Convex Predictor–Corrector Aerocapture Guidance

Existing aerocapture predictor–corrector guidance algorithms apply significant simplifications to the problem in order to reduce the computational complexity involved in the control plan correction phase. Such simplifications include using a reduced set of equations of motion, exclusion of path constraints, the use of parametric control profiles, and the requirement of separate lateral logic to determine the bank-angle direction. This work presents an advanced predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance algorithm based on sequential convex programming, which enables the inclusion of system-level constraints, namely, peak aerodynamic loading and convective heat load, and eliminates the need for a lateral-logic law while maintaining a feasible level of computational expense. The developed algorithm is dubbed the “convex predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance” (CPAG) algorithm. CPAG’s performance is compared to the state-of-the-art fully numerical predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance (FNPAG) algorithm for aerocapture at Neptune, Mars, and Earth. Monte Carlo analyses indicate that CPAG produces similar in-plane [Formula: see text] requirements and improved out-of-plane [Formula: see text] requirements relative to FNPAG. Additionally, CPAG is able to enforce aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic constraints, even in the presence of uncertainty, while FNPAG is unable to do so. Finally, the use of an energy-based apoapsis targeting expression that can account for perturbations from nonspherical gravitational fields is presented, and its predictions for the required in-plane [Formula: see text] are compared to standard Keplerian expressions. The energy-based expression for targeting an apoapsis radius relaxes the Keplerian motion assumption and improves the accuracy in [Formula: see text] predictions by almost 25%.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g008685
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.99
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Convex Predictor–Corrector Aerocapture Guidance

Iain D. Boyd, Jay W. McMahon, Jens A. Rataczak
2 citations
Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics
Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
9.99
article

Convex Predictor–Corrector Aerocapture Guidance

Iain D. Boyd, Jay W. McMahon, Jens A. Rataczak
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Existing aerocapture predictor–corrector guidance algorithms apply significant simplifications to the problem in order to reduce the computational complexity involved in the control plan correction phase. Such simplifications include using a reduced set of equations of motion, exclusion of path constraints, the use of parametric control profiles, and the requirement of separate lateral logic to determine the bank-angle direction. This work presents an advanced predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance algorithm based on sequential convex programming, which enables the inclusion of system-level constraints, namely, peak aerodynamic loading and convective heat load, and eliminates the need for a lateral-logic law while maintaining a feasible level of computational expense. The developed algorithm is dubbed the “convex predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance” (CPAG) algorithm. CPAG’s performance is compared to the state-of-the-art fully numerical predictor–corrector aerocapture guidance (FNPAG) algorithm for aerocapture at Neptune, Mars, and Earth. Monte Carlo analyses indicate that CPAG produces similar in-plane [Formula: see text] requirements and improved out-of-plane [Formula: see text] requirements relative to FNPAG. Additionally, CPAG is able to enforce aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic constraints, even in the presence of uncertainty, while FNPAG is unable to do so. Finally, the use of an energy-based apoapsis targeting expression that can account for perturbations from nonspherical gravitational fields is presented, and its predictions for the required in-plane [Formula: see text] are compared to standard Keplerian expressions. The energy-based expression for targeting an apoapsis radius relaxes the Keplerian motion assumption and improves the accuracy in [Formula: see text] predictions by almost 25%.

Journal of Guidance Control and DynamicsVol. 48(8)
University of Colorado Boulder (US), University of Colorado System (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
9.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Convex Predictor–Corrector Aerocapture Guidance — Iain D. Boyd, Jay W. McMahon, et al. · Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS