Bzier Approximation Based Inverse Dynamic Guidance for Entry

Glide Trajectory
Tawfiqur Rahman*, Zhou Hao, Chen Wanchun
School of Astronautics, Beihang University (BUAA), Beijing, China

Abstract: An explicit entry guidance law has been developed
using inverse dynamics approach. The inverse dynamics
problem is solved through Bzier curve approximation of the
vehicle trajectory. Most important and novel feature of the
developed guidance law is its ability to satisfy the terminal
angular and velocity constraints besides position constraints.
Through shape preserving Bzier parameters the guidance law
has the ability to control terminal velocity. For entry glide flight
the guidance law incorporates limits on acceleration and attack
angle which are converted from path constraints. The results
demonstrate remarkably good efficiency in meeting terminal
constraints.
Keywords: Entry guidance, inverse dynamics approach,
Bzier approximation, explicit guidance, quasi equilibrium
glide
I. INTRODUCTION
Entry guidance has been a matter of extensive study for
the past half a century. With the foundation of Space Shuttle
guidance law, an array of techniques has since been
developed. All these standard trajectory guidance methods
were dependent on reference profile and differ from each
other in the reference state and/or in the tracking control
designs. Apollo used longitudinal profile; the Space shuttle
depended on drag profile whereas more recent methods
employed full state references. Tracking laws employed in
such guidance schemes have basically been application of
different optimal controls laws like LQR design [1], LQG
design, SDRE based design, receding horizon control [2] and
a variety of pseudospectral control laws [3]. But irrespective
of the variations in all these guidance laws, dependence on
reference profile seriously undermines the autonomy of such
schemes.
An alternate stream of guidance laws evolve from the need
to gain autonomy from reference profiles. These predictor-
corrector schemes compute the complete entry trajectory on
board and depending on the terminal outcome issues guidance
corrections. These schemes differ from each other in the
method of generating guidance corrections. Predictor-
corrector schemes although eliminated the need for reference
profile; it lacks robustness due to difficulty in enforcing path
constraints and onboard prediction process which is
computationally engaging. In order to incorporate the ability
to enforce path constraints, Songbai Xue and Ping Lu[4] use
quasi equilibrium glide condition (QEGC) in their predictor-
corrector guidance scheme. Their scheme however lacked in
constraining terminal velocity. Very recently an entry
guidance scheme based on Model Predictive Static
Programming (MPSP) has been presented by C. Chawla, et al
[5]. This method reduces the complexity of optimal control by
converting dynamic programming problem to a static
programming problem. As such, their predictor-corrector
scheme is able to maintain path constraints and also meet
terminal constraints. However, the prediction design still
involves on board integration of full state dynamics and uses
an iterative method for generating guidance command. As
such, there remains scope for development of a simpler
guidance law.
In this paper we present a novel explicit guidance law
using inverse problem approach. The law initiates with a
terminally constrained (both in position and angles) Bzier
approximation of the desired trajectory which allows
representation through two shape defining parameters. Using
this approximated Bzier curve the guidance command is
solved from the inverse dynamics formulation of the system.
This design obviates the requirement of offline profile and
enables very simple online prediction. As such, the guidance
law is computationally uncomplicated and fast. Bzier
functions have been used for explicit solutions to several
mathematical and engineering problems. Recent use of this
has also been made in reference trajectory generation and near
optimal guidance law [6]. However, the guidance design
previously presented [6] is unable to meet terminal angle
constraints and lacked terminal velocity controlling feature.
Satisfaction of terminal angular and velocity constraints are
especially important for advanced guided weapons and
planetary entry missions. The presented guidance formulation
is capable in satisfying terminal position and angle constraints
and at the same time able to achieve desired terminal velocity.
II. BZIER CURVE
Bzier curve is a parametric curve that is a polynomial
function of parameter [0,1] where the degree of
polynomial depends on the number of control points which
define the curve. It can be expressed in the following
weighted sum form
,
0
( ) ( ) 0 1
n
i n i
i
P PB
=
=

(1)
Where P
i
are the control points and B
n,I
are the weights of the
points which can be given as Bernstein polynomial form
,
( ) (1 )
i n i
n i
n
B
i

