After the dual-arm space robot captures a noncooperative target, a closed-chain multibody system is formed, making dynamic modeling and detumbling trajectory planning particularly challenging. This paper proposes a novel trajectory planning strategy that guides the combined system into a uniaxial rotational state about its maximum principal inertia axis. Unlike prior work that focuses solely on eliminating the target’s relative motion, our approach additionally drives the closed-chain system into a dynamically favorable uniaxial rotation. This configuration avoids multiaxis coupling and simplifies subsequent stabilization, requiring only unidirectional thruster torque. By reducing the number of required control directions and eliminating complex angular momentum interactions, the subsequent attitude stabilization becomes more fuel-efficient. As a result, the fuel required for postdetumbling control can be significantly reduced. The detumbling process is executed solely by actuating the joints of the dual manipulators without consuming any base thruster fuel. Numerical simulations validate that the proposed strategy effectively establishes the desired rotational mode and that the joint-space tracking controller enables accurate execution of the planned trajectory.

1. Introduction

With the booming expansion of human space exploration, the amount of space junk has increased significantly, including defunct satellites [1], rocket upper stages [2], and lost equipment [3], which are distributed throughout earth orbits, threatening the safe functioning of spacecraft. Active on-orbit capture of space junk is considered a highly feasible approach for mitigating the risk of space collisions, and many scholars have focused on related studies. Various capture techniques have been proposed, such as robotic arms, harpoons, tentacles, and nets [4]. Among these, space robotic arms have drawn particular attention due to their controllability and flexibility in capture operations. Space agencies of several countries have been conducting preresearch or on-orbit demonstrations of capture projects using space robotic arms [5–7]. The technical challenges of on-orbit capture primarily involve path planning and base attitude stabilization in the precapture stage, contact dynamics in the capturing stage, and the detumbling problem of the combined system in the postcapture stage. Particularly in the postcapture stage, the base and the manipulator joints of the space robot acquire specific angular velocities due to the significant residual angular momentum of the target, which may affect communication reliability and structural safety. Moreover, because of the free-floating state of the combined system, the dynamic coupling among components complicates trajectory planning in the detumbling problem. Hence, the postcapture detumbling problem has consistently remained a key research interest.

Given the increasing focus on postcapture detumbling, the deployment of dual-arm space robots is often considered advantageous for on-orbit capture missions. Compared with single-arm space robots, dual-arm ones offer greater operational flexibility since once the combined system is stabilized, one arm can firmly hold the target while the other performs servicing tasks. Huang et al. [8] and Wei et al. [9], respectively, propose attitude takeover control methods for the postcaptured combined spacecraft, while the joints of the manipulators are locked and the combined spacecraft is treated as a single entity. Adaptive coordinated controllers for the postcapture of dual-arm space robots are, respectively, designed by Zhang et al. [10] and Jiao et al. [11], where one arm is designated as the balance arm, thereby underutilizing the full grasping capability of the dual-arm system. However, when both end-effectors firmly grasp the target, the combined spacecraft inherently becomes a closed-chain multibody system. The presence of closed-chain constraints introduces significant complexity in dynamic modeling, trajectory planning, and controller design compared to traditional tree-structured multibody systems. Existing research on dual-arm postcapture detumbling mainly focuses on planar detumbling scenarios involving 3-DOF (degree of freedom) dual manipulators [12–14], while relatively few address three-dimensional detumbling scenarios. Notable exceptions include the work of Yan et al. [15], who proposed a detumbling trajectory optimization method based on the kinodynamic concept, and Zhou et al. [16], who introduced a task compatibility-based detumbling approach with computational efficiency improvement. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a novel strategy for the three-dimensional postcapture detumbling scenario by 7-DOF dual manipulators, with a particular emphasis on saving fuel consumption.

In addition to the dynamic complexity of dual-arm closed-chain systems, energy efficiency is another critical consideration in the design of postcapture detumbling strategies. Space robots operate under strict energy constraints due to limited onboard resources. While previous studies have addressed energy-saving techniques during the capture and detumbling processes, most efforts have focused on reducing the electrical energy consumed by manipulator joint actuators [17–19]. However, unlike electricity, which can be replenished via solar panels, the fuel used by the base thrusters is limited and difficult to resupply. Therefore, saving fuel consumption during on-orbit operations is essential for extending mission lifespans. Despite this importance, existing research has primarily concentrated on fuel-efficient strategies for precapture rendezvous phases [20–22], with relatively limited attention paid to fuel savings during the postcapture stages [23].

