Control moment gyroscope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material
may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Control moment gyroscope" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

A control moment gyroscope (CMG) is an attitude control device generally used

in spacecraft attitude control systems. A CMG consists of a spinning rotor and one or more
motorized gimbals that tilt the rotor’s angular momentum. As the rotor tilts, the changing angular
momentum causes a gyroscopic torque that rotates the spacecraft. [1][2]

Contents

 1Mechanics
 2Design varieties
o 2.1Single-gimbal
o 2.2Dual-gimbal
o 2.3Variable-speed
o 2.4Spacecraft body
 3Potential problems
o 3.1Singularities
o 3.2Saturation
o 3.3Anti-parallel alignment
o 3.4Hitting the gimbal stops
 4Applications
o 4.1Skylab
o 4.2Gyrodynes on Salyut and Mir
o 4.3International Space Station
o 4.4Proposed
 5See also
 6Notes
 7References
 8External links

Mechanics[edit]
CMGs differ from reaction wheels. The latter apply torque simply by changing rotor spin speed, but
the former tilt the rotor's spin axis without necessarily changing its spin speed. CMGs are also far
more power efficient. For a few hundred watts and about 100 kg of mass, large CMGs have
produced thousands of newton meters of torque. A reaction wheel of similar capability would
require megawatts of power. [3]

Design varieties[edit]
Single-gimbal[edit]
The most effective CMGs include only a single gimbal. When the gimbal of such a CMG rotates, the
change in direction of the rotor's angular momentum represents a torque that reacts onto the body to
which the CMG is mounted, e.g. a spacecraft. Except for effects due to the motion of the spacecraft,
this torque is due to a constraint, so it does no mechanical work (i.e., requires no energy). Single-
gimbal CMGs exchange angular momentum in a way that requires very little power, with the result
that they can apply very large torques for minimal electrical input.
Dual-gimbal[edit]
Such a CMG includes two gimbals per rotor. As an actuator, it is more versatile than a single-gimbal
CMG because it is capable of pointing the rotor's angular momentum vector in any direction.
However, the torque generated by one gimbal's motion must often be reacted by the other gimbal on
its way to the spacecraft, requiring more power for a given torque than a single-gimbal CMG. If the
goal is simply to store angular momentum in a mass-efficient way, as in the case of the International
Space Station, dual-gimbal CMGs are a good design choice. However, if a spacecraft instead
requires large output torque while consuming minimal power, single-gimbal CMGs are a better
choice.
Variable-speed[edit]
Most CMGs hold rotor speed constant using relatively small motors to offset changes due to
dynamic coupling and non-conservative effects. Some academic research has focused on the
possibility of increasing and decreasing rotor speed while the CMG gimbals. Variable-speed CMGs
(VSCMGs) offer few practical advantages when considering actuation capability because the output
torque from the rotor is typically much smaller than that caused by the gimbal motion. The primary
practical benefit of the VSCMG when compared to the conventional CMG is an additional degree of
freedom—afforded by the available rotor torque—which can be exploited for continuous CMG
singularity avoidance and VSCMG cluster reorientation. Research has shown that the rotor torques
required for these two purposes are very small and within the capability of conventional CMG rotor
motors.  Thus, the practical benefits of VSCMGs are readily available using conventional CMGs with
[4]

alterations to CMG cluster steering and CMG rotor motor control laws. The VSCMG also can be
used as a mechanical battery to store electric energy as kinetic energy of the flywheels.
Spacecraft body[edit]
If a spacecraft has rotating parts these can be utilized or controlled as CMGs.