=


(2)
Through some simple mathematical deliberation the
following matrix form of expression can be found:
1
0 1 1
( ) [ , ,..., ,1][ ][ , ,..., , ]
n n T
n n
P N P P P P

= (3)
978-1-4673-5769-2/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE



Here [N] is the Bzier basis matrix [7], which depends on
the degree of the Bzier curve.
A. Properties of Bzier Curve
The presented design utilizes the properties of a Bzier
curve in deriving the guidance solution. Details on Bzier
curve and its properties can be found in [7]. Properties
relevant to the presented guidance law are:
Bzier curve passes through the end control points.
The interior control points do not necessary lie on the
curve itself.
Bzier curve is its symmetry with respect to the
sequence of control points.
The derivative (tangent vectors) of Bzier curve at the
end control points (also the initial and terminal point
of the curve itself) are in the direction of the 2
nd
and
2
nd
last control points.
The concept of Bzier function provides us with the
advantage of parametric representation of flight trajectory
with minimum parameters (i.e. for a 3 degree Bzier function
only 4 control points) which satisfies the boundary constraints
and can also be reshaped through variation of the control
points.
III. ENTRY GUIDANCE PROBLEM
Entry guidance is very significant because during such
entry flight the vehicle undergoes severe constraints (e.g. heat
flux, structural load etc.) which restrict the vehicle to fly
within a very narrow corridor. Moreover, such vehicle being
mainly unpowered need to adhere to upper and lower bounds
on longitudinal control for controllability. In addition to the
above, it should meet some desired terminal conditions from
where terminal guidance or terminal area energy management
(TAEM) can be initiated. The issue of path constraints has for
long been addressed by adopting a quasi equilibrium glide
flight (QEG) using the quasi equilibrium glide condition
(QEGC) [4][8]. In numerous guidance law designs QEGC has
been applied to define a flight corridor in altitude-velocity,
altitude-drag space such that flight within its boundaries
ensures satisfaction of path constraints due to heat flux,
dynamic pressure and structural load. In the presented entry
glide guidance the vehicle is guided within this corridor by
constraining initial and terminal position and flight path angle.
A. Trajectory Dynamics
For entry guidance design, the rotating earth effects are not
important and can be easily ignored. Thus three-degree-of-
freedom (3DOF) dynamics of an entry vehicle can be
described by the following equations of motion
sin
( cos sin ) / ( cos )
cos cos /
/ sin
cos / ( ) ( cos / ) ( cos / )
sin / ( cos ) cos sin tan /
r v
v r
v r
v D m g
L mv g v v r
L mv v r

=
=
=
=
= +
= +

(4)
In the above equations, r, , and represent radial
distance, longitude and latitude respectively, v represents
vehicle velocity in m/sec unit, and and represent flight
path and azimuth angle respectively in radians. The terms m,
g, L, and D stand for vehicle mass (kg), gravitational
acceleration, lift, and drag respectively.
B. Quasi Equilibrium Glide Condition
In QEG flight, the vertical component of acceleration is
small and flight path angle is likely to be small. As such, by
setting 0 and d/dt = (very small) in (4) the following
QEGC expression is obtained
cos / ( ) ( cos / ) ( cos / ) L mv g v V r + = (5)
Quasi equilibrium glide is however, only possible within a
specific range of altitude and velocity. As such, for transition
to QEG flight requires satisfaction of the condition
0
/ /
QEGC
dr dv dr dv < (6)
Where
0
>0 is a very small value and (dr/dv)
QEGC
is the
slope of QEGC expressed as
2
2
(2 cos cos )
cos (2 cos cos )
s l ref
QEGC s l ref
vH m c S r
dr
dv mg mH c S r


+
=
+
(7)
During the initial entry phase, the condition (6) is checked
continuously until a successful switch to the presented
guidance law is achieved. In the initial entry guidance a large
constant attack angle profile is adopted with zero bank.
C. Problem Objective
The aim is to control the flight path of the vehicle
throughout the entry glide phase within specified control
bounds and path constraints. The vehicle is also to meet
terminal constraints in term of miss distance, terminal angles
and velocity.
D. Path constraints
Path constraints in the entry glide phase are heat rate,
normal aerodynamic load factor, and dynamic pressure as
expressed in the following
3.5
max
max
2
max
/ ( )
0.5
Q C v Q
n L mg n
q v q

