Review

A state-of-the-art survey of integrated attitude and orbit

determination to control spacecraft
Mohamad Fakhari Mehrjardi*, Hilmi Sanusi, Mohd. Alauddin Mohd. Ali, Mardina Abdullah
Space Science Centre (ANGKASA), Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA;
E-Mails: hilmi@eng.ukm.my; alauddin.ukm@gmail.com; mardina@ukm.edu.my
*Correspondence: mohamad.fakhari.m@gmail.com; Tel.: +60-12-312-9908

Abstract: Since the early years of the spacecraft program, precision orbit and attitude determination and
control (OADC) methods have evolved through research by astrodynamics. Due to the dependence of the
disturbing torques on orbital position and velocity, and also the dependence of the perturbing forces on
the spacecraft attitude, there is a nonlinear coupling between attitude and orbit dynamics. However, it is
often assumed spacecraft orbit dynamics and attitude dynamics are independent. Several techniques
have been developed to estimate force and torque models acting on the spacecraft to improve the
accuracy of the models. This paper provides an overview of separate orbit and attitude dynamics and
control (SOADC), and integrated orbit and attitude dynamics and control (IOADC), and their issues and
challenges. This paper provides a brief review of modern OADC methodologies that are routinely being
used in the 21st century which would benefit astrodynamics specialist from industries, universities, and
government organizations.

Keywords: spacecraft; integrated orbit and attitude; disturbing torques; modern control

1. Introduction

Spacecraft OADC is described as the methodology of determining and controlling the motion and
orientation (i.e. the state vector, ephemeris, or state) of an orbiting object such as a spacecraft relative to
the Sun, the Earth, or the stars [1]. The motion and orientation of a spacecraft are estimated by a set of
equations with the state adjusted in response to a set of discrete sensors data and subject to both random
and systematic errors [2]. In the context of this article, the IOADC problem is generally described by
applying statistical estimation techniques of determining the state of a spacecraft as a function of time
using the set of observations. The spacecraft is supposed to be influenced by a variety of external forces
and torques, such as gravity, aerodynamic drag, solar radiation, third-body disturbances, and Earth tidal
effects [3]. The complex description of these forces and torques results in a highly nonlinear set of
dynamical equations. Since the OADC equations and observational data are inherently nonlinear,
linearization technique is often performed in which linear estimation methods are used to resolve the
OADC problem [4].
 Due to the complexity of the OADC problem, the review does not describe the subject in depth.
However, there are a number of brilliant text books and papers that cover the technical details on the
principles and applications of the OADC issue [5,6]. For example, King-Hele provided an excellent
review of aerodynamic drag research on satellites before the launch of Sputnik1 [7].
A context diagram for an IOADC solution is illustrated in Figure 1. Based on this diagram, there are
three requirements for the IOADC system to work effectively: developing the fundamental physics and
mathematical equations of the theory, satisfying observability features of the system in space and time
using measurements data, and computational procedures employed by the computer hardware and
software.

Figure1. Context map for standard IOADC

Batch filtering and recursive filtering are two commonly used algorithm for orbit and attitude
determination. Batch filtering techniques apply all measurements data to update the states and recursive
state filters using only the current and previous set of observations. Recursive filters are more sensitive to
individual data points; however, they are proper for real-time estimation [6].
Kalman filter is a type of recursive filter that provides optimal estimation of current states. Kalman
filter was used in the navigation system for the Apollo Project to estimate the trajectory of the spacecraft
for it to go to the Moon and return [8]. Application of Kalman filter requires filter tuning to modify the
response time of the filter [9]. In Kalman filter, initial conditions for the covariance matrix of the
estimated state vector and estimation of uncertainty are required. Moreover, this filter involves
covariance matrices for the noise of sensor and for random dynamic perturbations of the state vector.
These parameters need to be determined from engineering judgment, test results, and error analysis. The
method of adjusting these values, according to analysis of performance of the filter, is named filter tuning
[10,11]. Gaining proper amounts for the dynamic covariance matrix perturbation noise is the most
challenging part of filter tuning.
During the last few years, development of single spacecraft’s orbital and attitude motions model has
received growing interest. An accurate model of a spacecraft’s relative position and attitude is a key
requirement to the success of the coordinated control of a spacecraft. In comparison with underwater
vehicles and aircraft, the field of spacecraft’s orbital and attitude motions model has received little
attention [12,13]. This work therefore investigates various spacecraft attitude and orbit dynamics and
determination algorithms to perform a proper analysis for the designer. This paper divides the literature
into areas of orbital concept, attitude study, and spacecraft’s IOADC. All methods are briefly explained
and advantages and disadvantages of SOADC and IOADC are argued. It is expected that this survey
would help spacecraft designers to find answers in terms of which attitude and orbit determination and
control system is proper for their projects.

2. Orbit Determination Concepts

The general method for orbit determination systems is to generate a dynamic model of the orbit
using available observations to improve orbit parameters by the development of differential corrections
[14]. Orbit propagation, orbit prediction, and definitive orbit determination are such of these applications.
Figure2 shows all basic areas that are applied in practice to solve orbit determination problem.

