[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Scheduling satellite launch missions: an MILP approach

Published: 01 February 2013 Publication History

Abstract

The paper deals with an MILP model to schedule satellite launches with alternative launchers and different mission profiles, subject to resource constraints. The model is part of a simulation tool developed within a joint research project with the European space agency. The focus is on geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) launches of payloads, which are associated with a given time window for launch, a payload mass, and a potential revenue. A launch requires the payload, a launcher compatible with both payload mass and mission profile, a launch complex for that launcher, and a launch range (i.e., resources that are shared by the launch complexes, including a mission control station). We consider three launcher types, which differ in cost and performance, are produced at a limited rate, and cannot be stocked in large amounts. One of the launchers is also able to carry out dual launch missions, i.e., missions in which two payloads are launched together, provided that their joint mass does not exceed launcher's mass capacity and their time windows overlap. After each launch, the launch complexes and the launch range need some latency time to be reset. Two natural objectives are minimizing the number of lost payloads and maximizing profit. Here we report experiences with a discrete-time MILP model formulation, which is rather flexible and can be extended to cope with additional problem features. Natural concerns, such as computational effort and the effect of time discretization, are addressed in the paper.

References

[1]
Aytug, H., Lawley, M., McKay, K., Mohan, S., & Uzsoy, R. (2005). Executing production schedules in the face of uncertainties: A review and some future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 86-110.
[2]
Baker, K. R., & Trietsch, D. (2007). Safe scheduling. INFORMS Tutorials in OR, pp. 79-101.
[3]
Baptiste, P. (1999). Polynomial time algorithms for minimizing the weighted number of late jobs on a single machine when processing times are equal. Journal of Scheduling, 2, 245-252.
[4]
Barbulescu, L., Howe, A., & Whitley, D. (2006). AFSCN scheduling: How the problem and solution have evolved. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 43, 1023-1037.
[5]
Bianchessi, N., Cordeau, J.-F., Desrosiers, J., Laporte, G., & Raymond, V. (2007). A heuristic for the multi-satellite, multi-orbit and multiuser management of earth observation satellites. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 750-762.
[6]
Brandimarte, P. (1999). Exploiting process plan flexibility in production scheduling: A multi-objective approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 114, 59-71.
[7]
Brandimarte, P. (2006). Multi-item capacitated lot-sizing with demand uncertainty. International Journal of Production Research, 44, 2997- 3022.
[8]
Brandimarte, P., & Maiocco, M. (1999). Job shop schedulingwith a nonregular objective: A comparison of neighborhood structures based on a sequencing/timing decomposition. International Journal of Production Research, 37, 1697-1725.
[9]
Brandimarte, P., & Villa, A. (1995). Advanced models for manufacturing systems management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[10]
Chand, S., Hsu, V. N., & Sethi, S. (2002). Forecast, solution, and rolling horizons in operations management problems: A classified bibliography. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 49, 25-43.
[11]
Fisher, M., & Jaikumar, R. (1978). An algorithm for the space-shuttle scheduling problem. Operations Research, 26, 166-182.
[12]
Fisher, M., Ramdas, K., & Zheng, Y.-S. (2001). Ending inventory valuation in multiperiod production scheduling. Management Science, 45, 679-692.
[13]
Gabrel, V., & Vanderpooten, D. (2002). Enumeration and interactive selection of efficient paths in a multiple criteria graph for scheduling an earth observing satellite. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 533-542.
[14]
Gavish, B., & Kalvenes, J. (1997). LEOS: Optimal satellite launch policies: The static case. Management Science, 43, 1164-1176.
[15]
Gavish, B., & Kalvenes, J. (2004). Dynamic policies for optimal LEO satellite launches. Production and Operations Management, 13, 386-397.
[16]
Glover, F., & Laguna, M. (1998). Tabu search. New York: Springer.
[17]
Grimme, C., Lepping, J., & Schwiegelshohn, U. (2012). Multicriteria scheduling: An agent-based approach for expert knowledge integration. Journal of Scheduling.
[18]
Kise, H., Ibaraki, T., & Mine, H. (1978). A solvable case of the one-machine scheduling problem with ready and due times. Operations Research, 26, 121-126.
[19]
Law, A., & Kelton, W. (1999). Simulation modeling and analysis (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[20]
Moore, J. (1968). Sequencing n jobs on one machine to minimize the number of tardy jobs. Management Science, 15, 102-109.
[21]
Morgan, L., Morton, A., & Daniels, R. (2006). Simultaneously determining the mix of space launch vehicles and the assignment of satellites to rockets. European Journal of Operational Research, 172, 747-760.
[22]
Muscettola, N., Smith, S., Cesta, A., & D'Aloisi, D. (1992). Coordinating space telescope operations in an integrated planning and scheduling architecture. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 12(1), 28-37.
[23]
Nowakovski, J., Schwärzler, W., & Triesch, E. (1999). Using the generalized assignment problem in scheduling the ROSAT space telescope. European Journal of Operational Research, 112, 531-541.
[24]
T'Kindt, V., & Billaut, J.-C. (2006). Multicriteria scheduling: Theory, models and algorithms (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
[25]
Tyagi, R., & Bollapragada, S. (2003). SES Americom maximizes satellite revenues by optimally configuring transponders. Interfaces, 33(5), 36-443.
[26]
Wolsey, L. (1998). Integer Programming. New York: Wiley.
[27]
Yamashita, D., Armentano, V., & Laguna, M. (2007). Robust optimization models for project scheduling with resource availability cost. Journal of Scheduling, 10, 67-76.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)A framework involving MEC: imaging satellites mission planningNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-019-04047-632:19(15329-15340)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019
  • (2014)A mixed-integer linear programming approach to the optimization of event-bus schedulesJournal of Scheduling10.5555/2684511.268455617:6(621-629)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Scheduling
Journal of Scheduling  Volume 16, Issue 1
February 2013
143 pages

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2013

Author Tags

  1. Integer programming
  2. Scheduling for strategic design
  3. Space applications

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)A framework involving MEC: imaging satellites mission planningNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-019-04047-632:19(15329-15340)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019
  • (2014)A mixed-integer linear programming approach to the optimization of event-bus schedulesJournal of Scheduling10.5555/2684511.268455617:6(621-629)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media