Method for determining using efficiency of carrier rocket

Abstract

The invention provides a method for determining the use performance of a carrier rocket, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining a plurality of index parameter values corresponding to a plurality of evaluation capabilities of the carrier rocket; a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table are set, the first weight scale table is used for indicating the weight scale between every two evaluation capabilities in the multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used for indicating the weight scale between every two indexes in the multiple index parameter values of each evaluation capability; calculating a first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table; for each evaluation capability, calculating a second weight coefficient of each index parameter value under the evaluation capability according to a second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability; and according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, each index parameter value under each evaluation capability and the corresponding second weight coefficient, calculating the use energy efficiency evaluation value of the carrier rocket.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the field of launch vehicle technology, and in particular to a method for determining the performance of a launch vehicle. Background Art

[0002] The current launch vehicle evaluation method during flight tests cannot meet the evaluation requirements of use efficiency. When conducting equipment tests on current launch vehicles, the performance of the equipment itself is generally considered more, and the battlefield situation is rarely considered. During flight experiments and actual flights, data from combat tests are rarely considered, which affects the comprehensiveness of the use efficiency evaluation. In addition, due to the seldom consideration of the battlefield situation, the flight experiment and actual flight environment construction are not realistic enough, and the coordination and guarantee during the experiment are not in place, resulting in the possibility that the collected data is inaccurate, affecting the accuracy of the use efficiency evaluation. Summary of the invention

[0003] In view of this, the purpose of the present application is to at least provide a method for determining the utilization efficiency of a launch vehicle, by obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities, and setting weight scales for the parameters in pairs in the multiple evaluation capabilities to obtain a first weight scale table, and setting weight scales for the indicators in pairs in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability to obtain a second weight scale table, and then calculating the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability through the first weight scale table, and calculating the second weight coefficient corresponding to the multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability through the second weight scale table, thereby calculating the utilization efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle through the first weight coefficient, the second weight coefficient and each indicator parameter value, so that technical personnel can determine whether each launch vehicle has the ability to complete the specified combat mission under certain combat conditions by using the energy efficiency evaluation value, solving the technical problems in the prior art that the content considered in the use of energy efficiency evaluation is not comprehensive enough and the evaluation accuracy is low, and achieving the technical effect of improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation.

[0004] This application mainly includes the following aspects:

[0005] In a first aspect, an embodiment of the present application provides a method for determining the utilization efficiency of a launch vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to a launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, the first weight scale table being used to indicate the weight scale between two evaluation capabilities in the multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table being used to indicate the weight scale between two indicators in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; calculating a first weight coefficient for each evaluation capability based on the first weight scale table; for each evaluation capability, calculating a second weight coefficient for each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability based on the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability; calculating an energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle based on the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its corresponding second weight coefficient.

[0006] Optionally, after calculating the target weight coefficient, the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, and the method also includes: calculating a consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient; determining whether the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient meets the consistency condition by comparing the consistency index correction parameter with a preset correction parameter; when the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient does not meet the consistency condition, resetting the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0007] Optionally, the consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient is calculated in the following manner: based on the target weight coefficient, the maximum characteristic root is calculated; based on the maximum characteristic root and the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, the consistency index is calculated, the preset parameters corresponding to the first weight coefficient are multiple evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameters corresponding to the second weight coefficient are multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability; based on the consistency index and the correction factor corresponding to the number, the consistency index correction parameter is calculated.

[0008] Optionally, the consistency index is calculated by the following formula:

[0009]

[0010] Among them, CI is the consistency index, λ max is the maximum characteristic root, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0011] Optionally, the maximum characteristic root is calculated by the following formula:

[0012]

[0013] Among them, λ max is the maximum characteristic root, i is the i-th preset parameter, AW i Refers to the indicator parameter value of the i-th preset parameter, w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0014] Optionally, the target weight coefficient is calculated by the following formula:

[0015]

[0016] Among them, i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,j is the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter, wherein the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, the preset parameter corresponding to the first weight coefficient is a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameter corresponding to the second weight coefficient is a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability.

