uCLASS~pj

ME0l0llANDIM 37

ECTORI ES (11ON OF B.ALL I STIC MI SSI LE TRAJ pliriA(I

~DD

Di

skribtitiofl

/ B $'rd /a kIm'n
Fraser

r C inrr Me% er Ito

~~~shwiag

Yabroff
N Ib r itton Helete
'Rose Aer
I

Keck Ie r

/ K,-,r na k Lomb ird */ r 1,1 enur ll~tfei7

too re
Weinstinf

Da v/.oil.NP NXI'O sntLNXPO

NATIONL TC1bCA ItNFORMATION SERVICE

Springfild'. Va.

yrpnedby s'.utidn V,,1 iwagi

1ne 1 6

2215,

T1

19z

""c

SRIH-8976

I1CA

SSIr ii.,

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS................... .. ..... ... LIST OF TABLES . . . .. .. . . . . . . .

.. .. .. .. . . .... i

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I 11 III

INTRODUCTION..................... . .. . ..... . . .. . .. .. .. .. ..... EQUATION OF MOTION .. .. .................. ........ 2 6 7 11 18 19 23 23 27 31 32 33 33

*D.

ENDOATNOSPIIERIC PREDICTION .. .. .................. .... A. Characteristics of Lte Ballistic Trajectories in Endoatmosphere. .. .. .................. ...... B. Influence of P~ in Endoatmosphere .. .. ................. C. Effect of Nonli..earity in Endoatmosphere .. .. ............. Influence of w'in Endoettrosphere .. .. ................. E. Effect of Eccentricity in Endoatmosphere .. .. ............. F. Approximation of Nonlinear Term in Endoatmosphere..... ......

IV~I

IV EXOAT'MOSPHERIC PREDICTION .. .. ......... .............. A. Effect of Nonlinc-rity in Exoltmosphere. .. .. ............. B. Approximation of Nonlinear Term in Exoatmosphere. .. .......... C. Influence of w~ in Exoatmosphere. .. .. ................. D. Influence of Eccentricity in Exoatmosphere .. .. ...........

V SENSITIVITY OF IMPACT POINTS TO INITIAL VALUES .. .. ............ 33

CO.NCLVSION .. .. .................. ........... ...... ....... ..... . .....

41 42

APPENDIX .. ... .......

RE.ERENCES .. .. ..........

... .....................

49

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. aFig. Fig. Fig.

1 Coordinate System .. .. ...

. ...

...

. ...

... . ... . ... ....

....... 2 . ..... . .... 8 9 10

2 Density of the Atmosphere .. .. ....

. .. ...

3 Ballistic Trajectories on the z-y Plane, Case 1. .. .. . .. .... 4 Ballistic Trajectories on the z-x Plane, Case 1 .. .. . .... S Ballistic Coefficient 6 Ballistic Coefficient
-

... .....

Altitude Graph for fio

l''82. .. .. . .. ...... 12
........

Altitude Graph for 16 3, 18,1.......

13 ..... 14 ...... 1 ..... 16

7 Ballistic Trajectories on the x-y Plane, Case 2 .. .. . ... 8 Ballistic Trajectories on the z-x Plane, Case 2 .. .. . ... 9 Ballistic Trajectories on the z-y Plane, Case 3 .. .. . ... 10 11 12 13 14 Ballistic Trajectories on the z-x Plane, Case 3 .. .. .... Influences of e, w, and C (Endoatmosphere.,B = 60) Influences of e, w., and C (Endoatmosphere.9 = 0

. ... . ... . ...

. .. ....... 7

z-y Plane. .. .. ...... 20 z-x Plane. .. .. ...... 21

Influences of e, w, and C (Exoatmosphere), z-y Plane .. .. .. .. ....... 28 Influences Of e, W, and C (Exoatmosphere), z-z Plane.. .. .. .. ....... 29 Illustrations of Unit Vectors. .. .. ... ... . ... ... . ...... 46

Fig. A-i

TABLES

Table Table Table

i 11 III

Influences of e, w, and C (Endoatmosphere P= PO) . .. ............. 22 Influences of e, wv,and C (Endoatmosphere 83 = /34). .. ............. 22 Approximations of Nonlinear Terms (Endoatmosphere,

Hish18= PO)
Table

AX +B .. .. ......

....... .......

.. .....

....

24

IV Approximations of Nonlinear Terms (Endoatmosphere

Low/3/= i= AX+B +C . .. .. ..... 4)

Table Table Table V VI VII

.......... 25
30 37 38 39 40

Influences of e, ,~, and C (Exoatmosphere). .. ................. Sensitivity of Impact Points to Initial Values (Endoatrnosphere), 10% Error. .. .. ....................... Sensitivity of Impact Points to Initial Values (Endoatmosphere), 20% Error. .. .. ....................... Sensitivity of Impact Points to Initial Values (Exoatm~osphere), 10% Error. .. .. ....................... Sensitivity of Impact Points to Initial Values tExoatmosphere), 20% Error. .. .. .......................

Table VIII Table IX

Table

X Summary of Influences of e, w., C, and

/..

.. .. . .. . ..

. ..

. ....

41

iv

INTRODUCTION

A critical problem in a missile defense system is that of predicting the trajectory and impact point for a ballistic reentry vehicle. This memorandum will describe methods of prediction as well as numerical results for several representative examples. There are several reports ,2describ ing the estimation of the states of a ballistic missile; the ballistic trajectory and impact point will be predicted by using these estimated values. Fiist is the choice of the coordinate system to be employed. Either a radar coordinate system or a rectangular coordinate system centered at the radar site can be used for the problems being studied. Second is the treatment of physical parameters in the equation of motion, such as the ballistic coefficient of the reentry vehicle and the eccentricity and rotation of the earth. Since the time required for computation may become significantly large, it is also very desirable to find a closed-form solution of the equation of motion, which is a rather complex nonlinear differential equation. The important point here is how much the accuracy of the soluThird is the propation is degraded in obtaining a closed-form solution. There are several important points to be considered.