Potential problems[edit]
Singularities[edit]
At least three single-axis CMGs are necessary for control of spacecraft attitude. However, no matter
how many CMGs a spacecraft uses, gimbal motion can lead to relative orientations that produce no
usable output torque along certain directions. These orientations are known as singularities and are
related to the kinematics of robotic systems that encounter limits on the end-effector velocities due to
certain joint alignments. Avoiding these singularities is naturally of great interest, and several
techniques have been proposed. David Bailey and others have argued (in patents and in academic
publications) that merely avoiding the "divide by zero" error that is associated with these singularities
is sufficient.  Two more recent patents summarize competing approaches.  See also Gimbal lock.
[5][6] [7][8]

Saturation[edit]
A cluster of CMGs can become saturated, in the sense that it is holding a maximum amount of
angular momentum in a particular direction and can hold no more.
As an example, suppose a spacecraft equipped with two or more dual-gimbal CMGs experiences a
transient unwanted torque, perhaps caused by reaction from venting waste gas, tending to make it
roll clockwise about its forward axis and thus increase its angular momentum along that axis. Then
the CMG control program will command the gimbal motors of the CMGs to slant the rotors' spin axes
gradually more and more forward, so that the angular momentum vectors of the rotors point more
nearly along the forward axis. While this gradual change in rotor spin direction is in progress, the
rotors will be creating gyroscopic torques whose resultant is anticlockwise about the forward axis,
holding the spacecraft steady against the unwanted waste gas torque.
When the transient torque ends, the control program will stop the gimbal movement, and the rotors
will be left pointing more forward than before. The inflow of unwanted forward angular momentum
has been routed through the CMGs and dumped into the rotors; the forward component of their total
angular momentum vector is now greater than before.
If these events are repeated, the angular momentum vectors of the individual rotors will bunch more
and more closely together round the forward direction. In the limiting case, they will all end up
parallel, and the CMG cluster will now be saturated in that direction; it can hold no more angular
momentum. If the CMGs were initially holding no angular momentum about any other axes, they will
end up saturated exactly along the forward axis. If however (for example) they were already holding
a little angular momentum in the "up" (yaw left) direction, they will saturate (end up parallel) along an
axis pointing forward and slightly up, and so on. Saturation is possible about any axis.
In the saturated condition attitude control is impossible. Since the gyroscopic torques can now only
be created at right angles to the saturation axis, roll control about that axis itself is now non-existent.
There will also be major difficulties with control about other axes. For example, an unwanted left yaw
can only be countered by storing some "up" angular momentum in the CMG rotors. This can only be
done by tilting at least one of their axes up, which will slightly reduce the forward component of their
total angular momentum. Since they can now store less "right roll" forward angular momentum, they
will have to release some back into the spacecraft, which will be forced to start an unwanted roll to
the right.
[a]

The only remedy for this loss of control is to desaturate the CMGs by removing the excess angular
momentum from the spacecraft. The simplest way of doing this is to use Reaction Control
System (RCS) thrusters. In our example of saturation along the forward axis, the RCS will be fired to
produce an anticlockwise torque about that axis. The CMG control program will then command the
rotor spin axes to begin fanning out away from the forward direction, producing gyroscopic torques
whose resultant is clockwise about the forward direction, opposing the RCS as long as it is still firing
and holding the spacecraft steady. This is continued until a suitable amount of forward angular
momentum has been drained out of the CMG rotors; it is transformed into the moment of
momentum of the moving matter in the RCS thruster exhausts and carried away from the spacecraft.
[b]

It is worth noting that "saturation" can only apply to a cluster of two or more CMGs, since it means
that their rotor spins have become parallel. It is meaningless to say that a single constant-speed
CMG can become saturated; in a sense it is "permanently saturated" in whatever direction the rotor
happens to be pointing. This contrasts with a single reaction wheel, which can absorb more and
more angular momentum along its fixed axis by spinning faster, until it reaches saturation at its
maximum design speed.
Anti-parallel alignment[edit]
There are other undesirable rotor axis configurations apart from saturation, notably anti-parallel
alignments. For example, if a spacecraft with two dual-gimbal CMGs gets into a state in which one
rotor spin axis is facing directly forward, while the other rotor spin is facing directly aft (i.e. anti-
parallel to the first), then all roll control will be lost. This happens for the same reason as for
saturation; the rotors can only produce gyroscopic torques at right angles to their spin axes, and
here these torques will have no fore-and-aft components and so no influence on roll. However, in
this case the CMGs are not saturated at all; their angular momenta are equal and opposite, so the
total stored angular momentum adds up to zero. Just as for saturation, however, and for exactly the
same reasons, roll control will become increasingly difficult if the CMGs even approach anti-parallel
alignment.
In the anti-parallel configuration, although roll control is lost, control about other axes still works well
(in contrast to the situation with saturation). An unwanted left yaw can be dealt with by storing some
"up" angular momentum, which is easily done by tilting both rotor spin axes slightly up by equal
amounts. Since their fore and aft components will still be equal and opposite, there is no change in
fore-and-aft angular momentum (it will still be zero) and therefore no unwanted roll. In fact the
situation will be improved, because the rotor axes are no longer quite anti-parallel and some roll
control will be restored.
Anti-parallel alignment is therefore not quite as serious as saturation but must still be avoided. It is
theoretically possible with any number of CMGs; as long as some rotors are aligned parallel along a
particular axis, and all the others point in exactly the opposite direction, there is no saturation but still
no roll control about that axis. With three or more CMGs the situation can be immediately rectified
simply by redistributing the existing total angular momentum among the rotors (even if that total is
zero).  In practice the CMG control program will continuously redistribute the total angular
[c]

