Near-Space Station-Keeping Performance

of a Large Notional Airship

Dave Schmidt
Professor Emeritus
Dept. Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
dschmidt@uccs.edu
719 262-3580
www.uccs.edu/~sansrl
as presented at the SAE ACGSC
Williamsburg, VA
October 12, 2006
Partially Sponsored by the Army Space & Missile Defense Battle Lab

Outline of the Presentation

Near Space
What is Near Space?
Why Are We Interested in It?
Is it Feasible?

- Key Problem - Long-Duration Station Keeping

Wind Environment
Aerodynamics - Drag
Guidance & Control in Turbulence
Solar - Powered Propulsion
Station - Keeping Power Analysis

Summary & Conclusions

Typical Mission Communication Or Observation

Example SpaceBased Solution to

Wide-Area
Surveillance

What if We Could
Place a Sensor at a
Lower Altitude
and Keep It There?

Persistent Surveillance Key

Persistent (24/7) Communication and/or Surveillance Platform

Desirable Near-Space Platform Characteristics

Persistent 24/7, multi-month, all-weather capability

You can bring it down and fix it
Low-cost platform, rapid reconstitution of capabilities
Improved performance of most space sensors
Local control
..

This is the Promise of Near Space

Space

Where Is Near-Space?
GEO

37,160 km

MEO

21,000 km

Near-Space

LEO

100 1000 km

Air

100 km (327,000 ft)

20 km (60,000 ft)
20 km

Surface

SATCOM
GPS

Iridium

US Near-Space Efforts
(Selected)
NASA

USAF
(98,863 feet World Record)

Helios

NM State
Univ

Advanced Aerobody

Payload: 220 - 500 lbs

Altitude: 50-98K feet
Duration: > 1 week

AFRL

Payload: <1000 lbs

Altitude: 60 100K feet
Duration: 3 months

Army/MDA

High Altitude Airship

Payload: 4K 12K lbs
Altitude: 65K to 85K
Duration: 1 month
(near-term)
3 - 5 yrs (objective)

Free Balloons
>2,500 flights since 1951
Payload: up to 7000 lbs
Altitude: Up to 140,000 feet

Ascender
Maneuvering Vehicle
Payload: 100-1000 lbs
Altitude: 80 120k feet
Duration: 4-10 days

UCCS

Weather Research
Payload: 6 lbs
Altitude: 100K feet

International Efforts to Develop

Near-Space Platforms
United States

Canada

United Kingdom

Germany

Israel

South Korea

Japan

Malaysia

Outline of the Presentation

Near Space
What is Near Space?
Why Are We Interested in It?
Is it Feasible?

Key Problem - Long-Duration Station Keeping

Select a Typical Vehicle for Analysis
Model Wind Environment
Model the Aerodynamics
Model Solar - Powered Propulsion
Perform Station - Keeping Power Analysis
Assess Feasibility - Identify Possibilities

Summary & Conclusions

Key Issue - Station Keeping

Objective: Remain on Station in Presence of Winds

Issue: On-Board Power Available vs Power Required
Power Available Power Required

(I
Solar

SolarCells

Storage P

) Motor

Payload
Auxiliary

Prop

1
V

C AVD

2
Wind

+ P

Wind

Maneuver

Requires Assessments of VWind oCD oPManeuver oI's

Solar o

Notional Airship Investigated

Vehicle Characteristics:
Volume = 6.1x106 ft3
Length = 450 ft
Width = 100 ft
WOEW = 30,000 lbs
Solar-electric powered
Electric motors/propellers
Payload Power = 3 kW
Performance Reqmts:
Operating Altitude - 65,000 ft
Endurance ~ 1 Year
Maintain Position in Winds

Wind Analysis
White Sands (EPZ) and Akron (PIT)
(32.5 deg North, 106.5 West), (41 deg North, 81.5 deg West)

Statistical Wind Modeling

STATISTICS:
Possible Sweet
Spots

Year 2004 Wind Variation:

White Sands (EPZ) and Akron (PIT)

Monthly vs Annual Wind Statistics

Annual Stats
(2004)

Monthly Stats
(2004)
White
Sands
(July)

Akron

Speed
(kts)

Speed
(kts)

White
Sands

Akron

Speed
(kts)

Speed
(kts)

50

15.7 kts

13.4 kts

50

27.4 kts

34.4 kts

95

31.4 kts

35 kts

95

35.5 kts

68.5 kts

99

38.6 kts

47.5 kts

99

38.4 kts

85.6 kts

P Winds

P Winds

(Dec)

Key Points: Monthly Variations Can Be Significant, and

Probability distribution is key, not just means

Altitude, K ft

Dryden Turbulence Model

Frequency Spectra

u () = u (2L u /U 0 )

1 + L/U
u

1 + 3 L/U 2
2
v
0

v () = v (L v /U 0 )
2 2
1 + L/U

v
0

g

RMS Turbulence Intensity, fps

Aerodynamic Drag Estimation

Drag

Power Required
UCCS Low-Speed Tunnel
Lift-Drag Force Balance
Body geometry L/D = 3.9
ReL = 1.3 x 105 (Low)
Turbulence Grid Needed
Mmax = 0.045 (50 fps, 30 kts)

Airship Model in Tunnel Test Section

Drag = (1/2 V2) CDAref

CD - Empirically & Experimentally Determined

Airship Dynamics Modeling

Non-dimensional Aero Coefficients and Mass Properties
From Nagabhushan & Tan (1995)
Mass Properties Scaled
Apparent Masses Scaled
Static Stability Restored
Roll DOF Ignored
Sluggish, Heavily Damped Response

Degree of
Freedom
u (fps)

