RU2659773C1 - Method of the priorities assignment for requests for the communication sessions conducting with the scientific and socio-economic purpose space crafts - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: astronautics.

SUBSTANCE: invention relates to the space industry, to the planning methods of the ground-based automated control and measurement system (ACMS) technical means (TM) use by space crafts (SC) for scientific and socio-economic purposes and can be used in the event of conflict situations involving the use of the ACMS TM. In accordance with a particular embodiment of the present invention, when there are many requests, including time-crossover implementation on one ACMS TM, these requests are assigned with priorities based on pre-defined qualitative estimates and the calculated from them the characteristics weights numerical values and the ACMS and SC TM characteristics parameters, and providing this ACMS TM temporary resources for the request with the highest priority implementation.

EFFECT: increase in the ACMS TM temporary resources provision permission / refusal justification and efficiency for conflicting requests for the CS conducting from the SC.

8 cl, 39 dwg

Description

Technical field

The invention relates to the space industry, and in particular, to methods for planning the use of technical means (TS) of the ground-based automated control and measurement complex (NACU) while providing flight control for scientific and socio-economic spacecraft (NSEN spacecraft, spacecraft) and can be used, for example , during operational planning (3-4 days before the communication session (SS) with the spacecraft), when the temporary resources of the NACU TS are not enough to satisfy all requests for the SS from the spacecraft, or at the current aniating (on the day of the SS with the spacecraft), if necessary, additional involvement for other spacecraft of the already allocated temporary resources of the NACU vehicle.

State of the art

The basic principle of using the NACU TS to satisfy requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft using low-point control technology is the principle of the collective use of the NACU TS, which means that the same tools are used to control different spacecraft. In this case, the peculiarity of activating a specific tool is the fact that it can be used to control only those spacecraft that are in the zone of its radio visibility (ZRV), and the ZRV of different spacecraft can overlap, which leads to conflict situations (CS) during operational and / or ongoing planning for the use of the NACU vehicle. The cause of conflict situations is an increase in the load on the funds, exceeding their capabilities, for example, when launching new spacecraft, in case of malfunctions on the means, when changing work plans with the spacecraft, etc.

In operational planning, the insufficiency of the temporary resources of the NACU TS of the day of satisfying all requests for SS (CS of the first kind) is expressed in the fact that, on the planned (daily) time interval, the possible total time resource for airborne resources is less than the total requested requirements for fulfilling requests for conducting communication sessions:

in the absence of the possibility of implementing conflicting requests on other NACU TS, determined by the condition:

where it, iv - respectively, the numbers of the required and possible implementations of requests for the SS;

I ^t , I ⁱⁿ - respectively, the required and possible for the implementation of the number of requests for the SS on the planned time interval;

k, k1 - numbers of the corresponding technical means;

K is the number of NACU vehicles suitable for performing this type of request;

,

- соответственно возможный и требуемый временные ресурсы для реализации i-го запроса на средствах k1 и k;

,

- respectively, the possible and required time resources for the implementation of the i-th request on the means k1 and k;

∈ - sign of belonging;

: - sign "such that ...";

∃ - quantifier "there is at least one element ...";

,

) - интервал (начало и конец) зоны радиовидимости (ЗРВ) данным средством для реализации i-го запроса.(

,

) - the interval (beginning and end) of the radio visibility zone (SRV) by this tool to implement the i-th request.

With current planning, the need for additional involvement of the already allocated temporary resources of the NACU TS is expressed in the fact that the resources of the same means are required for conducting communication sessions with various spacecraft at the same time (CS of the 2nd kind):

,

), (

,

) - интервалы (начало, конец) сеансов связи с КА_x и КА_y, находящимися в ЗРВ упомянутого средства;where (

,

), (

,

) - the intervals (beginning, end) of communication sessions with spacecraft _x and spacecraft _y located in the airborne explosives of the said means;

∩ - intersection sign (sets, intervals);

∧ - the sign of the logical "AND";

∅ is an empty set;

,

) - интервал зоны радиовидимости упомянутого средства.(

,

) is the interval of the radio visibility zone of the said means.

The time intervals of the radio-visibility zones of spacecraft by the technical means of the NACU are calculated from the ballistic data of the spacecraft flight.

In view of the noted feature of the discrete (according to the SRV) involvement of ground-based means for controlling the spacecraft, a request to use a specific means for conducting a communication session cannot wait for its service in the queue, since it must be either satisfied or rejected. An unreasonable refusal to service a request for a communication session can lead to a violation of the technological control cycle (TCU) of the spacecraft and, in the worst case, to loss of control and the apparatus itself. If it is possible to transfer the communication session with the spacecraft to the next round, the time to complete the set of measures for this transfer, starting from re-planning the use of funds and ending with the preparation of the means for work, is limited by the time of one round and is basically no more than 90 minutes. The above features lead to increased requirements for the validity and speed of satisfaction / rejection of requests for communication sessions with the spacecraft.

The increase in the orbital grouping (OG) of the NSEN spacecraft, on the one hand, and the transition to low-point control technology using a limited number of standardized means, on the other hand, increase the likelihood of a CS due to the increasing number of incoming requests to use funds to conduct communication sessions with the spacecraft NSEN, which necessitates increasing requirements to ensure effective management of the NSEN spacecraft and, in particular, to ensure communication sessions with the spacecraft with the technical means of the NACU.

Communication sessions are provided with the technical means of NACU when planning the use of funds on the basis of applications received from the Spacecraft Control Sectors. The application includes a set of requests, for each of which the date of the communication session, object (space code), revolution number, command and measurement point number (CIP), number of the means involved, numbers of operating modes of the vehicle, spacecraft air defense system with this tool, elevation angle, preparation time for the communication session. Since the request indicates data on one communication session, the concepts of the priority of the request and the priority of the communication session are identical. In the event of a conflict over the use of the TS, the decision maker (DM) should give preference to one of the requests that will be implemented, and reject the remaining conflicting requests. The basis of the preference system is the priority of the requests. Obviously, the higher the priority of the request, the higher the likelihood of its inclusion in the plan for engaging funds (CCD) and subsequent implementation.

Therefore, in the event of a conflict in the planning process of the use of the NACU vehicle in the conditions of limited time resources of technical means, it is necessary to solve the problem of assigning priorities to requests for communication sessions with spacecraft. The influence of various factors on the priorities of requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft has been little studied and does not have any numerical evaluation, therefore this task (according to the classification [1]) belongs to the unstructured category.

Known methods for assigning priorities [2, 3], differing from the considered area and application conditions, causing differences both in the statement of the problem and in the method of solving it.

In the first method, prioritization is carried out on the basis of three factors - channel capacity, type of service and interruption time, with the possibility of their various combinations and taking into account the various weighting factors established by him. In a preferred embodiment, all three of these factors are considered, for which the boundary indicator of service of applications is calculated, which is inversely proportional to the priority of service. The advantage of the method is the possibility of numerical expression of priority through the calculated value of the boundary indicator of service. However, using this method, it is impossible to calculate the priority values for the source data in the form of a complex structure. The method is applicable for continuous control systems, allowing the possibility of waiting in the queue for satisfying requests, but is not acceptable for a discrete spacecraft control system.

In the second method, prioritization refers to providing the advantage of data transmission based on the characteristics of the channel and data having numerical values or determined in the process of information exchange. The numerical values of the priorities are not calculated, which does not allow the comparison of the values of the priorities. The method is applicable to a system with continuous control, allowing to perform service with waiting in line, but is unacceptable for discrete control systems.