To address the need for fuel-efficient detumbling operations highlighted earlier, this study investigates the detumbling strategy for the postcapture combined system. The capture results in a closed-chain multibody system with conserved angular momentum due to the absence of external forces. To enable fuel-efficient postcapture detumbling, the manipulator joints are actuated to redistribute angular momentum and reconfigure the system into a uniaxial rotational state aligned with its maximum principal inertia axis. In this state, all components rotate synchronously with no relative motion, and the system behaves as a single rigid body. This configuration eliminates multiaxis angular momentum coupling, reduces the number of required control directions, and allows subsequent attitude stabilization to rely solely on unidirectional thruster torque, thus significantly improving fuel efficiency. This study presents a trajectory optimization strategy that plans joint motions to realize this rotational state using only motor actuation, and a corresponding joint-space tracking controller is also developed to ensure accurate execution of the optimized trajectories.

This study encompasses the following primary contributions:

1.
This study presents an innovative strategy for fuel-efficient postcapture detumbling of dual-arm space robots. The strategy is applicable to the three-dimensional detumbling scenarios involving the combined system with closed-chain constraints and high DOFs.
2.
The strategy actively drives the combined system into a uniaxial rotational state about its maximum principal axis through the dynamic effects of manipulator operation without the consumption of base thruster fuel.
3.
This strategy achieves uniaxial rotation of the combined system, eliminating multiaxis angular momentum coupling. By using single-direction thrust control, it reduces control complexity and enables fuel-efficient detumbling.

The following is the organization of the paper. Section 2 develops the dynamic equation of the combined system. Section 3 introduces the detumbling strategy including the joint rotation trajectory planning and tracking control method. In Section 4, the effectiveness of the provided strategy is verified through numerical simulations. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. Dynamic Modeling

In the postcaptured phase, the target is firmly grasped by the end-effectors of the dual-arm space robot, forming a closed-chain combined system, as shown in Figure 1. This section provides a detailed model description of the combined system and derives the corresponding dynamic equation.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

The illustration of the dual-arm space robot capturing the target.

2.1. Model Description

Figure 2 describes the structure of the combined system in detail. Two 7-DOF redundant manipulators, designated as Arm-α and Arm-β, and a free-floating base B₁ form the dual-arm space robot. Links B₂~B₈ belong to Arm-α, and links B₉~B₁₅ belong to Arm-β. The captured target is denoted by rigid body B₁₆. The inertial reference frame is denoted by O-XYZ, and the body-fixed reference frame of B_i (i = 1 ~ 16) is represented by o_i-x_iy_iz_i. The origin o_i of each body-fixed reference frame is located at the center of mass (CM) of B_i, and the column arrays a_i and b_i, respectively, represent the relative positions between the CM of B_i and the joints connected to it.

Base B₁ is free-floating, and the 6-DOF virtual joint H₁ is defined connecting B₁ to the origin O of the inertial reference frame. The inner-adjacent joints of links B₂~B₁₅ are rotation joints H₂~H₁₅, and their rotation angles are denoted as θ₁~θ₁₄, respectively. The end-effectors mounted on links B₈ and B₁₅ firmly grasp the target B₁₆; thus, joint H₁₆ connecting B₈ with B₁₆ and joint H₁₇ connecting B₁₅ with B₁₆ are assumed as fixed joints.

2.2. Dynamic Equation

Assuming the connection between the end-effectors and the target is fixed joints, the dual-arm space robot and the target collectively form a multibody closed-chain system, as depicted in Figure 2. By virtually cutting one of the revolute joints within the closed chain, the system can be transformed into a derived tree-structured multibody system. The constraint equations of the virtual cut joint are given as

()

where x is the pose coordinate column array of the bodies in the closed-chain system. Considering the revolute joint H_α connecting bodies B_α and B_β, Equation (1) constrains relative rotation along two directions and relative translations along three directions. Taking the first and second time derivatives of Equation (1) in the inertial frame, the velocity constraint equations can be derived as

()

in which

and

are, respectively, the velocity array of B_α and B_β and matrices Y_α, Y_β, Y_v, and Y_ω, respectively, have the form of

()

, and

are corresponding to the relative translational constraint along three directions, and they are detailedly described as

()

where ω_α and ω_β are, respectively, the absolute angular velocity of B_α and B_β and

represents for the cross-product matrix of a_α.

, and

are corresponding to the relative rotational constraints along two directions, and they are detailedly described as

()

in which

and

are unit vectors fixed to body B_α, satifying

, where

is a unit vector aligned with the rotation axis of the revolute joint H_α.

