Probability of Collision Estimation and Optimization Under Uncertainty Utilizing Separated Representations

Abstract

Many current applications of maneuver design to astrodynamics consider a deterministic case, where statistics or uncertainty is left unquantified. When including constraints based on the probability of collision, any solution must be robust to the uncertainty of the system. This paper considers the methodology of separated representations for orbit uncertainty propagation and its subsequent application to a reliability design formulation of the maneuver design problem. Separated representations is a polynomial surrogate method that has been shown to be both efficient at propagating uncertainty when considering high stochastic dimension and accurate over long propagation times. This efficiency is leveraged to improve tractability when solving the reliability design problem using optimization under uncertainty. Two sequential, potential collisions are considered in the results of this paper, with one object able to maneuver. The optimization problem therefore seeks to avoid both collisions. The probability of each collision is estimated via large numbers of samples propagated via the separated representation. The accuracy of the surrogates is compared to that of a Monte Carlo reference, and the variability of the estimated probabilities of collision is analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    For this particular application, the setting change for the minimum difference used to calculate finite-difference gradients is the DiffMinChange variable within fmincon’s optimoptions function

Abbreviations

α :

Index indicating the considered object, i.e., 1, 2, or 3

α CI :

Significance level of the confidence interval

β :

Index for the collision in considering, i.e., 1 or 2

B :

Cumulative Beta distribution function

c :

Polynomial coefficients for the separated representation

χ :

The reliability index that represents the lower bound of an optimization under uncertainty constraint

\(\bar {\chi }\) :

The reliability index resulting from optimization under uncertainty

CP :

Clopper-Pearson confidence interval bounds

d :

Total input dimension of the test case and surrogate

\(\mathcal {D}\) :

Training data set for the separated representation

ΔV :

Maneuver velocity vector

ΔV 0 :

Nominal collision avoidance maneuver

ΔV (β) :

Designed maneuver to satisfy optimization under uncertainty conditions and avoid collision(s) β

d 𝜃 :

Dimension of all of the design input directions

d ξ :

Dimension of random input directions

η :

The random inputs associated with the state of object 1

P :

Maximum order of orthogonal polynomials

p :

Indexing for orthogonal polynomial order

\({P}_{c}^{(\beta )}\) :

Time integrated probability of collision for collision(s) β (optional)

ψ :

Polynomials orthogonal to the distributions of separated representation inputs

\(\boldsymbol {q}^{(\beta )}_{\alpha }\) :

Full state vector of the quantities of interest for object α at collision β

\(\boldsymbol {q}_{\alpha }^{(\beta )}\) :

Separated Representation of the quantities of interest for object α at collision β

\(\mathcal {R}\) :

Defined keep out radius for collision detection

r :

Rank of the separated representation

r α :

The velocity vector of object α

r α :

The position vector of object α

s :

Separated representation normalization coefficients

s :

The distance between a unique sample pair

Σ α :

State uncertainty covariance matrix for object α

\(\boldsymbol {\Sigma }^{\Delta V}_{\alpha }\) :

The maneuver uncertainty covariance matrix for object α

\(\mathcal {T}\) :

Time of closest approach

t :

The time variable

t 0 :

Test case epoch time

\(\mathcal {T}^{(\beta )}_{j}\) :

Unique time of closest approach for sample pair j at collision β

t ΔV :

The time of the collision avoidance maneuver

𝜃 :

A vector of design inputs for the optimizer and surrogate

𝜃 (β) :

Design inputs that satisfy the optimization under uncertainty formulation while avoiding collision(s) β (optional)

t k :

Discrete time steps used to aid the Brent optimizer in searching for \(\mathcal {T}\)

u :

Univariate functions in the separated representation

u 0 :

Vector of deterministic factors for the separated representation

Ξ :

Deterministic inputs to which the design inputs 𝜃 are mapped

ξ :

A vector of random input directions. The result of combining η and ω

y :

The complete vector of input directions for the test case as well as the surrogate

References

  1. 1.

    Alfano, S: Satellite conjunction monte carlo analysis. AAS Spaceflight Mechanics Mtg, Pittsburgh, PA, Paper pp. 09–233 (2009)

  2. 2.

    Askey, R A, Arthur, W J: Some basic hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials that generalize Jacobi polynomials vol 319. AMS, Providence (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Balducci, M, Jones, B A, Doostan, A: Orbit uncertainty propagation with separated representations. AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference Hilton Head, SC, August 11–15 (2013)

  4. 4.