[0017] Optionally, the target weight coefficient is calculated by the following formula:

[0018]

[0019] Among them, i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,j is the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter, wherein the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, the preset parameter corresponding to the first weight coefficient is a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameter corresponding to the second weight coefficient is a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability.

[0020] Optionally, the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated in the following manner: based on the first weight coefficient and the second weight coefficient, the comprehensive weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability is calculated; based on the each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its comprehensive weight coefficient, the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated.

[0021] Optionally, the multiple evaluation capabilities include orbital insertion capability, launch capability, response capability, command and control capability, storage capability, and maneuverability capability, wherein the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the orbital insertion capability include: launch orbit, carrying capacity, orbital insertion accuracy, and satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch capability include: postponement method, postponement time, take-off roll, and window accuracy; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the response capability include: launch cycle, propellant filling method, propellant filling time, and front-end unmanned operation; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the command and control capability include: element binding, communication bandwidth, transmission delay, bit error rate, measurement and control method, telemetry, external measurement, and security control; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the storage capability include: storage method and storage time; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the maneuverability capability include: maneuvering speed, turning radius, and climbing angle.

[0022] In a second aspect, an embodiment of the present application further provides a device for determining the utilization efficiency of a launch vehicle, the device for determining the utilization efficiency of a launch vehicle comprising: an acquisition module for acquiring a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to a launch vehicle under a plurality of evaluation capabilities; a setting module for setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, the first weight scale table being used to indicate the weight scale between two evaluation capabilities in a plurality of evaluation capabilities, the second weight scale table being used to indicate the weight scale between two indicators in a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; a first calculation module for calculating a first weight coefficient for each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table; a second calculation module for calculating a second weight coefficient for each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability for each evaluation capability; an evaluation module for calculating an evaluation value of the utilization energy efficiency of the launch vehicle according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, the various indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability and the second weight coefficient corresponding thereto.

[0023] A method for determining the utilization efficiency of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application includes: obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, wherein the first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two evaluation capabilities in the multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two indicators in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; according to the first weight scale table, a first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability is calculated; for each evaluation capability, according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability, a second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability is calculated; according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its corresponding second weight coefficient, an energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated. The present application obtains multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to a launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities, respectively, and sets weight scales for the parameters in pairs in the multiple evaluation capabilities to obtain a first weight scale table, and sets weight scales for the indicators in pairs in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability to obtain a second weight scale table, and then calculates a first weight coefficient for each evaluation capability through the first weight scale table, and calculates a second weight coefficient corresponding to the multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability through the second weight scale table, thereby calculating the use efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle through the first weight coefficient, the second weight coefficient and each indicator parameter value, so that technical personnel can determine whether each launch vehicle has the ability to complete the specified combat mission under certain combat conditions by using the energy efficiency evaluation value, solves the technical problem in the prior art that the content considered in the use of energy efficiency evaluation is not comprehensive enough and the evaluation accuracy is low, and achieves the technical effect of improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation.

[0024] In order to make the above-mentioned objects, features and advantages of the present application more obvious and easy to understand, preferred embodiments are specifically cited below and described in detail with reference to the attached drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0025] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the drawings required for use in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. It should be understood that the following drawings only show certain embodiments of the present application and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope. For ordinary technicians in this field, other related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0026] Figure 1 A flow chart of a method for determining the performance of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application is shown.

[0027] Figure 2A functional module diagram of a device for determining the operating effectiveness of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application is shown.