The well-known "System and method for adaptive prioritization of anti-virus scan objects" [4], in which the prioritization of anti-virus scan objects is carried out based on the rules specified in the database for the parameters of anti-virus scan objects, taking into account the prevalence of malicious objects. The numerical values of the priorities are not calculated; in order to increase the detection speed of the most common malicious objects, the time factor is taken into account as a limitation when determining the priorities of anti-virus protection objects.

In the sources cited, the factors of validity and efficiency are either not taken into account or are not determining. The analysis shows that there are no analogues of the proposed method.

In general, the above methods [2-4] do not solve the task set by the authors to prioritize requests for communication sessions with scientific and socio-economic spacecraft in view of the features of the spacecraft control system and factors affecting the priorities of requests for communication sessions with KA, which determined the need to develop an appropriate method.

Disclosure of invention

The technical result of the present invention is to increase the validity and speed of authorization / refusal to provide temporary resources of the NACU TS for conflicting requests for SS with the NSEN spacecraft. The technical result expected from the use of the claimed invention is achieved by using the proposed variants of the method for assigning priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft.

Improving the validity of authorization / refusal to provide temporary resources of the NACU TS is achieved by attracting at the preparatory stages a sufficient number of experts, their knowledge and experience to ensure the required confidence level of the agreed examination results, as well as the possibility of taking into account a larger number of factors affecting the priority of the request and work experts in the absence of strict time limits, in contrast to real conditions; when deciding whether to allow / prohibit the provision of temporary resources to the NACU TS.

The increase in the efficiency of authorization / refusal to provide temporary resources of the NACU TS vehicle is achieved by reducing the time for preparing a decision to allow / prohibit the provision of temporary resources of the NACU TS vehicle by preparing in advance the data of the most labor-intensive stages of solving the task of assigning priorities to requests for communication sessions with the spacecraft and calculating priority values in an automated way .

The numerical values of the priorities make it possible not only to compare requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft according to their importance and to choose the most important of them for implementation on this tool, but also to determine the degree of superiority of some sessions over others. The use of numerical values of priorities can also significantly reduce the degree of subjectivity of the decision-maker when deciding whether to allow / prohibit the provision of an NACU TS for communication sessions.

An important feature of the method is the possibility of improving it by changing the hierarchical structure of the problem by including and / or excluding elements (groups of elements), IS levels (tiers) and relationships between them, as well as refining expert estimates, which will allow you to adapt the method to the spacecraft control conditions and , thereby increasing its adequacy to the conditions of use. The implementation of the method will improve the technology for planning the use of the NACU vehicle for the control of the spacecraft.

The task is to determine the set of priority values (PR) of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft according to the hierarchical structure (S) of the task, including factors affecting the priorities, and according to the results of expert evaluations specified in the form of relationship matrices (С ⁰ ) that determine the qualitative preferences between elements of IP:

, С - количество поступивших или конфликтующих запросов на проведение сеансов связи с КА);where: pr _c is the priority of the c-th request, (

, C - the number of received or conflicting requests for communication sessions with the spacecraft);

{} is a symbol of many elements.

The proposed method for prioritizing requests for communication sessions with the spacecraft includes the steps of:

1. Formation of the hierarchical structure of the task of assigning priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft.

2. Formation of relationship matrices.

3. Formation of matrixes of comparisons.

4. The calculation of the partial values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure.

5. Assessment of the consistency of expert judgments.

6. Assessment of the consistency of expert opinions.

7. The calculation of the generalized values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure.

8. Calculation of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft.

9. Provision of temporary resources to the NACU TS for the implementation of requests for communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft with the highest priorities.

Stages 1 ... 7 are preparatory, performed in advance, i.e. before the occurrence of conflict situations, stages 8, 9 - final, performed immediately after the occurrence of conflict situations.

1 Formation of the hierarchical structure of the task of assigning priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft

Specialists of the MCC FSUE TsNIImash for spacecraft management and planning for the operation of the NACU TS have identified the most frequently taken into account factors affecting the priority of the request for SS with the spacecraft, which include the characteristics of the spacecraft, the characteristics of the NACU TS (groups of operating modes) and their parameters:

a) type of spacecraft, possible parameters:

1) manned;

2) transport;

3) pH / RB;

4) KA - repeaters;

5) SC of scientific purpose;

6) meteorological spacecraft and spacecraft for remote sensing of the Earth (combined, because often one spacecraft performs these two tasks);

7) navigation satellites.

b) spacecraft stay in orbit, possible parameters:

1) less than two months in orbit;

2) more than two months in orbit.

c) the spacecraft’s SAM, the parameters of this characteristic determine the total duration of the spacecraft radio-visibility zones on the daily interval, the possible parameters are:

1) 0-1 hour / day;

2) 1-3 hours / day;

3) 3-6 hours / day;

4) 6-12 hours / day;

5) 12-24 hours / day;

d) spacecraft flight mode - a characteristic that determines the importance of conducting a communication session with the spacecraft depending on the state of the spacecraft's onboard equipment and the spacecraft's orientation in outer space. The need to correct the orbit or troubleshoot aboard the spacecraft increases the priority of the claimed communication session with him. The characteristic has the following parameters:

1) regular flight (onboard equipment of the spacecraft is operational, the spacecraft is in the standard orientation in outer space);

2) non-oriented flight (uncritical for the spacecraft flight, for example, failure of the target equipment, failure of the on-board equipment with the transfer to the reserve. There may be limitations on the side of the spacecraft during SS);

3) emergency flight (requires operational intervention in the management of the spacecraft);

d) the spacecraft operation phase - a characteristic that affects priority in terms of the need to control and monitor the spacecraft operation at various stages of its operation. Pilot operation and flight tests require special attention to the spacecraft. The number of necessary KA of communication sessions on a daily interval often depends on the operation stage. The characteristic has the following possible parameters:

1) trial operation of the spacecraft;

2) flight tests;

3) the introduction of the exhaust gas;

4) regular operation;

5) decommissioning of the exhaust gas.

f) type of SS - a characteristic that determines the degree of attachment of a SS to a particular turn or time interval, possible parameters:

1) the current SS, the implementation of which is not directly dependent on the outcome of the previous SS;

2) dependent SS, for which the time of its implementation relative to other (other) SSs is important;

3) mandatory SS;

4) reserve SS;

5) canceled;

g) the operating modes of the NACU TS used for the communication session under consideration, formed in groups (clusters), their abbreviated names and conditional numbers:

1) a group of spacecraft control modes:

- one-time teams (RK, 101);

- tab for special information (SI, 120);

- transmission of program commands (KP, 121);

- transmission of KPI (KI, 143);

- work in the reserve (RE, 157);

2) a group of modes with especially important spacecraft control operations:

- management sessions with critical management operations (PC, 160);

- temporary program (VP, 102);

3) a group of modes to ensure the fulfillment of the target CA mission:

- work program (RP, 103);

- information transfer to the information receiving point (NSC, 137);

- bookmark guidance programs (ZPN, 106);

4) a group of spacecraft flight support modes:

- ephemeris of the first kind (E1, 104), ephemeris of the second kind (E2, 105);

- phasing and correction (FC, 107);

- reconciliation of time scales (SV, 116);

- measurement of current navigation parameters (IK, 117);

- tab frequency-time corrections (CVP, 122);

- listening (PS, 133);

5) a group of modes for the operational reception of information about the state of the spacecraft:

- telemetry (TM, 112), direct reception of telemetry (NP, 151);

- tele-alarm (TS, 113);

- information of operational control (OK, 114);

- acknowledgment (CV, 115);

- eat TMI (for the spacecraft TsSKB "Progress") for 2 (VN, 161), 10 (VD, 163), 4 (V1, 163) turns;

- reception, registration and transmission of full flows of TMI (PT, 171);

6) a group of modes of post-session transmission of TMI on ground means:

- information transfer (PI, 131);

- transfer of information to a special center (Central Committee, 135);

- transmission of information in records (TK, 145);

7) a group of maintenance modes:

- repair of the closed mode (РЗ, 124);

- research (IP, 130);

- optional operating mode (FT, 132);

- comprehensive training (CT, 170).