Figure2. General orbit determination problem diagram

 Differential correction process is applied in calculating the differences between the measurements
and the predicted position from the estimator. The differences are used to compute a set of corrections to
the starting state vector. This method is used to minimize the differences. The solution is iterated until the
convergence is achieved. The models of the forces that act on the spacecraft’s body are described in the
dynamical model. The forces include both conservative forces, such as gravitational forces, as well as
non-conservative forces, such as aerodynamic drag. Generally, these models are defined in terms of
analytical, semi-analytical, or numerical formulas and techniques. The computational approaches in both
batch estimate and sequential estimate to process the observation data are called statistical estimation
technique [14].
Batch methods were used in all early statistical orbit estimation techniques wherewith all
observations were used in estimation solution [15]. Generally, in the batch theory when data arc
decreases, observation errors become more dominant and for long data arc lengths, the dominant error
sources are dynamic model errors. Later, the batch technique was slowly replaced with sequential
estimation methods whereby new state estimates were derived with the addition of each new
observation. Kalman filter presents a sequential methodology that has been used effectively in several on-
orbit orbit determination missions with good success [16]. Moreover, hybrid techniques have been used
where both batch and sequential methods are blended.
Orbit determination problem is defined by the equation of motion with respect to an inertial
reference frame to represent the propagation of the motion spacecraft orbit [17]. The equation is
expressed generally as

GM

r = − 3 r + fG + fNG
 (1)
r

where
= 6.669 × 10

 ⁄.   is the universal constant of gravitation,  = 5.972 × 10  is

the mass of the Earth, r is spacecraft state vector, f is all noncentral gravitational forces, and f is all
non-gravitational forces acting on the spacecraft. Non-central gravitational forces include temporal
gravity effects due to Earth tides, general relativity, and atmospheric tides. Non-gravitational forces
consist of aerodynamics drag, solar and Earth radiation pressure, spacecraft thermal radiation, and
empirically derived forces. In fact, the estimate error will occur due to a combination of effects such as,
mathematical errors in the equation of motion, mathematical errors in the state observation models,
random and/or systematic errors in the measurements, and numerical errors in the calculations in the
estimation techniques. Celestial bodies orbit determination has attracted some of the best aerospace
engineers for decades. K. Gauss in 1801 developed the theory of initial orbit determination using the least
squares method and three angles. After the launch of Sputnik 1, the need for spacecraft orbit
determination became crucial.
The development of analytical orbit theory began in the late 1950s and early 1960s with the work of
Brower [18] and Kozai [19]. Brower developed his theory to second-order terms by applying mean orbital
elements and the theory was precise only for nearly circular orbits or near-equatorial orbits. Kozai’s
theory was a first-order method using Lagrange’s planetary equations and it was easier to understand.
Later, Kaula [20] by using instantaneous orbital elements, conducted an orbital theory in Keplerian
orbital element space. This method allowed handling third body, resonance, and solid and ocean tidal
disturbance effects easily.

3. Attitude determination concepts

The total spacecraft angular momentum vector consists of angular momentum of the spacecraft’s
body and angular momentum of control actuators [21].The general spacecraft dynamic model is given by
the following expression

T = h i = h + ω × h & h = hb + hw (2)

where T is total external torque, h is angular momentum of spacecraft, hb is angular momentum of

spacecraft body, hw is angular momentum of reaction wheels, and ω is spacecraft body angular velocity.
Attitude determination algorithm refers to the procedure for gaining an appropriate rotation matrix
[22]. By such a rotation matrix, measured vector in the body frame maps to the observation in the
reference frame. Two main attitude determination methods from at least two vector measurements are
discussed.
Attitude determination algorithm solves the following equation for A,

bi = Ari , i = 1,..., N (3)

where bi’s are a set of observation unit vectors in the body frame, ri’s are the ones in the reference
frame and N is the number of vector sensors. Since measured vectors are inevitably contaminated by
some noises, therefore, an exact answer for the rotation matrix A does not exist.

3.1. TRIAD algorithm

The TRIAD algorithm [23-25] is the most common attitude determination method because of its
simplicity. This method delivers a deterministic and non-optimal solution based on two nonparallel unit
vector measurement pairs. Suppose that there are two observed unit vectors b1 and b2 in the spacecraft
body frame that can be observed by star tracker or the Sun sensor. Each of these unit vectors contains two
different scalar information of the attitude. Moreover, obtaining two measured unit vectors r1 and r2 in
some reference frame, such as inertial frame, is necessary. The rotation matrix is the matrix that rotates
vectors from the reference frame to the spacecraft body frame. The exact solution of rotation matrix
satisfies the following two equations [26]

 Ar1 = b1
 (4)
 Ar2 = b2
 Based on the TRIAD idea, when there is an orthogonal right-handed triad of vectors [v1, v2, v3] in
the reference frame, and a corresponding triad [w1, w2, w3] in the spacecraft body frame, the attitude
matrix A is

3
A =  w1 ; w2 ; w3   v1 , v2 , v3  = w1 v1T + w2 v2T + w3 v3T = ∑ wi viT
T
(5)
i =1

The rotation matrix A represents the transformation between the reference frame and body frame
and transfer vi to the wi by

w i = Av i , i = 1, 2, 3 (6)

The negative point of the TRIAD method is that at least two measurement pairs are required. If there
are many measurement unit vectors, the TRIAD algorithm is able to be repeated for every two pairs.
Then, the final attitude matrix can integrate all determinations by some means.