[0028] Figure 3 A schematic structural diagram of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of the present application is shown. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0029] To make the purpose, technical scheme and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the technical scheme in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that the drawings in the present application only serve the purpose of explanation and description and are not used to limit the scope of protection of the present application. In addition, it should be understood that the schematic drawings are not drawn in real proportion. The flowchart used in this application shows the operations implemented according to some embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that the operations of the flowchart can be implemented out of sequence, and the steps without logical context can be reversed in order or implemented simultaneously. In addition, those skilled in the art, under the guidance of the content of the present application, can add one or more other operations to the flowchart, or remove one or more operations from the flowchart.

[0030] In addition, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments. The components of the embodiments of the present application described and shown in the drawings here can be arranged and designed in various configurations. Therefore, the following detailed description of the embodiments of the present application provided in the drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the application claimed for protection, but merely represents the selected embodiments of the present application. Based on the embodiments of the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without making creative work belong to the scope of protection of the present application.

[0031] The use efficiency is the ability of weapons and equipment to complete the specified combat mission under the specified combat conditions, and it is an important task in the demonstration of weapons and equipment. At present, there is a lack of relevant experience in the analysis of the use efficiency of launch vehicles. As the main component of the space launch force, the effective evaluation of the use efficiency of launch vehicles can make a thorough investigation of each launch vehicle and understand the advantages and disadvantages of each aircraft. It plays an important role in the construction and development of the subsequent equipment system and in improving the support and combat capabilities of space operations. In addition, by evaluating the use efficiency of launch vehicles, it can be reflected whether the launch vehicle has the ability to complete the launch mission, whether it can break through the maximum carrying capacity of conventional medium-sized rockets, whether it can improve the high-density launch capability of rockets, whether it can reduce the unit payload launch cost, whether it can promote the replacement of rockets, and whether it can significantly improve our army's ability to enter space, providing important support for the use and control of space.

[0032] The current launch vehicles cannot meet the needs of performance evaluation under the conditions of flight tests and evaluations. There are still gaps in the following aspects: First, the top-level design is not comprehensive enough. Modern local wars show that what truly reflects the value of weapons and equipment is not the basic tactical and technical indicators of weapons and equipment, but the effectiveness of the use of weapons and equipment. The current launch vehicle equipment test considers more the performance of the equipment itself and less the battlefield situation. The combat test is to test the overall combat performance of the fast-response rocket in a typical battlefield environment and a certain tactical background, such as orbital design, information transmission, orbital accuracy, carrying capacity, defense capability, etc. The combat technical index assessment conducted in the current identification test is not yet in line with the requirements of equipment effectiveness. Second, the test method used in the simulation experiment and the actual flight tactics are not deeply studied. The purpose of weapon and equipment development is to fight, and the combat methods are different for different combat targets. In order to better play the effectiveness of the rocket, it is necessary to evaluate and verify it under different combat modes, which requires that the assessment method of the rocket system under different tactics modes be fully considered in the process of formulating the test outline. The combat test should be aimed at the effectiveness test, with tactics and test methods as the means. The evaluation content should focus on whether the tactical and campaign objectives are achieved, whether the effectiveness of the rocket is effectively exerted in a typical battlefield environment, etc. The combat test designs the test plan for tactical application, but our current research on the test methods and tactics of the rocket system is not deep enough. The focus of the work is still on the research of test methods for the basic performance assessment of weapons and equipment. There is still a large gap in the research of combat test methods, and there are deficiencies in the assessment design of combat tests. Third, the construction of the combat test environment is not realistic enough. For a long time, due to the constraints of force support capabilities and safety requirements, weapon equipment tests are generally carried out in a specific flight area according to the predetermined implementation procedures. The test environment is relatively good, which is a certain gap compared with the battlefield environment faced by weapons and equipment in actual combat. At the same time, due to the influence of the number of sub-samples of the test, weak support capabilities, and considerations for test safety and progress, the test environment is often constructed with low fidelity and weak confrontation. There is a large gap compared with the battlefield environment that may be faced in actual combat, which brings potential risks to the effective use of rockets in actual battlefield environments.