An analysis of these factors affecting the priorities of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft allows us to distinguish their following features:

- a large number and diversity;

- predominantly qualitative in nature;

- lack of formal (mathematical) dependencies between factors, including those of a quantitative nature, and the priorities of requests for communication sessions.

These features of the factors necessitate the consideration of the task of prioritizing requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft in the form of a hierarchical structure.

When forming a hierarchical structure, it is necessary to observe the following principles that ensure the solution of the task:

1. Consideration of the maximum possible number of factors affecting the priority of the request for a communication session with the spacecraft and possible for expert evaluation. One factor corresponds to one element (vertex) of the hierarchical structure.

2. To ensure the possibility of comparing IP elements by their influence on higher level elements with reasonably (psychologically) certainty that the results are consistent, if more than seven elements are located at the same level, they are functionally combined into groups [5], in each of which more than seven elements, forming new hierarchies - tiers at this level of IP. The union procedure is repeated until a final decomposition is obtained in which each group will have no more than seven forming elements. Therefore, in the future, the term “tier” is used as a generalized term for IP hierarchies; by an IP element we mean both single (non-group) elements and group elements that include several single elements combined into groups.

3. Functional classification of the totality of factors by type, each type of factor is located on a separate tier of IP. Elements of one tier of IP are independent of each other.

4. Location on the upper tier of the IS the objective function of the task, on the lower tiers - the elements that affect the objective function of the task. At the very lowest tier of the IS there are elements whose change or impact on which leads to the achievement of the goal of the process under consideration, for example, the spacecraft control process. We will call these elements basic (BE).

5. Any element of the lower tier IS must have a connection with the element of the immediately higher tier if there is a corresponding logical connection determined by the characteristics of the process in question.

6. The influence of IP elements on the objective function of the task is determined by the weighting coefficients of the elements of each IP tier, reflecting the degree of their influence on the elements of the higher tier. Ultimately, the effect of BE on the objective function of the problem is estimated taking into account the influence of the weight coefficients of the elements of the higher tiers.

The elements that affect the priorities of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft determine the characteristics of the spacecraft, the characteristics of the NACU TS and their parameters given above. As the characteristics of the NAKU TS, functionally grouped up to seven elements in each mode of their operation were selected. It is the operating modes that are the active elements of the IS that determine the purpose, content and main difference from each other of communication sessions with the spacecraft, therefore they are defined as basic. The remaining elements are considered as affecting the basic elements. Thus, on the first tier of the hierarchical structure is the objective function - the priority of the request for a communication session with the spacecraft, on the second - the characteristics of the spacecraft, on the third - the parameters of the characteristics of the spacecraft, on the fourth - the characteristics (groups) of the operating modes of the NACU TS, on the fifth - parameters characteristics (numbers) of the operating modes of the means of the vehicle NAKU. Each element of the hierarchical structure has a name, a serial number among the elements (groups) of its tier, and a designation of the generalized weight coefficient reflecting its influence on the total value of the priority of the request for a communication session with the spacecraft. The first lower index of the weight coefficient corresponds to the serial number of the given element on the given tier, the second - the number of the element of the higher tier with which this element is connected from the point of view of influence on priority, the upper index corresponds to the tier number.

Based on the foregoing, a hierarchical structure of the task of prioritizing requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft is presented, shown in FIG. one.

Formally, the hierarchical structure (S) is represented in the form of a tiered-parallel graph (BHG) directed from the bottom up with many vertices (V) and connections (SV ^u ) between them:

The sets of vertices (V) and the links (SV ^u ) between them represent, respectively, the union of the sets of ordinal numbers of the vertices of all tiers (P ^r ) and their inter-tier connections (SV ^ru ):

where: U is the symbol of the union of sets;

R is the set of tier numbers, r is the tier number, R _max is the number of tiers of the YaPG;

- максимальный номер вершины на ярусе r;p ^r is the ordinal number of the vertex on the tier r,

- the maximum vertex number on the tier r;

- максимальный номер вершины на ярусе r-1.q ^r-1 - the serial number of the vertex on the tier r-1,

- the maximum vertex number on the r-1 tier.

For groups of vertices of structure (S), the following are defined:

- the set of numbers of groups (G ^r ) of vertices (elements) of the rth tier:

is the set of numbers of vertices (elements) (I ^rg ) in the group g of tier r:

- the correspondence of the set of group numbers of vertices (I ^rg ) to the set of their serial numbers (P ^r ) on the tier r:

- many group relationships:

- the correspondence of the set of group bonds (SV ^g ) to the set of tiered bonds (SV ^ru ):

- количество групп вершин яруса r;where: g ^r is the number of the group of vertices of tier r,

- the number of groups of vertices of the tier r;

- количество вершин в группе g яруса r;i ^rg , is the number of the vertex in the group g of the tier r,

- the number of vertices in the group g of the tier r;

- количество вершин в группе g1 яруса r-1.j ^r-1g1 is the number of the vertex in the group g1 of the tier r-1,

is the number of vertices in the group g1 of the tier r-1.

The numbering of tiers of YaPG is carried out from top to bottom. To improve the visibility and simplify the description of the performed calculations within groups, indexation of tier numbers and group numbers of tier elements is omitted.

2 Formation of relationship matrices

For structure S, the matrix of relations C ° is formed according to the results of an expert survey:

The values of the elements of the relationship matrix are determined by the Iverson bracket (notation):

where q is the number of the element of the upper tier r-1, with which the element of the given tier r is associated;

Q - the number of elements of the upper tier r-1;

;l is the row number of the relationship matrix,

;

;m is the number of the column (relationship) of the relationship matrix,

;

M - the number of relations (M = 9);

;h is the expert number,

;

N is the number of experts;

- качественная оценка h-го эксперта по m-му столбцу при сравнении элементов Э_i и Э_j l-ой строки по влиянию на элемент номер q вышерасположенного яруса с точки зрения приоритета запроса;

- a qualitative assessment of the h-th expert on the m-th column when comparing the elements E _i and E _{j of} the lth row by the effect on the element number q of the higher tier from the point of view of the priority of the request;

- табличная качественная оценка по шкале отношений (фиг. 2);

- tabular qualitative assessment on a scale of relations (Fig. 2);

, j=(i+1, i+2, …, I);E _i , e _j - left (number "i") and right (number "j") compared elements of the relationship matrix,

, j = (i + 1, i + 2, ..., I);

I is the number of comparison elements in this group.

The relationship matrix has the dimension L × M, the number of rows (L) of which is equal to the number of pairwise comparisons:

The set of tabular qualitative estimates is the set O ^t :

The relationship matrix is a table, in the left and right columns of which the compared elements (E _i , E _j ) of a particular group are located [5]. If an element from the left column is superior to an element from the right column in terms of the effect on the element of the higher tier from the point of view of the priority of the request, then one of the positions to the left of the equality is marked (set equal to one), otherwise, to the right of the equality, if the importance is equal, the mark in the field “ Equality". Thus, experts assign a degree of qualitative superiority (qualitative assessments) of some elements of a group or tier, groups of one tier over other elements of the same group or tier, by groups of the same IP tier according to the effect on the elements or groups of the superior tier in terms of the priority of the request. An example of a relationship matrix for the three compared elements is shown in FIG. 3.

The number of relationship matrices on each tier of IP is equal to the number of groups of compared elements on this tier for each relationship with the elements of the higher tier of IP.