gation of initial errors to the final values in prediction; this is valuable in order to trade off the magnitude of errors and the computation time in estimation. For this purpose, the sensitivity of the initial values to impact points is briefly investigated.

S (rfreftree are listed at the end of th

text.

II

EQUATION OF MOTION

The Lhe

following

differential

equation the

in

state-variable of this

form

describes is

motion of

a ballistic

missile;

derivation

equation

shown in

the Appendix and the coordinate system is shown in Fig.

1.

X=AX+ B +C

+D

k (z)

RADAR

SITE

FIG. 1 COORDINATE SYSTEM

_g

where 0 1 0
0

0 0 0
L20

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

0 0

2wsin /-3,cosu

o
0
L0

2 sn w

jL

-W.~2

si
2

4 cos /ju

a'$ sin -2,j

2 o

IA&

0 ,12 sin p cos/A

r32

0 g.
V

ol

w2 c0

~~Cos

2w~csA

pg V

0 0 0 B -0
-c2fR sin u cos/p
,w2R cos 2 A

am
-

r-3 0

0 0

(o
1
0

r3
r

(
00

I
r1 r3

0 0 0
-

(1 - 5 sin 2 ))x

/)

r) r3 - -i -, -i(- - - } - -t-i - {cos- - -( - -(- -] r 2 (1 (I Fz[cas(, 0)1 *-r)iG/, & sin ;zcos )- Ssinin 1) sin L. sin( , J , )s-J B( #l~ 1- $Ssin.t_D -

- --

sinos

(
ca CB IL .~~

( 0) scos
-

5 sill 0p[
AcosA(
-

+ atCos4

in s

,in

M1)

sin i, sin(MA

-~)

8(coa(M

,) -

I]

~r
in which

T A

"

target state

w GiV
'

L rth rotation rate Product of gravitational constant'and miss of earth

* Geodetic latitude of radar * Geocentric latitude of radar - Atmospheric mass density At target position - Ballistic coefficient ( t r V g rot
'

a.et, ight-to-drag ratio)

Earth radius to radar site Magnitude of posttion vector from earth center to target
Yvelocity magnitude or target

Gravitational accelcration ad ne pO are the ioitial talues of r. V and p

'dEt'tntri'ity of re'r-rence ell ipsoidal earth

(,"." 0.006bQ45)

Iimen.eiplless colistant - 1.624 x 10- 3

Gzeocentr-it latitude of target

nquatorial radius of earth (20,926,743

ft).

l1 e linear coeitir-sent mat rix A is

co:stant

a 6 x 6 matrix whose elements are

except for three , lements containing the atmospheric mass density

'llie vector B is constant amd the %ector C is a nolinear term that be negligible if , the magnitude of tie target ve locity, and r, the magnitude of the position vector from the earth to the target, do not change significantly. The last term D contains the elements describing the influence of the eccentricity of the reference ellipsoidal earth. ien e., if eccentricity r is considered to be zero, then the tern, D vanishes. One of the objectives of this report is to investigate simplifications of the differential equation des,:ribed above.
negligible, the differential

If the terms C and Q are It is true

equation will become . v AA - R.

that a linear differential equation with time varying coefficients is no better for finding an analytical solution than a nonlinear different. al equation. However, if tle time varying cofficients are approximated as constant for a certain tame interval, tten piecewise closed-form solutions 'an be obtained. Raxed on plh. iral considerations, it is helpful for the purpose oi One

the following discussion to divide the atmosphere into two regions. i- called e.oatsuphere, defined as the space above an altitude of 300.000 ft; the other i4 called endoatsosphere, defined al an ailtit'jde of 300,000 ft.

the space below

III

ENDOATMOSPHERIC PREDICTION

For ballistic missiles at an altitude of 300,000 ft with a range

of 200 miles, it will take less than a minute for the high-,. vehicles
to impact and at most several minutes for the low-2 vehicles. Therefore, the gravity gradient due to the oblateness oi the eatth is negligible, and the term _ can be omitted in the investigaLion ot endoatmos-

pheric trajectory prediction. The effect of the earth's rotation rate cc is also negligible, except for small deviations that are observed during the last 10,000 ft before impact. The impact oint is defined in this report as the point at which a trajectory reaches an altitude of 10,000 ft. Theoretical considerations and numerical results obtained indicate
that the term ( in Eq. (1) is negligible for endoatmosphere prediction.

and this is especially true ior high-.- missiles. An approximate differential equation describing the ballistic trajectory takes the form

(2)

Moreover. if w can be considered as zero. then the differential equation is simplified further and becomes

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0ooo

1 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 1
-

0 0 0

0
0
0 0

0
0

G 0-f

o
tlVN

1)1

06
L

Thie aboye equation- geterates predicted trajectories, which are very close to the actual tiajt'ctories down. to 50.000-ft altitude from an altitude of '00, 000 ft. Ilencv, i f Ohe initercept. altitude is-higher than 50,000 ft, For prediction of the trajectory down the differential Eq. (3) Is a good approximation to the equation of motion for both highl-,3 and 1ow-Omissiles.
to 10,000-ft altitude,

the above differential equation is still a good

mathematical model

for hl-gb--3 missiles.

The densitv. of the atmosphere changes in a complex manner; an exponenti'al curve was u:sed to approximate the density-altitude curve. Atriospherei%92', As Fig. 2 sho~ws, this curve does not match exactly with the U.S. Standard However, for thc prediction of an impact point, this exp~one~ntial model is sufficiently accur ate. Several characteristics of Eq-. (1) in endoatmo~pherc are discussed tin;he follo~ing sections, and the sensitivity of impact points to initial %alues is mentioned in Sec. V.