momentum to avoid the situation arising in the first place.

If there are only two CMGs in the cluster, as in our first example, then anti-parallel alignment will
inevitably occur if the total stored angular momentum reaches zero. The remedy is to keep it away
from zero, possibly by using RCS firings. This is not very satisfactory, and in practice all spacecraft
using CMGs are fitted with at least three. However it sometimes happens that after malfunctions a
cluster is left with only two working CMGs, and the control program must be able to deal with this
situation.
Hitting the gimbal stops[edit]
Older CMG models like the ones launched with Skylab in 1973 had limited gimbal travel between
fixed mechanical stops. On the Skylab CMGs the limits were plus or minus 80 degrees from zero for
the inner gimbals, and from plus 220 degrees to minus 130 degrees for the outer ones (so zero was
offset by 45 degrees from the centre of travel). Visualising the inner angle as 'latitude' and the outer
as 'longitude', it can be seen that for an individual CMG there were 'blind spots' with radius 10
degrees of latitude at the 'North and South poles', and an additional 'blind strip' of width 10 degrees
of 'longitude' running from pole to pole, centred on the line of 'longitude' at plus 135 degrees. These
'blind areas' represented directions in which the rotor's spin axis could never be pointed. [9]:11

Skylab carried three CMGs, mounted with their casings (and therefore their rotor axes when the
gimbals were set to zero) facing in three mutually perpendicular directions. This ensured that the six
'polar blind spots' were spaced 90 degrees apart from each other. The 45 degree zero offset then
ensured that the three 'blind strips' of the outer gimbals would pass halfway between neighbouring
'polar blind spots' and at a maximum distance from each other. The whole arrangement ensured that
the 'blind areas' of the three CMGs never overlapped, and thus that at least two of the three rotor
spins could be pointed in any given direction. [9]:4

The CMG control program was responsible for making sure that the gimbals never hit the stops, by
redistributing angular momentum between the three rotors to bring large gimbal angles closer to
zero. Since the total angular momentum to be stored had only three degrees of freedom, while the
control program could change six independent variables (the three pairs of gimbal angles), the
program had sufficient freedom of action to do this while still obeying other constraints such as
avoiding anti-parallel alignments. [9]:5

One advantage of limited gimbal movement such as Skylab's is that singularities are less of a
problem. If Skylab's inner gimbals had been able to reach 90 degrees or more away from zero, then
the 'North and South poles' could have become singularities; the gimbal stops prevented this.
More modern CMGs such as the four units installed on the ISS in 2000 have unlimited gimbal travel
and therefore no 'blind areas'. Thus they do not have to be mounted facing along mutually
perpendicular directions; the four units on the ISS all face the same way. The control program need
not concern itself with gimbal stops, but on the other hand it must pay more attention to avoiding
singularities.