3 Formation of matrixes of comparisons

The comparison matrix A = {a _ij } is a square matrix of dimension I × I. The rows and columns of the comparison matrix correspond to the elements of the considered IP group. The elements of the comparison matrix are numerical evaluation values corresponding to the degree of superiority of the element in the left column of the comparison matrix with respect to the element in the top row of the comparison matrix.

We represent the comparison matrix A in the form of a union of subsets:

the numerical values of which are formed according to the following rules:

- a numerical value determined on the scale of relations corresponding to the marked position in the row of the relationship matrix is entered in the field of the comparison matrix, the coordinates of which are the numbers of the compared elements from the left and right columns of the relationship matrix of the row in question:

- the diagonal of the matrix should consist of units, because relative to itself, the element of comparison is of the same importance:

- the elements of the subsets A ^{3 are} inversely symmetric to the elements of the subset A ¹ , that is, in the position (i, j) of the subset A ^{3 there} should be a value opposite to the value in the position (j, i) of the subset A ¹ :

where: d is the number of the subset;

- численное значение сравнительной оценки элементов подмножества А с номерами (координатами) i и j;

- the numerical value of the comparative assessment of the elements of the subset A with numbers (coordinates) i and j;

), верхние индексы определяют принадлежность к подмножеству A^d;i, j are the numbers of the compared elements, corresponding to the numbers of rows and columns of the comparison matrix (i,

), superscripts determine membership in a subset of A ^d ;

b _m - tabular numerical value of a qualitative assessment;

m is the number of the assessment (column);

: - sign "such that";

, соответствует элемент b_m∈B при данном соответствии ϕ₁:ϕ ₁ : M → B - the table correspondence (Fig. 4) between the sets of elements M and B consists of ordered pairs, each pair (m, b _m ) ∈ϕ ₁ indicates that the element m∈M for which

, corresponds to an element b _m ∈B for this correspondence ϕ ₁ :

ϕ ₂ : L ^c → (I ¹ , J ¹ ) - tabular correspondence (Fig. 5 for 3 comparison elements) between the set of row numbers (L ^c ) of the relationship matrix and the set of coordinates (I ¹ , J ¹ ) of the elements of the comparison matrix (by the set of numbers of the compared elements) consists of ordered pairs, each pair ((1, (i ¹ , j ¹ )) ∈ϕ ₂ indicates that the element l∈L ^c corresponds to a pair of elements (i ¹ , j1) ∈N ^e for this according to ϕ ₂ :

where: L ^c = {1, 2, ..., L} is the set of row numbers of the relation matrix;

N ^e = {1, 2, ..., I} - the set of numbers of the elements of comparison.

The area of definition of correspondence ϕ ₁ is the set of M line numbers for which the values of the elements of the relationship matrix are equal to unity:

:the set of correspondence values ϕ ₁ is the set of tabular numerical values corresponding to the qualitative estimates of experts for which

:

where: B = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9};

∈ - the sign “contained in” (belonging to the set);

∃ - quantifier: there is at least one element ...;

→ - a symbol of unidirectional following;

- признак совпадения оценки эксперта и табличной оценки строки 1 столбца m матрицы отношений;

- a sign of coincidence of the expert’s assessment and the tabular evaluation of row 1 of column m of the relationship matrix;

l is the row number of the matrix of relations (the number of pairwise comparisons, estimates).

The scope of the correspondence ϕ ₂ is the set L ^c line numbers of the relations matrix:

the set of matching values ϕ ₂ is the set of coordinates (i ¹ , j ¹ ) of the elements of the comparison matrix:

The correspondence ϕ _{2 is} determined when constructing the matrix of relations and depends on the number of compared elements.

After combining the subsets A ¹ , A ² , A ³ into a single set A (23), the indexation of the subsets and elements in the subsets disappears.

The circuit for forming the elements of the comparison matrix is shown in FIG. 6.

4 Calculation of partial values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure

In mathematical terms, this calculation means calculating the values of the normalized main eigenvector (priority vector) [5]. The calculation is carried out in the following sequence:

4.1 the calculation of the values of the additional column by the formula:

4.2 the calculation of the values of the main eigenvector by the formula:

4.3 Calculation of the sum of the values of the elements of the main eigenvector by the formula:

4.4. Calculation of the values of the normalized main eigenvector by the formula:

4.5. Establishing the correspondence between the normalized main eigenvectors and the particular (expert) values of the weight coefficients of each group of compared IP elements:

5 Assessment of the consistency of expert judgments

5.1 Calculation of the maximum eigenvalue of the comparison matrix:

5.2 Calculation of the value of the consistency index (I _n C) of the comparison matrix:

5.3 Calculation of the value of the consistency relationship (OS):

where M (and _n s) is the tabular value (Fig. 7), for which the input parameter is the value I (matrix dimension).

An OS value of считается 0.10 is considered acceptable [6]. To ensure an acceptable OS value, various functions can be used to map the set of values of expert estimates to the set of values of the elements of the MS [7].

If the OS value is unacceptable for the comparison matrix, it is considered that the logic of the expert’s judgments is significantly violated, the expert is invited to reconsider his opinion and adjust the relationship matrix. Otherwise, the expert is excluded from the expert group.

Assessment of the consistency of expert judgments is carried out for all the obtained comparison matrices.

6 Assessment of the coherence of experts

6.1 Ranking in ascending order of values of weight coefficients k _{hi of} each group of compared IP elements (assignment of values of ranks z _hi ). One expert cannot assign the same rank to two weighting factors:

.6.1.1. A series of weighting factors of the first (h = 1) expert {k _li } is _selected ,

.

, множество рангов значений коэффициентов Z, равными нулю:6.1.2 The initial stored rank value is set.

, the set of ranks of the values of the coefficients Z equal to zero:

6.1.3 Among the ranked values of the weighting coefficients, the minimum of them is searched and assigned to it a rank value equal to the stored value increased by one (thereby ranked weighting factors are excluded from the number of ranked ones):

where: - the sign "such that ...".

6.1.4 The rank value of the ranked weight coefficient is stored, and the ranked weight coefficient is added to the set of ranked coefficients:

where: = - sign "assign a value equal to ...".

6.1.5 The condition is checked whether all the coefficients of this expert are ranked:

If condition (48) is fulfilled, go to Sec. 6.1.6; otherwise, go to Sec. 6.1.3.

6.1.6 The condition is checked, the data of all experts are ranked:

) следующего эксперта (h:=h+1) и переход к п. 6.1.2.If condition (49) is fulfilled, go to section 6.1.7, otherwise weights k _hi , (

) of the next expert (h: = h + 1) and go to section 6.1.2.

6.1.7 End of ranking algorithm. As a result of the ranking, a lot of rank values of weighting coefficients are obtained, arranged in increasing order of their values, which are entered in the table for convenience (Fig. 8):

6.2 Calculation of the dispersion coefficient of concordance (multiple Kendall concordance coefficient) and its evaluation

6.2.1 Calculation of the total values of the ranks of each weight coefficient:

where Z is the set of sums of weights for all experts.

The calculation results z _i are entered in the table (Fig. 8).

:6.2.2 Calculation of arithmetic mean values

:

6.2.3 Calculation of the dispersion coefficient of concordance W (H) [8]:

where: D is the variance of a random variable (ranks);

D _max - theoretically the maximum possible variance of a random variable on a given set.

6.2.4 Checking the condition:

where W _tr. - the required value of the confidence probability of the results of the expert assessment, determined by the leader of the expert group.

If condition (55) is satisfied (expert opinions are agreed), then go to the calculation of the generalized weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure (clause 7), otherwise, to assess the quality of the experts (clause 6.3).

