout point. The estimation of
the landing point is calculated by orbit extrapolation
from the moment at which the burnout point is
reached. The estimation relies on the target state para-
meters of the burnout point. Hence, the estimation
accuracy of the burnout point directly affects the
Sun et al.
Figure 13. Launch/landing point fitting.
landing point estimation. The target state error at the
burnout point is affected by the determination of the
burnout point and the state estimation itself.
Model error. For the extra-atmospheric flight phase,
the model achieves high precision. However, for the re-
entry phase, the uncertainty in the aerodynamic coeffi-
cient of the missile and inaccuracy of the atmospheric
model makes it difficult to improve the accuracy of the
landing point estimation.
Height error of landing point. Assuming that that the
earth is a standard ellipsoid, we can obtain the landing
point at which the target orbit intersects with the earth.
The difference between the actual terrain elevation and
the earth ellipsoid model will result in an error in the
landing point estimation. Due to the steepness and
transience of the re-entry phase, this error can be
ignored. Moreover, we can utilize global elevation
information to satisfy the accuracy requirements and
improve the precision of the landing point estimation.
Conclusion and future work
In this study, concurrent engineering has been com-
bined with modern advanced simulation technology to
analyze the research and development techniques used
in early-warning satellite systems. In terms of software
programming, this study has presented a modeling and
simulation platform for investigating the complicated
applications of aerospace engineering systems. The pro-
posed SIM platform facilitates the design and testing
process of both applications and architectures.
SIM has a modular design in which the main compo-
nents are the basic systems of distributed architecture,
such as computing, memory, storage, and network
components. This design follows a hierarchical philoso-
phy, with basic modules grouped into larger modules.
227
In addition, SIM provides several modules for the simu-
lation of different components and modeling strategies.
Furthermore, the system uses a standardized interface
that allows the implementation of new modules.
A series of models for early-warning satellite systems
was developed. Relative mathematical models were
designed and simulation modules were configured and
executed in SIM. Our platform produced very satisfac-
tory results in terms of accuracy and performance.
Finally, the experimental results were post-processed in
MATLAB. Through a systematic analysis of the experi-
mental results, we comprehensively investigated the
deviations in the data and proposed reasonable model
improvements.
In terms of project management, this study analyzed
the project characteristics of early-warning satellite sys-
tems and presented a method of collaborative
project management covering organization, integration,
time, communication, and risk. The method provides a
solid guarantee of successful project completion.
Furthermore, it forms a management basis for other
complex aerospace projects.
Based on the results of this study, we plan to
upgrade the SIM platform from the engineering level
to the engagement level; SIM will become an excellent
simulation platform, with sufficient versatility and flex-
ibility for aerospace systems engineering. From the per-
spective of modeling development, a method for the
precise modeling of early-warning satellite systems is
greatly required. Modeling of space attack–defense
architecture will be promoted as the foundation of
national security strategies. Project management will be
appended by investigating a reward and punishment
mechanism. Ideas such as the dedication of team mem-
bers and load balancing across teams are other poten-
tial research pathways.
228
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ahmed AA, Golob M and Attia UM (2013) The transforma-
tion of product development process into lean environment
using set-based concurrent engineering: a case study from
an aerospace industry. Concurrent Engineering: Research
and Applications 21(4): 268–285.
Aleisa E, Suresh NC and Li L (2011) Team formation in con-
current engineering using group technology (GT) concepts.
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 19(3):
213–224.
Buontempo JT (2015) A trajectory for homeland ballistic mis-
sile defense. Defense & Security Analysis 31(2): 99–109.
Cai ZH, Xiao Z and Yao F (2007) Modeling/simulation of
space early warning system based on HLA and simulation
grid. Modern Defense Technology 35: 11–15.
Chaudron JB, Saussie D and Siron P (2014) Real-time distrib-
uted simulations in an HLA framework: application to air-
craft simulation. Simulation 90(6): 627–643.
Cosxkun H, Erdisx E and Genc x O (2016) Improving the perfor-
mance of construction projects by employing concurrent
engineering. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and
Architecture 31(2): 47–58.
Demoly F, Dutartre O, Yan XT, et al. (2013) Product rela-
tionships management enabler for concurrent engineering
and product lifecycle management. Computers in Industry
64(7): 833–848.
Gabriel K, Tupper H, Hume P, et al. (2012) Resource man-
agement and contingencies in aerospace concurrent engi-
neering. In: AIAA SPACE 2012 conference & exposition,