=
=
=

(8)
Where the maximum allowable limit of heat rate (Q
max
),
normal load (n
max
), and dynamic pressure (q
max
) are all
specified and the term C in (8) is a constant.
E. Terminal Constraints
Terminal constraints are set as constraints on terminal
position, angle and velocity as per the requirements for TAEM
0, 0, 0
0, 0, 0
d d d
f f f
d d d
f f f
r r
v v




(9)



F. Physical Constraints
Physical constraint is set on guidance command as
min max
min max
c
c




(10)
IV. GUIDANCE LAW DESIGN
In order to facilitate solution of inverse problem we first
approximate the desired trajectory bound by current and
desired terminal state through Bzier function. By using the
properties of this function guidance command is explicitly
derived. This guidance command within an allowable range of
altitude and flight path angle (defined by QEGC) ensures
terminal state constraints. Moreover, in order to ensure
compliance of path constraints in adverse situations, the
guidance command is filtered through a set of upper and lower
bounds on control derived from the path constraints.
A. Inverse Dynamics Formulation
In order to apply inverse problem approach, we derive an
expression for control parameters attack angle () and bank
angle () from the latitude dependent vehicle dynamics:
2 2
2
tan / cos
tan sec
( sin ) / ( cos cos )
( cos cos cos ) / ( cos cos )
sin / ( cos cos ) tan tan
r r
v r D mg mv
rL rmg mv mv
rL mv





=
=
=
= +
= +
(11)
It may be noted that (11) are latitude dependent whereas,
(4) are time dependent equations. Equation (11) can be solved
for acceleration command as
2 2
( cos / 1)( cos / ) a rg v mv r
y
= + + (12)
2 2
( tan tan )( cos cos / )
z
a mv r = (13)
Here a
y
and a
z
are the longitudinal and lateral accelerations
expressed as Lcos/m and Lsin/m respectively. In (12) and
(13), unknown terms d/d and d/d may be obtained
through derivation of (11) as
2 2
cos ( cos sin cos / ) r r r r = (14)
2
cos ( cos sin ) = (15)
At this stage, (14) and (15) cannot be solved unless full
trajectory information is available. The terms '' and '' in the
equations indicate, the guidance commands are dependent on
the trajectory shape. Based on this deduction, these terms are
calculated by differentiating the approximated Bzier curve
trajectory.
B. Bzier Approximation of Trajectory
The trajectory is approximated as a Bzier curve of 3
degree polynomial (defined by 4 control points). In the
trajectory approximation formulation, two coordinate
frame transformations are carried out, first from
geodetic to earth-centered-earth-fixed, and then to the
local coordinate frame. After the transformation, the
parameters altitude (r), latitude (), and longitude () are
represented through y, z, and x respectively. In a 3DOF
case the trajectory can be represented as three Bzier curves
each being projections of it on the planes xy, yz, and zx as
follows
3 2 3
0 1 2
3 2 3
0 1 2
3 2 3
0 1 2
( ) [ , , ,1][ ][P , P , P , P ]
( ) [ , , ,1][ ][ , , , ]
( ) [ , , ,1][ ][ , , , ]
T
f
T
f
T
f
x N x x x x
y N Py Py Py Py
z N Pz Pz Pz Pz



=

(16)
Where the term and the end control points P
x0
, P
xf
, P
y0
, P
yf
,
P
z0
, and P
zf
can be defined using properties of Bzier curve as:
0 0
( ) / ( )
f
z z z z = (17)
0 0
0 0
0 0
,
,
,
d
f f
d
f f
d
f f
Px x Px x x
Py y Py y y
Pz z Pz z z
= = =

= = =

= = =

(18)


Fig. 1. Bzier curve control points
From the figure above we can find expressions for the
control points P
x1
and P
x2
. At this point we define two
parameters k
x1
and k
x2
herein termed as Bzier parameter
which are the parametric representation of trajectory in this
guidance law. These parameters are central to our formulation
because these initiate the guidance law from selected values
and through their modulation ensures flight with desired
terminal states. Bzier parameters are defined as follows
where P
xm
is the point of intersection of the two tangent
vectors on points P
x0
and P
xf
and expressed as:
1 1 0 0
2 2
( ) / ( )
( ) / ( )
x m
x m f m
k Px Px Px Px
k Px Px Px Px
=
=