V.

Characteristics of tih Ballistic Trajectories in Endoatmosphere As shown by the numerical results (see Fig., 3), p-roj ec tions' of the

trajectories on the x.-y plane are almost straight' lines.-

If

the initial

conditions are the samne for trajectories with different co n aan t values of $, then the x-y projections of their trajeftories will- lie on top of each other with the high-," missiles flying further than the low-p missiles. The impact Points lie on a straight line in the- x-.y plane regardless of-

.3 values.
from Fig. 3 it can be se6en that the projections of ballistic trajcctories on the x-y plane do not differ very much for different values of 3.lortwvei, the projections if- ballistic trajectories on the z-x plane (see Fig. 4). di-fler slightly for different values of

rhe sensiti.'ity of the impact point prediction to the ballistic coeffici%:nt

.

3Is a function of the value of ,B;for low 6 the sensitivity Therefore, it is

is large, and for high f' the sensitivity becomes small. In tit, hIgh-P case, Mcuracy. An) list ic coefficient.
it

rather imp.)rtant to detect whether iatarget missile has low

,B or high 8

is possible to predict the impact point wit~h high

inaccuracy can be made smaller by re- estimating the balThe major effect of P~ on the trajectory occurs at Since 6 comes into the differential

dit Altitude of less than 150,000 ft.

10-1

U .. S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE 1962 EXPONENTIAL APPROXIMATION 10-2

Po0a 7.6474 X 10-2 K .OXIO 9

2 32.174 ft/soc

104

10-5

10,6

100
z

200
kft

300
TO- 5188-451

FIG. 2 DENSITY OF THE ATMOSPHERE

120

100

INITIAL CONDITIONS: zz9. 20640 x 105 ft :4,51515 x 1O5t

-

80

z3.27897 zIO5 ft 1. 81864 X10 4 ft /SeC 1 1. 12315 X 0 4 ft/SGC zi-7.01397 110 3 ft/sec 0-IMPACT POINT

60

40

20

0 -201 100

5000,2000

200
x
-

300
kft

TO- 5166- 452

FIG. 3 BALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES ON THE x-y PLANE, CASE 1

100
INITIAL CONDITIONS: 90 X= y=
5 9.20640X10 ft 5 4.51515 xlO ft

30
31 31 32 33 32 34

3,27897 xlO~ft 4 ft/sec i=81864 X ic - 1. 1.12315 x 10 104ft/seC 80 i-701397 xiJ

3

ft/sec

[r 36 70 37
36 35 39

500
40

3960
38t

30

42 t =40 ec, 20

9 70 0 sO 60

/ 3

20

10

a,5000,2000 4'

400

30

Iso
tOO 200200
bOO

o 100
! g

,00
K
x

hf
kft TB-Sign- 453

FIG. 4 BALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES ON THE z-x PLANE, CASE 1

i10

7
equations in tile form ,/P and p is a verv rtmall value for high altitude, ti/P is not a significant term unless the altitude is comparatively low (i.e., less than 150,000 ft).

B.

Influence of 13 in Endoatmosphere In general, the shape of the /3-altitude graph is parabolic-like and

Several examples are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Experimental computations have been conducted by using the minimum, average, and maximum values for ,. These results were then compared with the exact solution. The predicted trajectories and impact points for some representative cases are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. When the win-

has a maximum value.

imum value (constant) was used, the numerical results turned out to be quite different from the exact solution. On the other hand, if the maximum value (constant) of /3 is used, the deviation from the exact solution is not too large. For the case of high g3,the maximum value will give the impact point without a significant error. However, the approximate value of ' will cause an error in the impact time. If a target missile is known to have a characteristic of-high g3, it is permissible to calculate the impact point by using a predicted maximum value of .2 or a value slightly smaller (by 10 to 20 percent) than the maximum value of 63. If a target missile has a characteristic of low /, the prediction of the impact point will be more difficult than that for a high-P missile (refer to Figs. 3 and 4). Consider the x-y projc:ction of the trajectory. The impact points for high-B ballistic coefficients are very close to each other even though the /5values are different 1000 to 5000 lbi'ft
2

Some examples where

/3 ranges

from

show that the deviations are 5000 ft in the x (refer to

direction and 3000 ft in the y direction at the impact point Figs. 3 and 4).

For low-fr and high-f missiles having the same initial conditions and impacting on the surface of the earth, the impact points for the low-h" missiles lie on the x-y projection of a trajectory for a high-P missile; in other words, the projectionn of low-fr missiles on the x-y plane are shorter than those of high-9 missiles. Moreover, the x-y projections of these trajectories are almost straight lines.

II

50000

4000

3000

2000

1000

300

200

100

(a) 2500 1

2000

-.

1500

B 2

1I000

500

0 30

200 ISO ALTITUO -

100 kht

50

(b)
FIG. 5 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT ALTITUDE GRAPH FOR

P o,

PIt,

P2

12

1000y

800600

e400
2001

200

ISO

120 ALT ITUDE

s0 kft

40
a5134

FIG. 6 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT

ALTITUDE GRAPH FOR P3, P4- PS

13

'1
00
0K

a.

00

LU

0
o

'no

-no

v6

0z

00 0

w
a

3w wL

140

iI

IIII0
oa

ILI
ImI

22*

is

2
J-

21

15

200 INITIAL CONDITIONS: ISO-

