Fuzzy attitude control for a nanosatellite in low Earth orbit

Two‐Layer Terminal Sliding Mode Attitude Control of Satellites Equipped with Reaction Wheels

“…Amongst different actuators, the reaction wheels are acknowledged for their proven performance, relative simplicity, fast response and high pointing control accuracy. Regardless of the actuators type, various control approaches have been proposed for satellite attitude stability and tracking problem including optimal approach [10,11], adaptive control [12,13], robust control [14,15], Lyapunov-based methods [9,16,17], observer-based approaches [18,19], fuzzy control [20,21], and sliding mode control [22][23][24]. Among all mentioned methods, the sliding mode control (SMC) approach is acknowledged for its ability to cope with the uncertainties and disturbances in the nonlinear systems.…”

Design and research of high precision nonmagnetic biaxial rotary table

“…According to past researches and experiments, various attitude control systems for different spacecrafts had been developed such as fuzzy proportion integration differentiation control and periodic linear systems by bounded controls etc [11][12][13][14][15]. In addition, magnetic attitude control systems using air-bearing-based attitude control simulator or without initial detumbling were studied in recent years [16,17].…”

Analysis Model to Optimize Ground Stations in Built-up Areas

“…Flying formations from a pair of CubeSats to a cluster or constellation can be seen in current projects, research and initiatives such as; a pair of cubesats to measure terrestrial gamma-ray flash beams (Briggs et al 2015); a constellation of 50 nano-satellites to study the low thermosphere ; others relative to the subsystem performance and efficiency (Calvo et al 2016, Guo et al 2013; the formation flying demonstration using 6 cubeSats (Subrmanian et al 2015); the constellation mission requirements using nano-satellites (Catalin, 2009;Bandyopadhyay et al 2015), and;…”

“…This was launched in April 2008 and was designed for a life time of one year (to date operational). In particular, this space platform configuration based on standard CubeSat units from 2U to 6U increases the propulsion and deployment subsystems capacity and the solar panels surface, and allows a major number of instruments on board, or a larger or heavier instrument such as a infrared spectrometer, a hyperspectral camera, a solar sail, a star tracker, and other specific payloads in relation to the mission concept (Tsitas & Kingston, 2010;Moore et al 2010;Lappas et al 2011;Näsilä et al 2011, McBryde & Lightsey, 2012Mouroulis et al 2014;Franquiz et al 2014;Fields et al 2015;Westerhoff et al 2015;Carrero-Luengo et al 2016;Calvo et al 2016;Hegel, 2016).…”

“…However, satellite orbits are imposed by mission and payload requirements and the GS engineers must deal with this limitation to operate the mission efficiently such as in the QBito nano-satellite mission with an initial orbit altitude of 380 Km (Calvo et al 2016 (Gao et al 2009); small mechanisms for the antennas and solar array deployment (Yousuf et al 2008;Jansen et al 2010;EncinasPlaza et al 2010;Santoni et al 2014;Prodoningrum et al 2015;Vilán et al 2015;Nascetti et al 2015;Suaréz-Fajardo et al 2016), and; high performance components (Ballester-Gúrpide, 2000;Galli, 2008;Aguado et al 2008;Jayaram, 2009;Rani et al 2010;Bhuma & Balsu, 2012;Radhakrishnan et al 2016). Moreover, MEMS technology integration has increased CubeSat capabilities by replacing subsystems such as the inertial measurement and thruster propulsion units, and by substituting larger and heavier components of the attitude control system such as gyroscopes and magnetorques (Steyn, 2001;Huang & Yang, 2009;DeRooij et al 2009;Shea, 2009;Moore et al 2010;Conversano & Wirz, 2011;Gauer et al 2012;Li et al 2013;Cahoy et al 2013;Quadrino, 2014;Cervone et al 2016).…”