doi: 10.5028/jatm.v10.

948 ORIGINAL PAPER

xx/xx

Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles

Using Object-oriented Programming
Fábio Antônio da Silva Mota1, José Nivaldo Hinckel2, Evandro Marconi Rocco2, Hanfried Schlingloff3

How to cite
Mota FAS http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3672-0547 Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H (2018)
Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-
Hinckel JN http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0171-2697
Oriented Programming. J Aerosp Technol Manag, 10:
Rocco EM http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0660-0587 e3918. doi: 10.5028/jatm.v10.948.
Schlingloff H http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1806-9113

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to model launch vehicles with focus on 3-DOF trajectory optimization using a modular
approach. Despite the large number of operational launch vehicles, they usually consist of basic components and subsystems.
In other words, a launch vehicle is an assembly of stages, which in turn is divided into propellant system and engine, and the
engine is an assembly of basic components such as pumps, turbines, combustion chamber, and nozzle. To allow future extension
and reuse of the codes, a modular structure using object-oriented programming is used. Two formulations of state equations of
the trajectory and two optimization methods are described. The launch vehicle performance will be measured by payload mass
for a given mission. The simulations of the VLS-1, Ariane 5 and VLS-Alfa were performed and showed good agreement with the
literature.

KEYWORDS: Launch vehicle, Trajectory, Optimization, Object-oriented programming.

INTRODUCTION

Due to the inherent complexity of a launch vehicle, its design is traditionally divided into multiple disciplines, such as trajectory
optimization, propulsion, aerodynamics, and mass budget. Despite the large number of operational launch vehicles, they usually
consist of basic components. In other words, a launch vehicle is an assembly of stages, which in turn is divided into propellant
system and engine, and the engine is an assembly of basic components such as pumps, turbines, combustion chamber, and nozzle
(for a liquid rocket stage). Space launch systems are composed by a large number of components grouped into a hierarchy of
subsystems. The performance of the vehicle depends on the individual performance of each of the subsystems, which in turn
depend on material properties and design parameters. Changes in design parameters are propagated throughout the cluster
hierarchy of subsystems and components, flight trajectory and payload capability (Hinckel 1995).
In order to get the best performance of a given launch vehicle, and consequently, to make the access to space less costly,
trajectory optimization techniques have been for decades a subject of intense research. Trajectory optimization can be categorized
basically into direct and indirect methods. Betts (1998) and Rao (2009) have made a comprehensive discussion about both
methods. The reason for this method to be called “indirect” comes from the strategy to convert the original optimal control
problem into a boundary-value problem. The most common indirect methods found in the literature are the shooting method,

1.Universidade Federal do ABC – Centro de Engenharia, Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas – Departamento de Engenharia Aeroespacial – Santo André/
SP – Brazil. 2.Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais – Departamento de Engenharia e Tecnologia Espacial – São José dos Campos/SP – Brazil. 3.Ostbayerische
Technische Hochschule Regensburg – Department of Mechanical Engineering – Regensburg – Germany.
Correspondence author: Fábio Antônio da Silva Mota | Universidade Federal do ABC – Centro de Engenharia, Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas – Departamento
de Engenharia Aeroespacial | Av. dos Estados, 5001 | CEP: 09210-580 – Santo André/SP – Brazil | E-mail: mota.fabio@ufabc.edu.br
Received: Jun. 8, 2017 | Accepted: Nov. 6, 2017
Section Editor: Luiz Martins-Filho

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 xx/xx simple method to evaluate the performance of multistage launch vehicles for given
Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H
02/15

structural data, aerodynamic and propulsive parameters.

the multiple-shooting method, and collocation methods (Brown et al. 1969; Teren and Spurlock 1966; Miele and Wang 2003).
Presumably because The purpose
of the possibilityofof this
solvingwork is to
complex develop
problems with a tool, which
a minimum can
effort of be easilyanalysis,
mathematical reused theand
direct
method is the one chosen by most researchers (Hargraves and Paris 1987; Seywald 1994; Herman and Conway 1996; Balesdent
2011). Oneextended,
of the mostto model
popular andused
software simulate a launch
extensively vehicle with
in many publications focus
is called POSTon trajectory.
(Program Thus,
to Optimize the
Simulated
Trajectories) (Brauer et al. 1977). POST is a commercial program that has been used successfully to solve a wide variety of
toolascent
atmospheric is intended
and reentryto be capable
problems, as well asof modeling and
exoatmospheric orbitaloptimizing flight
transfer problems. trajectory
In the framework until orbit
of this method,
the problem is characterized by a set of parameters that define the control law. This problem is a typical Non Linear Programming
Problem injection.
(NLP) and canTwo be solvedmathematical models formethods
using classical Gradient-based determination
(deterministic ofmethods)
performance of a launch
such as Sequential Quadratic
Program (SQP) or by heuristic methods. According to Betts (1998), heuristic optimization algorithms are not computationally
vehicle
competitive will methods.
with gradient be describedEven though andpresumably
discussed. due toThe
ease oflaunch vehiclewithout
implementation performance will be
a detailed understanding
of the system, in the last two decades lots of papers using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), genetic algorithms (GA), among
measured
others were applied toby payload
solve trajectorymass for a given
optimization problems.mission.
As for indirect methods, the direct methods can be categorized
in direct (multiple) shooting or collocation. In the case where only the control variables are adjusted by a function, the method
is called a shooting method. When both the state TRAJECTORY MODELING
and control are parameterized, the method is called a collocation method. A
well-known software developed by the University of Stuttgart, which addresses the direct collocation method, is the AeroSpace
SinceSoftware
Trajectory Optimization the dawn of the space era launch vehicles are responsible to put satellites
(ASTOS).
For either direct or indirect approaches, perhaps the most important benefit gained from a multiple shooting formulation
comparedintoto itsorbit. This
precursor makes
(single the iscost
shooting) of arobustness.
enhanced satellite To strongly related
take advantage to the
of both performance
methods of the a
previously described,
hybrid method can also be considered (von Stryk and Bulirsch 1992; Pontani and Teofilatto 2014; Gath and Calise 2001). The idea
launch
behind this vehicle,
approach which
is to divide in turn
the flight depends
trajectory into twoondistinct
the trajectory
phases, namelyprofile.
atmospheric and exoatmospheric phases,
applying the direct method in the first phase and indirect method in the second one. Here, exoatmospheric phase means that the
vehicle is virtually in vacuum space, i.e., the aerodynamic Atmosphere ModelPontani and Teofilatto (2014) proposed a simple
effects can be ignored.
method to evaluate the performance of multistage launch vehicles for given structural data, aerodynamic and propulsive parameters.
The purpose ofThe atmosphere
this work is to develop can
a tool,be seen
which can as a layer
be easily reusedofandgases attached
extended, to modelto andthe surface
simulate of vehicle
a launch the
with focus on trajectory. Thus, the tool is intended to be capable of modeling and optimizing flight trajectory until orbit injection.
Earth bymodels
Two mathematical gravitational attraction.
for determination This work
of performance makes
of a launch vehicleuse
will of the standard
be described atmosphere,
and discussed. The launch
vehicle performance will be measured by payload mass for a given mission.
which is modeled as adjacent layers of gases in which temperature depends on the

altitude. InMODELING
TRAJECTORY different layers, the temperature can be modeled as linear function of the

Sincealtitude.
the dawn of the space era launch vehicles are responsible to put satellites into orbit. This makes the cost of a satellite
strongly related to the performance of the launch vehicle, which in turn depends on the trajectory profile.
Aerodynamics
ATMOSPHERE MODEL
The atmosphereDuring theasflight,
can be seen a layer ofagases
launch vehicle
attached needsofto
to the surface thecross thegravitational
Earth by atmosphere in which
attraction. reacts
This work makes
use of the standard atmosphere, which is modeled as adjacent layers of gases in which temperature depends on the altitude. In
different to thethevehicle
layers, motion
temperature can be by means
modeled of aerodynamics
as linear forces. The drag force arises due to
function of the altitude.

friction between the body and the fluid (Eq. 1):

AERODYNAMICS
During the flight, a launch vehicle needs to cross the atmosphere in which reacts to the vehicle motion by means of aerodynamics
forces. The drag force arises due to friction between the body and the fluid (Eq. 1):