y a 3.38 a165

it a3.30a I0pft

za *2.00 aleft

160

i -1.53 a

ft/uian

120-

700-

so-

40-

DuD..

300

fIG. 9 BALLISTIC TftAJECTORIES ON THE x-y PLANE. CASE 3

INITIAL CONDITIONS' 5 a3.38 Io ft 100l y 6 3.383 10 5 it

a2.00 a 15ft

._1-.53 g0 g- 1-.53

1O f/t/sec 104 ft/,.t

50

tou

10

40

30
20 15

20 10

0,.00

FIG. 10 BALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES ON THE a CASE 3

PLANE.

11

Projections of trajectories on the :--x plane for different of /3are again almost tht same down to an altitude of

values Below

100,000 ft.

ft, the z-x projections start separating and produce Comparatively Some examples show that, because of significant differences at impact. different

100,000

/3, values

(from 200 to 5000 lb/ft 2 ), projections of trajectories jOOD00 ft

on the x-y plane differ almost 50,000 ft in the z direction an(, in the y direction (refer to Figs. 3, 4, 7, and 8).

Naturally the deviations differ according to the different values of the initial conditions. If the initial altitude is low and the descent is speed 1 is high, then the deviation due to the different values of P3 not large. For comparison purposes one example of this kind is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. C. Effect of Nonlinearitv in Endoatmosphere For endoatmospheric prediction, the nonlinear term C is negligible

iiif

there is no significant, change in values of r and 1'. lit the endoatmosphere case the maximum deviation of r will be rimpact) r(impact)
-o

(a

300,000)

-a

.3

UY

L4

1-

where a is the radius of the earth. Hence, the value i/rO3 - lir 3 1in the term C is negligrible compared to Iro for the endbotmospheric missilej traj ectori es. On the other hand, the value [Y i in the ttrma r is net neetssarily 0 negligible compared to Vtt. Since a high-/3 missile doeS not A1o% do*wn Significantly, the value [V0 - V is negligible compared to i'o. Thi. telocit~y of a low-,! missile chantres its velocity m~uch more than that of a high.,8
-

misaile. As a result, the value IV~ IOW.-0 ami ssiI*$

V)his not negliltible, and for somte

beezc% 0.5 or grater.

-----

In conclusion, _ * low-,? missiles. prediction, case.

for endoatnmospheric prediction the term C is

neglion Figures

giblc for high-/3 missiles,

and the term C should be handled ':arefully for

litorder to illustrate the effects of the term C

trajectories of high-Bl and low-,6 missiles are shown.

11 and 12 and Table I show the high-/3 case, and Table 11 shows the low-'l

D. Influence of -,in Endoatmosohere

For endoatmospheric prediction, the influence of the -earth rotation rate c,is much more significant than that of the eccentricity e. An example of a high-,3 missile in the endoatmosphere is shown in Figs. 11 and 12 ad Table I. With and without consideration of w, the flight time difference is less than 0.5 sec andthe deviation of the impact points is ab(;ut 6400 ft (5000 ft in the x direction and 4000 ft in the y direction). In this example. it takes about-43 sec to impact. A fixed point on Then

the equator moves about 10 nautical miles during these 43 seconds. of c. about 1 nautical mile rather than 10 nautical miles? this q -stion is straightforward;

why ib the deviation of the impact points with end without consideration The answer to The velocity of a target is measured Therefore, the

with respect to the moving coordinate system, which is. fixed to the earth at the radar site and rota.es with the earth. deviation of impact points with and without w is *1 in Eq. (1). shown in Table II. This is the case of a low-, 8 not caused by the motion

of the radar site but is mainly caused by the effect of the coriolis term

Another example is

missile in the endoatmosphere.

The deviation of the impact points with

and without consideration of c is about 5000 ft (4000 ft in the x direc3 tion and 3000 ft in the y direction). Since this is a low-I missile, it takes about 74 sec to impact, which is about 80 percent longer than the time required for the high-,3 missile with the same initial conditions.
3 The low-I missile takes a longer time to impact than the high-/3 missile,

vet the deviation of impact po:nts for the low- 3 missile with and without consideration of u is smaller than that for the high-A missile. This is because the main contribution 'f o) is the coriolis term, which is proport ional to the vector product u x V of the earth rotation rate and the yelocity of the nissile. the Since
_,

is

constant,

the effect due to coriolis

trM depends oni the magnitude of L.

The higher the velocity of a missile,

arger the deviation that will occur.

18

20

111 39 INITIAL CONDITIONS: xa 9.20640 x 105 ft 5 y a 4.5151 5% IO ft z a3.2T89Tt los5t 1-.8 1864 i 10 4 ft/Sec 1.I 12315 x IO4 ft0.. z a-7.01397 a 1O3 ft/se 40 WITH ALL TERM
(in' a a *0

10

WITHOUT TERM C

:0

41 4

42 -t0 42.26 42AO 42

42.51.

-20 I60 170 I80 190 a-kit

I 200

210

220

FIG. 11

INFLUENCES OF

w, , AND C (Endloatmo sphere,

x-y PLANE

20

40 IiTIAL CONDITIONS: 9.20640 x 10 ft y -4.51515 x 10 5 ft 5 ft z-3.27897 %1 o i c-1.81864 x 104 ft /See 10l O421 ft/sec ~~ iz7.01~397 x lO0 ft/sec 30

19

39

f 40

WITHOUT TERM C & * :0

40

WITH ALL TERMS 20wO

& szQ

41 41

I4
42 42.40 42.53 I0L 160 )70 42 42.26 10 O 19 -kft 200 210 220 230

FIG. 12

INFLUENCES OF e,a), AND C (Endoatmosphere

; -x PLANE

21

;:W2
0%

10

10

I--

Ot

1*

...

~
-