6.3 Expert Quality Assessment

6.3.1. Calculation of the average rank value of each weight coefficient z _i.cp. :

The results are recorded in the table (Fig. 8).

6.3.2 Calculation of the matrix-row deviations of the opinions of each expert from the average opinion of the group regarding the significance of each weight coefficient:

) от средних мнений (по каждому весовому коэффициенту):6.3.3 Formation of a matrix of deviations ΔZ of the opinions of all experts (

) from average opinions (for each weighting factor):

6.3.4. Calculation of the sum of deviations of the opinions of each expert from the average opinion of the group for all weighting factors:

6.3.5. Calculation of the sum of deviations of the opinions of all experts on all weighting factors:

6.3.6 Calculation of average deviations of expert opinions on all weighting factors from the sum of deviations of opinions of all experts:

, (

), например, по алгоритму, приведенному в п. 6.1, и расположение рангов отклонений в порядке возрастания в виде кортежа:6.3.7 Ranking Deviations

, (

), for example, according to the algorithm given in clause 6.1, and the location of the ranks of the deviations in ascending order in the form of a tuple:

corresponding to the new numbers of experts: 1 *, 2 *, N *.

6.3.8 Correction (if possible) of the opinions of the expert whose rejection rank is of the greatest importance. The new confidence value is calculated and compared with the desired value. Upon reaching the necessary confidence level, go to the next item. If it is impossible to correct opinions, the expert is excluded from the group and a transition is made to calculating the confidence level for the new composition of the expert group.

6.3.9 Formation of the final composition of the expert group:

where H ^and - the total number of experts providing the required value of the confidence probability W _Tr .

7 Calculation of the generalized values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure

7.1 Calculation of the values of the elements of the generalized comparison matrices A ^rg groups of elements:

;where: h is the expert number, the values are defined in clause 6.3.9,

;

N is the number of experts;

;r is the tier number, the values are defined in (11),

;

R _max - the maximum number of tier;

,g is the number of the group of elements on the tier r, the values are defined in (12),

,

G ^r - the number of groups of elements on the tier r;

;i, j are respectively the row and column numbers of the comparison matrix), i,

;

I is the number of rows (columns) of the comparison matrix;

- численная оценка h-м экспертом элемента, принадлежащего i-ой строке j-му столбцу матрицы сравнений g-ой группы r-го яруса.

- a numerical estimate by the hth expert of the element belonging to the ith row of the jth column of the comparison matrix of the gth group of the rth tier.

Only those comparison matrices that satisfy the requirements of consistency are included in the calculation.

7.2 For the obtained generalized comparison matrices A ^rg , the normalized eigenvectors W ^rg are calculated by the algorithm given in Section 4:

- обобщенное групповое значение весового коэффициента i-го элемента g-ой группы r-го яруса.Where

- the generalized group value of the weight coefficient of the ith element of the gth group of the rth tier.

7.3 Indexing of generalized group values of the weighting coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure by assigning serial numbers p of elements on a given tier r and numbers q of elements of a higher tier r-1, with which the elements of this tier are associated. This indexing is carried out on the basis of the correspondence of the set I ^{rg of} group numbers of vertices to the set P ^{r of} their serial numbers on the tier r (14) and the set SV ^{g of} group links to the set SV ^{ru of} inter-tier connections (18):

7.4 Formation of generalized tier matrices K ^r weight coefficients:

- весовой коэффициент элемента номер p яруса r, связанного с элементом q яруса r-1:Where:

- the weight coefficient of the element number p of the tier r associated with the element q of the tier r-1:

8 Calculation of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with NSEN spacecraft

8.1 Determination of the set of active e ^and for the considered communication sessions of the elements of the hierarchical structure and the values of their weight coefficients K ^ra :

элементов иерархической структуры, которые для данного сеанса связи неактивны:8.2 Formation of working matrices K ^{r, slave} weights by zeroing the values of weights

elements of the hierarchical structure that are inactive for this communication session:

8.3 Calculation of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with NSEN spacecraft

The priority value pr _{c of the} request for a communication session with the spacecraft is the sum of the weighted values of the weight coefficients of the working elements of the lower tier through the values of the weight coefficients of the working elements of the higher tiers, determined by sequentially multiplying the working matrices of the weighting coefficients of the IP elements from the bottom up. Since there is only one element on the first tier of the hierarchical structure, the matrix of relations of its elements (to itself) has unit values. To comply with the rules of matrix multiplication, this matrix is a unit row vector (e) of dimension equal to the number of basic elements.

Based on the foregoing, the value of priority pr _{c is} calculated by the formula:

where e is a single row vector;

P is the sign of matrix multiplication.

Depending on the embodiment of the invention, the priority value of the request can be calculated taking into account the operating modes of the NACU TS, either additionally taking into account the characteristics (groups of operating modes) of the means of the NACU TS, or additionally taking into account the parameters of the characteristics of the spacecraft NSEN, or additionally taking into account the characteristics of the spacecraft NSEN. Obviously, for each option its own hierarchical structure of the task is developed.

In the case of the current planning for the use of the NACU TS, the priority values of conflicting requests for SS with the spacecraft are calculated with the aim of their subsequent ranking and the provision of funds for the implementation of requests with the highest priority.

In the case of operational planning for the use of TS NAKU, there are two possible ways to use the invention:

1) the calculation of the priority values of all requests for conducting SS with spacecraft with the aim of their subsequent ranking and the provision of funds in order to reduce the priorities of requests;

2) similar to the case of the current planning of the use of the NAKU TS.

9 Provision of temporary resources to the NACU TS for the implementation of requests for communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft with the highest priorities

9.1 Ranking of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft

To rank the priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft, you can use the algorithm described in clause 6.1. As a result, we get an ordered tuple of request priorities:

and the corresponding list of requests with new numbers: 1 *, 2 *, ..., c *, ..., C *.

9.2 Allocation of temporary resources of the NACU TS in accordance with the priorities of the requests

The allocation of temporary resources of the NACU TS is carried out using planning tools by including (approving) the requested communication sessions in the Plan for engaging funds in descending order (clause 9.1) of the priorities of requests for conducting communication sessions, forming and sending executors: to command and measurement points (instrumentation ) - instructions for the use of funds, in the MCC CA - extracts from the CCD. TS NAKU (instrumentation and control center KA) are included in the work at the time of commencement of work specified in the instructions for the use of funds and in extracts from the CCD, taking into account the time for preparation for work.

10 Evaluation of the increase in the validity and speed of authorization / refusal to provide temporary resources of the NACU TS for conflicting requests for SS with the NSEN spacecraft

The increase in validity is estimated according to the graph of the confidence level of the results of the expert assessment on the number of experts in the group (Fig. 9) by comparing the values of confidence probabilities for the number of experts who conducted the preliminary examination and the number of specialists involved in resolving conflict situations in real conditions.

Increased efficiency is achieved by reducing the time it takes to prepare a decision to resolve the Constitutional Court.

In the traditional version, the time to prepare the solution (t ₁ ) can be calculated by the formula:

where t _d is the time of bringing information about the spacecraft to the flight managers of the spacecraft and the LPR;

t _a - time for the analysis of the spacecraft, preparation of proposals (solution options) by the flight managers of the spacecraft to resolve the spacecraft and bringing it to the DM.

When using the proposed method, the time to prepare the solution (t ₂ ) is calculated by the formula:

where t _rz is the time for solving the task of assigning priorities, which is equivalent to preparing a solution for the resolution of the Constitutional Court;

t _dr - the time of automated bringing the prepared version of the resolution of the COP to the DM and the flight managers of the spacecraft.

Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to a specific embodiment, including a variant of the hierarchical structure, this is only a possible application. Therefore, experts in the art can make numerous changes within the scope of the claims of the present invention.