[0033] Based on this, the embodiment of the present application provides a method for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle, by obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities, and setting weight scales for the parameters in pairs in the multiple evaluation capabilities to obtain a first weight scale table, and setting weight scales for the indicators in pairs in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability to obtain a second weight scale table, and then calculating the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability through the first weight scale table, and calculating the second weight coefficient corresponding to the multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability through the second weight scale table, thereby calculating the use efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle through the first weight coefficient, the second weight coefficient and each indicator parameter value, so that the technicians can determine whether each launch vehicle has the ability to complete the specified combat mission under certain combat conditions by using the energy efficiency evaluation value, solve the technical problems in the prior art that the content considered in the use of energy efficiency evaluation is not comprehensive enough and the evaluation accuracy is low, and achieve the technical effect of improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation, which is as follows:

[0034] In constructing the effectiveness evaluation index system of weapons and equipment, generally speaking, the effectiveness index system should include the evaluation of three parts: usage effectiveness, application effectiveness and system effectiveness. Moreover, the description of different aspects of the effectiveness of weapons and equipment reflected through the three parts is closely related. If we analyze it in conjunction with a combat application, the overall structure of the weapon system indicator system is actually a nested structure of the effectiveness view of use, the application effectiveness view and the system effectiveness view, that is, the highest level of the effectiveness indicator system is the use effectiveness view, which is actually a comprehensive evaluation indicator system; the bottom level in the use effectiveness view is the evaluation object, which is a combat system (combat mission) that includes relevant combat units, and the combat unit's capability is affected by the weapon system, which can be represented by the capability view of the combat unit (application effectiveness view). Logically, it is an indicator system embedded in the use effectiveness view; the evaluation object of the application effectiveness view is the weapon system, and the system's support role is affected by the system's capability, and the capability is described by the corresponding capability indicators in the actual indicator system, and these capability indicators are generally represented by the system's combat skill indicators, so the system effectiveness view can be used to describe its role. Logically, it is an indicator system embedded in the application effectiveness view. Such a nested structure of the indicator system can be schematically described by an indicator system hierarchical framework.

[0035] The construction criteria of the indicator system is a process of combining qualitative and quantitative methods, in which qualitative analysis is mainly used for the preliminary establishment of the indicator system, while quantitative methods are used to analyze and improve the indicator system. Qualitative analysis mainly relies on the experience of experts and their knowledge of the evaluation object, and the experience is mainly reflected in the principles of the construction of the evaluation indicator system. These principles can provide basic ideas for the selection of the indicator system, but some principles cannot be accurately implemented in qualitative analysis, so it is necessary to improve the indicator system through quantitative analysis. The principles of the construction of the weapon system effectiveness indicator system include: First, targetedness (purposefulness). The evaluation indicators should be task-oriented, and different programs, different systems, and different application modes should use different indicators. Second, measurability. Measurability means that the selected indicators should be able to be quantitatively expressed. Third, completeness. The selected indicators should be able to cover the scope of the analysis objectives and tasks, reflect all aspects of the evaluated issues, and must not "play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses". Fourth, effectiveness. That is, the entire evaluation indicator system, from element composition to system structure, from the calculation content of each indicator to the calculation method, must be scientific, reasonable, and accurate. Fifth, importance (sensitivity). When the system parameter value changes, the indicators should also change accordingly. Sixth, independence. The selected indicators should be as independent as possible.

[0036] Based on the construction principle of the combat capability and effectiveness index of the launch vehicle, the equipment capability index system mainly includes four levels: mission level, task level, capability level and indicator level. The mission level is used to indicate the combat missions undertaken by the launch vehicle. The task level is used to indicate the combat style undertaken by the launch vehicle to complete its missions, namely the two typical combat styles of conventional launch missions and combat launch missions. The capability level mainly includes four aspects: use effectiveness, combat applicability, system applicability and in-service applicability. Combined with the mission and tasks of the equipment, the above capabilities are decomposed and refined. Use effectiveness is used to indicate the degree of effective role that the equipment can play when completing combat missions under specified conditions. It is a measure of whether the equipment meets specific combat requirements. The assessment indicators can be further decomposed into storage capacity, mobility, response capability, launch capability, orbital capability, command and control capability, etc. Combat applicability is used to indicate the satisfaction level of the combat use of the equipment. The assessment indicators can be further decomposed into reliability, maintainability, testability, supportability, safety, environmental adaptability, transportability, man-machine adaptability, etc. System applicability is used to indicate the satisfaction level of the equipment in the system use. Influencing factors include system integration, system contribution rate, etc. In-service applicability is used to indicate the satisfaction of equipment use and management during service, including troop suitability and service period economy.