~~~~~ C..
t4

C4.CJ

0 -'

=I

C6 -

cr-

-t

cor

CIAj

nIf

t~

oo 0f

-a..

No-

2
tC, a, '0

c'0r

cc

otC'

.n
-

in

'C C

C4 In

t0 II

m II-

II

ar

*..

22

E.

Effect. of Eccentricity in Endoatmosphere Eccentricity e comes into the differential equation of motion as the

correction introduced into the gravitational force term due to the oblateness of the earth. The deviations of impact points with and without con_ sideration of the eccentricity e are shown in Figs. I1 and 12 and in Tables I and II. Figures l1 and 12 and Table I show the case of a highendoatmosphere. and 130 ft in the y direction). rissile in

The deviation is about 220 ft (180 ft in the x direction There is no difference in impact time. The

3 Table II shows the case of a low-i missile in endoatmosphere.

deviation is about 100 ft (100 ft in the x'direction and 22 ft in the y direction). The difference in impact time is about 0.03 sec.

In conclusion, the effect of the eccentricity e is entirely negligible for trajectory prediction in the endoatmosphere. F. *
as

Approximation of Nonlinear Term in Endoatmosphere As discussed in the previous sections, Eq. (1) can be approximated

X and X

AX

for high

13

missiles,

(4)

AX

B + C

for low ,8missiles

(5)

in endoatmospheric trajectory prediction. If we consider p1/3, r, and V to be piecewise constant, then the mutrix A and the term C become piecewise constant. Hence, it is possible The accuto find a piecewise closed-form solution for Eqs. (4) and (5). interval during which pl/3, r, and V are kept constant. 3, 4, and S sec.

racy of the solution depends upon the integration step size and the time Experimental computations were performed by taking five time intervals, namely, 1, 2, The results are shown in lables III and IV.

The purpose of obtaining a closed-form solution is to shorten the computation time to predict the missile trajectory. described above produces s,me inaccuracies. The approximation If the inaccuracies can be

23

ell

I-a. Lm 0 0

UD

kr

PCP

CP

SC4

-P's

I4

Ic

PC7

Ii
U
H

In

'

C
.~ -

-(PP

0
if~

0'. a' CCn

VI
PC

C3

(P
-

~.

-M

Ii~~~~o
a..
..

0
C

0
PC

0
P

0M
C P

Le.
-

16*
P

inC

Ci

Pf'

'C

"a

f4

Gal +

fog -l %j-

4 k it W o A.

.4.

I24

I-I-

tt
L..
'.4

cn %C4

00%C t-1

C4 CN4C4

fn.

t4n
.~. .. 4

t-.

Sn n

e,
S

1. I

It

-4

-4

-4

-i

44

44

4425

I
tolerated, a closed-form solution should be used in order to reduce the computation time. As a reference, it may be helpful to give an approximate computation If the iteration step flight

time to solve the differential Eq. (1) numerically.

size At is taken as 100 msec and if one iteration does not exceed 0.2 msec, then the numerical calculation of a missile trajectory for a 50-sec: requires less than 0.1 sec of computatioa time.

I.2

26

IV EXOATMOSPHERIC PREDICTION

In this reporL, the exoatmosphere is defined as the space above altitude 300,000 ft.. Since the characteristics of the motion of ballistic missiles in the endontmosphere ane exoatmosphere are significantly diffzrent, it is very meaningful to oLtain schemes of predicting trajectories separatell'. As discussed in Sec. 111, the equation of motion of missiles in endoatmosphere is decvribed by Eqs. (2) or (3). The equation of motion of missiles in exoatmosphere can be approximated as

Projections of the trajectories in exoatmosphere on the x-y plane are almost straight lines. Projections of trajectories on the z-x plane have the shape of an ellipse or a parabola. One example is shown in figs. 13 and 14 and Table V.
3 at altitude 300,000 ft The values of q~ is 1.488 x 10-' lb ft(iFg 7. 647 4 '- 10-21b ft-3 at the earth surface). Therefore, the elIem cn t (Ag;, 2"W tins very little influence on the solutions regardless of the value of g~. The classification of missiles is no longer meaningful in cxoattnospheric prediction problems. If we consider the term(tg/2')y to be negligible.. then Eq. (6) is simplified as

X
Whet e

+8+(7)

*I1
w .

22

*2

Vu
T

It III0
3

-I--4:

* a

2
~

: : *~ . 222222
N ~ t.

@ U tj

'4

'U 0..

~ 9~1' Ee ~2~5
o
, . u * M
U

2 g
Sm
S S

N
S.

8
*

U I-

~*W

1. I
U

'U
-

U'

i
U.

0
iA~

U
0 IL i-

* U

iii

5-S..

a *
i-US

t2

8
II~

I
'S

I _I

.,

~ -

00
~

ea

t (~i -

e~

-~

0 ~

00
'0

'0

~ 00000 & *~ -

0
0
~

0'
.'~

0 N

00 -

ff~

~i

0
-

-~
~

o
-

*'~
-

C
~

a'
C
4.

.,

'0 I
**' 1'' I -

'0

a'
0 I~ I
.9

(*~

0 t'.

0
*. I
*9

C I
.9

~ 0 C

0'
I .9

3'
C
I .9

I
.9

*9

.9

.9

0 * ~i ('a -

0
-

'0 ~
~' -i -

00 0' = 0'

N ~

N -p -

*
I. -

0~
*

z~
-~ .9

0 ~'I ~ -

.p .

a~ -

("a
I

00 I
-

0
I

I
.9 .9

.9 .9 .9

.9

.9

.9

.9

r
a
~?
'N

o
('4 -

0
* '~

0
a
~

'0
N

0
=

00
-

a
-

N ' 4-

'a
-

'..~

3'

C 0
-

0 0 -

~
I-. -

('~ 0 I

3'
3'
I"

0' I~ I

I-

0
-

0
-

0
-

ul

'-

'
~

'
~

I
C

Sn
0 0

'0

00 -

~:
0
-

aN
*~

0
4-a
. '-~ *-~

rt(44 Sn

a'
. ~ 9..

t.
-

0
a' .9 (44 Sn

*0

4' 9 '0 -

'a ?a
~

444 Sn

944 .. i

'0 C

41;

,,4

0 a

0 a
'44

0
-

'0
a

0
-

0
~I

'a

~ -,
-b
-

*
'a

'~'~I,~44

"~ I~4

0' ('~ 0

('4 -

.1

-~

*4

454

7'I!