3.2. q-method

In the TRIAD method, combination of sensor observations is not optimal, and it is a major
disadvantage of the TRIAD method [27]. An optimal solution of attitude determination is to minimize the
cost function,

1 N −2
∑σ b − Ari
2
A = arg min (7)
A 2 i =1 i i

where σi is the weight assigned to the ith pair based on the confidence in each sensor. The cost
function is the weighted sum squared of the difference between body observations and transformed
vectors. The cost function is based on parameterize attitude matrix, A, in terms of quaternion vector, (q),
is

1 N −2
∑σ b − A(q)ri
2
A = arg min (8)
A 2 i =1 i i

To minimize this cost function, driving a unit length quaternion is desired. There is an explanation of
relation between the Euler axis of rotation and quaternion in Wertz [6]. It is shown that every rotation
about three axes can be explained as a single rotation about one vector by an angle, Φ. If Euler axis is

T
eˆ =  e1 e2 e3  (9)
 quaternion vector components are given as

φ
q1 = e1 sin
2
φ
q2 = e2 sin
2
(10)
φ
q3 = e3 sin
2
φ
q4 = cos
2
The required quaternion vector is the normalized eigenvector of matrix, k, corresponding to the
largest eigenvalue. Formation of the matrix, k, starts by the construction of σ, B, S, and z, as follows [28].

n
σ = ∑ ai bTi ri (11)
i =1

n
B = ∑ ai bi riT (12)
i =1

S = B + BT (13)

n
z = ∑ ai bi × ri (14)
i =1

S − σ I z 
k= T 3  (15)
 z σ

where I3 is a third order identity matrix. Now the solution becomes

qˆ = arg max qT Kq
q

and (16)
q q = 1 , q = −q
T

This problem is the same as the eigenvalue decomposition problem. One important point in q-
method is that if the scalar part of the corresponding quaternion vector is negative, the sing of quaternion
vector should be changed.

Unlike the TRIAD method, the q-method is able to utilize arbitrary number of measurement pairs.
Moreover, the q-method determines the attitude optimally. However, since the q-method applies
eigenvalue decomposition, it is therefore, highly demanding in terms of computation compared with the
TRIAD method.

3.3. Kalman filter concepts

One of the most interesting topics in the field of control is improvement in modeling methods from
analysis of sensors data. The Kalman filter was developed during the Cold War between North America
and the Soviet Block. The 1954 master’s thesis of R.E. Kalman at MIT was about linear dynamic systems
behavior in discrete time. After that, in 1959 he developed his model from continuous time to discrete
time and for an estimator, he recast an optimal linear feedback gain. Kalman filter was the subsequent
estimator and he published his filter in 1960 in a mechanical engineering journal [29]. Not only was the
Apollo navigation system one of the well-known applications of the Kalman filter, the Kalman filtering
also played a critical role in 1993 in the development of the Global Positioning System (GPS) by the U.S.
Department of Defense. This filter has a state vector system, such as orbit parameters of 24+ satellites,
hundreds of atmospheric parameters as function of location and time, and all system clocks drift rates
and phases [30].
Additionally, Swerling developed a recursive statistically optimum estimation technique in the late
1950s and early 1960s [31]. Reference [32] provides an interesting comparison between Kalman’s
formulations and Swerling’s formulations with respect to applications to tracking.
From 1980 to 2014, more than 3000 research papers with topics on or closely related to Kalman filters
for spacecraft attitude and orbit estimation were published. Figure 3 highlights the yearly distribution of
these publications. The plot shows that the topic of Kalman filters: 1) was introduced around 1980 and
developed within the first ten years; 2) increased within the following ten years; 3) rapidly developed
within the next ten years, and in the 2014 reached its peak activity.

Figure 3. Yearly published records for Kalman filters for spacecraft attitude and orbit estimation from 1980 to 2014
 Kalman filter includes both new observations with weighted average and a system state prediction
according to system dynamics [33]. The weight average is calculated from the covariance and the result is
a new state estimate that is between the observed and predicted state. Kalman filter process is repeated in
every time step and it is a recursive filter and needs only the last best guess (not complete history of
system state) to estimate a new state [34]. Generally, the Kalman filter algorithm works in two steps. The
first step is the prediction of the future state using the current state. In this step, the filter uses a well-
defined model of system dynamics. The prediction step is the first part of the filter for every time step
and the system dynamics model with control inputs are used to estimate the state vector. The update step
is the second step in the Kalman filter algorithm. In this step, the weighted estimation of the current
system is performed by applying available measurements and their model noise, and the obtained
prediction in the first step [21,35]. Figure 4 shows a general concept of the Kalman filter and in this
algorithm, the subscribe k corresponds to the time step; x is the current state vector, Φ is the state-
transition model matrix, Q is plant noise covariance matrix, Z is measurement, H is feedback sensitivity
matrix, R  is sensor noise covariance matrix, and P is error covariance matrix.