(19)



With initial and terminal flight path angle known, from
geometry we can find P
xm
, P
ym
, and rest of the unknown
control points of (16) as:
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
tan tan
( - - )
tan - tan tan tan
( - ) / tan
f yf y
ym xf x
f f
xm x ym y
P P
P P P
P P P P

= +

= +

(20)
1 1 0 0
2 2
1 0 1 0 0
2 2
1 0 1 0 0
2 2
( )
( )
( ) tan
( ) tan
( ) tan
( ) tan
x x xm x x
x x xf xm xm
y y x x
y yf x xf f
z z x x
z zf xf x f
P k P P P
P k P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P

= +

= +

= +

= +

= +

(21)
Thus with known initial and final states we can represent
complete trajectory through Bzier approximation without any
onboard simulation or prediction of flight. This is the key
advantage of this guidance law formulation; it not only
enables trajectory representation with minimum parameter but
also signifies a priori satisfaction of boundary conditions.
Now with all control points defined we can easily get
expressions for derivative of the entry vehicles position
vectors x(), y(), and z() as follows:
2 3
0 1 2
2 3
0 1 2
2 3
0 1 2
/ [3 2 1 0][ ][ ]
/ [3 2 1 0][ ][ ]
/ [3 2 1 0][ ][ ]
T
x x x xf
T
y y y yf
T
z z z zf
dx d N P P P P
dy d N P P P P
dz d N P P P P



=

(22)
2 2 3
0 1 2
2 2 3
0 1 2
2 2 3
0 1 2
/ [6 2 0 0][ ][ ]
/ [6 2 0 0][ ][ ]
/ [6 2 0 0][ ][ ]
T
x x x xf
T
y y y yf
T
z z z zf
d x d N P P P P
d y d N P P P P
d z d N P P P P



=

(23)
From the above representations the unknown terms of (14)
and (15) can be found as
( / ) / ( / )
( / ) / ( / )
( / ) / ( / )
2 2 2 2 2
{ / ( / )( / ) / ( / )}/ ( / )
2 2 2 2 2
{ / ( / )( / ) / ( / )} / ( / )
r dy d dz d
dx d dz d
dz d dz d
r d y d dy d d z d dz d dz d
d x d dx d d z d dz d dz d





=
=
=
=
=

(24)
Acceleration command for current and terminal position
can be found if k
x1
and k
x2
is known. These two parameters
need to be found through offline parameter optimization
process prior to flight. The process of parametric optimization
required here is very simple, which will be evident shortly.
C. Constraint Enforcement
1) Terminal position constraint: Constraints of terminal
position are satisfied thorugh (18).
2) Terminal flight path angle and azimuth angle
constraint: These are enforced through (20) and (21).
3) Load Constraint: Normal load constraint is imposed
by filtering acceleration command from (12) and (13)
through:
2 2
max
2 2
max
2 2
max
/
/
/
y y y z
y z
z z y z
a a n g a a
if a a g n
a a n g a a

= +

= +

(25)
The angle of attack and bank angle command can then be
found as:
( )
1 1
1
( ) / ( )
tan ( / )
c l y ref
c z y
f c f ma qS
a a

= =

(26)
4) Converting path constraint to attack angle constraint:
To meet heat rate and dynamic pressure constraints we
employ QEGC to convert these constraints to attack angle
constraints. From (5) using =0 and using L =0.5v
2
S
ref
c
l
the
following is obtained
( / / ) L mv g v v r = + (27)
( / / ) / (0.5 )
ref l
m g v v r vS c = + (28)
Using (27) and (28) in (8) the lower limits on attack angle
is found as follows
( )
1 1
min min max
( ) ( / / ) / ( )
q q
l ref
f c f mv g v v r q S

= = + (29)
2 5
1 1
min min 2
max
2 ( / / )
( )
Q Q
l
ref
mC v g v v r
f c f
Q S

+
= =

(30)
The final angle of attack command is then generated by
filtering control command
c
through (29) and (30). As such,
the final control commands can be expressed as follows:
max max
min min
min min
min min
c
c
q q
c
Q Q
c
c
if
if
if
if

>

<

=

<

<

(31)
min max
max max
min min
c c
c c
c
if
if
if

= >

<

(32)
V. GUIDANCE METHOD IMPLEMENTATION
The guidance law depends on the parameters k
x1
and k
x2
.
These are selected through off-board parameter optimization
using minimum miss distance as the objective parameter.
Once selected, these stored onboard for guidance calculations.