1 (1)
D= r (r ) SC DV 2 (1)
2

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
5
 combustion of the propellants and for liquid rocket engines there 3is still the sloshing,
where: D = drag force (N); ρ = density of the working fluid (kg/m ); S = reference area
combustion
which of the propellants
is the movement of fluid and for the
within liquid rocket engines andthere is still the sloshing,
Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
tanks and pipes rotating equipment such
03/15
xx/xx
(m2); CD = drag coefficient (–); and V = air speed (m/s).
combustion
which
as turbines of
is theandthe propellants
movement
pumps. fluidand
ofEspecially for
within liquid
forthe rocket
tanks
large engines
and pipes
launch andthere
vehicles, theis deflection
rotating still the sloshing,
equipment of such
the
D = dragThe
where:combustion lift
forceof
(N);isρ a= reaction
the propellants
force
density of the and
to the
working angle
forfluid
liquid
of
3 attack (Eq. 2):
rocket
(kg/m enginesarea
); S = reference there
(m2);isCDstill thecoefficient
= drag sloshing, (–); and
which
as
air is should
turbines
V = structure
speed the and
(m/s). movement
bepumps. ofEspecially
consideredfluidaswithin
wellfor thelarge
tankslaunch
(Cornelisse andet pipes and rotating
al.vehicles,
1979). equipment
the deflection
However, ofsuch
this research the
The lift is a reaction force to the angle of attack (Eq. 2):
which is the movement of fluid within the tanks and pipes and rotating equipment such
as focused
turbines
isstructure onand
should thebe pumps. Especially
considered
reference as wellfor(Cornelisse
trajectory, largetreatment
thus launch et al.vehicles,
of1979). the deflection
However,
the translational this of the
research
motion is
1 2 (2)
as turbines and pumps. Especially for L = large r (r )SC launch
LV vehicles, the deflection of the (2)
structure
is focusedshould bethis
considered as mathematical 2
well (Cornelisse et al.for 1979). However,are thispresented
research
sufficient to on the
fulfill reference
task. Two trajectory, thus treatment
models of the trajectory
the translational motion is
structure should be considered2 as well (Cornelisse et al. 1979). However, this research
is focused
sufficient
in Lthe
where:
followingon
= lift forceto(N); Sthe
fulfill reference
this
= reference
sections. task.
area (m
The trajectory,
Two first= lift
one thus
); CLmathematical
was treatment
coefficient models
(–);
taken and V =for
from of translational
the trajectory
air speed (m/s).
Schlingloff (2005)are motion
and theis
presented
Therewhere:
are many L methods
= lift force (N);the
to estimate S =aerodynamic
referencecoefficients
area (min 2
);theCliterature,
L = lift coefficient
i.e., the well-known (–); tool V = air
andMissile DATCOM,
is focused on the reference trajectory, thus treatment of the translational motion is
sufficient
interpolation
in the to
offollowing fulfill
available
second one from Tewari (2007). this
datasections.
from atask.
givenThe Two
vehicle, mathematical
closed
first one formulas
was models
that
taken consider
from for the
contributionstrajectory
Schlingloff of shock are
wave
(2005) presented
inand
the rocket
the nose,
speedand
body friction (m/s).
base pressure, or even constant value for certain phases of the flight. Except for interpolation from real flight
sufficient to fulfill this task. Two mathematical models for the trajectory are presented
data,inthe methods oneto from
the following
second estimate the drag (2007).
sections.
Tewari coefficient
The first are quite
one inaccurate.
was taken Fortunately,
frombecause the essential(2005)
Schlingloff accelerationandphase
thebegins
First Formulation
in the exoatmospheric Therephase, areusually
many methods
the drag has little to estimate
influence on launcherthe performance
aerodynamic coefficients
(Schlingloff 2005). in the
in the following sections. The first one was taken from Schlingloff (2005) and the
secondIn onethisfrom Tewari (2007).
formulation, the spherical First Formulation
celestial (inertial) coordinates and a moving
EQUATIONSliterature, OF THE i.e.,TRANSLATIONAL
the well-knownMOTION tool Missile DATCOM, interpolation of available data
second one from Tewari (2007).
The modeling of the trajectory of a launch vehicle is usually
First performed by means of two reference frames (one with origin on
Formulation
coordinates In this in theformulation,
orbit planethe were spherical
considered. celestial
Both (inertial)
referencecoordinates
frames haveand the aorigin
movingon
the Earthfromcentera given vehicle,
and the other closedwith
one moving formulas
the vehicle)thatandconsider
considerations contributions
or idealizationsofaccording
shock to wave in the
the requirements
First Formulation
of the mission. To model the translational motion, the vehicle can be treated as a particle, ignoring the size and mass distribution.
coordinates In this
in formulation,
the orbit plane
the Earth center (Fig. 1). The vector of state thewere spherical
considered. celestial
Both(inertial)
variables reference coordinates
frames have
is conveniently and
chosen theaas moving
origin
y(t) on =
rocket
In modeling thenose, body
rotational friction
motion, and base
the vehicle can bepressure,
consideredor even
a rigid constant
body, reducingvalue for certain
the degrees of freedom phases of
from infinity
In this formulation,
(flexible body case) to just six (Tewari 2007).
the spherical celestial (inertial) coordinates and
Strictly speaking, a launch vehicle is far from being considered a rigid body. Mass is
a moving
coordinates
the
[r(t) Earth
u(t) v(t) inΩ(t)
center the(Fig.
orbit
ι(t) plane
1).
ω(t)] T were
The vector
, ofwhere: considered.
Ωof= state
rightfor Both reference
variables
ascension theframes
isofconveniently
ascending havechosen the origin
node as y(t)on
(rad); ω= is the
the flight.
continuously expelledExcept for interpolation
due to combustion fromandreal
the propellants flight
liquid data,
rocket the there
engines methods tosloshing,
is still the estimate which the
coordinates in the orbit plane were considered. Both reference frames
movement of fluid within the tanks and Tpipes and rotating equipment such as turbines and pumps. Especially for large launch
have the origin on
the
=[r(t) Earth
u(t) v(t)
argument center
ofΩ(t) (Fig. 1).(rad);
ι(t) ω(t)]
periapsis The vector
, where:
and TΩof state
rightvariables
==temperature ascension (K). isofconveniently
the ascending
Thus, the system chosen
node as y(t) ω
(rad);
of research
equation =
vehicles,drag coefficient
the deflection of the are quite
structure should inaccurate.
be considered Fortunately,
as well (Cornelisse because the However,
et al. 1979). essential thisacceleration is focused
on thethe Earthtrajectory,
reference center thus (Fig. 1). The
treatment vector of state variables is conveniently chosen as y(t) =
T of the translational motion is sufficient to fulfill this task. Two mathematical models
[r(t)
= u(t)
argument
cantrajectory
be given v(t) ofΩ(t) ι(t)
periapsis ω(t)] ,
(rad); and TΩ==temperature
where: right ascension (K).ofThus, the ascending
the systemnode (rad); ω
of equation
for the phase begins areas (Eqs. 3-9):
in thein exoatmospheric
presented the following sections. phase,
The firstusually
one was the takendrag has little(2005)
from Schlingloff influence
and the on second
[r(t) u(t)
one from Tewari (2007). v(t) Ω(t) ι(t) ω(t)] T
, where: Ω = right ascension of the ascending node (rad); ω
= argument
can be givenof as periapsis
(Eqs. 3-9): (rad); and T = temperature (K). Thus, the system of equation
launcher performance (Schlingloff 2005).
First = argument of periapsis (rad); and T = temperature (K). Thus, the system of equation
Formulation
can be given as (Eqs. 3-9):
In this formulation, the spherical celestial
r! = u
(inertial)ofcoordinates and a moving coordinates (3)
Equations the Translational Motion in the orbit plane were considered.
Both can be given
reference frames as have (Eqs. 3-9):on the Earth center (Fig. 1). The vector of state variables is conveniently chosen as
the origin
r! = u (3) of
y(t) = [r(t) u(t) v(t) The ι(t) ω(t)] , where
Ω(t)modeling T
of uthe = vertical velocity of
trajectory a vlaunch
(m/s); = horizontal velocityis(m/s);
vehicle where:performed
usually Ω = right ascensionby
the ascending node (rad) and ω = argument of
2
µ (rad).
v periapsis F Thus, the system D x ofLequation
x can be given as (Eqs. (4)
3-9):
u! = - + sin r! =bucos d + + (3)
r r2 m m m
means of two reference frames 2 (one with
µ F r =u
origin on D
the Earth
L
center and the other one
(4)
u! =
v
-
!
+ sin b cos d + x + x (3) (3)
r r 2 m m m
moving with the vehicle) vand 2 considerations or
µ F D idealizations
L according to (4) the
u! = - 2 + sin b cos d + x + x (4)
vr 2µv r µF mF Dy m
D Ly mL (5)
(4)
requirements of the mission. uv! = -To- +model + bthe
cos sincos
b dtranslational
cos+d + +x + x motion, the vehicle can be
rr rm m 2 m mm m
µv F Dy Ly (5)
treated as a particle, ignoringv! = the
- size + cos and bmass
cos d +distribution.
+ In modeling the rotational (5)
r m m m
µv F Dy Ly (5)
motion, the vehicle can bev! considered
=- + cos a brigid
cos d body,
+ +reducing the degrees of freedom
rµv W !F= w sin w
m Dy m
m Ly (6)
(5)
cosx bsin
cosi d +
v! = - + + (6)
m r m m
from infinity (flexible body case) to just
! = wsixsin (Tewari
w 2007). Strictly speaking, a launch (6)
W x
i! = w x cos
sinwi (7) (7)
vehicle is far from being considered a! rigid sin body.
w Mass is continuously expelled due (6)to
W = wx
w! = W
v sinwiwcot i J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10,(8)
sin
! - w x sin
7 2018
(6) 6
e3918,
r = w x sin i
7
 i! = w x cos w (7)