    Balducci, M, Jones B, Doostan A: Orbit uncertainty propagation and sensitivity analysis with separated representations. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-017-9767-7 (2017)

  5. 5.

    Beylkin, G, Garcke, J, Mohlenkamp, M J: Multivariate regression and machine learning with sums of separable functions. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 31(3), 1840–1857 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1137/070710524

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Brent, RP: Algorithms for minimization without derivatives. Courier Corporation (2013)

  7. 7.

    Chevreuil, M, Lebrun, R, Nouy, A, Rai, P: A least-squares method for sparse low rank approximation of multivariate functions. arXiv:13050030 (2013)

  8. 8.

    Deaconu, G, Louembet, C, Théron, A.: Minimizing the effects of navigation uncertainties on the spacecraft rendezvous precision. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 37(2), 695–700 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dell’Elce, L, Kerschen, G: Robust rendez-vous planning using the scenario approach and differential flatness. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IAA conference on dynamics and control of space system, Univelt San Diego, CA, vol. 153, pp 1–14 (2014)

  10. 10.

    DeMars, K J, Cheng, Y, Jah, M K: Collision probability with gaussian mixture orbit uncertainty. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics (2014)

  11. 11.

    Doostan, A, Iaccarino, G: A least-squares approximation of partial differential equations with high-dimensional random inputs. J. Comput. Phys. 228 (12), 4332–4345 (2009)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Doostan, A, Iaccarino, G, Etemadi, N: A least-squares approximation of high-dimensional uncertain systems. Tech. Rep Annual Research Brief. Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Doostan, A, Validi, A, Iaccarino, G: Non-intrusive low-rank separated approximation of high-dimensional stochastic models. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 263, 42–55 (2013). 10.1016/j.cma.2013.04.003

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dormand, J R, Prince, P J: A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 6(1), 19–26 (1980)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Eldred, M S, Elman, H C: Design under uncertainty employing stochastic expansion methods. Int. J. Uncertain. Quantif. 1(2), 119–146 (2011)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Feldhacker, J D, Jones, B A, Doostan, A, Hampton, J: Reduced cost mission design using surrogate models. Adv. Space Res. 57(2), 588–603 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fujimoto, K, Scheeres, D: Tractable expressions for nonlinearly propagated uncertainties. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics (2015)

  18. 18.

    Gano, S, Kim, H, Brown, D: Comparison of three surrogate modeling techniques: Datascape, kriging, and second order regression. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, pp. 7048 (2006)

  19. 19.

    Ghanem, R, Spanos, P: Stochastic finite elements: A spectral approach. Springer-Verlag, New York (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hadigol, M, Doostan, A, Matthies, H G, Niekamp, R: Partitioned treatment of uncertainty in coupled domain problems: A separated representation approach. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 274, 103–124 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2014.02.004

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hall, DT, Casali, SJ, Johnson, LC, Skrehart, BB, Baars, LG: High fidelity collision probabilities estimated using brute force monte carlo simulations. In: Paper AAS 18-244 presented at the AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Conference, August (2018)

  22. 22.

    Izzo, D, Becerra, V M, Myatt, D R, Nasuto, S J, Bishop, J M: Search space pruning and global optimisation of multiple gravity assist spacecraft trajectories. J. Glob. Optim. 38(2), 283–296 (2007)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jones, B A, Doostan, A: Satellite collision probability estimation using polynomial chaos expansions. Adv. Space Res. 52(11), 1860–1875 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2013.08.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Jones, B A, Doostan, A, Born, G: Nonlinear propagation of orbit uncertainty using non-intrusive polynomial chaos. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.57599 (2014)

  25. 25.

    Jones, B A, Parrish, N, Doostan, A: Post-maneuver collision probability estimation using sparse polynomial chaos expansions. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 36(2), 430–444 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Junkins, J L, Akella, M R, Alfriend, K T: Non-gaussian error propagation in orbital mechanics. J. Astronaut. Sci. 44(4), 541–563 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Khoromskij, B N, Schwab, C: Tensor-structured galerkin approximation of parametric and stochastic elliptic pdes. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33, 364–385 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1137/100785715

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kim, N H, Wang, H, Queipo, N V: Efficient shape optimization under uncertainty using polynomial chaos expansions and local sensitivities. AIAA J 44(5), 1112 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Louembet, C, Arzelier, D, Deaconu, G: Robust rendezvous planning under maneuver execution errors. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 38 (1), 76–93 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Luo, Y, Yang, Z, Li, H: Robust optimization of nonlinear impulsive rendezvous with uncertainty. Science China Physics and Mechanics and Astronomy 57(4), 731–740 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Morselli, A, Armellin, R, Di Lizia, P, Zazzera, F B: A high order method for orbital conjunctions analysis: Monte carlo collision probability computation. Adv. Space Res. 55(1), 311–333 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mueller, J B, Larsson, R: Collision avoidance maneuver planning with robust optimization. In: International ESA conference on guidance, navigation and control systems Tralee, County Kerry, Ireland (2008)

  33. 33.