Figure 4. Kalman filter process

 4. Attitude and orbit control

The next space missions need more safe control system, autonomy, optimization, and intelligent
controller for different regimes. To tackle these issues in the field of control design, new solutions such as
dynamic inversion, predictive control, linear parameter varying control, H-infinity and H2 (mixed)
approaches, are being proposed [36]. Automatic control field proposes several methods of which each has
a main kind of application. To keep determined variables at a constant value within some errors,
regulation technique is proper. There are some other techniques that focus on appropriate transient
characteristics. For instance, a maneuver that moves from an initial system state vector to a new system
state vector with minimum time consumption. Moreover, there are techniques that aim at good trajectory
tracking. Scharf et al. [19] provides a review of spacecraft formation flying guidance (FFG). This study
includes both path planning and optimal, open loop control design.
Transfer functions propose intuitive visual methods to evaluate the essential properties of the
control system such as stability, gain and phase margins, rejection of undesired frequencies, and many
others [37]. However, this technique focused on single-input single-output (SISO) plants. At the
beginning of the space era, state-space approach was a new control technique that was developed by the
advent of strong computers. This control methodology centered on the control of multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) plants [38]. In this technique, vectors and matrices were systems representation
terms that compromised well with computer capabilities. Still, the state-space technique is a time-domain
framework and in this domain there are no intuitive graphical tools. Later, other techniques and
algorithms such as the Kalman filter, the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), and optimization objectives
were developed [39]. The state-space feedback algorithms required access to real-time measurement of
states. However, usual outputs of the plant can be observable. Observer techniques were developed in
order to solve this challenge. In addition, the development of the Kalman filter came about with the same
aim. Spacecraft formation flying control (FFC) was discussed in [40] comprehensively. In this survey, FFC
was explained as Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, Virtual Structure, Leader and Follower, Cyclic, and
Behavioral architectures.
In the multivariable control systems, cross coupling between inputs and outputs is a source of
difficulty [41]. An easy approach to resolve this issue of multivariable systems is to neglect cross
couplings. In this respect, a decentralized controller is developed that needs pairing to choose which
inputs are connected to which outputs. Another method came from matrix diagonalization and it
decoupled control. The research on control of satellites continued with the frequency domain
methodology being extended to MIMO systems. In this case, it was remarked that singular values
obtained by the singular value decomposition are an improved measure of gain and eigenvalues are a
poor measure [42]. Table 1 shows comparison of some popular spacecraft control algorithms.
Consequently, optimality and stability are the main advantages of MIMO algorithms. However, MIMO
architectures need to use entire state of the spacecraft dynamics and highest information of the system.
Robustness and high performance are the primary advantages of the SISO algorithms. Simplicity and
robustness are the main advantages of PID controllers. However, since tuning of the control parameters
of the PID controllers are by trial and error, the control gains are therefore, not optimized. LQR
controllers are suitable for high stability and optimal control of spacecraft.
 Table 1. Summaries of the some popular spacecraft control algorithms

Control Research
Advantage Disadvantage Ref.
technique methodology
Highest information
Extending the
Optimality and requirements
frequency-domain
Multiple-input stability Eigenvalues are a poor
methodology
multiple-output Singular values measure of gain [42-44]
System representation
(MIMO) are an effective Cross coupling
in terms of vectors and
measure of gain between inputs and
matrices
outputs
Control system in
Single-input
frequency domain High performance
single-output [45,46]
using Nyquist and and robustness
(SISO)
Bode diagrams
Kalman filter to State feedback in linear
Linear quadratic Time varying
estimating plant states plant [47,48]
Gaussian (LQG) feedback
and LQR
Development of the Robustness and Tuning of the control
PID [49-57]
pole-placement theory simplicity parameters
Usually state must be
estimated (such as
Kalman filter)
High stability
Linear quadratic State space and time- Need accurate model
Optimal control [58-60]
regulator (LQR) domain framework of the system
obtaining an analytical
solution to the Ricatti
equation

4.1. Optimization algorithms based on controller techniques

At the end of the last century, optimization algorithm techniques have been created to be applied in
many applications in order to find the best solution for many problems. These optimization algorithm
techniques are classified according to the underlying principle of biological and physical based algorithm.
The first category is biology based algorithm such as genetic algorithm (GA), harmony search algorithm
(HSA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), bacteria foraging optimization (BFO), cuckoo search
algorithm (CSA), bee colony algorithm (BCA), ant colony optimization (ACO), FA, BSA, LSA, and many
others. The second category is physics based algorithm such as simulated annealing (SA), GSA, chaotic
optimization algorithm (COA), etc. [61]. Table 2 shows some of the previous works on optimization
algorithms based controller techniques.
 Table 2.8 Summarize the optimization algorithm in the controller techniques

Optimization
Ref. Controller techniques Platform
algorithms

[62] GA Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) and PI Interface card

[63] GA PI Matlab/Simulink
[64] GA FLC DSP
[65] GA Sliding Matlab/Simulink
[66] GA PI -
[67] PSO intelligent model Matlab/Simulink
[68] PSO FLC -
[69] PSO FLC Matlab/Simulink
[70] PSO ANFIS Matlab/Simulink
[71] PSO FLC Matlab/Simulink
[72] BSA State feedback control law Matlab/Simulink
[73] BSA PI and PID Matlab/Simulink

All the optimization techniques and their variants do not provide superior solutions to some specific
problems. Furthermore, even though some of the optimization techniques are efficient, it still needs
improvement so as to further enhance their performance [74]. Moreover, the manner in which the
convergence of an algorithm can be speed up is still a very challenging question. Therefore, new nature-
inspired optimization techniques must be continuously searched to advance the field of computational
intelligence or heuristic optimization.