Onboard guidance scheme performs following steps in each
cycle:
From current state (r, , , , ), define control points
P
x0
, P
y0
, P
z0
. The terminal control points are always
the desired terminal positions as in (18).
Using the stored k
x1
and k
x2
find the rest of the control
points using (19), (20), and (21).
Get acceleration command from (12), and (13). Use
(25) for load constraint.
Enforce rest of path constraints using (29) (32)
resulting in constraint compliant command.
VI. GUIDANCE LAW EVALUATION
Entry guidance law needs to be capable in achieving
randomly nominal flight as well as off-nominal flights under
state and aerodynamic perturbation. Moreover the guidance
law should be capable to guide the vehicle within path
constraints and finally achieve terminal constraints. The
scheme presented here has been evaluated for different
nominal missions and for perturbed missions. Moreover the
feature of controlling terminal velocity is explained. The
simulations were carried out for entry glide of high lift CAV-
H. The vehicle weight is 907 kg, reference area is 0.4839 m
2
.
Aerodynamic properties of the vehicle were taken from [9].
A. Bzier Parameter Selection for Multiple Mission
Scenarios
The guidance scheme was first validated for five different
entry missions with varied terminal positions. The objective
was to demonstrate the process of selecting the Bzier
parameters. Prior to flight, depending on the initial position
and desired terminal position the parameters k
x1
and k
x2
are
selected offline through parameter optimization. The different
mission scenarios along with optimized parameters and
computational time required is shown in table 1.
TABLE I. BZIER PARAMETER SELECTION FOR MULTIPLE MISSION SCENARIO
Case
Desired Terminal Position Optimized Parameters
Time to Optimize
Miss
Distance Longitude Latitude Altitude kx1 kx2
CEF-A 134.1E 11.48 S 30 km 0.76651 0.55216 4.29 min 0.01 m
CEF-B 125.2 E 22.35 N 30 km 0.47658 0.38002 4.91 min 0.20 m
CEF-C 135.9 E 18.78 S 28 km 0.60385 0.38191 5.31 min 11.15 m
CEF-D 134.8 E 04.70 N 29 km 0.82816 0.53047 5.36 min 0.05 m
CEF-E 111.8 E 22.80 N 30 km 0.74300 0.55291 4.76 min 2.03 m


Fig. 2. Multiple entry missions
From the result shown in the above table it is apparent that
fast selection of Bzier parameters is possible in case of
different mission scenarios. Once these are selected, the
vehicle can be guided even in presence of perturbations which
is demonstrated through Monte Carlo simulations.
B. Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo simulation was carried out for 200 cases with
normally distributed errors in initial state, and 10%L/D. The
nominal profile parameters, perturbation specification are
shown in table II and III. Results of Monte Carlo simulation
are shown in table IV which clearly demonstrates efficiency
of the guidance law under perturbed situations. Fig. 3 and 4
shows the plot from Monte Carlo runs.


TABLE II. NOMINAL PROFILE SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter Initial Position Terminal Position
Longitude 0 124.7 E
Latitude 0 0
Altitude 50 km 25 km
Velocity 7500 m/sec 2034 m/sec
Flight Path Angle -0.001 -1
Azimuth Angle 0 0
TABLE III. PERTURBATIONS IN MONTE CARLO RUN
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Range 1 km Velocity 50 m/sec
Altitude 1 km Flight Path Angle 0.01
Cross Range 0.5 km Azimuth Angle 0.01
TABLE IV. MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESUTLS
Parameter
Miss
Distance
f f vf
Maximum 9.76 m 0.11 0.11 9.8 m/sec
Mean 0.26 m 0.0016 0.0021 2.97 m/sec
Std Deviation 1.21 m 0.011 0.012 2.82 m/sec
C. Terminal Velocity Control
Terminal Velocity control is an innovative feature of this
guidance law design. Through modulation of k
x2
this can be
done. Fig. 5 shows the relation between k
x1,
k
x2
and terminal
velocity for the nominal flight. Fig. 6 shows the effect of
adjustment of the parameter k
x2
, on the terminal velocity error.
Without the adjustment of k
x2
, the terminal position and
angular constraints are achieved, but the terminal velocity
error remains high ( 200 m/sec). But adjustment of the
parameter k
x2
, through prediction of terminal velocity,
successfully reduces the terminal velocity error to within a
very small range (the darker shade in Fig. 6).
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0
50
100
150
20
30
40
50
60
Latitude (deg) Longitude (deg)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
k
m
)
CEF-D
CEF-E
CEF-B
CEF-A
CEF-C