The possibility of implementing the proposed method, consider the following example.

In the current planning (CCD correction) as a result of a request from the MCC “Kanopus-V” to use funds number 201 (Fig. 10), a conflict arose (overlap in time of the SS) between the Sterkh-11 spacecraft (code A- 801) and Kanopus-V spacecraft (code A-806), depicted in FIG. eleven.

It is required to assign priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions with the Sterkh-11 and Canopus-V spacecraft to resolve the conflict situation involving the use of means 201.

Preparatory stages

Stage 1. Formation of the hierarchical structure of the task of prioritizing requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft

The solution of the problem is carried out on the basis of the hierarchical structure developed by the experts of FSUE TsNIImash, presented in FIG. one.

Stage 2. Formation of relationship matrices

Suppose that for the spacecraft flight modes, the expert conducted a pairwise comparison according to the degree of their influence on the priority of the request, the results are presented in the matrix (Fig. 12):

C ₁₈ = 1 (l = 1, m = 8), C ₂₇ = 1 (l = 2, m = 7), C ₃₄ = 1 (l = 3, m = 4).

Stage 3. Formation of matrixes of comparisons

According to the scheme of formation of the comparison matrix (Fig. 6), taking into account the correspondence tables ϕ ₁ (Fig. 4) and ϕ ₂ (Fig. 5) for the indicated coordinates l and m, we obtain a comparison matrix for the flight modes of the spacecraft (Fig. 13).

Stage 4. Calculation of particular values of the weight coefficients of the spacecraft flight modes

1. Using the formula (34), we calculate an additional column:

d ₁ = 1 * 0.143 * 0.2 = 0.0286

d ₂ = 7 * 1 * 3 = 21

d ₃ = 5 * 0.333 * 1 = 1.666

2. By the formula (35), we calculate the elements of the main eigenvector of the comparison matrix:

3. Using formulas (36) and (37), we calculate the sum of the values of the elements of the main eigenvector and the normalized eigenvector (particular values of the weight coefficients):

W ^g = 0.3057 + 2.7589 + 1.1856 = 4.2503

w ₁ = 0.3057 / 4.2503 = 0.0719

w ₂ = 2.7589 / 4.2503 = 0.6491

w ₃ = 1.1856 / 4.2503 = 0.2790

The results of calculating the main values of the main eigenvector and the normalized main eigenvector (particular values of the weighting coefficients) of the characteristics “Spacecraft flight mode” are shown in FIG. fourteen.

Stage 5. Assessment of the consistency of expert judgments

1. Using the formula (39), we calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the comparison matrix:

2. Using the formula (40), we calculate the value of the consistency index:

3. Using the formula (41), we calculate the value of the consistency relation:

An OS value <0.10 is considered acceptable.

In a similar way, the consistency of expert judgments on other sets of elements of the hierarchical structure is evaluated.

Stage 6. Assessment of expert opinion

,

) представлены на фиг. 15.Suppose that the ranking (assignment of rank values) of 7 elements (I = 7) - weighting coefficients in increasing order of their importance for a group of 5 experts (H = 5), results (z _hi ,

,

) are presented in FIG. fifteen.

For each weighting coefficient of expertise, we calculate by the formulas (51-54):

- the total value of the ranks (z _i ):

z ₁ = 4 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 21, z ₂ = 3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 15, z ₃ = 2 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 9, z ₄ = 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 = 28, z ₅ = 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 7, z ₆ = 5 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 5 = 25, z ₇ = 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 = 35,

):- arithmetic mean of ranks (

):

- deviation from the arithmetic mean:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

- squared deviation from the arithmetic mean:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

- the sum of the squares of the deviations from the arithmetic mean:

S = 1 + 25 + 121 + 64 + 169 + 25 + 225 = 630

- dispersion coefficient of concordance:

With W (n) = 0.9, the consistency of expert opinions is considered high [9].

According to the ranking results (Fig. 15), we will assess the quality of experts in the group:

- by the formula (56) we determine the average rank value of each weight coefficient:

z _{1. cp} = 21/5, z _{2. cp} = _15/5 , z _{3. cp} = 9/5, z _{4. cp} = _28/5 , z _{5. cp} = _7/5 , z _{6. cp} = 25/5, z _7.cp = _35/5 .

- using formula (57), we determine the values of deviations of the opinions of each expert from the average opinion of the group regarding the significance of each weight coefficient:

Δz ₁₁ = ⎪z ₁₁ -⎢z 1. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢4-21 / 5⎢ = 1/5; Δz = ⎢z _{12 12} -⎢z _2.sr .⎢⎢ = ⎪3-15 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz ₁₃ = ⎪z ₁₃ -⎢z 3. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢2-9 / 5⎢ = 1/5; Δz ₁₄ = ⎢z ₁₄ -⎢z 4. _Wed. ⎢⎢ = ⎪6-28 / 5⎢ = 2/5;

Δz ₁₅ = ⎪z ₁₅ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢1-7 / 5⎢ = 2/5; Δz ₁₆ = ⎪z ₁₆ -⎢z _6. Wed.⎟⎟ = ⎢5-25 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz ₁₇ = ⎪z ₁₇ -⎢z _7.pp. ⎟⎟ = ⎢7-35 / 5⎢ = 0; Δz ₂₁ = ⎪z ₂₁ -⎢z 1. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢6-21 / 5⎢ = 9/5;

Δz = ⎪z _{22 22} -⎢z _2.sr .⎟⎟ = ⎢3-15 / 5⎢ = 0; Δz ₂₃ = ⎪z ₂₃ -⎢z 3. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢2-9 / 5⎢ = 1/5;

Δz ₂₄ = ⎪z ₂₄ -⎢z 4. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢5-28 / 5⎢ = 3/5; Δz ₂₅ = ⎪z ₂₅ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢1-7 / 5⎢ = 2/5;

Δz ₂₆ = ⎪z ₂₆ -⎢z 6. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢4-25 / 5⎢ = 5/5; Δz ₂₇ = ⎪z ₂₇ -⎢z _7.pp. ⎟⎟ = ⎢7-35 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz ₃₁ = ⎪z ₃₁ -⎢z 1. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢4-21 / 5⎢ = 1/5; Δz ₃₂ = ⎪z ₃₂ -⎢z _2. Wed.⎟⎟ = ⎢2-15 / 5⎢ = 5/5;

Δz ₃₃ = ⎪z ₃₃ -⎢z 3. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢1-9 / 5⎢ = 4/5; Δz ₃₄ = ⎪z ₃₄ -⎢z 4. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢6-28 / 5⎢ = 2/5;

Δz ₃₅ = ⎪z ₃₅ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢3-7 / 5⎢ = 8/5; Δz ₃₆ = ⎪z ₃₆ -⎢z 6. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢5-25 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz ₃₇ = ⎪z ₃₇ -⎢z _7.pp. ⎟⎟ = ⎢7-35 / 5⎢ = 0; Δz ₄₁ = ⎪z ₄₁ -⎢z _1.avg. ⎟⎟ = ⎢4-21 / 5⎢ = 1/5;

Δz = ⎪z _{42 42} -⎢z _2.sr .⎟⎟ = ⎢3-15 / 5⎢ = 0; Δz ₄₃ = ⎪z ₄₃ -⎢z 3. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢2-9 / 5⎢ = 1/5;

Δz ₄₄ = ⎪z ₄₄ -⎢z 4. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢5-28 / 5⎢ = 3/5; Δz ₄₅ = ⎪z ₄₅ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢1-7 / 5⎢ = 2/5;

Δz ₄₆ = ⎪z ₄₆ -⎢z 6. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢6-25 / 5⎢ = 5/5; Δz ₄₇ = ⎪z ₄₇ -⎢z _7.pp. ⎟⎟ = ⎢7-35 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz ₅₁ = ⎪z ₅₁ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢3-21 / 5⎢ = 6/5; Δz ₅₂ = ⎪z ₅₂ -⎢z _2.av.⎟⎟ = ⎢4-15 / 5⎢ = 5/5;

Δz ₅₃ = ⎪z ₅₃ -⎢z 3. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢2-9 / 5⎢ = 1/5; Δz ₅₄ = ⎪z ₅₄ -⎢z 4. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢6-28 / 5⎢ = 2/5;

Δz ₅₅ = ⎪z ₅₅ -⎢z 5. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢1-7 / 5⎢ = 2/5; Δz ₅₆ = ⎪z ₅₆ -⎢z 6. _Wed. ⎟⎟ = ⎢5-25 / 5⎢ = 0;

Δz = ⎪z _{57 57} -⎢z _7.sr .⎟⎟ = ⎢7-35 / 5⎢ = 0.