04/15
xx/xx
Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H v (8)
w! = i! -=w x sin w cot i (7)
r w x cos w

v (8)
w! = - w x sin w cot i (8)
and r

F sin d + D z + L z (9)
and wx = (9)
v

F sin d + D + L
z plane
z (9)
(rad); and F = thrust force (N); ωx = inclination
w x angle
where: β = thrust angle in flight plane (rad); δ = thrust = out of flight
where:
change (rad). β = thrust angle in flight plane (rad); δ = v
thrust angle out of flight plane (rad); and F =
Equations 3 to 5 of the system of differential equations are the dynamic equations of motion and Eqs. 6 to 9 are the kinematic
thrust force (N); ωx = inclination change (rad).
equations. The dynamic equations are derived by application of the Newton’s Second Law resolved into components of the moving
where: β = thrust angle in flight plane (rad); δ = thrust angle out of flight plane (rad); and F =
system. The kinematic equations are deducted into two steps: representation of the rotation velocity of the vehicle in a vector form,
and applying
thrusttheforce
Euler(N);
angles
ω (Schlingloff 2005).
= inclination change (rad).
x

ZI
z
y

v
Actual flight plane
x

Ω ι YI
XI
Figure 1. Reference Frames.
Figure 1. Reference frames.

Equations 3 to 5 of Figure
Second Formulation 1. Reference
the system Frames. equations are the dynamic
of differential
The reference frames adopted in this modeling are the planet-fixed reference (SXYZ) frame and the local horizontal frame
(oxyz), equations
both are non-inertial
of motion (Fig.and
2). Eqs. 6 to 9 are the kinematic equations. The dynamic equations
Equations 3 to 5 of the system of differential equations are the dynamic
are derived by application of the Newton’s ZSecond Law resolved into components of the
equations of motion and Eqs. 6 to 9 are the kinematicγ equations.
y (cast)The dynamic equations
z (north)
moving system. The kinematic equations are deducted into two steps: x (up)representation of
are derived by application of the Newton’s Second Law resolved into components of the
the rotation velocity of the vehicle in a vector form, and applying the Euler angles
moving system. The kinematic equations are deducted into o two steps: representation of
r
(Schlingloff 2005). Equator
the rotation velocity of the vehicle in aS vector ϕform, and applyingY the Euler angles
Second Formulation
(Schlingloff 2005). ξ
The reference frames adopted in this modeling are the planet-fixed reference
Second Formulation
(SXYZ) frame and the localXhorizontal frame (oxyz), both are non-inertial (Fig. 2).
The reference frames adopted in this modeling are the planet-fixed reference
Figure 2. Planet-fixed and local horizon frames for atmospheric flight (adapted from Tewari 2007). 8
(SXYZ) frame and the local horizontal frame (oxyz), both are non-inertial (Fig. 2).
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
8
 v = r!i + Ω ´ (ri) (13)
ORIGINAL PAPER
ORIGINALPAPER
ORIGINAL PAPER Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
05/15
xx/xx
ORIGINAL PAPER v = r!i + rx! cosfj + rf!k (14)
ORIGINAL PAPER

From Fig. 2, the relative velocity v and the local velocity of the local horizontal frame (oxyz) relative to the planet-centered
v = r!i + Ω ´ (ri) (13)
rotating frame (SXYZ) can be expressed
Comparing Eqs. as
,  (Eqs.
v(v13  ) =10
,and and
we11):
v (sin
14 i + cos obtain
finally sin  j +the  cos  k ) equations of(10)
coskinematic motion
vv((vv,,,,))==vv(sin
(sin ii++coscossin
sin jj++cos coscos
cos kk)) (10)
(10)
v(v,  ,  ) = v (sin v =r!ii + x! cos
+ rcos fj + rjf!+k cos  cos  k )
 sin (10) (14) (10)
(Eqs. 15-17): v(v,  ,  ) = v (sin  i + cos  sin  j + cos  cos  k ) (10)

Ω =  K −  j (1) (11)
ΩΩ==r! =KKv sin
−− gjj (1) (15)
(1)
Comparing Eqs. 13 and 14 we finally v =Ωr!i=+ΩK´−(ri) j
 Kobtain  j the kinematic equations of motion (1) (13)
Ω =  −  (1)
where: γ = flight path angle (rad); ζ = heading angle (= π/2 – A); v cos andg cosξ =zlongitude (rad); and A = azimuth (rad). (16)
!
x =!only
With a convenient rotation matrix, Eq. 11 canΩvbe= ! sin
written
= ri + rx cosrfcos i −  inj +terms
j + rfk !cosofaxes
k of the body as (Eq. 12): (12) (14)
(Eqs. 15-17): Ω== sin jj++f  coskk (12)
(12)
Ω v =ri!ii−+
sin −Ω ´ (ricos) (13)

Ω =  sin   (12)
Ω =  sin v =!ri!i−+ −
Ωjj´++(ricos
)coskk (12) (13) (12)
r = v sin g (15)
v = r!!i + rvxcos ! cosg fcos j + zrf!k (14)
(17)
The relativeComparing Eqs. 13 and 14 wevfinally f = 14): (14)
velocity can also be expressed as (Eqs. = r!and
13 i +v rcos x!obtain
cos f
r z
g cos j + the
r f!k kinematic equations of motion (16)
xv! = r i + Ω  (r i) (13)
(Eqs. 15-17): vv==rrii++Ω Ωf((rrii))
r cos
(13)
(13) (13)
v = r i + Ω  ( r i ) (13)
Comparing
To derive the Eqs. 13 and equations
dynamic 14vwe =v  
i+cos
i=+rrNewton’s
rfinally  (jr+i)rSecond
Ωobtain


thek kinematic
Law must equations of (14)
motion
(13)
be introduced
vv == rr ii + + r r
 
