Advertisement

Spacecraft Design as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

  • Michelle Lavagna
  • Amalia Ercoli Finzi
Chapter
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 79)

Abstract

The chapter deals with a method to automate the preliminary spacecraft design through a multi-criteria optimization process based on the fuzzy logic theory. The heart of the matter is to simulate the designers’ teams behavior in making refined choices within a universe of on-board subsystem solutions — to optimize, typically, the gross mass and the requested power of the whole space system. Decisions making is often based on qualitative relationships, driven by the selector’s expertise. The fuzzy logic theory revealed to be the best fitting method to model those kinds of mental processes. It permits to translate qualitative relationships, typically uncertain, into a precise mathematical formulation and it overcomes the Boolean representation true-false by defining a satisfaction degree of the inputs with respect to a set of given qualities.

Within the proposed method the optimal solution defines the propulsion, the communication, the power supply/power storage, the thermal control subsystem set and the launcher type. The solution minimizes the gross mass, the required power and the cost while it maximizes the reliability of the whole space system. The global index of merit, representing the output of the multi-criteria scalarization, identifies the feasible combinations of the selected alternative for the on-board systems. The goal vector scalarization is obtained through a preference function built with a configuration driven weight vector.

The core of the presented method is a variable weight vector that emphasizes the qualitative characteristics inherent a particular subsystem combination with respect to each selected goal function. A fuzzy control loop applies to each single subsystem alternative weight vector definition. Within each goal function, the weights related to every particular subsystem representing each possible final configuration is further elaborated through a particular matrix to obtain its four element weight vector. All quantities are treated as interval set and, then, managed with interval algebra rules.

Based on past space missions data, classic multi-criteria optimization methods (Pareto-surface detection) is considered. The proposed method provides the mission requirements (represented by objective function vectors and subsystems sets) definitely similar to those of real ones.

Keywords

analytic hierarchical process fuzzy logic multi-criteria decision-making spacecraft design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Bandecchi M., Melton B., Ongaro F. Concurrent Engineering Applied to Space Mission Assessment and Design. ESA Bulletin, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baumann K., Eickhoff J. A Model Based Development and Verification Process for Satellite Design. ISTS Conference, Matsue-Japan, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Boender C. G. E., Graan J. G., Lootsma F. A. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with Fuzzy Pairwise Comparisons. Journal of Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Systems, 29 133–143, 1989.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dean E. B. The Design to Cost Manifold. Proceedings of The International Academic of Astronautics Symposium, San Diego, California, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    De Montis A., de Toro P., Droste-Franke B., Omann I., Stagl S. Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA Methods. Third Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, Austria, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Eschenaurer H., Koski J., Osyczka A. Multi-criteria Design Optimization. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Fukunaga A. S., Chien S., Mutz D., Sherwoood R., Stechert A. Automating the Process of Optimization in Spacecraft Design. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Snowmass — Colorado, 4 411–428, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hardy T.L. Fuzzy Logic Approaches to Multi-Objective Decision-Making in Aerospace Applications. 30th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kearfott R. B. Interval Computation: Introduction, Uses, and Resources. Euromath Bulletin, 2:(1) 95–112, 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Klir G. J., Yuan B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic-Theory and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Larson W. J., Wertz J. R. Space Mission Analysis and Design. New York: Space Technology Library-Kluwer Academic, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lavagna M. Space Systems for Interplanetary Missions: Automation of the Preliminary Design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Lootsma F.A. The French and American School in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. EPAIRO Reserche Operationelle, 24: (3) 263–285, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Martelli A. The DSE System. Proceedings of DASIA Conference, Nice, France, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Mosher T. Spacecraft Design Using a Genetic Algorithm Optimization Approach. IEEE 0–7803–4311–5/98, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Sutton G.P. Rocket Propulsion Elements. New York: Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Triantophyllou E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Operations Research Approach. In Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, J.G. Webster (ed.), New York: Wiley, 15 175–186, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Triantophyllou E. Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: some Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2:(1) 35–44, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Triantaphyllou E., Lootsma F. A., Padalos P. M., Mann S. H. On the Evaluation and Application of Different Scales for Quantifying Pair-wise Comparisons in Fuzzy. Sets Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 3:(3) 133–155, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Yager R. R. Multiple Objective Decision-Making Using Fuzzy Sets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9 375–382, 1977.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Yager R. R. Essential of Fuzzy Modeling and Control. New York: Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Lavagna
    • 1
  • Amalia Ercoli Finzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria AerospazialePolitecnico di MilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations