Proceedings of 2016 IEEE
International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation
August 7 - 10, Harbin, China
Steady Glide Reentry Trajectory Optimization with
Waypoint and No-fly Zone Constraints
Jinglin Li, Wanchun Chen and Changwan Min
School of Astronautics
Beihang University
Beijing 100191, China
lijinglin719@yahoo.com & wanchun_chen@buaa.edu.cn & minchangwan@126.com
Abstract - This paper studies the hypersonic reentry
trajectory optimization problem considering waypoints and no-
fly zones constraints. This problem is difficult to solve because of
(1) the poor damping phugoid oscillations, (2) the constraints on
waypoints and no-fly zones, and (3) the rapid changes in part of
the trajectory. To suppress the oscillations, we establish a novel
reentry dynamic model by embedding the trajectory damping
control technique (TDCT) in it, and thus successfully enhance the
damping of the trajectory. To improve the accuracy of the model,
we establish an exact mathematical model for the no-fly zone
constraint over the spherical Earth. Considering the rapid
changes in part of the trajectory and some strict constraints, we
divide the whole trajectory into phases and adopt the multi-phase
Radau pseudospectral method (MRPM) to solve the optimal
control problem. Moreover, an adaptive mesh refinement
strategy is applied to guarantee the solution precision by infilling
grid or adjusting the interpolation polynomial order. The
proposed method requires a light computational load to obtain
the optimal trajectory satisfying the waypoints, no-fly zones and
other constraints. Compared with the Gauss pseudospectral
method (GPM), the trajectory planned by the proposed method
is accurate, smooth, and easy to track.
Index Terms – steady glide trajectory optimization; trajectory
damping control technique; multi-phase Radau pseudospectral
method; waypoint; no-fly zone.
I. INTRODUCTION
Common aero vehicle (CAV) is a hypersonic glide
vehicle, which can be delivered to the sub-orbital trajectory by
launch vehicle and enter the atmosphere without power [1].
Due to its high lift to drag ratio, CAV can glide a long
longitudinal distance as well as travel a far lateral range. The
entry guidance is one of the key technologies of CAV, and
mainly consists of three parts: the planning and tracking of the
reference trajectory, and the lateral guidance logic [2].
The aim of this paper is to optimize the CAV reentry
trajectory with waypoint and no-fly zone constraints. It is a
nonlinear optimal control problem involved with multiple
coupled constraints and variables, which change rapidly
during part of the reentry process. Also, there are phugoid
oscillations during the reentry which make the planned
trajectory difficult to track [3-4]. And the oscillations can also
cause a high heating rate, dynamic pressure and aerodynamic
load, making the feasible region quite a narrow area [5].
Hence it’s difficult to find an optimal reentry trajectory
satisfying the waypoints and no-fly zones constraints [6].
978-1-5090-2396-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Pseudospectral method (PM) is one of the effective tools
used to solve the optimal control problems containing
complex path and terminal constraints with high accuracy. It’s
a direct collocation method based on global polynomial
interpolation. By discretizing state variables and control