  cos
cos  j j++ r r

 kk (14) (Eq.
(14) (14)
Comparing Eqs. 13 and 14 we finally r! = vsin gobtain the kinematic equations of(14) motion
(15)
(Eqs. 15-17):
v = r!i + rvcos
v = f
r i= + r  cos
cos
g cos
 j +z r k
j + r k (14) (17)
18): r
(Eqs. 15-17):
Comparing Eqs. 13 and 14 we finally obtain the kinematic g cos z of motion (Eqs. 15-17):
v cosequations (16)
x! =
r! r=cos f g dv I
v sin (15)
(18)
r (r ,  ,  ) = r (cos fcos =r!m =avII sin m
+= cosg dt  sin  J + sin  K ) (22) (15) (15)
To derive the dynamic
rr((rr,,,,))equations (coscos Newton’s Second Law must be introduced(22) (Eq.
==rr(cos
!
cos vcos II++gcoscoszsin
cos sin JJ++sinsinKK)) (22) (16)
r (r ,  ,  ) = rv(cos (sinxcos
rv(r(v, , , , ) )==r (cos =i +cos I +cos sinsin j +cos
J + sin
cosKk)) (22)
(23)
18):
cos v
v coscos cos I +g
gr cos cos z sin J + sin
fz  j + cos  cos  k )  K ) (22) (16)
(17)
vv((vv,,,,))==vv(sin f! =
(sin x! i=i++cos sinsin  j + cos  cos  k ) (23)
(23) (16)
Choosing the vwind (v,  ,  )axes = v(sinto iexpress+ cosr cos sinfthe j +forcescos  coson kthe
) body and (23) doing the
v(v,  ,  ) = v(sin  i + cos  sin  j + cos  cos  k ) (23)
dv I (18)
appropriate transformation to perform f =m avIacosIin=gm cos zwind axes, the remaining equations
the (17)to
f=! dt (17)
To derive the dynamic equations!Newton’s v cos gr cosSecond z Law must be introduced (Eq. (17)
f=
model the translational motion are obtained (Eqs. r 19-21):
To18):
derive theChoosing the wind
dynamic equations axes
Newton’s to Law
Second express
must bethe forces(Eq.on18):the
introduced body and doing the
To derive the dynamic equations Newton’s Second Law must be introduced (Eq.
To derive
appropriate the dynamic
transformation equationsa Newton’s
to perform dv Second Law must be introduced(18) (Eq.
f = maII in
= mthe Iwind axes, the remaining equations to (18)
18): F sin aT æ v µ E ö L é dt w2r ù
18): g! = + ç - 2 ÷ cos g + + cos f ê2wE cos z + E (cosf cos g + sin f sin g sin z )ú
model the translational
mv è r motion
r v ø are mv obtained ëê(Eqs. 19-21):v ú
Choosing the wind axes to express the forces on the body dv I appropriate transformation to performûa(18)
f = mand
aI =doing
m the in the wind
Choosing
axes, the remaining the
equations windtheaxes
to model to express
translational the ddt
vforces
I on 19-21):
the body and doing the (18)
I
(19)
f motion
= ma =aremobtained (Eqs.I
dt
appropriate transformation to perform aI in the wind axes, the remaining equations to
F sin aT æ v µ E ö L é wE2 r ù
g=
! Choosing the wind
+ ç - 2 ÷ cos g +axes to express the forces
+ cos f ê2wE cos z + on theg +body
(cosf cos and
sin f sin g sindoing
z )ú the (19)
mv
model theChoosing
translational r motion
èthe r v ø axes
wind mvto express
are obtained ëê
(Eqs.the v
forces
19-21): on the body and doing ûú the
1
appropriate transformation to perform aI in the wind axes, the remaining equations to
11 (19)
appropriate transformation F cos aT toµ EperformDaI in2 the wind axes, the remaining equations 1 to
(20)
v! = - 2 sin g - + wE r cos f (cosf sin g - sin f cos g sin z ) 1 (20)
model the translational mmotion r are obtained
m (Eqs. 19-21):
model the
F sintranslational
aT æ v µ E motionö are
L obtained é (Eqs. 19-21):
w2r ù
g! = + ç - 2 ÷ cos g + + cos f ê2wE cos z + 2 E (cosf cos g + sin f sin g sin z )ú (21)
! mv v r r v mv w r
E v
z = - tanè f cos g cos
ø z + 2w E cos f tanêëg sin z - sin f cos f cos z - 2wE sin f úû (21)
r v cos g
é ù(19)
10
F sin aT F µ ET ö µ E
æ vcos a L D w2r
2 2w cos z + E (cosf cos g + sin f sin g sin z ) (20)
g! = +
v! = ç - ÷
- cos g + + cos f
sin gL- + wEêé r cosE f (cosf sin 2 g - sin f cos g sin z ) ú
mvaT æè vr m rµ2Ev öø r 2
F sin mv m vE r Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos,ùûú v10, e3918, 2018
ëêê2wE cos z +J.wAerosp.
g! =
where: ωE = Earth + ç - ÷ cos g + + cos f (cos f cos g + sin f sin g sin z ) ú
mv rotation
èr r vø
2 (rad/s).
mv êë v úû
(19)
Equations (15)- (19)
   i −  j +  cos  k (12)
Ω
Ω==
 sin
sin  i −  j +  cos  k (12)

Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H

06/15
xx/xx
v  Ω  (r i )
v== rr ii +
+ Ω  (r i ) (13)
(13)
 (14)

where: ωE = Earth rotation (rad/s). v
v= + rr
= rr ii + cos 
 cos + rr
 jj +  k
k (14)
Equations 15-17 are the kinematical equations of motion and Eqs. 19-21 are the dynamic equations. With the integration of
the system of differential equations, the vector position and the vector velocity of the vehicle can be determined by the following
equations (Eqs. 22 and 23):

rr ((rr ,, 
 ,,  )) = (cos 
= rr (cos cos 
 cos  II + cos 
+ cos sin 
 sin  JJ + sin 
+ sin KK )) (22)
(22) (22)

v((vv,,  ,, 
v (sin  ii +
= vv(sin
 )) = cos  sin
+ cos sin 
 jj + cos  cos
+ cos cos 
kk )) (23)
(23) (23)
In this section
In this section the techniques
the techniques used to used solvetothe solve the trajectory
trajectory optimization
optimization problemproblem
It’s known that Inifthis section
one has the vector
an inertial techniques
positionusedand a to solve
velocity the oftrajectory
vector a given body optimization problem
in orbit, the orbital elements (or
are presented.
can be The
readilyfirst approach
determined. Thus, was
to getbased
the on
are presented. The first approach was based on Silva (1995). The second one describes a
Keplerian elements) orbital Silva (1995).
elements, it is The
necessary second
to performone an describes
appropriate a
matrix
rotationare presented.
to obtain the desiredTheinertial
first vectors.
approach was based on Silva (1995). The second one describes a
hybrid algorithm
hybrid algorithm that merges the direct that merges theanddirect and indirect
indirect methods. methods.
hybrid algorithm that merges the direct and indirect methods.
OPTIMIZATION
In order to obtain the maximalFirst payload First
Approach Approach
capacity of a– given
Direct – Method
Direct
launch Method
vehicle, and consequently, make the access to space less
expensive, trajectory optimization techniques FirsthaveApproach
been for decades – Direct
a subjectMethod
of intense research. The trajectory optimization can
The basically
be categorized Theinto
method method
applied applied
direct andwithin within
indirectthe the
framework
methods. framework
To take ofboth
thismethods,
of this ofapproach
advantage approach
is based isonbased
a combination of on
Silva bothSilva
techniques
can also be done,The method
i.e., a hybrid applied
method within
can also the framework of this approach is based on Silva
be considered.
(1995). (1995).A polynomial A polynomial control control
functionfunction
is usedistoused modelto model
the flight the profile.
flight profile.
Four Four
(1995). A polynomial control function is used to model the flight profile. Four
parameters,
METHODOLOGY parameters,
namely namelythe coastthetimecoast time duration
duration tcoast (if titcoast (if it is applied)
is applied) and three and three parameters
parameters of of
parameters, namely the coast time duration tcoast (if it is applied) and three parameters of
thisthe
theInpolynomial polynomial
section thecontrol
techniquescontrol
used tofunction,
function, arethe
solve are optimized
optimized
trajectory in orderinto
optimization order
get the
problem to presented.
are get the maximum
maximum Thepayload payload
first approach was based
on Silvathe polynomial
(1995). The second one control function,
describes are optimized
a hybrid algorithm that merges in the
order
directtoandgetindirect
the maximum
methods. payload
1
mass. Amass. code Afrom codeJacob
from(1972)
Jacob written
(1972) written in FORTRAN is transcript
to C++ to C++ language
1
in FORTRAN is transcript language
FIRST mass.
APPROACH A code from Jacob
– DIRECT METHOD (1972) written in FORTRAN is transcript to C++ language
andThe and
adapted
methodto
adapted to
solvewithin
applied
solve
the problemthe problem
the framework(Eq.of24). (Eq. 24).
this approach is based on Silva (1995). A polynomial control function is used
to model andthe adapted to solve
flight profile. the problem
Four parameters, (Eq.
namely the24).
coast time duration tcoast (if it is applied) and three parameters of the
polynomial control function, are optimized in order to get the maximum payload mass. A code from Jacob (1972) written in
FORTRAN is transcript to C++ language and adapted to solve the problem (Eq. 24).
ì ì p / 180, p / if 180 t £, t v if t £ t v (11) (11)
ï ï
b b=ì (ít b-0t -)b+1 (bt -(ttpv-)/t180
b = í b0 - +)b22, (t - tifvif)t2t£, t< t £ift t v < t £ t b1 (11) (24)
1 v 2 v v v b1
ïb b-=b ïí(ïîtbb-3-t-bb)(4+t(t-b-t (tt)f -1+)tb+ b)(t25 ,- 2 )2 ,
(t t- )tif
b1, t < if
t £ift t t b<1 t<£t t£ t bf
î 3 4 0 f 11 5v b12 v b1 vbf b1
ïb - b (t - t ) + b (t - t ) 2 , if t < t £ t
î 3 4 f1 5 b1 b1 bf