Applications[edit]
Skylab[edit]
Skylab, launched in May 1973, was the first spacecraft to be fitted with large CMGs for attitude
control.   Three dual-gimbal CMGs were mounted on the equipment rack of the Apollo Telescope
[10]
Mount at the hub of the windmill-shaped array of solar panels on the side of the station. They were
arranged so that the casings (and therefore the rotors when all gimbals were at their zero positions)
pointed in three mutually perpendicular directions. Since the units were dual-gimballed, each one
could produce a torque about any axis at right angles to its rotor axis, thus providing some
redundancy; if any one of the three failed, the combination of the remaining two could in general still
produce a torque around any desired axis. [9]

Gyrodynes on Salyut and Mir[edit]

CMGs were used for attitude control on the Salyut and Mir space stations, where they were called
gyrodynes (from the Russian гиродин girodin; this word is also sometimes used – especially by
Russian crew – for the CMGs on the ISS).  They were first tested on Salyut 3 in 1974, and
[11]

introduced as standard components from Salyut 6 onwards. [12]

The completed Mir station had 18 gyrodynes altogether, starting with six in the pressurised interior of
the Kvant-1 module.  These were later supplemented by another six on the unpressurised outside
[13]

of Kvant-2. According to NPO Energia, putting them outside turned out to be a mistake, as it made
gyrodyne replacement much more difficult.  A third set of gyrodynes was installed in Kristall during
[14]

Mir-18 [15]

International Space Station[edit]

NASA personnel handle a single Control Moment Gyroscope for the International Space Station.

The ISS employs a total of four CMGs, mounted on Z1 truss  as primary actuating devices during [16]

normal flight mode operation. The objective of the CMG flight control system is to hold the space
station at a fixed attitude relative to the surface of the Earth. In addition, it seeks a Torque
Equilibrium Attitude (TEA), in which the combined torque contribution of gravity
gradient, atmospheric drag, solar pressure, and geomagnetic interactions are minimized. In the
presence of these continual environmental disturbances CMGs absorb angular momentum in an
attempt to maintain the space station at a desired attitude. The CMGs will eventually saturate
(absorbing angular momentum to the point where they can absorb no more), resulting in loss of
effectiveness of the CMG array for control. Some kind of angular momentum management scheme
(MMS) is necessary to allow the CMGs to hold a desired attitude and at the same time prevent CMG
saturation. Since in the absence of an external torque the CMGs can only exchange angular
momentum between themselves without changing the total, external control torques must be used to
desaturate the CMGs, that is, bring the angular momentum back to nominal value. Some methods
for unloading CMG angular momentum include the use of magnetic torques, reaction thrusters, and
gravity gradient torque. For the space station, the gravity gradient torque approach is preferred [citation

 because it requires no consumables or external hardware and because the gravity-gradient

needed]

torque on the ISS can be very high.  CMG saturation has been observed during spacewalks,
[17]

requiring propellant to be used to maintain desired attitude.  In 2006 and 2007, CMG-based [18]

experiments demonstrated the viability of zero-propellant maneuvers to adjust attitude of the ISS 90°
and 180°.  By 2016, four Soyuz undockings had been done using CMG-based attitude adjustment,
[19]

resulting in considerable propellant savings. [20]

Proposed[edit]
As of 2016, the Russian Orbital Segment of the ISS carries no CMGs of its own. However, the
proposed but as yet unbuilt Science and Power Module (NEM-1) would be fitted with several
externally-mounted CMGs.  NEM-1 would be installed on one of the lateral ports of the small UM or
[21]

Nodal Module scheduled for completion and launch at some time within the 2016–25 Russian
programme. Its twin NEM-2 (if completed) would later be installed symmetrically on the other lateral
UM port.
On 24 February 2015, the Scientific and Technical Council of Roscosmos announced that after
decommissioning of the ISS (then planned for 2024) the newer Russian modules would be detached
and form the nucleus of a small all-Russian space station to be called OPSEK.  If this plan is
[22][23]

carried out, the CMGs on NEM-1 (and NEM-2, if built) would provide attitude control for the new
Russian station.


Control Moment Gyroscope (CMG)

 


CMG drawing (cover removed)

The proposed space habitat Island 3 was designed to utilize two contrarotating habitats as opposed
CMGs with net zero momentum, and therefore no need for attitude control thrusters. [24]