Matrixnorm difference between each case and the MoorePenrose matrix inversion.
Abstract
This paper discusses the singularities that exist within a 3/4 CMG configuration when the CMGs are placed at mixed skew angles. CMGs are typically mounted with the same skew angles and are fixed throughout the spacecraft’s lifetime. Changing these skew angles can bring about unique attributes for the spacecraft such as an increased pitch, roll or yaw capability. Mapping out these singularities when each CMG is mounted differently can show an engineer how to maximize these capabilities and enhance a spacecraft’s mission completion ability. Using singularity penetration logic, the spacecraft’s attitude controls system can pass through these singularities. These singularities would best be avoided to provide optimal control. Finding these limited singularity penetration regions is the focus of this paper. Different mixed skew configurations appear to be more ideal than others for spacecraft that focus on maneuvers about only one axis of rotation.
Keywords
 mixed skew angles
 3/4 CMG configuration
 singularity penetration
 CMG configuration singularity regions
1. Introduction
CMGs have become a staple in the space community as a means to accomplish pointing, tracking, and acquiring. CMGs create a torque by rotating or “gimbaling” the CMGs angular momentum vector. The change in angular momentum is how the CMG produces torque and creates movement for the spacecraft.
The Torque axis (
2. CMG 3/4 configuration model
The 3/4 configuration will have the CMGs positioned in the same configuration around the spacecraft throughout the analysis in this paper and can be seen in Figure 2.
The 3/4 configuration [2] is a simple form of spacecraft CMG placement which provides an environment where singularities exist.
All modeling in this project will be accomplished through MATLAB—Simulink modeling software. A step size of 0.001 s was found to be the most accurate while using ODE4 RungeKutta Integration Solver.
3. CMG angular momentum projected on the body reference axes
The three CMG’s each have an angular momentum vector (
A new matrix
Torque is generated by the time rate of change in the angular momentum, which may be expressed in a chain rule of derivatives and solved for the gimbal rates.
Now there is a relationship between the time rate of change in the angular momentum (
4. Accuracy of inverting the
A
matrix
Inverting the
Case  [A] Inversion model  MatrixNorm difference 

1 

0.872826646563208 
2 

0.872826646563208 
3 

0 
4 

0.872826646560334 
5 

0.872826646560693 
6 

6.67204727298e+04 
7 

6.67204727298e+04 
The
5. Applying CMG torque to the spacecraft
Now that the CMG torque has been developed it can now be applied to the spacecraft.
Using Euler’s dynamical Eq. (6), the angular momentum and crosscoupled disturbances can be used to determine the resulting threeaxis rotation [4].
6. Singularity penetration logic
Singularity existence has been discussed at length in [2].
Singularities exist when the determinant of the
7. PDI controller tuning
The PDI controller will be used to generate a control signal from the commanded input signal and the spacecraft feedback signal. The topography for the PDI controller can be seen in Figure 4.
The PDI controller accepts both the commanded angle and angular velocity as well as the feedback angle and angular velocity and avoids using the derivative function.
Tuning the gains become the next step in building the controller section of the spacecraft. Three different tuning techniques will be covered:
7.1 ZieglerNichols tuning
This tuning technique requires the gain margin (
7.2 Manual tuning
Several design criteria must be considered when utilizing the manual tuning technique. Rise time (
7.3 Tuning using the linear quadratic regulator function
The LQR function in MATLAB requires the state space form of the control system. Using the form
The three tuning techniques were completed, and the gain values were calculated. These gains have been compiled and entered in Table 2 [5].
Case  Tuning technique 




1  ZieglerNichols  16.20  0.78  84.65 
2  Manual  36.76  1.41  55.67 
3  LQR function  1.00  0.10  11.45 
Using the gains found in Table 2, three differing step functions can be found and analyzed. ZieglerNichols was found to be the optimal tuning method for the controllers. The LQR function is the worst way of tuning the controller. The overshoot is largest of the three tuning methods and the settling time takes longer than 100 s [5].
8. Plotting singularity regions with mixed skew angles
A series of mixed skew profiles were selected to perform initial analysis on. Upon investigation, certain profiles were further analyzed to see how they would be advantageous for a spacecraft with a specific maneuver requirement such as maneuver in pitch, roll, or yaw. Figure 2 demonstrates how these skew angles (
Profile  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3


1  15  30  60 
2  30  15  60 
3  30  60  15 
4  15  60  30 
5  60  15  30 
6  60  30  15 
Profile  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3


1  20  40  80 
2  20  80  40 
3  40  20  80 
4  40  80  20 
5  80  20  40 
6  80  40  20 
Profile  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3