[0037] By sorting out the capability index system of a certain type of launch vehicle equipment, it can be divided into four levels from top to bottom: mission level, task level, capability level and index level. The mission level refers to the combat missions undertaken by the launch vehicle. The mission level refers to the combat style undertaken by the launch vehicle to complete its mission, including two typical combat styles: conventional launch missions and combat launch missions. The capability level mainly includes four aspects: use effectiveness, combat applicability, system applicability and in-service applicability. This paper focuses on the research on the evaluation of the use effectiveness of launch vehicles.

[0038] See also Figure 1 , Figure 1 A flow chart of a method for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 1 As shown, the method for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application comprises the following steps:

[0039] S101: Obtain multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities.

[0040] Among them, the multiple evaluation capabilities include orbital insertion capability B1, launch capability B2, response capability B3, command and control capability B4, storage capability B5, and maneuverability capability B6.

[0041] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the orbital capability include: launch orbit C1, carrying capacity C2, orbital accuracy C3, and satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy C4. The orbital capability is used to indicate the ability of the carrier rocket to send a certain mass spacecraft into the predetermined orbit after takeoff. Exemplarily, the index parameter value of the launch orbit can be measured by the number of launch orbits that the carrier rocket can support, the orbital height and value, etc. For example, the more launch orbits the carrier rocket can support, the better the index parameter value of its launch orbit. The carrying capacity can be reflected by the payload weight of the carrier rocket. At the same orbital height, the heavier the payload weight, the better the index parameter value of the carrying capacity. The orbital accuracy can be measured by the orbital deviation of the carrier rocket, such as the semi-major axis deviation, etc. The smaller the orbital deviation, the better the index parameter value of the orbital accuracy. The satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy can be measured by the attitude deviation of the satellite separating from the rocket at a certain relative speed after the carrier rocket reaches the predetermined height and speed and the attitude is adjusted. The smaller the attitude deviation, the better the index parameter value of the satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy.

[0042] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch capability include: postponement mode C5, postponement time C6, takeoff roll C7, and window accuracy C8. The launch capability is used to indicate the basic ability of the carrier rocket to launch at the launch site. Exemplarily, the postponement mode can be whether it is necessary to re-debug after the launch is canceled to prepare for the next launch. The index parameter value of the postponement mode that does not require re-debug is better than the index parameter value of the postponement mode that requires re-debug. In other words, some carrier rockets can unload the propellant after the launch is canceled, without debugging, and can be launched by refilling at the next send. The postponement time can be the maximum waiting time allowed after refilling, and the longer the postponement time, the better the index parameter value of the postponement time. Takeoff roll can refer to the maximum adjustment angle that the carrier rocket can adjust to the preset launch angle after takeoff, and the larger the takeoff roll angle means the better the index parameter value of the takeoff roll. The window accuracy rate can refer to the accuracy of the rocket launch in the specified time window.