variables, PM transforms the optimal control problem into a
nonlinear programming problem [7-9].
For the optimization of the CAV reentry trajectory
including waypoint and no-fly zone constraints, Jorris and
Rao established the reentry dynamic model and proved the
Gauss pseudospectral method feasible to solve multiple-phase
optimal control problems with complex constraints [10]. Zhao
[11] proposed a multi-phase Gauss Pseudospectral method
(MGPM) to generate an optimal reentry trajectory satisfying
waypoint and no-fly zone constraints. Three kinds of specific
breaks are introduced to divide the full trajectory artificially.
However, the solutions generated by the previous two
methods oscillate seriously, which results in a high peak of the
heating rate and reduces the accuracy of polynomial
interpolation significantly. To keep the trajectory smooth,
Zhang [12] proposed an improved quasi-equilibrium glide
condition (IQEGC) and applied it to the GPM. The method is
demonstrated to be highly efficient, but the reference controls
change too fast to track. In addition, to suppress the phugoid
oscillations, Yu [13] made an analysis on the flight-path angle
of equilibrium gliding trajectory and proposed the TDCT with
a negative feedback of the flight-path angle.
In this paper, based on the analytical solution of steady
glide flight-path angle and TDCT, a novel dynamic model is
proposed for enhancing the trajectory damping and
suppressing the phugoid oscillations so as to plan the steady
glide reentry trajectory. Considering the various
characteristics of CAV reentry trajectory and the waypoint
and no-fly zone constraints, several breaks are introduced to
divide the whole trajectory into phases. In each phase,
multiple constraint models, especially including an accurate
mathematical model for the no-fly zone over the spherical
Earth, are set up. Consequently a multi-phase optimal control
problem on steady glide reentry trajectory is established and
MGPM with adaptive mesh refinement strategy is used to
solve it. Compared with MGPM, the simulation result of the
proposed approach is verified to be accurate and smooth, with
low heating rate, dynamic pressure and aerodynamic load. In
addition, the commands are also smooth and easy to track.
II. STEADY GLIDE DYNAMIC MODEL
1363
 In this section, the CAV reentry dynamic model is
established. By analyzing the dynamic model, we obtained an
(
γ = d ρV 2 ClSref cos σ ( 2m ) + (V 2 r − μ r2 ) ) (Vdt )
.
analytical expression of the steady glide reentry flight-path
angle, whose difference with the current flight-path angle is (
+ ( D m + gγ ) ρ ClS ref cos σ ( 2m ) + (1 r − g V 2
))
used as a proportional feedback on the longitudinal force. So (10)
the damping of the reentry trajectory is enhanced so as to in which
suppress the trajectory oscillations.
A. Reentry Dynamic Model
(
d ρV 2 ClSref cos σ ( 2m ) + (V 2 r − μ r 2 ) dt =)
Because of high speed, far glide range and long flight
time, the influence of the Earth curvature and rotation on the
ρ V 2 ClSref cos σ ( 2m )
.
motion of CAV cannot be ignored. Therefore, using the
spherical rotating Earth model and regarding the CAV as a
(
 cos σ − Cl sin σσ
+ V ρVClSref cos σ m + ρV 2 S ref Cl ) ( 2m )
mass point, the equations of motion and dynamics are given as
+ 2VV r 2 − rV
 2 r 2 + 2r μ r 3
r = V sin γ . (1)
(11)

θ = V cos γ sinψ ( r cos ϕ ) . (2) Substituting (1), (4), and (11), and the derivative of
ϕ = V cos γ cosψ r . (3) atmospheric density into (10), and assuming the flight-path
 angle to be zero, we obtain
V = − D m − g sin γ + ω 2 r cos ϕ
(4) γ = −γ ρV 2 ClS ref cos σ ( 2mH ) − ρ ClSref cos σ D ( 2m 2 )
( sin γ cos ϕ − cos γ sin ϕ cosψ )
−γ ρ ClSref cos σ g ( 2m )
γ = (1 V ) [ L cos σ m + (V 2 r − g ) cos γ (12)
+2ωV cos ϕ sinψ (5)
(
 cos σ − Cl sin σσ ρVS
+ Cl ref ) ( 2m )

+ω 2 r cos ϕ ( cos γ cos ϕ + sin γ sin ϕ cosψ )] − D ( rm ) − γ V 2 r 2 − Dg ( mV 2 ) + γ g r − γ g 2 V 2

Generally speaking, the lift coefficient is the function of
ψ = (1 V ) [ L sin σ ( m cos γ ) + (V 2 r ) cos γ sinψ tan ϕ
angle of attack (AOA) and Mach number, so the time
derivative of lift coefficient can be written as
−2ωV ( cos ϕ tan γ cosψ − sin ϕ ) (6)
 = ( ∂Cl ∂α ) ⋅ ( dα dt )
Cl
+ (ω 2 r cos γ ) sin ϕ cos ϕ sinψ ] . (13)
+ ( ∂Cl ∂Ma ) ⋅ ( ∂Ma ∂r ) ⋅ ( dr dt )
Where r is the radial distance, V is the Earth-relative
For hypersonic glide, especially when the Mach number
velocity, γ is the fight-path angle, and ψ is the heading
is above 5, the lift coefficient is almost independent of the
angle. σ is the bank angle. θ and ϕ are the longitude and Mach number. So the latter part of (13) can be neglected.
latitude, respectively. m is the mass of CAV, g is the To obtain the steady glide flight-path angel, reference
gravitational related to r , L and D are aerodynamic drag force AOA and bank angle are given in advance. The reference
and lift force, respectively, and can be calculated by commands can be constant or existing results. Assuming γ to
L = ( ρV 2 ClS ref ) 2 . (7) be zero and then solving (12) for γ , the flight-path angle
corresponding to steady glide trajectory can be obtained by
D = ( ρV 2 CdS ref ) 2. (8)
where ρ is the atmospheric density, S ref is the reference area
γ m = Dref C1 + Cl (
 cos σ − Cl sin σ σ
ref ref ref ref ref C2 )
(14)
of CAV, Cl and Cd are the lift and drag coefficients + Dref C3 + Dref C4
respectively. in which
B. Steady Glide Flight-path Angle C1 = −mV 2 − mg − 2m 2V 2 ( r 2 ρ Clref S ref cos σ ref )
In the entry flight, the flight-path angle is almost zero.
Even if there are oscillations, its value still remains within [- + 2m 2 g ( r ρ Clref Sref cos σ ref ) (15)
5°, 5°]. Thus, we can make an assumption that cosȖ = 1 and
sinȖ = Ȗ. The Earth’s rotation is also neglected. Then (5) can
− 2m 2 g 2 (V 2 ρ Clref S ref cos σ ref )
be simplified to
(
γ = (1 V ) L cos σ m + (V 2 r − g ) . ) (9) C2 = VClref cos σ ref H + Clref cos σ ref g V

Substituting (7) and g = μ r 2 into (9) and taking the + 2mV ( r 2 ρ Sref ) − 2mg ( r ρVS ref ) . (16)
derivative of (9), we can get the second derivative of the
flight-path angle as + 2mg 2 (V 3 ρ S ref )

1364
 C3 = − ρV 2 Clref Sref cos σ ref r ( 2 H )
− ρ Clref Sref cos σ ref gr 2 .  (17)
−mV 2 r + mg − g 2 rm V 2
C4 = − ρV 4 Clref Sref cos σ ref ( 2 Hg )
− ρV 2 Clref S ref cos σ ref 2  (18)
− mV 4 ( r 2 g ) + mV 2 r − mg
where σ ref is the reference bank angle, Clref is the lift
coefficient corresponding to the reference commands, Dref . is
the drag force corresponding to the reference commands
C. Modified Commands
To enhance the damping of the trajectory and suppress the
oscillations, the difference between the steady glide flight-
path angel and the current one is used as a proportional
feedback to modify the commands as follows
­°Clcmd cos σ cmd = Clref cos σ ref + K (γ − γ m )
® . (19)
°̄Clcmd sin σ cmd = Clref sin σ ref
where Clcmd is the command lift coefficient, and ıcmd is the
command bank angle. K is the feedback gain. Through
adjusting the coefficient K, we can make the current flight-
path angle approach Ȗm as soon as possible. As a result, the
oscillations are eliminated effectively and the vehicle achieves
steady glide states.
From (19), the command AOA and bank angel can be
obtained by
(
σ cmd = a tan Clref sin σ ref ( Cl ref
cos σ ref + K ( γ − γ m ) ) (20)
(
α cmd = ( Clref cos σ ref + K ( γ − γ m ) ) cos σ cmd − kl 2
where α ref is the reference AOA and Clref = kl 2 ⋅ α ref + kl1 .
Now we briefly explain the principle of the TDCT. If the
vehicle falls quickly, the TDCT will generate an additional lift
force upward so as to prevent the altitude from increasing
rapidly; otherwise, an additional lift force downward will be
generated to stop the fast climbing. After a series of iterative
processes mentioned above, the actual path angle will
gradually be equal to the steady glide path angle Ȗm. Thus, the
TDCT enhances the trajectory damping and suppresses the
phugoid oscillation successfully, which helps to avoid the
reentry trajectory skip which may cause excessive heating rate,
aerodynamic load or dynamic pressure.
III. REENTRY OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEM
In this section, a multi-phase optimal control problem on
steady glide reentry trajectory is established. Several breaks
are introduced to divide the whole trajectory into phases. In
each phase, multiple constraint models, especially including
an accurate mathematical model for the no-fly zone over the
spherical Earth, are set up.
A. constrains
1) waypoints
Waypoints refer to the points where the vehicle must
pass, which are specified for navigation information
confirmation, reconnaissance mission or payload delivery.
The position of the jth waypoint is determined by θ , ϕ . ( j j )
2) no-fly zones
Because of some geopolitical sensitive regions factors or
defense system threat, some areas are specified as no-fly
zones. In this paper, no-fly zones are identified as cylinders,
whose altitudes are infinite. It should be pointed out that in
many literatures [11-12] the no-fly zone model is incorrectly
established as follows
S ( x (t ), t ) = R 2j − Re2 ( Δθ j2 + Δϕ 2j ) ≤ 0 (22)
j =1,2,..., jend
where Re is the Earth radius, R j is the radius of the ith no-fly
zone, (θ ,ϕ )
j j is the centre of the ith no-fly zone,
Δθ j = θ − θ j and Δϕ j = ϕ − ϕ j .
However, this relationship is inaccurate, especially in the
high latitude area.
Now we establish the exact model of no-fly zone. First
we need to obtain the direction vectors of the centre of the no-
fly zone and the vehicle, which are described in the
Geocentric Equatorial Rotating frame as follows
x EM = [ cos ϕ cos θ , cos ϕ sin θ ,sin ϕ ]
T
. (23)
x EPj = [cos ϕ Pj cos θ Pj , cos ϕ Pj sin θ Pj ,sin ϕ Pj ]T
where ϕ Pj and θ Pj are the latitude and longitude of the centre
of the jth no-fly zone, respectively. x EM is the unit vector
pointing from the Earth centre to the vehicle, and x EPj is the
)
unit vector pointing from the Earth centre to the centre of the
) kl1 (21) jth no-fly zone.
Then the horizontal distance between the vehicle and the
centre of the no-fly zone can be calculated by
S = Re cos −1 ( x EM ⋅ x EPj ) . (24)
Thus, to avoid the no-fly zone, the vehicle has to satisfy
the following constraint
S ≥ S Pj . (25)
where S Pj is the radius of the jth no-fly zone.
3) heating rate
The heat load into the structure must be minimized to
achieve minimum thickness and weight of the thermal
protection system (TPS) required for insulation of the vehicle
structure. And because the stationary point on the nose is
usually seriously heated, we choose the stagnation point heat
flux as the constraint
Q = K Q ρ 0.5V 3.15 ≤ Q max . (26)
where K Q is the heating rate normalization constant. And all
