Shara & SteelQuasar
Shara, I’ve been exploring a new trajectory optimization algorithm that could cut propellant usage. Have you considered a physics‑based hybrid approach for deep‑space navigation?
Sounds promising—physics‑based hybrid methods can capture the system dynamics while still letting the optimizer prune the search space. How are you handling the nonlinearities? Maybe a sequential linearization could keep the problem tractable while still respecting the real physics.
Sequential linearization is the baseline: at each iteration I re‑linearize the dynamics around the current nominal trajectory, then solve a quadratic program that respects the linearized constraints. The residual nonlinear terms are treated as bounded disturbances and I iterate until the updates fall below a tolerance. It’s not the most elegant, but it keeps the math in a convex regime and the engine burn schedule stable.
That sounds solid, the linear‑quadratic loop keeps the solver stable. Just double‑check the disturbance bounds; if they’re too loose you might get drift, but otherwise it should converge nicely. Keep an eye on the cost‑function shape—non‑convexities can creep in if the dynamics are highly nonlinear.
Thanks, Shara. I’ll tighten the disturbance bounds and monitor the cost‑function curvature. If any non‑convexity shows up, I’ll enforce a stricter trust region. No surprises on the trajectory, just steady convergence.
Sounds good. Tightening the bounds and a trust‑region should keep the iterations well‑behaved. Keep me posted on how the cost curvature looks after the adjustments.
Will do. The cost curvature is now within a narrow band; any further swings should be negligible. I’ll report the updated profiles after the next iteration.