1  30  60  90 
2  30  90  60 
3  60  30  90 
4  60  90  30 
5  90  30  60 
6  90  60  30 
Profile  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3


1  0  45  90 
2  0  90  45 
3  45  0  90 
4  45  90  0 
5  90  0  45 
6  90  45  0 
Profile  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3


1  0  30  60 
2  0  60  30 
3  30  0  60 
4  30  60  0 
5  60  3  30 
6  60  30  0 
The singularity plots associated with these series are found in Appendix A of this report. Each of these plots was analyzed to see breadth and depth of singularity surfaces internal to the saturation region of the 3/4 CMG configuration depicted in Figure 2.
9. Determining singularity free regions
The five series of singularity plots were observed to determine internal singularity free regions. The objective was to find an internal region in which the spacecraft could maneuver without running into a singularity. Also, if there was a singularity, would the spacecraft be capable of passing through a small amount of singularities in order to continue maneuvering to a commanded rotation. Singularity penetration is a feasible concept however the goal of this paper was to use it sparingly.
The singularity regions found in Figure 5 demonstrate how with varied skew angles new singularity free regions may be discovered and utilized to a spacecraft designer’s advantage. Although the angular momentum plotted in Figure 5 first interacts with a singularity at a value of 0.73, it only hits the singularity for an instance. Using singularity penetration logic discussed in part VI may allow the spacecraft to operate in an angularity momentum regime at
The maximum angular momentum achieved by the mixed skew configurations in series 1–5 has been plotted and the data was consolidated into Table 8.
Series  CMG 1

CMG 2

CMG 3

Max H* 

1  15  30  60  0.54 
30  15  60  0.51  
30  60  15  0.16  
15  60  30  0.16  
60  15  30  0.51  
60  30  15  0.54  
2  20  40  80  0.34 
20  80  40  0.17  
40  20  80  0.33  
40  80  20  0.17  
80  20  40  0.33  
80  40  20  0.53  
3  30  60  90  0.12 
30  90  60  0.41  
60  30  90  0.51  
60  90  30  0.41  
90  30  60  0.51  
90  60  30  0.25  
4  0  45  90  0.73 
0  90  45  0.22  
45  0  90  0.41  
45  90  0  0.22  
90  0  45  0.41  
90  45  0  0.73  
5  0  30  60  0.52 
0  60  30  0.39  
30  0  60  0.52  
30  60  0  0.39  
60  0  30  0.52  
60  30  0  0.53 
10. Conclusion
Mixed skew angles bring a new variety and flexibility in spacecraft design. These new CMG configurations enable engineers to now explore new singularity free regions and push spacecraft to possibly operate with higher levels of momentum.
As seen in Table 8, when the opposing CMG configurations have a dramatic change in configuration, the Angular Momentum is typically higher. This is not always the case, as seen in series 3, configurations 1 and 6 (the most dramatic change between CMG 1 and 3 in the series) demonstrate the worst angular momentum possibility. Several of these configurations cater to different requirements of the spacecraft. For example, Series 3 Configuration 5 (ref. Appendix A) may be more suitable for a spacecraft that requires movement about the roll and yaw axes. Series 3 Configuration 2 may be more suitable for pitch and roll spacecraft. Appendix A is meant to be used by spacecraft designers to design a spacecraft suitable to the requirements needed.
Appendix A
Singularity Plots
Series 1:
Configuration 1:
Configuration 2:
Configuration 3:
Configuration 4:
Configuration 5:
Configuration 6:
Series 2:
Configuration 1:
Configuration 2:
Configuration 3:
Configuration 4:
Configuration 5:
Configuration 6:
Series 3:
Configuration 1:
Configuration 2:
Configuration 3:
Configuration 4:
Configuration 5:
Configuration 6:
Series 4:
Configuration 1:
Configuration 2:
Configuration 3:
Configuration 4:
Configuration 5:
Configuration 6:
Series 5:
Configuration 1:
Configuration 2:
Configuration 3:
Configuration 4:
Configuration 5:
Configuration 6:
References
 1.
Lang J. CMG singularities in a 3/4 configuration. AE3818 Spacecraft Attitude, Determination, and Control Report #1; 2019  2.
Lang J. Singularities in a 3/4 configuration. AE3818 Spacecraft Attitude, Determination, and Control Report #2; 2019  3.
Lang J. Increased CMG capability using singular penetration logic. AE3818 Spacecraft Attitude, Determination, and Control Report #3; 2019  4.
Lang J. Spacecraft kinematics in a 321 rotation. AE3815 Spacecraft Rotational Mechanics Report #2; 2019  5.
Lang J. Tuning for PID and PDI controllers. AE3818 Spacecraft Attitude, Determination, and Control Report #4; 2019