the subscripts “max/min” represents the maximum/minimum
allowable values throughout the paper.
4) dynamic pressure
1365
 The entry trajectory is constrained to limit the dynamic due to the thin atmosphere. In the gliding phase, the altitude
pressure so that aerodynamic control surface hinge moments decreases slowly and the states change smoothly, because the
are small. atmosphere is thick enough to supply sufficient lift force to
q = 0.5ρV 2 ≤ qmax . (27) balance gravity. So based on the different properties, a break
5) aerodynamic loads is introduced to divide the full reentry trajectory at the end of
To minimize the vehicle internal structure weight, the the descent phase.
aerodynamic loads during entry are limited as follows In order to satisfy the waypoint constraint, a break point
is set at the waypoint. Thus, the waypoint constraint is
n y = ( D sin α + L cos α ) ( mg ) ≤ nmax . (28)
transformed into inner state constraints as follows
6) control boundaries
In order to limit the demands on the flight control system (
(θ wf ,ϕwf ) = θj , ϕ j )
. (34)
(FCS), the commands should satisfy the following constrains (
(θ( w+1)0 , ϕ( w+1)0 ) = θj , ϕ j )
­α min ≤ α ≤ α max , α min ≤ α ≤ α max
® . (29) where (θ wf , ϕ wf ) is the terminal position of the phase before
¯σ min ≤ σ ≤ σ max , σ min ≤ σ ≤ σ max
7) Initial and terminal conditions the waypoint and (θ ( w +1) 0 , ϕ ( w +1) 0 ) is the initial position of the
The initial and terminal conditions of the flight, denoted phase after the waypoint.
by the subscripts “0” and “f”, are given as In addition, to satisfy the no-fly zone constraints and
­°h ( t0 ) = h0 , θ ( t0 ) = θ 0 , ϕ ( t0 ) = ϕ0 , eliminate the heading error, we let the vehicle perform several
® bank reversals. From the point of view of optimization, we
°̄V ( t0 ) = V0 , γ ( t0 ) = γ 0 ,ψ ( t0 ) = ψ 0 need to set up some breaks and use the following joint
. (30)
­h ( t f ) = h f ,θ ( t f ) = θ f , ϕ ( t f ) = ϕ f , condition to achieve the bank reversals
°
® σ bf = −σ (b +1) 0 . (35)
°̄V ( t f ) = V f , γ ( t f ) = γ f ,ψ ( t0 ) = ψ f Since multi-phase Radau pseudospectral method (MRPM)
where h = r − Re . is fit for multi-phase optimal control problem with rapid
8) Inner state constraints changes in local states, we use MRPM to solve the problem
Because the states change continuously, the state profiles mentioned above. In MRPM, the continuous states and control
should also be continuous at the break points, as follows variables are discretized at Radau-Gauss (RG) nodes and then
­°hif = h(i +1) 0 , θ if = θ( i +1) 0 , ϕif = ϕ(i +1) 0 fitted by polynomials in each phase. An adaptive mesh
® . (31) refinement strategy is applied to guarantee the interpolation
°̄Vif = V( i +1) 0 , γ if = γ (i +1) 0 ,ψ if = ψ (i +1) 0 precision by infilling grid or adjusting the interpolation
where i and i+1 represent the ith and (i+1)th phase of the polynomial order. Because only a few RG nodes are needed,
entry trajectory.. MRPM requires a light computational load to obtain the
In addition, the AOA profile is also limited to be optimal trajectory [14-15].
continuous IV. EXAMPLES
α if = α ( i +1) 0 . (32)
B. objective function TABLE I
In order to obtain smooth commands, we use the BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND PATH CONSTRAINTS
derivative of AOA and bank angle as control, and design the Initial Terminal Path
conditions conditions constraints
objective function as
h ( km ) 70 30 (
Q max W / cm
2
) 400
( k α + k2σ 2 )dt .
tf
J =³ 2
(33)
V (m / s)
1
t0 7100 2400 qmax ( kPa ) 100
where k1 and k2 are the weighting coefficients, whose values θ ( deg ) 0 152 n y max 2
make the two terms of the integrand have the same order of
Waypoint
magnitude. ϕ ( deg ) 0 0 (19.5, 16)
(deg)
C. segmentation of reentry trajectory No-fly zone
γ ( deg ) 0 - (70, 25)
The reentry trajectory optimization is a multi-phase centre (deg)
optimal control problem. Here we divide the reentry trajectory No-fly zone
ψ ( deg ) 50 - 1113.2
radius(km)
into two phases, the descent phase and the gliding phase. The
descent phase starts at the separation from the launch vehicle. Some examples are given to demonstrate that the
Because of the thin atmosphere, the vehicle keeps dropping proposed optimal control problem based on the modified
with great speed until the atmosphere is dense enough to keep dynamic model can provide feasible reference trajectory for
the vehicle in a steady glide state. Then the vehicle enters the steady glide entry. As a comparison, the results of multi-phase
gliding phase. Gauss pseudospectral method (MGPM) [11] without TDCT
Different phases have different properties. In the descent are also given here. The CAV-H model [1] is used here, and
phase, the states such as altitude and velocity change rapidly the optimization results are found through MATLAB R2008a

