{"id":{"repo_id":"houston","oai_identifier":"oai:uh-ir.tdl.org:10657/19966"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/houston/oai:uh-ir.tdl.org:10657/19966","repository":{"repo_id":"houston","name":"University of Houston","base_url":"https://uh-ir.tdl.org/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A Comparison of Control Methods for Spacecraft Maneuvering With Run Time Assurance","abstract":"In the vast subject of aerospace systems, safety is a critical factor in mission completion within the controls field. Controllers designed using data-based approaches like artificial intelligence must uphold the same levels of safety expected from modern controllers, such as Linear Quadratic Regulators. This is accomplished with the application of Run Time Assurance, which ensures the system states will remain within a predefined safe set of values, no matter the potentially dangerous control actions from the primary controller. This research compares control approaches for a deputy spacecraft conducting proximity operations to safely egress from near a chief spacecraft to a predefined relative parking orbit. This trajectory is described in a linearized relative motion reference frame and is calculated from a variety of modern control methods: Linear Quadratic Regulation, Linear Quadratic Integration, and Linear Quadratic Tracking. The initial conditions are chosen to force an unsafe trajectory to demonstrate how the use of Run Time Assurance ensures the system remains within the set of safe states. The two Run Time Assurance methods utilized are an active set invariance filter and a switching backup controller, both of which use a control barrier function to determine the safe set of values for the affected outputs with differing approaches of implementation. Three different scenarios are investigated to prove the safety bounds are not violated, each with a new situation addressed complete with new specific initial conditions. The results demonstrate that each modern controller is fully capable of implementing Run Time Assurance methods, while displaying varying levels of success based on the calculation-based values of the summation of control output and the rendezvous time.","abstract_html":"In the vast subject of aerospace systems, safety is a critical factor in mission completion within the controls field. Controllers designed using data-based approaches like artificial intelligence must uphold the same levels of safety expected from modern controllers, such as Linear Quadratic Regulators. This is accomplished with the application of Run Time Assurance, which ensures the system states will remain within a predefined safe set of values, no matter the potentially dangerous control actions from the primary controller. This research compares control approaches for a deputy spacecraft conducting proximity operations to safely egress from near a chief spacecraft to a predefined relative parking orbit. This trajectory is described in a linearized relative motion reference frame and is calculated from a variety of modern control methods: Linear Quadratic Regulation, Linear Quadratic Integration, and Linear Quadratic Tracking. The initial conditions are chosen to force an unsafe trajectory to demonstrate how the use of Run Time Assurance ensures the system remains within the set of safe states. The two Run Time Assurance methods utilized are an active set invariance filter and a switching backup controller, both of which use a control barrier function to determine the safe set of values for the affected outputs with differing approaches of implementation. Three different scenarios are investigated to prove the safety bounds are not violated, each with a new situation addressed complete with new specific initial conditions. The results demonstrate that each modern controller is fully capable of implementing Run Time Assurance methods, while displaying varying levels of success based on the calculation-based values of the summation of control output and the rendezvous time.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Rogers, Britney Madison"],"institution":"University of Houston","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":"Aerospace Engineering","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Grigoriadis, Karolos"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":["Hamilton, Nathaniel","Hobbs, Kerianne","Dunlap, Kyle","Cescon, Marzia","Chen, Zheng"],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-08","date_published":"2024-08","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:32:58Z","subjects":["Aerospace engineering","Mechanical engineering"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10657/19966","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Grigoriadis, Karolos"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Hamilton, Nathaniel","Hobbs, Kerianne","Dunlap, Kyle","Cescon, Marzia","Chen, Zheng"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Rogers, Britney Madison"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-07-30T08:37:50Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Aerospace Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Houston"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Aerospace engineering","Mechanical engineering"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10657/19966"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In the vast subject of aerospace systems, safety is a critical factor in mission completion within the controls field. Controllers designed using data-based approaches like artificial intelligence must uphold the same levels of safety expected from modern controllers, such as Linear Quadratic Regulators. This is accomplished with the application of Run Time Assurance, which ensures the system states will remain within a predefined safe set of values, no matter the potentially dangerous control actions from the primary controller. This research compares control approaches for a deputy spacecraft conducting proximity operations to safely egress from near a chief spacecraft to a predefined relative parking orbit. This trajectory is described in a linearized relative motion reference frame and is calculated from a variety of modern control methods: Linear Quadratic Regulation, Linear Quadratic Integration, and Linear Quadratic Tracking. The initial conditions are chosen to force an unsafe trajectory to demonstrate how the use of Run Time Assurance ensures the system remains within the set of safe states. The two Run Time Assurance methods utilized are an active set invariance filter and a switching backup controller, both of which use a control barrier function to determine the safe set of values for the affected outputs with differing approaches of implementation. Three different scenarios are investigated to prove the safety bounds are not violated, each with a new situation addressed complete with new specific initial conditions. The results demonstrate that each modern controller is fully capable of implementing Run Time Assurance methods, while displaying varying levels of success based on the calculation-based values of the summation of control output and the rendezvous time."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Comparison of Control Methods for Spacecraft Maneuvering With Run Time Assurance"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Grigoriadis, Karolos"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Hamilton, Nathaniel","Hobbs, Kerianne","Dunlap, Kyle","Cescon, Marzia","Chen, Zheng"],"dc:creator":["Rogers, Britney Madison"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-07-30T08:37:50Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-08"],"dc:description.abstract":["In the vast subject of aerospace systems, safety is a critical factor in mission completion within the controls field. Controllers designed using data-based approaches like artificial intelligence must uphold the same levels of safety expected from modern controllers, such as Linear Quadratic Regulators. This is accomplished with the application of Run Time Assurance, which ensures the system states will remain within a predefined safe set of values, no matter the potentially dangerous control actions from the primary controller. This research compares control approaches for a deputy spacecraft conducting proximity operations to safely egress from near a chief spacecraft to a predefined relative parking orbit. This trajectory is described in a linearized relative motion reference frame and is calculated from a variety of modern control methods: Linear Quadratic Regulation, Linear Quadratic Integration, and Linear Quadratic Tracking. The initial conditions are chosen to force an unsafe trajectory to demonstrate how the use of Run Time Assurance ensures the system remains within the set of safe states. The two Run Time Assurance methods utilized are an active set invariance filter and a switching backup controller, both of which use a control barrier function to determine the safe set of values for the affected outputs with differing approaches of implementation. Three different scenarios are investigated to prove the safety bounds are not violated, each with a new situation addressed complete with new specific initial conditions. The results demonstrate that each modern controller is fully capable of implementing Run Time Assurance methods, while displaying varying levels of success based on the calculation-based values of the summation of control output and the rendezvous time."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10657/19966"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:subject":["Aerospace engineering","Mechanical engineering"],"dc:title":["A Comparison of Control Methods for Spacecraft Maneuvering With Run Time Assurance"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Aerospace Engineering"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Houston"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:32:58Z"}