Considering the kinematic recursive relationships between the adjacent bodies [24], the velocities and accelerations of each body are represented in matrix form as

()

where q denotes the generalized coordinates of the combined system. All elements of the array

are equal to 1, in which n is the number of bodies in the multibody system. The detailed expression of G and g can be found in [25]. Considering Equation (7), there is

()

By substituting (8) into Equation (2), the velocity constraint equations can be represented as

()

where B_l < B_α indicates that B_l lies on the kinematic chain from base B₁ to B_α and B_l = B_α indicates that B_l and B_α refer to the same body. Θ_q, Θ_t, and ζ can be expressed as

()

According to our former works [25], the velocity variation equation of the derived tree-structured system can be derived as

()

where detailed meanings and expressions of Z, z, and f^ey can consult [25].

Due to the presence of the cut joint, the velocity variation of the derived tree system is not independent. By substituting the velocity variation equation from Equation (10),

, and the Lagrangian multiplier μ into Equation (14), we obtain

()

When properly choosing the multiplier μ, we have

()

By simultaneously solving Equations (11) and (16), the multiplier μ can be derived as

()

Substituting Equation (17) into Equation (16), the dynamic equation of the combined system can be given in condensed formulation as

()

in which

()

2.3. Direct-Inverse Mixed Dynamics

In the trajectory optimization process presented in the following section, the rotation trajectories of a subset of joints are predefined, while the final base poses and the rotation trajectories of the remaining joints need to be determined. To address this problem, the direct-inverse mixed dynamics is introduced in this section.

List the partitioned form of the vectors q and u in the dynamic equation shown in Equation (18) as

and

, in which

denotes the position and attitude variables of the base, q₂ denotes the joints angles θ₁~θ_k of manipulators, and q₃ denotes the rest of the joints angles. Supposing that only q₂ is under control, with u₁ = 0 and u₃ = 0, thus Equation (18) is represented by partitioned matrices as

()

Switching the sides of the terms correspond to

and u₂, Equation (21) is sorted out as

()

Equation (22) is the direct-inverse mixed dynamic equation of the combined system. When the time histories of q₂ is known, the time histories of q₁ and q₃ can be solved through Equation (22). In case where the indices of the controlled variables are nonconsecutive, q_i, q_j, and q_l(i < j < l) for example, the general form of the direct-inverse mixed dynamic equation can be given as

()

in which

, and

are replaced by u_i, u_j, and u_l in

. Z_b is obtained by replacing the i-th, j-th, and l-th columns of Z with the corresponding columns from the matrix (C − I_n). Z_c consists of the i-th, j-th, and l-th columns of Z_b.

3. Detumbling Strategy

In this section, a fuel-efficient detumbling strategy is developed to guide the postcapture combined system into a uniaxial rotation state. First, the joint trajectories are parameterized to enable efficient formulation of the optimization problem. Then, an optimization framework is proposed to plan joint motions that reconfigure the system into uniaxial rotation without using base thruster fuel. Finally, a trajectory tracking controller is designed to ensure accurate execution of the planned trajectories.

3.1. Trajectory Planning Method

The combined system depicted in Figure 2 is a typical closed-chain multibody system. The dual manipulators of the combined system have 14 rotation joints, but only eight of them are independent due to the existence of the closed-chain constraints. Therefore, we only need to designate eight joints to plan their rotation trajectories θ_d(t), with the rotation trajectories of the remaining joints being uniquely determined through the closed-chain constraints. To facilitate the description of the trajectory optimization problem, it is essential to parameterize the rotation trajectories θ_d(t) of the controlled joints.

Transforming the time variables into τ = (t − t₀)/(t_f − t₀), the time range of the joint rotation can be normalized from [t₀, t_f] to [0, 1]. The variation of the i-th joint angle of θ_d(t) with respective to the normalized time variable τ in range of [0, 1] can be parameterized as

()

where parameters a_i0~a_i7 are the coefficients to be optimized. Δ_i1 and Δ_i2, respectively, limit the lower boundary

and upper boundary

of rotation range of θ_i, given by

()

Differentiating both sides of Equation (24) with respect to the time variable t, the variations of the angular velocity and acceleration of the i-th joint are, respectively, represented as

()

Since the target is still tumbling at the initial time t₀, the manipulator joints must keep rotating to ensure that the end-effectors match the velocity of the target. The initial rotation condition of the i-th joints is given by