I.
a

4'

-5
C -~ I -

'a

%~ ~ -

I
'a
A

~-

a-

.9

*'

* '

a -

&

.1

S
-

3.

it

I I
.1

oo0 o0
0

0 0
0

0
0~sn ~t~Op
2uwsillcos 0 tsi, 2t 0o

o2
0~~ir~-

33

Ar
00 00

2cus we will dis Inth oloing cos of te pprxilltios aove inEqs (b)and(7)
A. of0niertixamshr Asdicuse bfoeth rnssle i edotmsper. rfec nnlnert~rm owve,~th i

p dere

ofte

curc

nglgilefo

hgho ar0

trmC

holdbehadld

The cffet of nolinear

erm 3, (r

is

no3clgbefrayms

31

approximation allows us to reduce Eqs. (6-) and (7) to linear differential equations with constant coefficients. tain a piecewise dlosed-form solutioii. next section. B. Approximation of Nonlinear Term in Exoatmosphere In the Nike-Zeus system, prediction of the-trajectory of a reentry vehicle is based on an analytical closed-form solution of ai, approximate As a result., it is possible t, obThis appruJih is discussed in the

set of equations of motion. 4 In order to obtain an analvtic solution to

the equations, the effect of gravity is omitted, and the resulting predictions are corrected for gravity. This is one way of approximating the original differential equation to find a closed-form solution. Another approach is to divide the total flight time into several intervals and to find a closed-form solution for each interval. Eq. (7)] are used for a certain time interval [0, Atl. In other words, term C is eliminated and the-initial values of r and V [only r in ihe values of r and V are recalculated by using the state values at time "It.and these revised constant values of r and V are used for ca'culating the trajectory for the next time interval [At, 2At]. This same procedure is continued until impact is reached. fhis idea is demonstrated for an exoazmospheric trajectory, and the results are tabulated in Table V. The deviations of the predicted position from the exact value after 240-sec flight are the following: 50,000 ft -----20,000 ft -----10,000 ft -----5,000 ft -----without term C 60-sec correction of r and V in C 30-sec correction of r and V in C 10-sec correction of r and V in C

The more frequently corrections are made, the more accurately we wi;1l obtain solutions. The suitable number of intervals for dividing the total

time depends on the error constraints. If the total time T is divided into N intervals of At, then the original equation is approximated as
R((t) n =
=

An Xn(0 0, 1....

+ B

for

nat

< t < (+

lAt

T
At

32

and the initial rosiditions are defined as

XQ(O)
X,[(nAt)

X_
+ l)An, +-

1, 2,"'".At 1

In the case

of exoatmospheric trajectories, , is negligible; hence,

An and B,, can be considered to be constant. C. Influence of in Exoatmosphere shown in

An example of a missile trajectory in exeatmosphere is Figs. 13, 14. and Table V.

The deviation of the impact points (compared

at the same time rather than at the same altitude) with and without consideration of w is about 75,000 ft (8,000 in the x direction, 25,000 ft in the y direction and 70,000 ft in the z direction) after 240 sec of flight. The velocity of the missile in this example is much larger than that in endoatmosphere examples shown previously. coriolis term is greater. Although the effect of a is negligible for endoatmospheric trajectory predictions, the effect is very significant for exoatmospheric trajectory predictions. D. Influence of Eccentricity in Exodmosphere Figures 13, 14, and 'Fable V show the case of a missile in exoatmosphere. The deviation of impact points with and without consideration of The eccentricity e is the eccentricity e is about, 2100 ft (200 ft in the x direction, 500 ft in the y direction and 2000 ft in the - direction). negligible (with certain reservation) for the cases in exoatosphere. Hlence, the effect of the

The main objective of neglecting the term D contain ing the eccentrictry e is to simplify the differential equation in order to obtain a closedFor exoatmospheric trajectories, the deviation can be as If the tolerance of large as 0.5 nautical miles after a 240-see flight. form solution. the error is as zero. several miles, then the eccentricity e can be considered e cannot be considered as zero, then it is If eccentricity

c earl\ difficult to find a closed-form solution.

33

One way to overcome this difficulty is to find at efficient numerical integration technique. ferential It is feasible to obtain a solution of the difUNIVAC 1108). The flight time for these exoequation (I) by using about 0.5 sec of computer time on a

present-day computer (e.g.,

atmospheric cases is on the order of 5 minutes or more; therefore, 0.5 sec can be well justified for the computer calculations. It is also possible to neglect the effect of eccentricity e and to simplify the differential equation so that the closed-form solution can be found. In order to support the above statement, it is usefL' to tabulate the state values at 60 sec after the initial time for trajectories with and without consideration of the eccentricity e. The last two i'ows of Table V show that the deviation is about 160 ft after 60 sec.

i.