According to (59), we form a matrix of deviations (ΔZ) of expert opinions for each weight coefficient (Fig. 16).

- using formula (60), we determine the sum of deviations of expert opinions from the average opinion for all weighting factors:

Δk ₁ = Δz ₁₁ + Δ ₁₂ + Δz ₁₃ + Δz ₁₄ + Δz ₁₅ + Δz ₁₆ + Δz ₁₇ = 1/5 + 0 + 1/5 + 2/5 + 2/5 + 0 + 0 = 6/5;

Δk ₂ = Δz ₂₁ + Δz ₂₂ + Δz ₂₃ + Δz ₂₄ + Δz ₂₅ + Δz ₂₆ + Δz ₂₇ = 9/5 + 0 + 1/5 + 3/5 + 2/5 + 1 + 0 = 20/5;

Δk ₃ = Δz ₃₁ + Δz ₃₂ + Δz ₃₃ + Δz ₃₄ + Δz ₃₅ + Δz ₃₆ + Δz ₃₇ = 1/5 + 1 + 4/5 + 2/5 + 8/5 + 0 + 0 = 20/5;

Δk ₄ = Δz ₄₁ + Δz ₄₂ + Δz ₄₃ + Δz ₄₄ + Δz ₄₅ + Δz ₄₆ + Δz ₄₇ = 1/5 + 0 + 1/5 + 3/5 + 2/5 + 1 + 0 = 12/5;

Δk ₅ = Δz ₅₁ + Δz ₅₂ + Δz ₅₃ + Δz ₅₄ + Δz ₅₅ + Δz ₅₆ + Δz ₅₇ = 6/5 + 1 + 1/5 + 2/5 + 2/5 + 0 + 0 = 16/5

- by the formula (61) we determine the sum of the deviations of all experts for all weighting factors:

Δk = Δk ₁ + Δk ₂ + Δk ₃ + Δk ₄ + Δk ₅ = 6/5 + 20/5 + 20/5 + 12/5 + 16/5 = 74/5

- using formula (62), we determine the average deviations of each expert for all weighting factors from the sum of the deviations of the opinions of all experts:

- we rank the numbers of experts in order of increasing average deviations of the opinions of each expert from the group average, which corresponds to a decrease in the quality of expert opinions, we enter the results in a table (Fig. 17).

Stage 7. Calculation of the generalized values of the weighting coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure

Suppose that to calculate the values of the weight coefficients of the spacecraft flight modes, 5 experts were interviewed, the comparison matrices of which (Fig. 18) turned out to be quite consistent (IP <0.10).

1. The calculation of the values of the elements of the generalized matrix of comparisons of the group of spacecraft flight modes according to the formula (66):

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

The generalized comparison matrix is shown in FIG. 19.

2. The calculation of generalized group values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure

2.1. By the formula (34), we calculate an additional column:

d ₁ = 1 * 0.1382 * 0.2071 = 0.0286, d ₂ = 7.2365 * 1 * 3.3227 = 24.0447,

d ₃ = 4.8287 * 0.3010 * 1 = 1.4534

2.2. By the formula (35), we determine the elements of the main eigenvector of the comparison matrix:

,

,

,

,

2.3. Using formulas (36) and (37), we determine the sum of the values of the elements of the main eigenvector and the generalized group values of the weight coefficients:

W ⁴ = 0.3059 + 2.8863 + 1.1327 = 4.3249

w ³⁴ ₁ = 0.3059 / 4.3249 = 0.0707, w ³⁴ ₂ = 2.8863 / 4.3249 = 0.6674, w ³⁴ ₃ = 1.1327 / 4.3249 = 0.2619

3. According to (69), based on the correspondence of group serial numbers and links of the vertices of the hierarchical structure of the problem (Fig. 1), the following ratio of the indices of the calculated coefficients is established:

,

,

,

,

4. In accordance with (71) for the calculated coefficients, the values of the weight coefficients of the generalized tier matrices are established:

,

,

,

,

Similarly calculated and indexed weights of other elements of the hierarchical structure. The results of the formation of the necessary for the example of generalized tiered matrices of the weight coefficients of the elements of the considered hierarchical structure (Fig. 1), carried out by the specialists of FSUE TsNIImash, are presented in Fig. 20-23.

Final stages

Step 8. Calculation of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft

1. The set of active IP elements of conflicting SSs for the Sterkh-11 and Canopus-V spacecraft and their weight coefficients, formed in accordance with (72-75), are presented in FIG. 24-28.

2. The working matrices K ² -K ⁵ , formed in accordance with (76-77) taking into account the active elements of the IP, for conflicting communication sessions between the Sterkh-11 and the Kanopus-V spacecraft, are presented in FIG. 20, 29-34.

3. Using the matrix multiplier, Excel tools according to formula (78) calculated the priority values of requests for SS: pr ₁ = 0.00489 (for the Sterkh-11 spacecraft), pr ₂ = 0.02207 (for the Canopus-V spacecraft ").

Stage 9. Provision of temporary resources of the NACU TS for the implementation of requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft with the highest priorities

1. Ranking of priority values of requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft

When ranking the calculated priority values of requests for conducting SS, we get ordered priority values: pr ^* ₁ = 0.02207, pr * ₂ = 0.00489 and the corresponding list of requests with new numbers in descending order of priorities: 1 * (Kanopus-V spacecraft ), 2 * (Spacecraft "Sterkh-11").

2. The allocation of temporary resources of the NACU TS in accordance with the priorities of the requests

In accordance with the priorities of the requests, means No.201 for the period 12.05.00 - 12.16.00 11.27.2015 is provided for conducting SS with Kanopus-V spacecraft (SS is included in the CCD), a request for conducting SS with Sterkh-11 spacecraft "Rejects (SS is excluded from the CCD) (Fig. 35), an additional order to use funds is sent to the flight control device (Fig. 36), extracts from Kanopus-V and Sterkh-11 are sent to the Mission Control Centers (MCC) CCD, respectively FIG. 37 and FIG. 38. These actions are performed using the planning tools CSACP. In accordance with the order and the extract from the CCD for the control center KA Kanopus-V, means No. 201 (PC APK KIS) and the control center (personal computers AEC MCC KA Kanopus-V) are included in the work on 11/27/2015 at 12.05.00 (Fig. 39) for conducting SS with Kanopus-V spacecraft. The operation of the MCC “Sterkh-11” with means No.201 at this time is canceled (Fig. 36, Fig. 38).

