Longitudinal Control Strategy for Hypersonic Accelerating Vehicles

Recent work on small scale access to space systems found that by incorporating a scramjet powered stage into the launch stack the percent payload into orbit can be improved significantly over conventional rocket only systems. However, in order to gain the most out of the airbreathing stage the flight dynamic pressure across the accelerating trajectory becomes an important design consideration. If it is too high then the structural loading and aerodynamic heating can be excessive, if it is too low scramjet performance will suffer and unreasonably large wings will be required to generate enough lift. A common compromise is to fly a constant dynamic pressure trajectory. This paper presents and compares three dynamic pressure controller methodologies that were developed for a scaled down version of the winged cone vehicle developed by NASA during the 90s. The controllers investigated are a constant gain PID, a gain scheduling PID and a pole placement PI. The performances of the controllers are demonstrated along a 50kPa dynamic pressure accelerating trajectory. It is shown that a unique criteria that must be satisfied is an initial flight path angle that satisfies a zero rate of change in dynamic pressure, and an underlying angle of attack for ‘lift equals weight’.

[1]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Development of an Aerodynamics Code for the Optimisation of Hypersonic Vehicles , 2009 .

[2]  Farhan A Faruqi,et al.  On Stability and Control of Hypersonic Vehicles , 2009 .

[3]  John H. Blakelock,et al.  Automatic control of aircraft and missiles , 1965 .

[4]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Design of an Airbreathing Second Stage for a Rocket-Scramjet-Rocket Launch Vehicle , 2013 .

[5]  Kai Liu,et al.  The design for robust controller for hypersonic vehicle based on LPV model , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Control and Information Processing.

[6]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Orbital Delivery of Small Payloads Using Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion , 2009 .

[7]  John R. Olds,et al.  Constant Dynamic Pressure Trajectory Simulation in POST , 1998 .

[8]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Shock Tunnel Experiments with a Mach 12 REST Scramjet at Off-Design Conditions , 2008 .

[9]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Design of an minimum trim hypersonic airbreathing accelerator vehicle , 2012 .

[10]  Michael Richard,et al.  The X-43A Six Degree of Freedom Monte Carlo Analysis , 2008 .

[11]  Michael A. Bolender,et al.  Flight Path Angle Dynamics of Air-breathing Hypersonic Vehicles , 2006 .

[12]  Michael K. Smart,et al.  Preliminary Design of an Integrated Scramjet-Powered Accelerator , 2009 .

[13]  Thomas Jazra Optimisation of Hypersonic Vehicles for Airbreathing Propulsion , 2010 .

[14]  Michael A. Bolender,et al.  An overview on dynamics and controls modelling of hypersonic vehicles , 2009, 2009 American Control Conference.