p bp b - b p / 180 - b (t - t ) b p
where:
p
where: where: = ; bb11p=
b0 = ; bb01 =
1 b - b p /0180 -2 b1 (t b1 - t v 1) b1 vb ;2pb3 = 2 ;
;(t b2-=t -) ; 0b2 =2- ; b = ;
2 180
p (t b1 - t v )b1pb1 v t b1 - tbv1)(2t b1 -3t v ) 180 b 2180
b - b p / 2(180 p
where:2 b0 = 180
; b1 = ; b2 = - 0(t b1 -2t v ) ; b3 = ;
2 180(t b1 - t v ) 2
(t b1 - t v ) 180
b 3p b - b (t b3 --tb4 )(t bf - t b1 )
bb43=
p
b = ; b5 =
3 4 bf b1
; and2 β1,; βand β1, β2, β3 = set of optimization control
b4 = ; 2, β3 = set of optimization control
t b1b)(t3bf
180(t bf -180 p -5 t b1 ) (t bf -b3t b-1 )(b2t4bf(t bf- t-b1t)b1 )
b4 = ; b5 = ; and β1, β2, β3 = set of optimization control
180(t bf - t b1 ) (t bf - t b1 ) 2
and β1, β2,parameters (–).
β3 = set of optimization control parameters (–).
parameters (–).
The trajectory optimization problem can be formulated as (Eq. 25):
parameters (–).
The trajectory
The trajectory optimization
optimization problemproblem can be formulated
can be formulated as (Eq. 25):
as (Eq. 25):
The trajectory optimization problem can be formulated as (Eq. 25):
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018

ét coast ù ét coast ù (12) (12)

ê ú
 subject to the constraints at orbit injection. Thus, for the first formulation of equations
subject
of to the
motion constraints
(Eqs. 26-28): at orbit injection. Thus, for the first formulation of equations
parameters (–). u=0 (14)
of motion (Eqs. 26-28):
of motion (Eqs. 26-28):
The trajectory optimization problem can be formulated as (Eq. 25):
Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
subject to the constraints at orbit injection.
r = RThus,
e + hf
for the first formulation of equations
(13)07/15
xx/xx
µ (28)
r=v=Re + h f (13)
subject to the
of motion constraints
(Eqs. 26-28): at orbit injection.
r = RThus,
r for the first formulation of equations
e + hf (13)
ét coast ù (12
ê b ú
of motion (Eqs. 26-28): Find X = ê 1 ú which maximize the payload mass F ( X) = m
where: Re = equatorial radius of the Earth (km). u = 0ê b 2 ú
pl (25)
ê ú (14)
r =uR=e +
0ë hbf3 û (13)
(14)
and for the second one (Eqs. 29-31): u=0 (14)
which maximize the pay load mass subjects to the constraints h f injection. Thus, for the first formulation of(13)
r = Reat+orbit equations of
motion (Eqs. 26-28): µ (28)
v=
µr (28)
r= R=e +
v u= 0µh f (29)
(28)
(14) (26)
v= r 1
r
u=0
where: Re = equatorial radius of the Earth (km). (14) (27)
g =0 (30)
where: Re = equatorial radius of the Earth (km).
and for R
where: e =second
the equatorial
one radius of the Earth (km).
(Eqs. 29-31): µ (28)
v= (28)
and for the second one (Eqs. 29-31): r
and for the second one (Eqs.
2 29-31): µ µ (31)
(28)
compute the initial co-states
v I = v +variable
(w E r cos ffor
) v+optimal
2
thrust
=2vw E r cos f cosarcs
g cos in
z =vacuum fairly easy using
r r
where: Rcompute
= equatorial
the radius of the
initial Earth (km).
co-states variable for optimal thrust arcs in vacuum fairly easy using
where:
e
almost
For the
R
second
= equatorial
arbitrary
approach initial
e radius of the Earth
guess when direct
(Eqs. 29-31):
(km).
r =and
Re +indirect
hf methods are merged. (29)
almost arbitrary initial guess 29-31):
when direct r = R
and + h
e indirect
f methods are merged. (29)
where:
and for R e =second
the equatorial one radius
(Eqs. of the
Stages Before Coasting Earth r = (km).
R e + h f– Direct Method (29) (29)
g =0 (30)
and for the second one Stages
Second
(Eqs. Before
29-31): ApproachCoasting – Direct
–0 Hybrid Method
Method
g =
To fulfill this task, the method used in the first method is applied here. In other (30) (30)
g =0 (30)
To fulfill
The this task,
idea behind thethe methodisused
strategy r to
= R in
divide
+ hthethe firstflight
method is applied
trajectory into here.
two In other
distinct
(29)
words, the same control variables will be obtained e f
v I = v 2 + (w E r cos f ) 2 + 2vw E r cos f cos g cos z =
until the beginning µ of the coast(31) arc. (31)
r
µ (31)
words, the
phases, one same
whilecontrol = variables
thev I vehicle
v 2 + (ascents will
w E r cos )rbe
fthe 2
Robtained
=+dense
2evw cos funtil
cos g the
Ehrfatmosphere
+mass zbeginning
cosand = the µ otherof one the when
coast(29)
arc.
the
(31)
Furthermore, this step vI = givesv 2 +the (w Egross
r cos flift-off
) 2 +g 2=vw r cos (GLOW)
f cos g cos of
z =the rvehicle.
0E
r (30)
SECOND Furthermore,
APPROACH
vehicle this step
– HYBRID
is virtually gives
in vacuum METHODthespace,
grossi.e.,lift-off where mass (GLOW) ofeffects
aerodynamic the vehicle.
can be ignored. In
The idea behind the strategy is to Upper
divide the StageflightTrajectory
trajectory g =into
– Indirect method
0 two distinct phases, one while the vehicle ascents the dense
(30)
atmosphere and the other one when
the aforementioned Upper
the vehicle
sections itStage
was Trajectory
is virtually
stated inthat
vacuum – Indirect
the space,
sensibility method
i.e., whereofaerodynamic
the indirect effects can be(31)
shooting ignored.
or In
the aforementioned In sections
this phase, =the
it wasv Istated
Second
2vehicle
vthat w EApproach
+ (the isfassumed
r cos ) 2 +of2the
sensibility v–wHybrid to becos Method
out
E r cos f shooting
indirect g cosof the µmultiple
z even
or = densershootinglayersmethod
of thedepends
Second Approach –co-states
Hybrid Method r
on the initial
even guess, In however,
multiple
The this
idea phase,
shooting
behind the
it is possible
methodvehicle
to compute
Second
the isthe
depends
strategy Approach
is assumed
initial
to ondivide
the
– to be
initial
Hybrid the out
variable
guess,
Method
flight oftrajectory
for the µdenser
optimal
however, thrustitarcslayers
is of(31)
in vacuum
possible the
fairly easy
to
atmosphere,
using almost so that
arbitrary initial guessvthe = aerodynamics
Iwhen
2
+ (wand
vdirect E r cos f ) forces
indirect
2
2vw Ecan
+methods arebe
r cos f cos
merged.g cos z = Thus, into
neglected. two
the trajectory distinct of
The idea behind the strategy is to divide the flight trajectory r into two distinct
atmosphere,The so that
idea the aerodynamics forces can be neglected. Thus, theone trajectory of
STAGES
phases,
theBEFORE
upper onestage
while
COASTINGisbehind
the
accomplishedthe strategy
vehicle
– DIRECT METHOD in theis
ascents the todense
orbit divide
plane. the
Theflight
atmosphere upperandtrajectory
stage the into
other
flight is two distinct
when
divided the
into
13
phases, one while the used
vehicle ascents the dense atmosphere and thetheother one when the will be
the
To fulfillupper
phases,
vehicle
this one
is stage
task, the
while
virtuallyis accomplished
method
the in
Second
vehicle
in vacuum
the in
first the
method
Approach
ascents
space, orbit is
the dense plane.
applied
– Hybrid The
here.
atmosphereInupper
other
Method stage
words,
and flight
the are same
other is divided
control
one into
variables
when the
obtainedtwountilphases: a coast
the beginning of thearccoastand thrust i.e.,
arc.aFurthermore, arc. where
The
this
aerodynamic
stepequations
gives the gross
effects
of lift-off
motion canpresented
mass (GLOW)
be ignored.
below In
of the vehicle.
vehicle is virtually in vacuum space, i.e., where aerodynamic effects can be ignored. In
twoaforementioned
vehicle
the phases:
The a coast
idea
is virtually behind
inarc and
Second
the
vacuum
sections a space,
it thrust
strategy
was arc.
Approach
is towhere
i.e.,
stated The
that equations
– Hybrid
divide the the flight
aerodynamic
sensibility of motion
Method the are
trajectory
ofeffects presented
into
can
indirect betwo below
distinct
ignored.
shooting In
or
UPPER(Eqs. STAGE 32-34) (Schlingloff
TRAJECTORY 1987).
– INDIRECT METHOD
the aforementioned sections it was stated that the sensibility of the indirect shooting or
(Eqs.
phases,
In this
the
evenphase,32-34)
The
one (Schlingloff
idea
while
the vehicle
aforementioned
multiple behind
is the
assumed
shooting sections 1987).
the
vehicle
to
method bestrategy
itascents
out
was of the isthe toon
denser
stated
depends divide
dense
thatlayers
thethe ofthe flight
atmosphere guess,and
the atmosphere,
sensibility
initial trajectory
of sothe theinto
other
thatindirect
the
however, istwo
one
itaerodynamicsdistinct
when
shooting
possible the
forces
to can be
or
neglected. Thus, the trajectory of the upper stage is accomplished in the orbit plane. The upper stage flight is divided into two
even multiple shooting method depends on the initial guess, however, it is possible to
phases:phases, one while the vehicle ascents the on dense
vehicle u atmosphere and the(Schlingloff
other one when the
even arcis
a coastmultiplevirtually
and a thrust in vacuum
arc.
shooting The equations
method space, i.e.,
of motion
depends where
are presentedaerodynamic
below (Eqs. effects
32-34) canitbe is ignored.
1987). In
r! =the initial guess, however, possible to
(32)
13
vehicle is virtually insections
the aforementioned vacuumit space,
was stated r! = u the
i.e., where
that aerodynamic effects
sensibility of ignored.(32)
can be shooting
the indirect In
or (32)
13
13
(33)
v2 µ F
the
evenaforementioned sections
multiple shooting it was
method u!stated
depends
= -that
on the
+the sensibility
initial
sin b guess, of the indirect
however, it is shooting
possible or
to (33)
vr2 rµ F m
2
(33)
u! = - + sin b
even multiple shooting method depends r onr 2theminitial guess, however, it is possible to
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10,13
e3918, 2018
µvF (34)
v! = - cos b
+
r
µv Fm (34)
v! = - + cos b 13
r m
 r! = u (32)
(33)
v2 µ F
u! = - + sin b
38): r r2 m