    Nielsen, P, Alfriend, K, Bloomfield, M, Emmert, J, Miller, J, Guo, Y, et al.: Continuing kepler’s quest: Assessing air force space command’s astrodynamic standards. The National Academies Press, Washington (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Nouy, A: Proper generalized decompositions and separated representations for the numerical solution of high dimensional stochastic problems. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 17, 403–434 (2010). 10.1007/s11831-010-9054-1

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Oltrogge, D, Alfano, S, Law, C, Cacioni, A, Kelso, T: A comprehensive assessment of collision likelihood in geosynchronous earth orbit. Acta Astronaut. 147, 316–345 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Peng, H, Yang, C, Li, Y, Zhang, S, Chen, B: Surrogate-based parameter optimization and optimal control for optimal trajectory of halo orbit rendezvous. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 26(1), 176–184 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pontani, M, Conway, B A: Optimal finite-thrust rendezvous trajectories found via particle swarm algorithm. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 50(6), 1222–1234 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pontani, M, Ghosh, P, Conway, B A: Particle swarm optimization of multiple-burn rendezvous trajectories. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 35(4), 1192–1207 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Reynolds, M J, Doostan, A, Beylkin, G: Randomized alternating least squares for canonical tensor decompositions: Application to a pde with random data. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 38(5), A2634–A2664 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sabol, C, Sukut, T, Hill, K, Alfriend, KT, Wright, B, Li, Y, Schumacher, P: Linearized orbit covariance generation and propagation analysis via simple monte carlo simulations. In: Paper AAS 10-134 presented at the AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Conference, February, pp. 14–17 (2010)

  41. 41.

    Schilling, B, Taleb, Y, Carpenter, JR, Balducci, M, Williams, TW: Operational experience with the wald sequential probability ratio test for conjunction assessment from the magnetospheric multiscale mission. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, pp. 5424 (2016)

  42. 42.

    Schutz, B, Tapley, B, Born, GH: Statistical orbit determination. Academic Press (2004)

  43. 43.

    Sun, Y, Kumar, M: Uncertainty propagation in orbital mechanics via tensor decomposition. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 124, 1–26 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-015-9662-z

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Tamellini, L, Le Maitre, O, Nouy, A: Model reduction based on proper generalized decomposition for the stochastic steady incompressible navier-stokes equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36(3), A1089–A1117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1137/120878999

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Vallado, D. 8.6: Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications, 3rd edn., p 562. Microcosm Press, Hawthorne (2007)

  46. 46.

    Vittaldev, V, Russell, R P: Space object collision probability via monte carlo on the graphics processing unit. J. Astronaut. Sci. 64(3), 285–309 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Xiu, D: Numerical methods for stochastic computations: A spectral method approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Yang, Z, Luo, Y Z, Zhang, J, Tang, G J: Uncertainty quantification for short rendezvous missions using a nonlinear covariance propagation method. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics pp. 2170–2178 (2016)

  49. 49.

    Yang, Z, Yz, Luo, Zhang, J: Robust planning of nonlinear rendezvous with uncertainty. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics pp. 1–14 (2017)

  50. 50.

    Zhang, J, Parks, G: Multi-objective optimization for multiphase orbital rendezvous missions. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 36(2), 622–629 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The material for the work by Marc Balducci is provided by the NSTRF fellowship, NASA Grant NNX15AP41H. The authors would like to thank Dr. Ryan Russell for his optimization algorithm advice, as well as Dr. Alireza Doostan for his knowledge with regards to surrogate convergence.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Balducci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balducci, M., Jones, B.A. Probability of Collision Estimation and Optimization Under Uncertainty Utilizing Separated Representations. J Astronaut Sci (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-020-00218-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Conjunction assessment
  • Separated representations
  • Reliability design
  • Optimization under uncertainty