! -

V SENSITIVITY OF IMPACT POINTS TO INITIAL VALUES

When the state values of an incoming missile are estimated, some errors are inevitable. In order to reduce errors, the computation time must be increased significantly. The knowledge of the propagation of initial erirs to the final values in prediction is very meaningful in order to evaluate the trade-off between the magnitude of prediction errors and the computation time in estimation. For this purpose, the sensitivity of the. initial values to the impact points is briefly investigated. The following simplified equation is used for the sensitivity analysis: 0 0
t 0

0
a

where a and 6 are constant. 1 0

Then the solution is described as 0 t 0 0

10
t
2

DO X(t)

00 I 0 0 10

0 0

0t t 0 0

(O) +

-t ! bt2 2

(8)

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0

00 1 0 0 1

0 at bt

If there is a small error AX in X(0), T is expressed as

then the state value X(T) at time

35

o
!I(T)

1 0

T 0
0
1

a
IX(O) + AX] +
2 1'"

Co 0 0 1 0
0

1 0
0

T
0

T2

0
o)

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

T
,T

"1

O0

0
-

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

T' 0 (9)

X(T) -0+

o 0

1 0

The examples considered previously are used again for the sensitivity analysis. In both endoatmosphere and exoatmospihere cases, 10 per-

cent and 20 percent errors are independently introduced into each initial value. The propagation of each error to the final values is evaluated These results are shown in Tables VI through According to Bef. 2, the estima5

I
Fcases.

by integrating the differential Eq. (1) numericall) and b\ using the relationship in Eq. (8). .X. The values in parentheses in these tables are theoretical results by using the relationship in Eq. (8). tion errors will become about 2 percent after t -see of filtering. Hence,

this sensitivity analysis will give better results for more realistic

This coarse sensitivity analysis gives a good indication ot th, propagation of errors in the initial values. In the ex..mplo of exoatmosphere, the sensitivity analpsis, and the numerical
the case of endoatmospht re,

integratio,

agree very well.

integration

In
match

the analysis and the numeri,_al

very well in most rasv , but the cases %here errors esist do have signi ficant deh\tations. withiout an)) amplificai
\

in

:(}0 a1d 1

aid 0) .

1-0) propla-

Errors in x(0), (9).

ly ampl

y(t

, x0)), liht,
I'S

gate in the manlier expresstd in Fa1. blocity errors plropla t;l without
flfect

The psitimit error.' tr1pagate inifluence on ,elocit

yr

tion and iave little o

iThP
Itlf,

ii I icati on ili the

lo

itv

it

they have a sigriilicant

the posi t ion tI r

36

~
-

~
-

0 c
-

CIA00 0
-

0
-

.1

o4

e4l

.44

44~~4

0'.

-0

e~

LM%

2k4

C ~4a,

03

'o

.0

r-

0 . .0

3.-

'0

'0

'.

at

At S

L337

-V

-P

-P-

*.a~

~
-q

~
t -

1f

'o

0"
Q
-4

0't
-

Lr N

1-

0
co C30 -m

0 0

EN, co-

01 m'

co

~ a,

occ

I--

.0

M.

EN

lie

0'

c,

~
0

*nI

-i

U38

C4

CI

CIS
-

0
f.

0
In

04
L5M5

en

-t

co

4N

eq

v -

CIO t~-

t's

en

VC' - C14

'0)

en

o~e
e

-e l

r.. n

4 l

eqi -r-

9"