Fig. 3. Monte carlo simulation results, a. altitude, b. velocity, c. flight path angle, d. azimuth angle

Fig. 4. Control history from Monte Carlo run, a. attack angle, b. bank angle, c. zoomed view of bank angle profile in final phase

Fig. 5. Terminal velocity and kx2, kx1 plot.

Fig. 6. Terminal velocity and kx2, kx1 plot.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
An explicit guidance law based on inverse dynamics
approach using Bzier approximation was presented. The
formulation presented here is different from all previous
designs. The novelty of the guidance law is the use of Bzier
curves polynomial expression in solving the inverse problem.
Moreover this law introduces the concept of Bzier
parameters which once selected for a flight profile, can be
used to achieve desired terminal velocity. Through multiple
mission scenarios and Monte Carlo simulations it has been
demonstrated to perform remarkably well under uncertainties.
This guidance law holds high prospect for other guidance
problems.
REFERENCES

[1] G. A. Dukeman, "Profile following entry guidance using linear
quadratic regulator theory," presented at the AIAA, Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, Monterey,
California, USA, 2002.
[2] P. Lu, "Regulation about time varying trajectories precision entry
guidance illustrated," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
vol. 22, 1999.
[3] B. L. Tian and Q. Zong, "Optimal guidance for reentry vehicles
based on indirect Legendre pseudospectral method," Acta
Astronautica, vol. 68, pp. 1176-1184, Apr-May 2011.
[4] S. Xue and P. Lu, "Constrained PredictorCorrector Entry
Guidance," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 33, pp.
1273-1281, 2010.
[5] C. Chawla, P. Sarmah, and R. Padhi, "Suboptimal reentry guidance
of a reusable launch vehicle using pitch plane maneuver," Aerospace
Science and Technology, vol. 14, pp. 377-386, 2010.
[6] A. Naghash, R. Esmaelzadeh, M. Mortazavi, and R. Jamilnia, "Near
optimal guidance law for descent to a point using inverse problem
approach," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 12, pp. 241-247,
2008.
[7] F. Gerald, Curves and Surfaces for CAGD A Practical Guide, 5 ed.
USA: Academic Press, 2002.
[8] P. Lu, "Asymptotic analysis of quasi equuilibrium glide in lifting
entry flight," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 29,
2006.
[9] Z. Kenan and W. Chen, "Reentry vehicle constrained trajectory
optimization," presented at the AIAA International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, San Francisco,
California, USA., 2011.

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
30
40
50
Long Range (km)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e
(
k
m
)
a
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
2000
4000
6000
Long Range (km)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
m
/
s
e
c
)
b
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
-1
-0.5
0
Long Range (km)
F
l
i
g
h
t

P
a
t
h

A
n
g
l
e
(
d
e
g
)
c
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
-0.1
0
0.1
Long Range (km)
A
z
i
m
u
t
h

A
n
g
l
e
(
d
e
g
)
d
0 1000 2000 3000
5
10
15
20
Time (sec)
A
n
g
l
e

o
f

A
t
t
a
c
k
(
d
e
g
)
a
0 1000 2000 3000
-0.5
0
0.5
Time (sec)
B
a
n
k

A
n
g
l
e
(
d
e
g
)
b
2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750
-0.2
0
0.2
Time (sec)
B
a
n
k

A
n
g
l
e
(
d
e
g
)
c
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Bezier Parameter k
x2
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
m
/
s
e
c
)
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Bezier Parameter k
x1
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
m
/
s
e
c
)
0 50 100 150 200
-200
0
200
Runs
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

E
r
r
o
r
(
m
/
s
e
c
)