5. Integrated attitude and orbit dynamics and control

Integrated attitude and orbit dynamics is one of the most intriguing topics in the field of aerospace.
Generally, non-symmetrical spacecraft has potential to be disturbed by external disturbances and means
of active maneuvering and the idea of the integrated attitude and orbit dynamics is induced. The
gravitational parameter, the orbital angular velocity, and orbital radius are the main factors in the
coupling of attitude and orbit dynamics. For a spacecraft with high moment of inertia, due to strong
nonlinear disturbances, integrated attitude and orbit dynamics model is essential to design an accurate
orbital trajectory [75].
Clohessy and Wiltshire presented the first model of relative translation in a circular orbit [76]. Next,
Wang and Hadaegh developed their model by considering nonlinear terms such as orbital perturbations
and orbital eccentricity in 1996. A 6-DOF tracking controller using an adaptation law was studied in Pan
and Kapila [77]. The nonlinear unpredictable mass and inertia parameters were included in the control
law. There are a few studies in the field of integrated attitude and orbit dynamics and most of them are
conducted by Pan, Wong, and Kapila [77,78].
Kristiansen et al. described a 6DOF integrator control system and introduced the basis of coupled
dynamics fundamentals in their publications [79]. The problem of integrated attitude and orbit dynamics
has been treated by Lennox [80]. In Naasz et al. [81], orbit and attitude control of spacecraft were
developed independently and then a control system was designed for integrated attitude and orbit. A
single integrated dynamic model for attitude and orbit dynamic of spacecraft was explained in [82-84].
Moreover, in Park et al. [85], a coarse integrated attitude and orbit estimation algorithm was discussed;
however, the attitude estimations had not been input to the controller and also the problem of orbit
determination was not explained. Furthermore Park et al. [86] developed a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL)
system of integrated attitude and orbit for autonomous spacecraft formation flying.
In general, integrated translational and rotational dynamics of a spacecraft within the circular
restricted three-body problem is based on a set of differential equations:

 x orb = fx ( xorb , i qb , iω b , t)
 i b
 q = fq ( xorb , q , ω , t)
i b i b
(17)
i b
 ω = fω ( xorb , q , ω , t )
i b i b

T
where xorb =  x y z x y z  is position and velocity of spacecraft center of mass related to
T
rotating frame, i qb = q1 q2 q3 q4  is spacecraft orientation with respect to the inertial frame in
T
quaternion term, and iω b = ω1 ω2 ω3  is spacecraft body angular velocity with respect to the inertial
frame. According to equation (17), variation of the attitude states concludes a variation for the orbital
states, and vice-versa. This model is a set of nonlinear differential equations. In comparison to other
models, this model is more complex in terms of mathematical computation; nevertheless, control
accuracy benefits from deeper insight into the attitude motion.

6. Issues and challenges

IOACD is a promising future for more accurate OADC subsystem option of spacecraft for the next
generation. However, there are some issues that need to be considered before applying IOACD. The
issues and challenges with the design of IOACD are discussed in the following sub-sections.

6.1. Coupled dynamics and nonlinearities. Naturally, the spacecraft motion equations are
nonlinear and there is coupling between attitude and orbit dynamics. To increase the
accuracy of the control architecture, these nonlinear terms must be taken into account for
spacecraft control mathematical model and simulation. Consequently, the IOACD model
with a nonlinear state estimator method, such as the extended Kalman (EKF) filter, is
recommended.
6.2. Measurements noise, external perturbations, and uncertainties of model. Noise of sensor
measurements and uncertainties of model pose complications. Besides, disturbance sources
of the space environment give rise to further issues and challenges in spacecraft OADC
subsystem. Spacecraft vehicle can be simply driven to an unstable state in cases where
control schemes are not properly designed.
 6.3. Tuning of states estimator. Noisy sensor observations, approximations in the system
dynamics equations, and imperfect external factors model result in some uncertainties on the
estimated values for a spacecraft’s state. Having an appropriate state estimation system is
essential to model an accurate IOADC system. The performance of state estimators depends
on the description of the noises in the plant dynamics and in the sensor observations. The
parameters of the noise densities are treated as ‘tuning parameters’.
6.4. Mathematical and computational load. Complex dynamics model of
IOADC causes a high computational load on the ground and onboard the spacecraft.
However, computing equipment is becoming more powerful and less expensive.
6.5. Limited hardware redundancy. Implementation of hardware redundancy in low cost
spacecraft is become more difficult. Implementation of single actuator for both attitude and
orbit correction is more complex than different multiple actuators. Consequently, control
system must be modeled for a single actuator system.