Cd do~4

el

%ne q

qe

-~cr
-i

444

r-

'7!00

~~~-t

CIS

eli9-

'n -

q c4

%0

COSf

a
* .~

I SoI
-

It

as

at

lit

SR

SIC

CR

4 sS

SRn

-~t

~
55

0
-

I-

el

ell

4 I 0 tA I

a- 51%

too5

~
*1.A

~q

AAA*

0 l

Soe

04

~4

CA

C4 *

fn

en,

il
-=

- . . a, .. 7
.U
i

.
all it

.m

-. l

AI

*
I~I

In
-

0%
9 fn

'0_.0
-

C4 F
-,

_ cc 0 S.I '
0

. cc;

~0

~ ~- -

S -

09

-II fn

~
0.

~
I

fn I e

,, I

iI

III

'C

1--'.,

0 II
-,

in A
V.

vi
I- .9

4 U, A:

a~

4.

lJ
all

~~'
so

IS

IS

Il

..
to a I '

or. W:1....

'C

IA

40

VI

CONCLUSION

The different'i;l listic motion.

(1) is a good mathematical model of the balWithout any approximation, it seems hopeless to find a The only way to find a solution of

Eq.

closed-form solution of Eq, (1). Eq

(1) is numerical integration. As a result, it requires a significant amount of computation time. This memorandum describes a simplification of the differential Eq. (1) of the ballistic trajectories. purpose of an approxiirition is to obtain a closed-form solution. T!,e problems are divided into two domains, namely the endoatmospheric problem and the exoatmospheric problem. The endoatmospheric problem is again divided into two. namely, the high-,_ case and the low-f case. In each case. the influences of the eccentricity e. the rotation rate
CV.

The main

the

ballistic coefficient &. and the nonlinearities are considered. A summary of the influences is shown in Table X. In exoatmospheric Frediction problems, the earth rotation rate c4 and the nonlinear te-i C should be treated carefully, and in endoatmospheric prediction problem. the ballistic coefficient - should be handled properly. 1he effect. of the ballistic coefficient is very significant on the trajectory at low altitudes (e.g.. for impact point and impact time prediction). further research effort should be oriented toward improving the estimation and prediction of ballistic coefficients. Future work on the prediction problem is to obtain closed-form solutions of Eqs (3) and (7), One possible was is to find a piecewise ,'losed-form solution over a suitable time interval by taking constant values of ,. and C in Eqs, (3) and (), respectively. Table X

.ivell'ift I-,, .4t

ft-

l l

ll

lliI,' IitW

-'-Ipli

.0 llo

ar,-aI I

sll fl~

41

!I

APPENDIX

The derivation of the differential Eq. (I) is discussed in this appendix.

If NaP is the absolute ac,.eleration of a mi ssile P (it is considered

to be a particle) in a reference frame N and a is the niss of P. then the inertia force F acting on P in N satisfies F (A.1)

The reference frame N is a reference frame in which the center C of the earth and the earth's axis, line NS. are fixed suh that the angular velocity of the earth E with respect to the reference N. Y. is given by

where w~ 2-r- ad/day and nis a unit vector parallel to line NS. This reference frame N is a good approximation to a Xvwton a retert:ace frame. From Fig. 1.
A A

xt yj A

where t, and k are unit vectors defined in Fig. I and x "v, 4and are /. A the measure numetra in the directionq k,, and k. resptctivtly. Thtv velocity of P *ith-reapect to the reference is then expro.tsed as - dt

The accelerations '9,p

xf, P Ca

at time 0 art related bv

Mb 4 P*z

di
-

t.'as 0M,~ 1k

tw

U44 tI

+t

t.vif

42

whtre P* is the point fixed in E that coincides with P at time t*, a is

and

Illed the coincident-point velocity and the vector 2w x 1VP is called the coriolis acceleration of P for the reference frames E and N. The coincident point v'elocity IaP" satisfies haQ and N dw dt The acceleration of P with respect to E is EdE V
E P a EEP
-i

SaC IWOx r *w N

x (w x r)

A +

dt Therefore,
A

Yj

IN~ + z

NaP

+ +j

+ it +

> (w

x r) + 2& X EVP

(A.3)

4nd r are expressed as .Sincr cA

A
=

(c

sin

(." COS

/I])

Ax
r r
=

A
+

ri + rYj
X

rk

=
=

R sin (IL-

(tc)
c.) (A.4)

+ R cos (j.

'Ihe last two terms of Eq. (A. 3) are written as

(w )

rw A A
2

-cr, i + u
+ W'[r

[(rY cos /L + r, sin iz)

sin AL) sin

cos 4-

r,]J

cos k4 + r

rlk

V E.

. "COS

si
sin

z A,(
i + xo sin

Ao
j

x-

(A

cos/

43

Therefore,

NdP
{y +

M!+ 4 cos

/.L -'sin

2
+

i)

^j
A

A 2iu' sinii c(r t2 (r , cos cos . r, sin u) cosj i + r sin

; - 21cc cob !z

p) sin

(A.5)

Let us now consider the left-Iand side of Eq. (A. 1). The force F acting on a missile P is divided into two elements. namely the drag force Fd and the gravitational force F.; hence,

F -- Fd + F%

(A.6)

The drag force per unit. mass acting on a body is given approximately by the equation (A.7)

Ed
Next,

i-

let us find the expression of the gravitational at P due to the earth E is

force. expressedb as

The gravitational potential

';EiP

r -

2r --2 [31 - (11 , I. +

where I is the moment of inertia about the line OP and I,,

I, and I

are the principal moments of inertia of the earth E of the mass m. Since the gravitational force per unit mass is grav.itational potential, the equation the gradient of the

F8 /i =
holds, where the operator V is
A
+

vuEP

defined as
A A 4

n-

44

and X 1 . X., and X 3 are measure numbers of the principal axes of the e "th E. Let us define mutually perpendicular unit vectors ii Then F1 la /m
=VUEIP

and

12

as shown

in Fig. A-I.

GM r
2

h+

3G
-

2r 4

1(-21,

I2

L3)t.

21 1 2

+ 2113131

Where I1, 1", 13 are the moments of inertia of the earth about the center the(h cio A A A 1 alotg the directions n , n' n 3 , respectively, and I 12 are the moment of inertia of the earth about the center for the pair of directions n, and n , n 3 respectively. By using algebraic transformation, the above equation becomes GMA
-I

n,

F /M

3C
-

(In4

I)(1

5 sin 2

)k

J0

- 1 )2 sin

A n

2r4

If
3(1, - I) 2,Ia 2

IA
and then where gr

A
ki A

grr + gn

(A.8)

I + .1

(1

5 sin- q')

45

X3

0
Im

TA- 514S -440

FIG. A-i

ILLUSTRATIONS OF UNIT VECTORS

46

6-,

1lint vectors r anid n are described

r A r A r A_____

in terms of i

and k as

AA

A
An

cos p-j + sin 4k

ilence Eq.

(A.7)

is expressed as

'n

rt!r

i " (g

r\yA

r' r

'gCos

1 + g

sin

(A.9) Eq. (A.1) and comparing B. substituting Eqs. (A.5), (A.7) and (A.9) into t~e easurA values of . A, elements, it is found that

+ 2

s cs sin u

sin 4) w w rz sin
2

rr

2N ,'"

p
+ .(,2r.

ry r

sin i- cos IL

, +

cos FL

(A. 10)

2wx cos

cos2 L
, +
g

+
whe r e

ar y

sil L

COS

LL

2,

72

+ g,

sin 4 o

r r
r

y
-

R sin(L - 4L,) ,)

+ R cos(,L 2

(r

r2

V' g,(),

(j.2

,"

2 "

(1

5 sin

"k)

47

Li

r)

sin

cp~

fy cos ju

z sin /I

R sin/k

If a 6

1 vector X'is defined as

[X, y, z~xj

AT

then Eq. (A.10) is written as Eq. (1) in the main text.

44

REFERENCES

Prediction Problems," Trans. AS.HE, H. E. kalmatn. "A New Approach to Linear Filtering and
J. 1j6sjc Engr. (March 1%O).

Kalman Filter of the Extended ' I - O- 1 R. E. Ldrson. B.' %. Pressler. B. S. Patner, "Application 9OOOb(Y), 0 UA-U Contract eport, Final "stimation," to Bllistic Trajetory (January 1967). California Park, Menlo Institute, SRI1 project SlI9-1lU3, St.anford Research USAF, USWIH (December 1962). 3. US. Standard Atmosphere, 19b2, Prepared by NASA, 1. Nike-Zeus TIC Equations, Bell Telephone Laboratories. 2 (Academic Press, 1961). T. H. Kane, Analytical Elements of Mechanics, Vol. Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 1963). u. S. . McCuskey, Introduction to Celestial

Sm

44