v2 µ F (33)
u! = - 2 + sin b
08/15
xx/xx
Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H rµv r F m (34)
v! = - + cos b
38): r ¶Hm v (36)
l!u = - = lv - lr
¶u r
µv F (34)
v! = - + cos b (34)
r m
Applying the Lagrange method, the Hamiltonian H is constructed as (Eq. 35):
¶H¶H vv u (36)
(37)
=- l!vl!=u -= -
=2 llvu-+l r lv
¶v¶u rras (Eq. r35):
Applying the Lagrange method, the Hamiltonian H is constructed
Applying the Lagrange method, the Hamiltonian H is constructed as (Eq. 35):
38): æ v2 µ F ö (35)
æ µv F ö
38): H = lu ç - 2 + sin b ÷ + lv ç - + cos b ÷ + l r u
ç r r ! m ¶Hæ÷ 2 èv rö um
µ + l uv ø (37)
(38) (35)
38): è l =¶H- øv= -2 l
l!u = - ç u÷
=¶vç 2 - 2r 3 ÷lur - 2 lv
v v

æv ¶u2 è r ö r ø r (35)
µ F ÷ + lv æç - µv + F cos b ö÷ + l r u
H = lu ç - 2 + sin b (36)
ç r r ! m ¶H ÷ v è r m
è lu = -equations)
The adjoint equations for the co-state (Euler-Lagrange ø= lare l r 36-38): ø
v -(Eqs.
u 2 vr
¶¶æH (36)
(38)
! =l ! ¶H v
u = -= ç =- 2l v -÷l
µ ö r uv
The adjoint equations foru the l -
! co-state
¶¶H
çu vr ÷
l u -
(Euler-Lagrange l (36)
v equations) are (Eqs. 36-
lu ¶=u- è r = lrv -øl r r
2 3 2
(36)
Using the Pontryagin minimum¶principle, u r the optimal thrust angle control can be
¶H v u (37)
l!v = - = -2 lu + lv
The adjoint equations for the co-state
¶
¶H v r
v (Euler-Lagrange
ur equations) are (Eqs. 14
36-
(37)
expressed as a function of the co-states
l!v = - (Eq. = -2 39):lu + l v
¶H v u (37) (37)
l!v = - ¶v = -2 r lu + r lv
Using the Pontryagin minimum ¶v principle,
r ther optimal thrust angle control can be
14
(38)
! ¶H æ v 2
µ ö uv
lu = - ç
= 2 - 2 3 lu - 2 l v÷ (38)
expressed as a function of the ¶H¶¶H u F çæè(Eq.
co-states r
v rµ ÷öø
39): ruv (38)
(39)
lu = - = = æ(ççl u22cos
! - 2b -3 öl - b2) =
÷lv usin lv0 (38)
¶b¶¶Hu m vr
l!u = - rµ ÷ = çè
uv
r -2 ÷ølu - lv
¶u thrust ç 2 3 ÷ 2
Using the Pontryagin minimum principle, the optimal è r anglercontrol
ø can r be expressed as a function of the co-states (Eq. 39):

and finally (Eq. 40): ¶H F (39)

