Estimation of the Minimal Duration of an Attitude Change for an Autonomous Agile Earth-Observing Satellite

Most of the currently active Earth-observing satellites are entirely controlled from the ground: observation plans are regularly computed on the ground (typically each day for the next day), uploaded to the satellite using visibility windows, and then executed onboard as they stand. Because the possible presence of clouds is the main obstacle to optical observation, meteorological forecasts are taken into account when building these observation plans. However, this does not prevent most of the performed observations to be fruitless because of the unforeseen presence of clouds. To fix this problem, the possibility of equipping Earth-observing satellites with an extra instrument dedicated to the detection of the clouds in front of it, just before observation, is currently considered. But, in such conditions, decision upon the observations to be performed can be no longer made offline on the ground. It must be performed online onboard, because it must be performed at the last minute when detection information is available and because visibility windows between Earth-observing satellites and their control centers are short and rare. With agile Earth-observing satellites which are the next generation ones, decision-making upon observation requires the computing of an as short as possible attitude trajectory allowing the satellite to point to the right ground area within its visibility window. In this paper, we show the results of an experiment consisting in using a continuous constraint satisfaction problem solver (RealPaver) to compute such optimal trajectories online onboard.

[1]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming — CP 2001: 7th International Conference, CP 2001 Paphos, Cyprus, November 26 – December 1, 2001 Proceedings , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[2]  Frédéric Benhamou Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2006, 12th International Conference, CP 2006, Nantes, France, September 25-29, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, CP.

[3]  Edouard Belin,et al.  Selecting and Scheduling Observations for Agile Satellites: Some Lessons from the Constraint Reasoning Community Point of View , 2001 .

[4]  Pascal Parraud Smooth Attitude Guidance Laws for Homing Maneuvers , 2006 .

[5]  Gérard Verfaillie,et al.  Selecting and Scheduling Observations for Agile Satellites: Some Lessons from the Constraint Reasoning Community Point of View , 2001, CP.

[6]  David Stuart Robertson,et al.  Dynamic and Distributed Interaction Protocols , 2004, Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[7]  Felix R. Hoots,et al.  Theory of the motion of an artificial Earth satellite , 1981 .

[8]  Rob Sherwood,et al.  The EO-1 autonomous science agent , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[9]  Jean-Pierre Merlet Interval Analysis and Robotics , 2006, CP.

[10]  Frédéric Benhamou,et al.  Continuous and Interval Constraints , 2006, Handbook of Constraint Programming.

[11]  Frédéric Benhamou,et al.  Algorithm 852: RealPaver: an interval solver using constraint satisfaction techniques , 2006, TOMS.

[12]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Handbook of Constraint Programming , 2006, Handbook of Constraint Programming.

[13]  Gérard Verfaillie,et al.  Earth Observation Satellite Management , 1999, Constraints.