()

At the final time t_f, the final joint angles of the manipulators are optimized, and the joints stop rotating and are locked, allowing the combined system to transition into a unixially rotating single-body system. The rotation condition of the i-th joints at t_f satisfies

()

By substituting Equations (28) and (29) into Equations (24), (26), and (27), the detailed expressions of coefficients a_i0~a_i5 are derived as

()

It can be observed from Equations (30)–(34) that the coefficients a_i0~a_i2 are determined by the initial conditions of the joint rotation, while the coefficients a_i3~a_i5 depend on the values of a_i6 and a_i7. Namely, the time-varying trajectory of the i-th joint can be fully characterized by the coefficients a_i6 and a_i7.

Considering the direct-inverse mixed dynamics equation introduced in Equation (22), the position and attitude variables of the base of the dual-arm space robot are q₁, the planned trajectory θ_d of the selected joints is q₂, and the time-varying trajectory of the remaining joints is q₃. Given a pair of coefficients a_i6 and a_i7, a group of time-varying trajectory of θ_d, , and can be determined. Subsequently, the final state q₁(t_f) and of the base, as well as the time-varying trajectory q₃(t) of the remaining joints, can be calculated by solving Equation (22). Apparently, the final state q₁(t_f) and of the base depends on the specific values of a_i6 and a_i7.

When the selected joints stop rotating at the desired angles θ_d(t_f), the remaining joints reach their final angles q₃(t_f), and the base attains its final pose, denotes as q₁(t_f). At this moment, the combined system behaves as a single rigid body, and the inertia tensor J^r, expressed in the inertial reference frame about the total CM of the system, depends on θ_d(t_f), q₁(t_f), and q₃(t_f). The eigenvalues of matrix J^r are calculated as

, and

, with the corresponding normalized eigenvectors denoted as the column vectors p₁, p₂, and p₃, respectively. A matrix can be assembled from the eigenvectors as

()

By applying the similarity transformation with A^sr, the inertia tensor J^r can be transformed into a diagonal matrix as

()

in which

is the principal moment of inertia with respect to the i-th principal axis of inertia of the combined system. The maximum principal axis is defined as the axis with respect to the largest

. The three principal axes are pairwise orthogonal, and they form the principal axis reference frame. A^sr is the direction cosine matrix that transfer the inertial reference frame to the principal axis reference frame.

At the final moment, all components of the combined system are treated as a single entity, rotating with a uniform angular velocity. Therefore, the angular velocity of the system is identical to that of the base. By solving Equation (22), the absolute angular velocity of the base in the inertia reference frame can be determined as

. The principal axis reference frame is fixed to the single entity, with its origin on the total CM. The column array of

in the body-fixed frame can be calculated through A^sr as

()

Euler’s equation of the single entity can be expressed in the body-fixed principal axis reference frame as

()

When

takes the form of

, it follows that

()

By substituting Equation (39) into Equation (38) and noting that J^s is a positive definite matrix, it can be inferred that , indicating that the single entity is in a uniaxial rotating.

As derived above, achieving uniaxial rotation about the maximum principal axis requires that

and

. From the previous derivation, we can conclude that both the inertia tensor J^r and the angular velocity array

correspond to a group of a_i6, a_i7, and θ_d(t_f). Therefore, the optimization problem can be described as optimizing the parameters of a_i6, a_i7, and θ_d(t_f) to make

and

, and the cost function is given as

()

The optimal detumbling trajectory can be obtained by using the PSO algorithm [26] to solve the optimization problem, and the flowchart of the optimization process is shown in Figure 3.

3.2. Tracking Control Method

This section presents the design of the controller to actuate the joints and track the trajectory optimized in the previous section.

Multiplying Z⁻¹ on both sides, Equation (18) is converted and represented by partitioned matrices as

()

in which

()

Supposing that q₁ denotes the position and attitude variables of the base, q₂ denotes the selected joints angles for which the trajectory is planned, and q₃ denotes the remaining joints angles. Assuming that only q₂ is under control, with u₁ = 0 and u₃ = 0, only the middle row of Equation (41) is needed for control synthesis, which can be extracted as

()

Defining the tracking errors of controller as e(t) = θ_d − q₂, in which θ_d is the planned trajectory of the selected joints to be tracked and q₂ is the practical angle value of the selected joints. Subsequently, we design the tracking control input as

()

in which K_P is the proportional gain matrix and K_D is the differential gain matrix. Inserting Equation (44) into Equation (43), we obtain

()

When K_P and K_D are assigned as positive definitive matrices, Equation (45) is asymptotically stable, ensuring the convergence of the errors e(t).

The control design method is also applicable when the tracking controller is applied to joints with nonconsecutive indices. For example, assuming the control input is applied only to the variables q_i, q_j, and q_l(i < j < l), the control input

is designed as

()

in which

()

where h_i is the i-th element of the vector h and b_ij is the element in the i-th row and j-th column of the matrix B.

4. Numerical Simulations

To validate the efficacy of the introduced technique towards the detumbling of the closed-chain combined system depicted in Figure 1, numerical simulations are conducted in this section. The structural parameters of the system are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. The inertia parameters and the physical dimensions of the combined system.

Body	m_i (kg)	(m)			(m)			(kg·m²)
Body	m_i (kg)
B₁	500	—	—	—	0.4	0	0.8	240	240	240
B₂	5.2	0	0	0.25	0.05	0	0.15	0.06	0.06	0.01
B₃	5.2	0	0	0.15	0.05	0	0.15	0.06	0.06	0.01
B₄	24.07	0	0.8	0.05	0	0.8	0.05	4.52	0.04	4.52
B₅	24.07	0.8	0	0.05	0.8	0	0.05	0.04	4.52	4.52
B₆	5.2	0	−0.15	0.05	0	−0.15	0	0.06	0.01	0.06
B₇	5.2	−0.15	0	0.05	−0.15	0	0	0.01	0.06	0.06
B₈	12.84	0	0	0.3	0	0	0.3	0.16	0.16	0.03
B₉	5.2	0	0	−0.25	0.05	0	−0.25	0.06	0.06	0.01
B₁₀	5.2	0	0	0.15	0.05	0	0.15	0.06	0.06	0.01
B₁₁	24.07	0	0.8	0.05	0	0.8	0.05	4.52	0.04	4.52
B₁₂	24.07	0.8	0	0.05	0.8	0	0.05	0.04	4.52	4.52
B₁₃	5.2	0	0.15	0.05	0	0.15	0	0.06	0.01	0.06
B₁₄	5.2	−0.15	0	−0.05	−0.15	0	0	0.01	0.06	0.06
B₁₅	12.84	0	0	−0.3	0	0	−0.3	0.16	0.16	0.03
B₁₆	1000	0.4	0.4	0.8	—	—	—	420	420	420

The combined system has 14 revolute joints, but the existence of closed-chain constraints leads to only eight DOFs relative to the base. Therefore, it is appropriate to select eight drive joints. If the number of drive joints exceeds eight, the system becomes overconstrained, leading to potential kinematic violations. Conversely, if fewer than eight drive joints are selected, the system is underconstrained, and when the drive joints stop rotating at the final stage, the rotation of the remaining joints may not stop.

Numerical simulations are provided in two cases. In Case 1, joints H₂~H₄, H₆~H₉, and H₁₂ are selected as the controlled joints for detumbling operation, and the range of the rotation angle of each joint is ±15°. In Case 2, the initial moment of momentum is larger than Case 1, and joints H₂~H₉ are selected as the controlled joints with the range of the rotation angle extending to ±30°. The simulation results show that the presented strategy is effective for different controlled joints and different initial angular momentum in three-dimensional detumbling problems with closed-chained constraints in the combined system.

4.1. Case 1

In Case 1, each coordinate axis of the inertia reference frame is aligned with the corresponding axis of the base-fixed reference frame, and both reference frames share the same origin. The initial angular velocity of the base-fixed coordinate system is [3.14,−5.28, 1.69]^T × 10⁻³ rad/s, and the initial translational velocity of the origin of is [3.85, 1.98, 0.72]^T × 10⁻² m/s. Joints H₂~H₄, H₆~H₉, and H₁₂ are designated for trajectory planning, and the trajectories of the remaining joints can be uniquely solved once the trajectories of the selected joints are determined, considering the closed-chain constraints. The initial angle and angular velocities of the selected joints are, respectively, [−0.52, 0,−2.62, 2.09, 2.62, 0, 0,−0.52]^T rad and [−6.25, 1.14,−2.42, 1.83,−2.74, 4.62, 1.96,−1.75]^T × 10⁻² rad/s. For the remaining joints H₅, H₁₀, H₁₁, and H₁₃~H₁₅, the initial angle and initial angular velocities can be, respectively, solved as [0, 2.73,−1.75, 2.69, 0, 0]^T rad and [3.40,−2.89, 5.23,−5.66,−4.73, 0.41]^T × 10⁻² rad/s by inverse kinematics. The angular velocity of the target can be solved as [7.13,−0.07,−5.32]^T × 10⁻³ rad/s through the velocity recursion of the base and the joints of Arm-α.

In this case, the rotating duration of the selected joints H₂~H₄, H₆~H₉, and H₁₂ is set as 60 s. Their rotation trajectories are planned using the presented trajectory planning method, which is optimized by the PSO algorithm. In the PSO optimization, the number of particles is N = 100, the inertial coefficient is w = 0.8, and the learning coefficients are c₁ = c₂ = 1.5. The optimization is considered to reach the goal when the cost function falls below J = 10⁻⁸. The optimal trajectories planned for the selected joints are depicted as blue curves in Figure 4, as well as the rotation trajectories of the remaining joints following the rotation of the selected joints. The variation trends of the angular velocity of the combined system are expressed by that of the base, as depicted by the blue curves in Figure 5. The angular velocity array in Figure 5 is calculated in the final principal axis coordinate system, and thus Figure 5 clearly demonstrate that and effectively converge to 0.

According to Section 3.2, by assigning K_p = 50 × I₈ and K_d = 5 × I₈, the tracking controller is designed to actuate the selected joints H₂~H₄, H₆~H₉, and H₁₂ to rotate along the planned trajectories, and the control torques of the controlled joints are shown in Figure 6. The tracking effect of the selected joints is depicted by red dots in Figure 4, and the motions of the base and the remaining joints H₅, H₁₀, H₁₁, and H₁₃~H₁₅ under the dynamic coupling with the selected joints are depicted by red dots in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. The red dots fit well with the blue curve in both Figures 4 and 5, and the error between the variation of base angular velocities in the principal axis under the planned trajectory and that driven by the tracking controller is given in Figure 7. The error is within 5^°/s × 10⁻⁶, and the precise tracking ability of the controller can be demonstrated. At the final moment, we have , , and , which denote the approximate confirmation that the combined system is rotating uniaxially.

4.2. Case 2

The initial pose and configuration of the combined system remain unchanged in Case 2, but the combined system has a higher moment of momentum. Manipulator joints H₂~H₉ are selected as the controlled joints. The initial angular velocity of the base and the selected joints H₂~H₉, respectively, changes to [5.22,−7.17, 3.55]^T × 10⁻³ rad/s and [−13.98, 6.12,−5.21, 5.67,−5.82, 6.80, 5.81,−1.75]^T × 10⁻² rad/s. The initial angular velocities of the remaining joints, H₁₀~H₁₅, can be calculated as [15.21,−3.48, 7.29,−9.17,−11.85,−7.19]^T × 10⁻² rad/s through the inverse kinematics. The angular velocity of the target can be solved as [15.94,−3.53, 15.09]^T × 10⁻² rad/s through the velocity recursion.

The parameters for the trajectory optimization and tracking controller remain unchanged. Affected by the dynamic coupling with the joint rotations along the planned trajectory, the variation in base angular velocity is depicted by the blue curves in Figure 8. The variation curve of the base angular velocity affected by the joint motors actuated by the tracking controller is depicted by the red dots in Figure 8. The error between the variation of base angular velocities in the principal axis under the planned trajectory and that driven by the tracking controller is given in Figure 9, demonstrating that the controller still maintains precise tracking performance. At the final moment, the uniaxial angular velocity of the combined system is , while the other two components of the angular velocity array is and , showing the capability of the proposed strategy to handle a higher initial angular momentum in the combined system.

4.3. Robustness Evaluation of Inertia Parameter Uncertainty

This section evaluates the robustness of the presented detumbling strategy against inertia parameter uncertainties by extensive simulations. We introduce up to 3% random estimation error to the inertia parameters of the combined system, and the system with corresponding initial conditions is driven by the tracking controller along the original detumbling trajectories planned in Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. The simulation results are given in Figures 10 and 11 by showing the variation curves of the base angular velocities in the principal axis coordinate system with different estimation errors. According to the definition, the principal axis coordinate system corresponding to each curve varies with the inertia parameter errors and the final configuration. The results show that when the estimation error of the inertial parameters is less than 3%, our detumbling strategy can still achieve satisfactory results.

When the random estimation error is 1%, the final absolute angular velocity in the principal axis coordinate system is °/s in Case 1 and °/s in Case 2. When the random estimation error is up to 3%, there is °/s in Case 1 and °/s in Case 2. In both the above cases, the combined system can be driven to the uniaxial rotation state about its maximum principal axis quite well, which denotes that the detumbling strategy has certain robustness.