Pasadena, CA, 11–13 September 2012, pp. 1–15.
Garrett RK, Anderson S, Baron NT, et al. (2011) Managing
the interstitials: a system of systems framework suited for
the ballistic missile defense system. Systems Engineering
14(1): 87–109.
Handberg R (2015) The symbolic politics of ballistic missile
defense: seeking the perfect defense in an imperfect world.
Defense & Security Analysis 31(1): 44–57.
Hu YP, Huang JY and Chen L (2017) Space-based visible
observation strategy for beyond-LEO objects based on an
equatorial LEO satellite with multi-sensors. Advances in
Space Research 59(7): 1751–1762.
Imbert M and Li X (2010) Aerospace concurrent engineering:
a modern global approach. International Conference on
Space Information Technology 7651(1): 1–13.
Li XR and Jilkov VP (2010) Survey of maneuvering target
tracking. Part II: motion models of ballistic and space tar-
gets. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sys-
tems 46(1): 96–119.
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)
Li YJ, Zhao SH and Wu JL (2016) A general evaluation cri-
terion for the coverage performance of LEO constellations.
Aerospace Science and Technology 48: 94–101.
Luo KP (2015) Space-based infrared sensor scheduling with
high uncertainty: issues and challenges. Systems Engineer-
ing 18(1): 102–113.
Maier AM, Kreimeyer M, Hepperle C, et al. (2008) Explora-
tion of correlations between factors influencing communi-
cation in complex product development. Concurrent
Engineering: Research and Applications 16(1): 37–59.
Meziane TI, Métris G, Lion G, et al. (2016) Optimization of
small satellite constellation design for continuous mutual
regional coverage with multi-objective genetic algorithm.
International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems
9(4): 627–637.
Prasad B (1999) System integration techniques of sharing and
collaboration among work-groups, computers and pro-
cesses. Journal of Systems Integration 9(2): 115–139.
Simon AM and Dan R (2012) Ballistic missiles and interna-
tional conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 57(5): 854–880.
Sun FY, Wang H and Zhou JP (2017) Simulation integrated
management: a new type of simulation platform application
for aerospace systems engineering. Simulation 93(2): 149–171.
Watson P, Curran R, Murphy A, et al. (2006) Cost estima-
tion of machined parts within an aerospace supply chain.
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 14(1):
17–26.
Xhafa F, Sun JZ, Barolli A, et al. (2012) Genetic algorithms
for satellite scheduling problems. Mobile Information Sys-
tems 8(4): 351–377.
Zhou JP (2011) Rendezvous and docking technology of
manned space flight. Manned Spaceflight 2: 1–8.
Appendix 1
Model template
To clarify the functionality of the proposed SIM plat-
form, we present some supplementary explanation.
Appendix 1 introduces the model template as a supple-
ment to section ‘‘Modeling specifications.’’ Listings 1 to
3 present the code framework of Model B. Listing 4
presents the architecture of the callback function.
Currently, the SIM platform can drive three types of
models: an executable program (Model A), dynamic
link library (Model B), and MATLAB (Model C). The
following two points need to be noted:
1. The SIM platform drives Model A without the
assistance of model-driven software, whereas
Models B/C require the assistance of model-driven
software. The model-driven software is SIM.Dll
Drive/SIM.MatlabDrive, respectively. We have
independently developed these two model-driven
software programs.
2. In the programming phase, Models A and B
require fixed program templates. Users need only
Sun et al.
Listing 1. Initialization function.
Listing 2. Advanced function.
Listing 3. Stop function.
fill in the corresponding position in the template
with their own core code. Model C is a MATLAB
script with no fixed C++ program template. We
need to solve the problem of C++ /MATLAB
mixed programming to drive Model C.
229
Listing 4. Callback function.
Therefore, Listings 1 to 3 show the template for
Model B. We packaged a dynamic link library with a
fixed program template to restrain the initialization,
running, and post-processing functions. Listing 4 is the
template for Model A and represents a core function of
230 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 26(3)

model-driven software, herein referred to as SIM. from the SIM platform with the callback function, and
DllDrive/SIM.MatlabDrive. The main design idea of realize model-driven functionality. The model-driven
SIM.DllDrive/SIM.MatlabDrive is to parse the model software is like a bridge connecting the model with the
program information of Models B/C, execute orders SIM platform.

Author biographies
Fuyu Sun is studying for his PhD in the College of Aerospace Science and Engineering at the
National University of Defense Technology. His current research focuses on aerospace orbital
dynamics and control, as well as attack and defense system simulation.

Hua Wang is an associate professor in the College of Aerospace Science and Engineering at the
National University of Defense Technology. His current research focuses on aerospace systems
simulation.

Jianping Zhou is an academician at the Chinese Academy of Engineering. He has been serving as
chief commander and chief designer of China’s manned space flight projects. He is also the director
of the Chinese Society of Astronautics.