Conclusion

Disturbing torques in a space environment depend on the spacecraft’s orbital position and velocity,
and the dependence of the space environment disturbing forces on the spacecraft’s attitude generate
some nonlinear terms in the spacecraft dynamics model. In the IOADC architecture. all of these nonlinear
dynamics terms are considered. It was concluded that IOADC algorithms are characterized by high
computational load and high accuracy with respect to SOADC techniques. Moreover, mathematical
models and advantages and disadvantages of attitude determination algorithms such as the TRIAD
method and q-method, and attitude estimation techniques such as Kalman filter have been provided. The
TRIAD and q-method algorithms need two nonparallel unit vector measurement pairs to determine the
attitude of the spacecraft. The TRIAD method is a deterministic and non-optimal attitude determination
algorithm while the q-method is an optimal solution of attitude determination. Kalman filter was able to
optimally estimate the spacecraft attitude using only one set of observations. The Kalman filter
algorithms apply both sensor measurements and system dynamics to estimate the spacecraft attitude.
Additionally, the discussion also included the single spacecraft’s orbital and attitude motions model and
some popular spacecraft control algorithms have been compared in this paper. Finally, several main
challenges that should be considered for the IOADC architecture have also been mentioned.
References

1. Kaplan, M.H. Modern spacecraft dynamics and control. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1976. 427 p. 1976,
1.
2. Lin, A.K.; Lee, R. In Attitude control for small spacecraft with sensors error, AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and
Exposition, 2015; p 4423.
3. Markley, F.L.; Crassidis, J.L. Fundamentals of spacecraft attitude determination and control. Springer: 2014; Vol.
33.
4. Forbes, J.R. Fundamentals of spacecraft attitude determination and control [bookshelf]. IEEE Control Systems
2015, 35, 56-58.
5. Sidi, M.J. Spacecraft dynamics and control: A practical engineering approach. Cambridge university press: 1997;
Vol. 7.
6. Wertz, J.R. Spacecraft attitude determination and control. Springer Science & Business Media: 2012; Vol. 73.
7. King-Hele, D. A tapestry of orbits. Cambridge University Press: 2005.
8. Faragher, R. Understanding the basis of the kalman filter via a simple and intuitive derivation. IEEE Signal
processing magazine 2012, 29, 128-132.
9. Morris, A.; Sterling, M. Model tuning using the extended kalman filter. Electronics Letters 1979, 15, 201-202.
10. Soken, H.E.; Sakai, S.-i. Adaptive tuning of the unscented kalman filter for satellite attitude estimation.
Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2014, 28, 04014088.
11. Crassidis, J.L.; Markley, F.L.; Cheng, Y. Survey of nonlinear attitude estimation methods. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 2007, 30, 12-28.
12. Boskovic, D.M.; Krstic, M. Global attitude/position regulation for underwater vehicles. International Journal of
Systems Science 1999, 30, 939-946.
13. Stevens, B.L.; Lewis, F.L.; Johnson, E.N. Aircraft control and simulation: Dynamics, controls design, and
autonomous systems. John Wiley & Sons: 2015.
14. Montenbruck, O.; Gill, E. Satellite orbits: Models, methods and applications. Springer Science & Business Media:
2012.
15. Kim, Y.-R.; Park, E.; Choi, E.-J.; Park, S.-Y.; Park, C.; Lim, H.-C. Precise orbit determination using the batch
filter based on particle filtering with genetic resampling approach. Advances in Space Research 2014, 54, 998-
1007.
16. Sun, X.; Chen, P.; Macabiau, C.; Han, C. Autonomous orbit determination via kalman filtering of gravity
gradients. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 2016.
17. Dvorak, R.; Freistetter, F. In Orbit dynamics, stability and chaos in planetary systems, Chaos and Stability in
Planetary Systems, 2005; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: pp 3-140.
18. Brouwer, D. Solution of the problem of artificial satellite theory without drag. The Astronomical Journal 1959,
64, 378.
19. Kozai, Y. The motion of a close earth satellite. The Astronomical Journal 1959, 64, 367.
20. Kaula, W.M. Theory of satellite geodesy: Applications of satellites to geodesy. Courier Corporation: 2000.
21. Mehrjardi, M.F.; Sanusi, H.; Ali, M.; Alauddin, M. Three-axis attitude estimation of satellite through only
two-axis magnetometer observations using lkf algorithm. Metrology and Measurement Systems 2015, 22, 577-
590.
22. Yang, Y.; Mao, X.; Tian, W. Rotation matrix method based on ambiguity function for gnss attitude
determination. Sensors 2016, 16, 841.
23. Shuster, M.D.; Oh, S. Three-axis attitude determination from vector observations. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 1981, 4, 70-77.
24. Fakhari Mehrjardi, M.; Sanusi, H.; Ali, M.; Alauddin, M.; Taher, M.A. In Pd controller for three-axis satellite
attitude control using discrete kalman filter, Computer, Communications, and Control Technology (I4CT), 2014
International Conference on, 2014; IEEE: pp 83-85.
25. Rad, A.M. Optimal attitude determination method in presence of noise and bias on different star sensors.
International Journal of Engineering & Technology 2014, 3, 155-165.
26. Markley, F.L. Fast quaternion attitude estimation from two vector measurements. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 2002, 25, 411-414.