5. Conclusion

This paper presents a fuel-saving detumbling strategy for dual-arm space robots capturing noncooperative targets. By utilizing manipulator joint dynamics powered solely by renewable electricity, the proposed method actively drives the closed-chain combined system into a stable uniaxial rotation about its maximum principal axis. This innovative approach offers two key advantages: (1) The unified single-axis rotation state enables simplified attitude control requiring only unidirectional thrust. (2) Fuel efficiency is achieved by eliminating the demands for multiaxis stabilization. Numerical simulations demonstrate the strategy’s effectiveness in solving three-dimensional detumbling problems for high-DOF space combined systems, highlighting its potential for on-orbit servicing missions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (10.13039/501100001809) (12172215 and 12172214).

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

References

1 Horbachova A. S. and Bazyey O. A., From the Launch of the First Satellite to the Global Problem of Space Debris, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions. (2024) 34, no. 1, 11–26, https://doi.org/10.17184/eac.8362.
10.17184/eac.8362
Google Scholar
2 Loftus J. P., Orbital Debris From Upper Stage Breakup, 1989, AIAA.
10.2514/4.865954
Google Scholar
3 Johnson N. L., Monitoring and Controlling Debris in Space, Scientific American. (1998) 279, no. 2, 62–67, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0898-62.
10.1038/scientificamerican0898-62
Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Clean Space, E.Deorbit Implementation Plan, ESA-TEC-SC-TN-2015-007, 2015, accessed on 18 December 2015, https://blogs.esa.int/cleanspace/files/2016/02/e.deorbit-Implementation-Plan-Issue_1_2015.pdf.
Google Scholar
5 Inaba N. and Oda M., Autonomous Satellite Capture by a Space Robot: World First On-Orbit Experiment on a Japanese Robot Satellite ETS-VII, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000, 2, IEEE, 1169–1174.
10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844757
Google Scholar
6 Rupp T., Boge T., Kiehling R., and Sellmaier F., Flight Dynamics Challenges of the German On-Orbit Servicing Mission DEOS, Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics, 2009, 22, German Aerospace Agency Toulouse.
Google Scholar
7 Reintsema D., Thaeter J., Rathke A., Naumann W., Rank P., and Sommer J., DEOS–The German Robotics Approach to Secure and De-Orbit Malfunctioned Satellites From Low Earth Orbits, Proceedings of the i-SAIRAS, 2010, JAXA, 244–251.
Google Scholar
8 Huang P., Wang M., Meng Z., Zhang F., and Liu Z., Attitude Takeover Control for Post-Capture of Target Spacecraft Using Space Robot, Aerospace Science and Technology. (2016) 51, 171–180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.02.006, 2-s2.0-84959563798.
10.1016/j.ast.2016.02.006
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Wei C., Luo J., Dai H., Bian Z., and Yuan J., Learning-Based Adaptive Prescribed Performance Control of Postcapture Space Robot-Target Combination Without Inertia Identifications, Acta Astronautica. (2018) 146, 228–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.03.007, 2-s2.0-85043465387.
10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.03.007
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Zhang B., Liang B., Wang Z., Mi Y., Zhang Y., and Chen Z., Coordinated Stabilization for Space Robot After Capturing a Noncooperative Target With Large Inertia, Acta Astronautica. (2017) 134, 75–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.01.041, 2-s2.0-85011823764.
10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.01.041
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Jiao C., Yang J., Wang X., and Liang B., Adaptive Coordinated Motion Control With Variable Forgetting Factor for a Dual-Arm Space Robot in Post-Capture of a Noncooperative Target, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems. (2019) 16, no. 5, https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881419872342, 2-s2.0-85073049683.
10.1177/1729881419872342
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Wang X., Shi L., and Katupitiya J., A Strategy to Decelerate and Capture a Spinning Object by a Dual-Arm Space Robot, Aerospace Science and Technology. (2021) 113, 106682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2021.106682.
10.1016/j.ast.2021.106682
Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Raina D., Gora S., Maheshwari D., and Shah S. V., Impact Modeling and Reactionless Control for Post-Capturing and Maneuvering of Orbiting Objects Using a Multi-Arm Space Robot, Acta Astronautica. (2021) 182, 21–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.034.
10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.01.034
Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Yan X., Shan M., and Shi L., Adaptive and Intelligent Control of a Dual-Arm Space Robot for Target Manipulation During the Post-Capture Phase, Aerospace Science and Technology. (2023) 142, 108688, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2023.108688.