Using the Pontryagin minimum = (principle,
l u cos b - lthe v sin b ) = 0 thrust angle control can be (39)
optimal
¶b m
Using the Pontryagin minimum principle, the optimal thrust angle control can be
and finally
expressed (Eq. 40):
as athefunction of theminimum
co-states principle,
(Eq. 39): the optimal thrust angle control can be
Using Pontryagin
expressed
and finally as (Eq.
a function
40): of the co-states (Eq. 39): lu (40)
expressed as a function of the co-states (Eq. tan39):b= (40)
lv (41)
r 2 b! - rv
z = 2 !2 (41)
¶H F rcos b -brv (39)
= (l
Thus, to get the optimal trajectory, Eqs. 32-34¶balongmwith Eqs. 36-38
zcos
= b - l sin b ) = 0
¶H trajectory,
F
u
cos lshould
2 v
b be integrated. However, as the Lagrange multipliers
(39)
Thus,and tothe
getflight
thepath
optimal ( cos bbEqs.
l usensitively - lon u 32-34 ) = along
thebinitial with Eqs. 36-38to solveshould
(40)
be
have no physical meaning depends = very tan = v sin 0 guesses, it is difficult these equations.
¶¶Hb Fm (39)
Schlingloffwhere: z = variable
(1987) developed with no
an analytical physical
method (lmeaning.
u costhe
= eliminate
to
l
b -Lagrange )= 0
l vvsin bmultipliers getting formulas that can be represented
integrated. However, as the¶bLagrange
m multipliers have no physical meaning and the
by a smaller where:
number z =
and finally (Eq. 40):
of variable
variables. with
Thus, no physical
defining z (Eq. meaning.
41):
Schlingloff (1987) got alternative differential equations to represent the control
and finally
flight path (Eq.
Thus, to40):
depends get(1987)
the
very optimal trajectory,
sensitively on the r 2 Eqs.
- rv 32-34
b! initial along itwith
guesses, Eqs.
istodifficult 36-38 should
to the
solve (41)be
these
Schlingloff got alternative z = differential equations represent control
and finally (Eq. 40): (41)
law (Eqs. 42 and 43): cos 2 b
integrated.
equations.
law However,
and 43): as
(Eqs. 42Schlingloff the Lagrange
(1987) developedmultipliersan analytical have no physical
method to eliminate meaning and the
the Lagrange
lu (40)
tan b =
where: z = variable with no physical meaning. l (40)
flight
where: path
multipliers depends
z = variable
gettingwith verynosensitively
formulas physical
that can onbethe
meaning. = initial
brepresented
uv guesses, it is difficult
by a smaller numberto ofsolve these
variables.
Schlingloff (1987) got alternative differential equationstan to represent lluv the control law (Eqs. 42 and 43): (40)
tan b
lv(tan b 2 +equations
)
z =v (42)
equations.
Thus, SchlingloffSchlingloff
defining (1987)
z (Eq. (1987)
41): tan b! = an
developed
got alternative +analytical
2differential
1method totoeliminate
represent the
theLagrange
control
+ r (tan 1) with Eqs. 36-38 should (42)
Thus, to get the optimal trajectory, z v
tan b! = r 2Eqs. 32-34
b 2 +along be (42)
r r
law Thus,
multipliers
(Eqs. to get
42 getting
and the
43): optimalthat
formulas trajectory, Eqs. 32-34 along
can be represented by a smallerwith Eqs. 36-38ofshould
number be
variables.
integrated. Thus,However,
to get theasoptimalthe Lagrange
trajectory, multipliers
Eqs. 32-34 have alongno with
physical Eqs.meaning
36-38 should and thebe
tan b (43)
integrated.
Thus, defining However,z (Eq.as the Lagrange
41): z! =multipliers (4vz + 3havey) no physical meaning and the15 (43)
flight path However,depends very sensitively on tan b
ther initial (43)
integrated. as the Lagrange z! =multipliers (4vz + guesses,
y ) no itphysical
3have is difficult to solve
meaning andthese
the
r
flight path depends very sensitively on the z initial guesses, it is difficult to solve these
equations.
J. Aerosp.flight Schlingloff (1987)
path depends very sensitively on the
Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, developed
e3918, 2018tan b! = an +
v
2 initial
r
(
analytical
tan b 2
+ 1 )
method
guesses, it to difficult
is eliminatetothe solve
(42)
Lagrange
these
Thus, to get the new system of first-order r differential equations, the control Eqs.
equations. Schlingloff (1987) developed an analytical method to eliminate the Lagrange15
Thus,
multipliersSchlingloff to get
getting formulasthe new system of first-order differential equations,
numberthe ofcontrol Eqs.
equations. (1987) that can be an
developed represented
analytical by a smaller
method to eliminate the variables.
Lagrange
42 and 43 must be joined to the equations of motion Eqs. 32-34. To integrate this
 Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
09/15
xx/xx

Thus, to get the new system of first-order differential equations, the control Eqs. 42 and 43 must be joined to the equations of
motion Eqs. 32-34. To integrate this system, since the initial condition for the state equations are fixed, just the initial guesses to
the control equations must be set. To take into account the coast, the optimization problem can be stated as:
Find X = [β0 z0 tcoast]T which minimize the propellant mass of the upper stage F(X) = mprop. It implies to maximize the payload
mass that can be injected into the desired orbit. The constraints at orbit injection are given by Eqs. 26-28. To solve this problem
we can use heuristic methods such as particle swarm optimization (PSO).

PROGRAM STRUCTURE
As aforementioned stated, a modular approach using object-oriented programming (OOP) is chosen and to allow a better
visualization of the codes it is used UML diagrams. UML diagrams are used to visualize the code and the communication between
objects enabling a high degree of abstraction. Figure 3 presents a UML diagram for a specific launch vehicle, namely the VLS-alfa
launch vehicle. From the diagram we can see some parameters and functions of each component and the relationship between
them. In order to make the diagram clearer, some parameters and functions are omitted.

Figure 3. Schematic of a UML diagram of the VLS-Alfa launch vehicle.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H
10/15
xx/xx

RESULTS

To verify the trajectory program, two launch vehicles are considered, namely: the Brazilian VLS-1 and the European Ariane 5.
Both mathematical modeling of the ascent trajectory are used in order to verify the concordance between them. The trajectory
optimization will be performed using direct method.

VLS-1 LAUNCH VEHICLE

The under development VLS-1 is the future Brazilian satellite launch vehicle. Its development started in 1984, however due to
technical problems, the vehicle could not be qualified up to now. VLS-1 is composed of four solid stages. The first stage is equipped
with four solid boosters S43 (Fig. 4). The vehicle is designed to perform a non-powered cost arc between third and upper stages.
Key parameters of the vehicle used in the simulation are given in Fig. 4. The mission is to launch a satellite into a reference circular
orbit of 500 km of altitude from the Alcântara Launch Center (2°22’39.52” S, 44°23’57.71” W).

4th Stage S44

Mp = 820 kg
Ms = 170 kg
Isp = 281.85 s
tb = 74.46 s
3rd Stage S40 TM CD = 0.0
Mp = 4370 kg
Ms = 1330 kg
Isp = 270.74 s
tb = 58.27 s
CD = 0.0
Booster Stage 4×S43
Mp = 4*7225 kg
2nd Stage S43TM
Ms = 4*1550 kg
Mp = 7140 kg
Isp = 257.9 s
Ms = 1680 kg
tb = 62.83 s
Isp = 279.1 s
CD = 3.82
tb = 62.09 s
CD = 1.6552

Figure 4. VLS-1: key parameters.

Figures 5 and 6 show the velocity and altitude profiles with the powered phase described by the red curve, and the non-powered
phase by the blue curve. A path constraint (dynamic pressure) of the flight is shown in Fig. 7. The trajectory profile of the VLS-1
was verified with the SKYNAV tool (Schlingloff 1991) and presented a good agreement. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the corner
instants between flight phases and Table 3 presents the control parameters obtained by optimization subroutine. As expected, the
maximum payload mass found for both formulations are very close.

Table 1. Values for state variables at start, inter-stage and end instants.

t (s) h (km) u (m/s) v (m/s) Ω (deg) ι (deg) ω (deg)

0.0 0.0 0.0 421.5 90.0 –2.4 –44.4
62.8 23.5 763.5 1390.0 90.4 –2.4 –63.3
124.9 75.4 1023.9 2729.1 91.5 –2.4 –64.1
183.2 154.5 1927.9 4947.7 93.4 –2.4 –64.1
530.9 498.1 69.8 4700.4 107.5 –2.4 –64.1
605.4 499.8 1.2 7612.6 111.2 –2.4 –64.1

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
xx/xx
11/15

Table 2. Values for state variables at start, inter-stage and end instants.

t (s) h (km) v (m/s) ξ (deg) φ (deg) γ (deg) ζ (deg)

0.0 0.0 0.0 –44.4 –2.4 90 0
62.8 23.4 1211.0 –44.2 –2.4 38.9 0.4
124.9 75.2 2493.5 –43.4 –2.4 24.2 0.4
183.2 154.4 4881.4 –41.8 –2.4 23.3 0.5
530.9 498.0 4213.5 –29.1 –2.2 1.0 1.1
605.5 499.9 7116.8 –25.7 –2.1 0.0 1.3

Table 3. Optimized control parameters.

# mp (kg) tcoast (s) β1 β2 β3

1st formulation 270.5 347.71 72.57 31.47 –0.08
2nd formulation 269.40 347.48 72.86 31.61 –0.07

(a) (b)
8,000 8,000

7,000 7,000

6,000 6,000
Velocity (m/s)

Velocity (m/s)

5,000 5,000

4,000 4,000

3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000

1,000 1,000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 5. Velocity profile of the VLS-1 launch vehicle using (a) first formulation of state equations and (b) the second formulation.

(a) (b)
500,000 500,000

400,000 400,000
Altitude (m)
Altitude (m)

300,000 300,000

200,000 200,000

100,000 100,000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 6. Altitude profile of the VLS-1 launch vehicle using (a) first and (b) the second formulation of state equations.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H
12/15
xx/xx

(a) (b)
70,000 70,000

60,000 60,000

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

50,000 50,000

40,000 40,000

30,000 30,000

20,000 20,000

10,000 10,000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 7. Dynamic pressure profile of the VLS-1 launch vehicle using (a) first and (b) the second formulation of state equations.

Comparing the results from the Tables 1 to 3 and Figs. 5 to 7, we can verify that indeed both mathematical modeling are
equivalent. Although the method presented in this work gives sub-optimal trajectory, for the purpose of a preliminary analysis,
this method is sufficiently accurate.