27. Lima, S.M.R.C.P. Comparison of small satellite attitude determination methods. 2000.
28. Bar-Itzhack, I.Y. New method for extracting the quaternion from a rotation matrix. Journal of guidance,
control, and dynamics 2000, 23, 1085-1087.
29. Kalman, R.E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of basic Engineering 1960,
82, 35-45.
30. Grewal, M.S.; Weill, L.R.; Andrews, A.P. Global positioning systems, inertial navigation, and integration. John
Wiley & Sons: 2007.
31. Swerling, P. First-order error propagation in a stagewise smoothing procedure for satellite observations.
1959.
32. Swerling, P.; Brookner, E. Appendix: Comparison of swerling's and kalman's formulations of swerling–
kalman filters. Tracking and Kalman Filtering Made Easy, 383-387.
33. Unhelkar, V.V.; Hablani, H.B. Spacecraft attitude determination with sun sensors, horizon sensors and
gyros: Comparison of steady-state kalman filter and extended kalman filter. In Advances in estimation,
navigation, and spacecraft control, Springer: 2015; pp 413-437.
34. Mehrjardi, M.F.; Sanusi, H.; Ali, M.; Alauddin, M.; Taher, M.A. In Proportional derivative controller using
discrete kalman filter estimation method for spacecraft attitude control, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2015;
Trans Tech Publ: pp 923-926.
35. Maybeck, P.S. Stochastic models, estimation, and control. Academic press: 1982; Vol. 3.
36. Ankersen, F. Satellite control. Encyclopedia of Systems and Control 2015, 1261-1267.
37. Pintelon, R.; Schoukens, J. System identification: A frequency domain approach. John Wiley & Sons: 2012.
38. Bryson Jr, A.E. Control of spacecraft and aircraft. Princeton university press: 2015.
39. Smith, R.S.; Subbotin, M.V.; Hadaegh, F.Y. In Decentralized estimation and control in high precision spacecraft
formations: Comparison studies, 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2007; IEEE: pp 1-11.
40. Scharf, D.P.; Hadaegh, F.Y.; Ploen, S.R. In A survey of spacecraft formation flying guidance and control. Part ii:
Control, American Control Conference, 2004. Proceedings of the 2004, 2004; IEEE: pp 2976-2985.
41. Likins, P. In The application of multivariable control theory to spacecraft attitude control, Proc. of
IFACMultivariable Technological Systems Symposium, 1978; pp 11-20.
42. Ljung, L.; Glad, T. Control theory-multivariable and nonlinear methods. Taylor and Francis: 2000.
43. Liu, X.; Han, Y. Finite time control for mimo nonlinear system based on higher-order sliding mode. ISA
transactions 2014, 53, 1838-1846.
44. Garcia-Sanz, M.; Eguinoa, I.; Barreras, M.; Bennani, S. Nondiagonal mimo qft controller design for darwin-
type spacecraft with large flimsy appendages. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 2008, 130,
011006.
45. Ruth, M.; Lebsock, K.; Dennehy, C. In What’s new is what’s old: Use of bode’s integral theorem (circa 1945) to
provide insight for 21st century spacecraft attitude control system design tuning, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, 2010; p 8428.
46. Guo, L.; Cao, S. Anti-disturbance control theory for systems with multiple disturbances: A survey. ISA
transactions 2014, 53, 846-849.
47. Stogestad, S.; Postlewaite, I. Multivariable feedback control. John Wiley and Sons: 2003.
48. Conrr, I.J. Guaranteed margins for lqg regulators. 1972.
49. Liu, G.P.; Patton, R. Eigenstructure assignment for control system design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 1998.
50. Joshi, S.; Kelkar, A.; Wen, J.-Y. Robust attitude stabilization of spacecraft using nonlinear quaternion
feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic control 1995, 40, 1800-1803.
51. Huang, G.-S.; Uang, H.-J. Robust adaptive pid tracking control design for uncertain spacecraft systems: A
fuzzy approach. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic systems 2006, 42, 1506-1514.
52. Camblor, M.; Weiss, A.; Cruz, G.; Rahman, Y.; Esteban, S.; Kolmanovsky, I.V.; Bernstein, D.S. A comparison
of nonlinear pi and pid inertia-free spacecraft attitude control laws. In Advances in estimation, navigation, and
spacecraft control, Springer: 2015; pp 517-541.
53. Tao, J.; Zhang, T.; Ren, W.; Han, G. In Matlab gui-based simulation platform design of flexible satellite attitude
control and vibration suppression, The 27th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2015 CCDC), 2015;
IEEE: pp 1552-1557.
54. Wu, C.-S.; Chen, Y.-Y. Pid h2 attitude controls of linear spacecraft systems. Journal of Science and Innovation
2013, 3, 77-83.
55. Yin, S.; Xiao, B.; Ding, S.X.; Zhou, D. A review on recent development of spacecraft attitude fault tolerant
control system. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2016, 63, 3311-3320.
56. Wu, Q.; Saif, M. In Robust fault diagnosis for a satellite large angle attitude system using an iterative neuron pid
(inpid) observer, 2006 American Control Conference, 2006; IEEE: p 6 pp.
57. Li, C.; Teo, K.L.; Li, B.; Ma, G. A constrained optimal pid-like controller design for spacecraft attitude
stabilization. Acta Astronautica 2012, 74, 131-140.
58. Inumoh, L.O.; Horri, N.M.; Forshaw, J.L.; Pechev, A. Bounded gain-scheduled lqr satellite control using a
tilted wheel. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 2014, 50, 1726-1738.
59. Starin, S.R.; Yedavalli, R.; Sparks, A.G. In Design of a lqr controller of reduced inputs for multiple spacecraft