10.1016/j.ast.2023.108688
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Yan L., Yuan H., Xu W., Hu Z., and Liang B., Kinodynamic Trajectory Optimization of Dual-Arm Space Robot for Stabilizing a Tumbling Target, International Journal of Aerospace Engineering. (2022) 2022, 16, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9626569, 9626569.
10.1155/2022/9626569
Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Zhou Y., Luo J., and Wang M., Adaptive Detumbling Control of Dual-Arm Space Robot After Capturing Non-Cooperative Target, Advances in Space Research. (2024) 73, no. 1, 108–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.053.
10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.053
Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Chu X., Hu Q., and Zhang J., Path Planning and Collision Avoidance for a Multi-Arm Space Maneuverable Robot, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. (2018) 54, no. 1, 217–232, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2017.2747938, 2-s2.0-85029158750.
10.1109/TAES.2017.2747938
Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Aghili F., Optimal Trajectories and Robot Control for Detumbling a Non-Cooperative Satellite, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. (2020) 43, no. 5, 981–988, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004758.
10.2514/1.G004758
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Zhan B., Jin M., Yang G., and Zhao Z., A Novel Collision-Free Detumbling Strategy for a Space Robot With a 7-DOF Manipulator in Postcapturing Phase, Journal of Aerospace Engineering. (2022) 35, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0001388.
10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0001388
Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Boyarko G., Yakimenko O., and Romano M., Optimal Rendezvous Trajectories of a Controlled Spacecraft and a Tumbling Object, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. (2011) 34, no. 4, 1239–1252, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.47645, 2-s2.0-79959993502.
10.2514/1.47645
Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Sternberg D. C. and Miller D., Parameterization of Fuel-Optimal Synchronous Approach Trajectories to Tumbling Targets, Frontiers in Robotics and AI. (2018) 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00033, 2-s2.0-85050093465, 33500919.
10.3389/frobt.2018.00033
PubMed Google Scholar
22 Zong L. and Emami M. R., Concurrent Base-Arm Control of Space Manipulators With Optimal Rendezvous Trajectory, Aerospace Science and Technology. (2020) 100, 105822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.105822.
10.1016/j.ast.2020.105822
Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Zhan B., Jin M., Ma B., and Huang B., Detumbling Motion Planning for the Space Manipulator With Grasped Targets and Flexible Appendages in the Post-Capturing Phase, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. (2023) 237, no. 5, 1158–1173, https://doi.org/10.1177/09544100221118210.
10.1177/09544100221118210
Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Bae D. S., Han J. M., and Yoo H. H., A Generalized Recursive Formulation for Constrained Mechanical System Dynamics, Journal of Structural Mechanics. (1999) 27, no. 3, 293–315, https://doi.org/10.1080/08905459908915700, 2-s2.0-0032651684.
10.1080/08905459908915700
Google Scholar
25 Liu X., Li H., Chen Y., Cai G., and Wang X., Dynamics and Control of Capture of a Floating Rigid Body by a Spacecraft Robotic Arm, Multibody System Dynamics. (2015) 33, no. 3, 315–332, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-014-9434-7, 2-s2.0-84925493636.
10.1007/s11044-014-9434-7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Kennedy J. and Eberhart R. C., Particle Swarm Optimization, IEEE International Conferenceon on Neural Networks. (1995) 4, 1942–1948.
Google Scholar

All articles

Fuel-Saving Postcapture Detumbling by Dual-Arm Space Robot

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Dynamic Modeling

2.1. Model Description

2.2. Dynamic Equation

2.3. Direct-Inverse Mixed Dynamics

3. Detumbling Strategy

3.1. Trajectory Planning Method

3.2. Tracking Control Method

4. Numerical Simulations

4.1. Case 1

4.2. Case 2

4.3. Robustness Evaluation of Inertia Parameter Uncertainty

5. Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Funding

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

Figures

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Fuel-Saving Postcapture Detumbling by Dual-Arm Space Robot

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Dynamic Modeling

2.1. Model Description

2.2. Dynamic Equation

2.3. Direct-Inverse Mixed Dynamics

3. Detumbling Strategy

3.1. Trajectory Planning Method

3.2. Tracking Control Method

4. Numerical Simulations

4.1. Case 1

4.2. Case 2

4.3. Robustness Evaluation of Inertia Parameter Uncertainty

5. Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Funding

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

Figures

References

Related

Information