ARIANE 5 LAUNCH VEHICLE

Built under supervision of European Space Agency (ESA), Ariane 5 is a European launch vehicle that is part of the Ariane
rocket family. The vehicle is used to deliver payload into low Earth orbit (LEO) and geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). Within
the framework of this work, the mission is to launch a satellite from Kourou to a low Earth orbit (LEO) of 200 km of altitude. The
key parameters of the vehicle are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Key parameters: Ariane 5 launch vehicle (Schlingloff 1987).

Ariane 5 mprop (ton) ms (ton) Isp (s) tb (s) CD*S (m2)

1st Stage 155 15 342/439 651.756 18.32
2 Stage
nd
450 80 245/279 146.84 30.396
3 Stage
rd
2.4 0.7 320 384 0.0

The trajectory can be divided into two main phases. To take the vehicle from the ground and minimize the gravitational losses,
the first phase is powered by two solid boosters and by the core stage using the propellants LOX/LH2. After 146.84 seconds the
booster stages are decoupled from the vehicle and the motion is powered only by the core stage. Differently from the VLS-1, this
launch vehicle does not perform a non-powered coast-arc. Figure 8 presents the altitude and relative velocity profiles.
From Fig. 8 we can notice that the behavior of the altitude profile firstly exceeded the desired altitude (LEO with 200 km)
reaching a maximum altitude, and then the desired altitude is obtained. The reason for that is presumably because the flight does
not perform a non-powered phase, so the vehicle takes longer to get the right inclination in order to injected into orbit.

VLS-ALFA LAUNCH VEHICLE

It is known that the VLS-Alfa will replace the last two solid stages of the former VLS-1 by a single liquid upper stage. Then since
the VLS-Alfa is an improvement of the former VLS-1, the VLS-1 will be used as a reference vehicle to perform the simulations.
The upper stage of the VLS-Alfa presumably will perform a coast phase, so the L75 is supposed to support restart capability. The
mission is to launch a satellite into a reference circular orbit of 500 km of altitude from the Alcântara Launch Center (2°22’39.52” S,
44°23’57.71” W). The parameters of the vehicles are given in Tables 5 and 6.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
13/15
xx/xx

(a) (b)
250,000 8,000
7,000
200,000 6,000

Relative velocity (m/s)

Altitude (m)

150,000 5,000
4,000
100,000 3,000
2,000
50,000
1,000
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 8. (a) Altitude profile of the Ariane 5 and (b) velocity profile of the Ariane.

Table 5. Key parameters: Brazilian launch vehicle VLS (Schlingloff 1987).

VLS mprop (kg) ms (kg) Isp (s) tb (s) CD*S (m2)

1st Stage 28900 6200 257.90 62.826 3.0
2nd Stage 7140 1680 279.10 62.087 1.3
3rd Stage 4370 1330 270.74 58.267 0.0
4th Stage 820 170 281.85 74.546 0.0

Table 6. Key parameters: Brazilian launch vehicle VLS-Alfa.

VLS-Alfa mprop (kg) ms (kg) Isp (s) tb (s) CD*S (m2)

1st Stage 28900 6200 257.90 62.826 3.0
2nd Stage 7140 1680 279.10 62.087 1.3
3rd Stage (before coasting) 4370 1022.53 315.00 243.657 0.0
4th Stage (after coasting) 820 1022.53 315.00 46.219 0.0

As the mission of the VLS-Alfa is still not totally defined, the propellant mass of the upper stage had to be estimated. Thus, an
amount of 6900 kg was estimated based on internal reports. From this value an amount of 1100 kg was taken for the phase after
coasting, i.e., for orbit injection. The altitude and relative velocity profiles for both vehicles are presented in Fig. 9.

(a) 8,000
(b) 60,0000
7,000 50,0000
Relative velocity (m/s)

6,000
40,0000
Altitude (m)

5,000
4,000 30,0000
3,000
20,0000 VLS-Alfa
2,000
VLS
1,000 10,0000
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 9. (a) Relative velocity profile of the former and future Brazilian launch vehicle and (b) altitude profile of the former and
future Brazilian launch vehicle.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Mota FAS; Hinckel JN; Rocco EM; Schlingloff H
14/15
xx/xx

CONCLUSIONS

This article presented a modeling of a launch vehicle using object-oriented programming. Two models for trajectory optimization
were presented. To allow a better visualization of the codes, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) was used. The future Brazilian
VLS-Alfa and its predecessor VLS-1 were simulated and compared. Both of them are supposed to support perform coast phase.
The performance of the Ariane 5, which does not perform coast phase, was presented and the results showed good agreement
with the literature. Since the stages of the launch vehicle is an assembly engine and propellant system, the modular approach is
interesting to allow future integration of the propulsion system in order to study the coupling among the disciplines. Accordingly,
the modular approach using object-oriented programming can facilitate a multidisciplinary optimization.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization, Mota FAS, Hinckel JN and Rocco EM; Methodology, Mota FAS, Hinckel JN and Schlingloff H; Writing –
Original Draft, Mota FAS; Writing – Review and Editing, Mota FAS, Hinckel JN, Rocco EM and Schlingloff H.

REFERENCES
Balesdent M (2011) Multidisciplinary design optimization of launch vehicles (PhD Dissertation). Nantes: Ecole Centrale de Nantes.

Betts JT (1998) Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 21(2):193-207.
doi: 10.2514/2.4231

Brauer GL, Cornick DE, Stevenson R (1977) Capabilities and applications of the program to optimize simulated trajectories (POST). (CR-
2770). NASA Contractor Report.

Brown KR, Harrold EF, Johnson GW (1969) Rapid optimization of multiple-burn rocket flights. (CR-1430). NASA Contractor Report.

Cornelisse JW, Schöyer HFR, Wakker KF (1979) Rocket propulsion and spaceflight dynamics. London: Pitman.

Gath PF, Calise AJ (2001) Optimization of launch vehicle ascent trajectories with path constraints and coast arcs. Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics 24(2):296-304. doi: 10.2514/2.4712

Hargraves CR, Paris SW (1987) Direct trajectory optimization using nonlinear programming and collocation. Journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics 10(4):338-342. doi: 10.2514/3.20223

Herman AL, Conway BA (1996) Direct optimization using collocation based on high-order Gauss-Lobatto quadrature rules. Journal of
Guidance, Control and Dynamics 19(3):592-599. doi: 10.2514/3.21662

Hinckel JN (1995) An object oriented approach to launch vehicle performance analysis. Presented at: 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; San Diego, USA. doi: 10.2514/6.1995-3094

Jacob HG (1972) An engineering optimization method with application to STOL-aircraft approach and landing trajectories. (TN-D-6978).
NASA Technical Report.

Miele A, Wang T (2003) Multiple-subarc gradient-restoration algorithm, part 2: application to a multistage launch vehicle design. Journal
of Optimization Theory and Applications 116(1):19-39. doi: 10.1023/A:1022154001343

Pontani M, Teofilatto P (2014) Simple method for performance evaluation of multistage rockets. ACTA Astronautica 94(1):434-445. doi:
10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.01.013

Rao AV (2009) A survey of numerical methods for optimal control. Advances in Astronautical Sciences 135(1):497-528.

Schlingloff H (2005) Astronautical engineering: an introduction to the technology of spaceflight. Bad Abach: Ingenieurbuero Dr. Schlingloff
Publications.

Schlingloff H (1991) SKYNAV a design tool for space launcher analysis and flight performance optimization. Munich: User’s Documentation.

Schlingloff H (1987) Control laws for optimal spacecraft navigation. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 24(1):48-51. doi: 10.2514/3.25871

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018
 Trajectory Optimization of Launch Vehicles Using Object-oriented Programming
15/15
xx/xx

Seywald H (1994) Trajectory Optimization Based on Differential Inclusion. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 17(3):480-487.
doi: 10.2514/3.21224

Silva CSC (1995) Simulação de Sistemas de Motores Foguetes a Propelentes Líquidos (Master’s Dissertation). São José dos Campos:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica. In Portuguese.

Teren F, Spurlock OF (1966) Payload optimization of multistage launch vehicles. (TN D-3191). NASA Technical Note.

Tewari A (2007) Atmospheric and spaceflight dynamics. Boston: Birkhäuser.

von Stryk O, Bulirsch R (1992) Direct and indirect methods for trajectory optimization. Annals of Operations Research 37(1):357-373.
doi: 10.1007/BF02071065

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v10, e3918, 2018