Transfer Functions
From Thrust, t (lbs)
0.000925 (s+0.261) (s+0.527)
(s+0.261) (s+0.0156) (s+0.527)

v (fps)

r (rad/s)

Transfer Functions
From Rudder, r (rad)
0
-0.0958 (s+13.9) (s+0.0156)
(s+0.261) (s+0.0156) (s+0.527)
-0.0390 (s+0.0824) (s+0.0156)
(s+0.261) (s+0.0156) (s+0.527)

Station Keeping In Turbulence

Steady Wind, VWind
Plus u and v Gusts
ug vg

Objective:
Drive Position Error To Zero
In Presence Of Wind Gusts

Desired Position
(Looking From Above)

Y Error
X Error

Motion Decomposition:
Vehicle Relative to Steady Air Mass
Air Mass Relative to Inertial
Gust Superimposed on Steady Air Mass

Guidance & Control Architecture

GPS Based
Wind Gusts (turbulence)
ControlsInertial
Inertial
Thrust &
Position
Velocity
Fin Defl.

Desired Position

Guidance
Algorithm

Attitude
Controller

Vehicle
Dynamics

Kinematics

&
X
perturbation = (U 0 + u) - VWind = u
&
Y
+v
perturbation = U
0
Control laws synthesized via classical loop shaping
Allows for assessment of maneuver-power required

Closed-Loop Time Responses

Position Error X, ft

Time Responses

Position Error Y, ft
Heading deg
Surge velocity u, fps
Lateral velocity v, fps
Yaw rate r, deg/sec
Thrust t, lbs
Rudder defl. r, deg

Time, sec

Stochastic Control-Power Assessment

Linear Closed-Loop Dynamic System (BW)

+
Turbulence Model
Lyapunov Equation
Response Covariance Matrix Y

Maneuver-Thrust Required
Severe Turbulence
Longitudinal Performance

R M S X e r r o r , ft

100000

10000

Increased Control
Bandwidth

1000

100

10

1
1

10

100

1000

RMS Thrust, lbs

Note: To Keep rms Position Error < 1000 ft Requires 20 lbs Thrust rms
Increasing Total rms Station Keeping Thrust Required ~6%

Pulling it All Together

# Wind Statistics and Probability Distributions

# Aerodynamic Drag Models
# Maneuver Power Required
Solar Geometric Effects
Vehicle geometry - large airship
Geo latitude
Diurnal and seasonal effects
Energy-Subsystem Efficiencies

Power Available
Versus
Power Required

Average Solar Insolation Available

Purple = Akron (kW)

Blue = White Sands (kW)

Includes Effects of
Day Length
Sun Angles

Average solar insolation by month

Akron 41 deg

White Sands 32 deg

600

500

W/m^2

400

300

200

100

0
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Diurnal & Vehicle Geometry Effects

1.01
N-S

0.80 . 8
Fraction
0.60 . 6
Of
Useful
Area
0.40 . 4

E-W
0.41 Ave NS
0.32 Ave EW

0.20 . 2
00 0
0

10

15

10
Hour of Day

20

20

Airship Power System Schematic

Solar
Incident
Energy

Payload
Auxiliary
Systems

Solar
Cells
Energy
Storage
Power Mgmt. Options:
Instant Usage
- - Store Then Use

Motors

Propellers

= Energy Conversion

Power Required vs Available

(Mean (P=0.5) by Month

Excess Ave.
Power in Feb.

Ave.
Power
Deficit

Power Required vs. Power Available

Monte Carlo Simulations

Variation from random velocity

600

Battery Power, kW*hrs

battery type:
all to battery
Cd:
0.12
capacity:
600 kWh
month:
Feb
motor efficiency:
80%
solar cell efficiency: 6%
battery efficiency: 60%

500

400

Ave.
Excess
Power
>0

300

200

100

0
0

no power available

3
days

Time, days

Summary of Key Results

Near-Space Offers Promise In Communication and Surveillance Missions
- Cost-Effectiveness, Reliability, Flexibility, Persistence
Key Feasibility Issues Include Power Limitations and Wind Vulnerability
This Airship Predicted to Have Insufficient Average Power at Akron in December.
Average Excess Power Available - Necessary, But Not Sufficient Condition
to Assure Viability More Detailed Analysis Required.
Also, Probable Insufficient Power at Akron in Other Months, Due to
Gamblers Ruin Phenomenon.
Large Seasonal Variation in Winds - Wind Statistics & Distribution
Power Required vs. Power Available - Out of Phase
Power Balance Very Sensitive to Wind Speed (~V3), Drag Coefficient,
and Power-system Efficiencies (linear multiplicative dependence)

Conclusions Based on Results

This Vehicle is Very Power Limited

The Vehicle Could Not Remain Aloft for a Year in Winds Like Akrons
Slight Change in Power-system Efficiencies - Large Change in Results
-- Payoff from Additional Technological Advancements
In Particular, Novel Long-Term Power Storage Technology Would
Have High Payoff
Other Vehicle Configurations Need Similar Assessment,
To Determine Sensitivity of Results to Vehicle Configuration

Back Up Slides

Potential Fields of View

At Sub-Orbital Altitudes
80,000 feet

60,000 feet

700 Miles
600 Miles

Near Space Potentially Offers An Alternative

Cost-effective,
persistent
wide area surveillance,
communications, etc.

This
This is
is Why
Why
There
There is
is Interest
Interest

Rudder Control-Power Required

Lateral Performance

R M S Y e rror, ft

100000

10000

Increased Control
Bandwidth

1000

100

10

1
1

10

100

RMS Rudder Deflection, deg

Note: To Keep rms Position Error < 1000 ft Requires 9 deg Rudder rms