1366
with GPOPS-II software package. 7he boundary conditions Fig. 5 Angle of attack histories.
and the path constraints are listed in Table I.
The following figures show the simulation results of

Bank angle (deg)

MRPM based on TDCT and MGPM, where the solid line
represents the results of MRPM and the dotted line represents
the MGPM.
Altitude (km)

Time(s)
Fig. 6 Bank angle histories.

Heating rate (W/cm2)

Time(s)
Fig. 1 Altitude histories.
Speed (m/s)

Time(s)
Fig. 7 Heating rate histories.

Time(s) Aerodynamic pressure (kPa)

Fig. 2 Speed. histories
Flight path angle (deg)

Time(s)
Fig. 8 Dynamic pressure histories.
Aerodynamic load

Time(s)
Fig. 3 Flight path angle histories.
Azimuth angle (deg)

.
Time(s)
Fig. 9 dynamic load histories.
Latitude (deg)

Time(s)
Fig. 4 Azimuth angle histories.
Angle of attack (deg)

Longitude(deg)
Fig. 10 Ground trajectories.
As can be seen from the results, the optimal trajectory
obtained by MGPM oscillates obviously and there is no trend
of convergence. But for the MRPM based on TDCT, the
Time(s) system damping is enhanced and the oscillations are

1367
suppressed effectively. So the optimal trajectory obtained by
MRPM converges to a steady glide state quickly.
Subsequently, the states such as altitude, velocity and flight-
path angle change smoothly, which means the trajectory is
easier to track. In addition, the heating rate, dynamic pressure
and aerodynamic load change smoothly and have significantly
low peaks.
In order to verify the reliability of the optimization
methods, we integrate the full-state equations of motion with
the optimal commands as control. As shown in Table II,
comparing the states calculated by integration with the
optimal results, we can find that the integral results of MRPM
based on the TDCT have a higher accuracy than that of
MGPM.
TABLE II
TERMINAL ACCURACY COMPARISON
Terminal
MRPM based on TDCT MGPM
errors
h ( m) 2.4889 -192.2741
V (m / s) -0.02031 0.6091
θ ( deg ) -0.005 0.1681
ϕ ( deg ) -0.0156 -0.3745
γ ( deg ) 9.999e-5 0.0395
ψ ( deg ) 0.0235 0.0929
Consequently, it is proved that the MRPM based on the
TDCT effectively improves the feasibility and the optimality
of the reentry trajectory optimization problem. Because (1) the
dynamic model modified by the TDCT has a smooth property;
(2) the adaptive mesh refinement strategy guarantees the
interpolation precision of each interval variables, through
infilling grid or adjusting the interpolation polynomial order.
These all help to improve the fitting precision of variables, as
well as the accuracy of solution.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a dynamic model modified by the TDCT has
been proposed for obtaining the optimal steady glide entry
trajectory. The difference between the steady glide flight-path
angel and the current one is used as a proportional feedback to
modify the commands. The exact constraint models,
especially including an accurate mathematical model for the
no-fly zone over the spherical Earth, are established. As a
result, the computational load is obviously reduced and an
optimal steady glide entry trajectory strictly satisfying
waypoint and no-fly zone constraints is obtained quickly ,
which has a low heating rate, dynamic pressure and
aerodynamic load. Meanwhile, the commands are smooth and
easy to track. Additionally, the comparison demonstrates that
the optimal steady glide reentry trajectory has a higher
accuracy of feasibility than traditional entry trajectory.
REFERENCES
[1] T.H. Phillips, ”A common aero vehicle (CAV) model, description, and
employment guide,” Schafer Corporation for AFRL and AFSPC,
Arlington, VA, 2003.
[2] J.C. Harpold, C.A. Graves, “Shuttle entry guidance,” NASA Lyndon B.
Johnson Space Centre, Houston.
[3] W. Yu, W. Chen, “Entry guidance with real-time planning of reference
based on analytical solutions,” Advances In Space Research, vol. 55, pp.
2325-2345, 2015.
[4] J. Hu, W. Chen, “Steady glide trajectory planning method for hypersonic
reentry vehicle,” Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1464-1475, August 2015.
[5] E. Yong, G. Tang, “Rapid trajectory optimization for hypersonic reentry
vehicle via Gauss pseudospectral method,” Joumal of Astronautics, vol.
29, no. 6, pp. 1766-1772, November 2008.
[6] T.-R. Jorris, R.-G. Cobb, “Three-dimensional trajectory optimization
satisfying waypoint and no-fly zone constraints,” Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 551-572, March-April 2009.
[7] F. Fahroo, M. Ross,, “Costate estimation by a Legendre pseudospectral
method,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 24, no.2,
2001, pp. 270-277.
[8] A. Benson, T Thorvaldsen, and A V Rao, "Direct trajectory optimization
and costae estimation via an orthogonal collocation method," Journal of
Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol.29, 2006, pp.l435-1440.
[9] G.T Huntington, “Advancement and analysis of a Gauss pseudospectral
transcription for optimal control problems,” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 2007
[10]T R. Jorris, C S. Schulz, F R. Friedl, and A V Rao, ‘‘Constrained trajectory
optimization using pseudospectral methods,’’ AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Hawaii, US, August 2008-6281.
[11]J Zhao, R Zhou, “Reentry trajectory optimization for hypersonic vehicle
satisfying complex constraints,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol 26,
no 6, pp. 1544-1553, 2013.
[12]K Zhang, W Chen, “Reentry vehicle constrained trajectory optimization,”
AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies Conference, California, US, April 2011-2231.
[13]W. Yu, W. Chen, “Guidance scheme for glide range maximization of a
hypersonic vehicle,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference,
Oregon, US, August 2011-6714.
[14]K. Guo, F. Xiong, “Gliding trajectory optimization based on hp-adaptive
pseudospectral method,” IEEE International Conference on Quality,
Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering, Sichuan, China,
pp. 432-437, July 2013.
[15]P. Hong, W. Xin,” Application of hp-adaptive pseudospectral method in
rapid gliding trajectory optimization,” Computer Measurement & Control,
vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1283-1286.

1368