10. Evaluation of increasing the reliability and efficiency of authorization / refusal to provide temporary resources of the NACU TS for conflicting requests for SS with the NSEN spacecraft

In the given example, according to the graph of the dependence of the confidence probability of the results of the expert assessment on the number of experts in the group (Fig. 9) for 7 (the number of experts providing the maximum value of the confidence probability of the expert assessment with a rational increase in the number of experts, which is the lower limit of the range of the number of experts in the group) and 3 specialists (in a real situation - DM and two spacecraft flight managers with conflicting requests) we determine the values of the corresponding confidence probabilities equal to 0.83 and 0.5, on the basis of which we obtain a confidence increase of 1.66 times.

Rational here means an increase in the number of experts ensuring the fulfillment of the condition:

where P is the confidence probability of expert judgment;

n is the number of experts.

Since the required value of the confidence level of the results of the expert assessment is determined by the leader of the expert group, the actual number of experts in the group may differ from the rational one. It should be borne in mind that attracting even a rational number of employees as qualified experts in case of conflict in real spacecraft control conditions is difficult and may not be practical, since there may not be such people at the right time in the right place for various reasons (vacation, illness, rest after shift work, etc.), and if available, additional time will be required to gather experts, assess the situation, agree opinions and develop a solution.

Under current conditions, the time to prepare a solution is determined by the formula (80) with t _d = 5 ... 10 min., T _a = 20 ... 30 min .:

t ₁ = (5 ... 10) + (20 ... 30) = 25 ... 40 min.

According to the proposed method, the time to prepare a solution is determined by the formula (81) with t _rz = 1 ... 2 min., T _dr = 1 ... 2 min .:

t ₂ = (1 ... 2) + (1 ... 2) = (2 ... 4) min.

The gain is from 21 to 38 minutes, which is from 23 to 42% of the time for re-planning the use of funds in the current planning.

List of abbreviations

AIC - hardware-software complex

Earth Remote Sensing - Remote Sensing of the Earth

ZRV - radio visibility zone

And _n With - the index of consistency

IP - hierarchical structure

KA - spacecraft

Instrumentation - command and measurement point

KIS - command and measurement system

KS - conflict situation

Decision maker - decision maker

NAKU - ground control complex

NSEN - scientific and socio-economic purposes

OG - orbital grouping

OS - Consistency Relationship

CCD - fundraising plan

PC - personal electronic computer

RB - booster block

RN - launch vehicle

SS - communication session

TMI - telemetry information

T sub. - preparation time for the communication session

TS - hardware

MCC - Mission Control Center

TCU - technological control cycle

CSACP - Center for Situation Analysis, Coordination and Planning

YaPG - tier-parallel graph

Information sources

1. Simon N., Newell A. Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in operations research. Oper. Res. 1958. V. 6, Jan.

2. Emelyanov E.I. A method for prioritizing channel switching requests in a mobile communication system. Patent RU No. 2175464 C1, Н04В 7/26, 07/31/1999

3. Sammur Mohammed (SA), Terry Stefan E. (US), Wang Jin (US), Olvera-Hernandez Yulizis (SA). Method and device for prioritizing logical channels. Patent RU No. 2476026 C2, H04W 72/12, 01/27/2009

4. Zaitsev OV System and method for adaptive prioritization of anti-virus scan objects. Patent RU No. 2491611 C2, G06F 7/00, G06F 21/56, 11.29.2011

5. Saati T. Decision Making. Hierarchy Analysis Method. - Moscow: Radio and Communications, 1993.

6. Katsman V.E., Kosorukova I.V., Rodin A.Yu., Kharitonov S.V. Basics of valuation. - M .: MFPU "Synergy", 2012.336 s.

7. Voronovsky V.V., Dudko A.N., Pazdnikov V.Yu., Saved E.P., Usikov S.B. The task of increasing the consistency of expert assessments in determining the importance of the characteristics of the studied objects. - Cosmonautics and rocket science, 2017, no. 1 (94), 2017, p. 46-53.

8. Kendall M., Stuart A. Multivariate statistical analysis and time series. - M .: Nauka, 1976 .-- 736 p.

9. Margolin E.M. Methodology for processing expert survey data. Polygraphy, 2006, No. 5, p. 14-16.

Claims (42)

1. The method of assigning priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions (SS) with spacecraft of scientific and socio-economic purpose (SC NSEN, SC), including preparatory stages, in which: form a hierarchical structure of the task of assigning priorities to requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft; form a matrix of relationships; form matrices of comparisons; calculate the partial values of the weights of the elements of the hierarchical structure; evaluate the consistency of the opinions of each expert; evaluate the consistency of expert opinions; calculate the generalized values of the weight coefficients of the elements of the hierarchical structure, and the final stages in which: they calculate the priority values of conflicting requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft according to the weight coefficients of the parameters of the characteristics of the technical means (TS) of the ground-based automated control and measurement complex (NACU) - operating modes (rp) of the means according to the formula:

where pr _c is the priority value of the request number c; e is a single row vector of dimension equal to the number of operating modes (basic elements of the hierarchical structure of the task of assigning priorities to communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft); To ^rr.rab - working (inherent to the request) matrix column of the weight coefficients of the operating modes of the NAKU TS:

Where

- the value of the weight coefficient of the operating mode number p by the effect on the priority of the request, and provide the NACU TS for the implementation of conflicting requests that have the highest priority. 2. The method according to p. 1, in which the priority values of conflicting requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft are calculated with the additional consideration of the weight coefficients of the characteristics of the NACU TS - groups of operating modes (grr) according to the formula:

where K ^rr.rab is the working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of the operating modes of the NAKU TS; To ^gr.rab - the working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of the groups of operating modes of the NAKU TS operating modes;

Where

- the value of the weight coefficient of the operating mode number p by the influence on the group of operating modes number q TS NAKU;

- the value of the weight coefficient of the group of operating modes number p by the influence on the priority of the request. 3. The method according to p. 2, in which the priority values of conflicting requests for conducting communication sessions with the spacecraft of the NSEN are calculated with the additional consideration of the parameters of the characteristics of the spacecraft (PCA) according to the formula:

where K ^gr.rab is the working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of the groups of operating modes of the NAKU TS operating mode; K ^phKA.rab - working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of the parameters of spacecraft characteristics;

Where

- the value of the weight coefficient of the group number r of the operating modes of the NACU vehicle by the influence on the parameter q of the characteristics of the spacecraft;

- the value of the weight coefficient of the parameter number p of the characteristics of the spacecraft according to the influence on the priority of the request. 4. The method according to p. 3, in which the priority values of conflicting requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft are calculated with the additional consideration of the weighting coefficients of the spacecraft characteristics (xKA) according to the formula;

where K ^phKA.rab is the working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of the parameters of the characteristics of the spacecraft; K ^xKA.rab - working (inherent to the request) matrix of weight coefficients of spacecraft characteristics;

Where

- the value of the weight coefficient of the parameter number p of the characteristics of the spacecraft by the effect on the characteristic number q of the spacecraft,

- the value of the weight coefficient of the characteristics of the spacecraft number p by the effect on the priority of the request. 5. The method according to p. 1, in which the priority values of all requests received for the planned period of time for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft are calculated by the weight coefficients of the characteristics parameters of the NACU TS according to the formula given in p. 1, and they provide the NACU TS for the implementation of requests in order to lower their priorities. 6. The method according to p. 5, in which the priority values of all requests received for the planned period of time for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft are calculated with the additional consideration of the weighting coefficients of the characteristics of the NACU TS according to the formula given in clause 2. 7. The method according to claim 6, in which the priority values of all requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft with the additional weight of the coefficients of the parameters of the spacecraft characteristics are calculated according to the formula given in paragraph 3. 8. The method according to p. 7, in which the priority values of all requests for conducting communication sessions with the NSEN spacecraft with the additional weight of the spacecraft characteristics according to the formula given in clause 4 are calculated.

Images