formation flying, American Control Conference, 2001. Proceedings of the 2001, 2001; IEEE: pp 1327-1332.
60. Guarnaccia, L.; Bevilacqua, R.; Pastorelli, S.P. Suboptimal lqr-based spacecraft full motion control: Theory
and experimentation. Acta Astronautica 2016, 122, 114-136.
61. Suganthi, L.; Iniyan, S.; Samuel, A.A. Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems–a review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 48, 585-607.
62. Chiang, C.-L.; Su, C.-T. Tracking control of induction motor using fuzzy phase plane controller with
improved genetic algorithm. Electric Power Systems Research 2005, 73, 239-247.
63. Bousserhane, I.; Hazzab, A.; Rahli, M.; Kamli, M.; Mazari, B. In Adaptive pi controller using fuzzy system
optimized by genetic algorithm for induction motor control, 2006 IEEE International Power Electronics Congress,
2006; IEEE: pp 1-8.
64. Karr, C.L.; Freeman, L.M.; Meredith, D.L. In Improved fuzzy process control of spacecraft autonomous rendezvous
using a genetic algorithm, 1989 Symposium on Visual Communications, Image Processing, and Intelligent
Robotics Systems, 1990; International Society for Optics and Photonics: pp 274-288.
65. Li, Y.; Ng, K.C.; Murray-Smith, D.J.; Gray, G.J.; Sharman, K.C. Genetic algorithm automated approach to the
design of sliding mode control systems. International Journal of Control 1996, 63, 721-739.
66. Wang, Q.; Spronck, P.; Tracht, R. In An overview of genetic algorithms applied to control engineering problems,
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2003 International Conference on, 2003; IEEE: pp 1651-1656.
67. Li, N.; Yi, W.; Sun, M.; Gong, G. Development and application of intelligent system modeling and
simulation platform. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 2012, 29, 149-162.
68. Marinke, R.; Araujo, E.; Coelho, L.S.; Matiko, I. In Particle swarm optimization (pso) applied to fuzzy modeling in
a thermal-vacuum system, Fifth International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS'05), 2005; IEEE: p
6 pp.
69. Cheng, P.-C.; Peng, B.-R.; Liu, Y.-H.; Cheng, Y.-S.; Huang, J.-W. Optimization of a fuzzy-logic-control-based
mppt algorithm using the particle swarm optimization technique. Energies 2015, 8, 5338-5360.
70. Maleki, A.; Ameri, M.; Keynia, F. Scrutiny of multifarious particle swarm optimization for finding the
optimal size of a pv/wind/battery hybrid system. Renewable Energy 2015, 80, 552-563.
71. Omizegba, E.E.; Adebayo, G.E. In Optimizing fuzzy membership functions using particle swarm algorithm,
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009. SMC 2009. IEEE International Conference on, 2009; IEEE: pp 3866-
3870.
72. Kolawole, S.O.; Duan, H. In Backtracking search algorithm for non-aligned thrust optimization for satellite
formation, 11th IEEE International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA), 2014; IEEE: pp 738-743.
73. Precup, R.-E.; Balint, A.-D.; Petriu, E.M.; Radac, M.-B.; Voisan, E.-I. In Pi and pid controller tuning for an
automotive application using backtracking search optimization algorithms, Applied Computational Intelligence
and Informatics (SACI), 2015 IEEE 10th Jubilee International Symposium on, 2015; IEEE: pp 161-166.
74. Bodson, M. Evaluation of optimization methods for control allocation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics 2002, 25, 703-711.
75. Mehrjardi, M.F.; Sanusi, H.; Ali, M.A.M. In Integrated attitude and orbit model of an earth orbiting satellite using
three-axis control, Space Science and Communication (IconSpace), 2015 International Conference on, 2015;
IEEE: pp 414-417.
76. Clohessy, W. Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences 2012.
77. Pan, H.; Kapila, V. In Adaptive nonlinear control for spacecraft formation flying with coupled translational and
attitude dynamics, Decision and Control, 2001. Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on, 2001; IEEE: pp
2057-2062.
78. Wong, H. Formation design and nonlinear control of spacecraft formation flying. 2006.
79. Kristiansen, R.; Nicklasson, P.J.; Gravdahl, J.T. Spacecraft coordination control in 6dof: Integrator
backstepping vs passivity-based control. Automatica 2008, 44, 2896-2901.
80. Lennox, S.E. Coupled attitude and orbital control system using spacecraft simulators. Virginia Tech, 2004.
81. Naasz, B.; Hall, C.; Berry, M.; Hy-Young, K. Integrated orbit and attitude control for a nanosatellite with
power constraints. 2003.
82. Xin, M.; Pan, H. Integrated nonlinear optimal control of spacecraft in proximity operations. International
Journal of Control 2010, 83, 347-363.
83. Wang, J.-Y.; Liang, H.-Z.; Sun, Z.-W.; Wu, S.-N.; Zhang, S.-J. Relative motion coupled control based on dual
quaternion. Aerospace Science and Technology 2013, 25, 102-113.
84. Wu, J.; Liu, K.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, B. In Coordinated control of relative position and attitude for spacecraft with
actuator saturation, Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), 2012 International Conference on, 2012; IEEE: pp
2477-2481.
85. Abdelrahman, M.; Park, S.-Y. Integrated attitude determination and control system via magnetic
measurements and actuation. Acta Astronautica 2011, 69, 168-185.
86. Park, J.-I.; Park, H.-E.; Park, S.-Y.; Choi, K.-H. Hardware-in-the-loop simulations of gps-based navigation
and control for satellite formation flying. Advances in Space Research 2010, 46, 1451-1465.