[0043] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the response capability include: launch cycle C9, propellant filling method C10, propellant filling time C11, and whether the front end is unattended C12. The response capability is used to indicate the responsiveness of the carrier rocket to complete the task after receiving the launch mission. According to the general requirements of development, the combat technical indicators related to the response capability of a certain type of carrier rocket mainly include automatic propellant filling, whether the front end is unattended, and the launch cycle. Exemplarily, the shorter the launch cycle means the less preparation work for the rocket, and the shorter the launch cycle, the better the index parameter value of the launch cycle. The propellant filling method can be whether to support parallel filling. The first and second stages of the rocket can be filled in parallel. The index parameter value that supports parallel filling is due to the index parameter value that does not support parallel filling. The propellant filling time can be the filling time, and the shorter the propellant filling time, the better the index parameter value of the propellant filling time. Front-end unmanned operation can be understood as whether the front end of the launch vehicle is unmanned. For example, the parameter value of the indicator of whether the front end of an unmanned launch vehicle is unmanned is better than that of a manned launch vehicle, which reflects that the unmanned launch vehicle is safer.

[0044] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the command capability include: parameter setting C13, communication bandwidth C14, transmission delay C15, bit error rate C16, measurement and control mode C17, telemetry C18, external measurement C19, and security control C20. The command capability is used to indicate the test, communication and command capabilities of the launch vehicle during the implementation of the launch mission. Exemplarily, the parameter setting can be understood as various parameters related to the launch of the launch vehicle, such as fuel quantity, orbital altitude, etc. Since each launch vehicle needs to perform parameter setting, the index parameter values ​​of the parameter setting of each launch vehicle can be fixed. Communication bandwidth, transmission delay, and bit error rate can be related parameters for data transmission between the launch vehicle and the ground. The wider the communication bandwidth, the better the index parameter value of the communication bandwidth, the smaller the transmission delay, the better the index parameter value of the transmission delay, and the smaller the bit error rate, the better the index parameter value of the bit error rate. Telemetry can be understood as the sensors and transducers installed on the key parts of the rocket. Generally, the index parameter values ​​of telemetry can be understood as the accuracy and quantity of each installed device. For example, the more data measured by telemetry means the better the index parameter values ​​of telemetry. External measurement can be understood as the equipment supporting the ground measurement and control station to measure the quantity and accuracy of the relevant parameters of the launch vehicle, such as radar and optical telescopes to obtain information such as the orbital position of the rocket. The external measurement of the launch vehicle can represent the measurement methods of the supported ground measurement and control station. For example, one launch vehicle can support three measurement methods of the ground measurement and control station and another launch vehicle can support five measurement methods of the ground measurement and control station. The more measurement methods can be supported, the better the index parameter values ​​of the external measurement. Security control can be understood as the safety control system of the launch vehicle, which is used to monitor the safety status of the rocket during flight. The index parameter values ​​of security control can be understood as the newness and oldness of the model of the safety control system installed on the launch vehicle, the safety control capability, etc.

[0045] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the storage capacity include: storage method C21, storage time C22. Storage capacity is used to indicate the storage capacity of a launch vehicle under certain conditions and in a certain state, reflecting the effective use time of the launch vehicle under certain storage conditions. The launch vehicle should be able to be stored for a long time before being filled with propellant as required, and should be adapted to storage methods such as bulk segmentation and final assembly. The storage time should not be less than 3 years. The longer the storage time, the better the corresponding index parameter value. The storage method can be set according to the actual storage needs to set the quality standard.

[0046] Specifically, the multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the maneuverability include: maneuvering speed C23, turning radius C24, and climbing angle C25. Maneuverability is used to indicate the ability of the carrier rocket to have limited maneuverability at the launch site, such as horizontally transferring the carrier rocket from the launch site storage plant or technical area to the launch area. The maneuvering speed is the maximum speed allowed for the motor vehicle transporting the carrier rocket. The greater the maneuvering speed, the better the index parameter value of the maneuvering speed. The turning radius refers to the minimum radius required for the motor vehicle transporting the carrier rocket during the turning process. The smaller the turning radius, the better the index parameter value of the turning radius. The climbing angle refers to the maximum climbing angle that the motor vehicle transporting the carrier rocket can withstand. The greater the climbing angle, the better the index parameter value of the climbing angle.

[0047] Among them, the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities in this application can be obtained through simulation experiments, or by performing actual flight missions on launch vehicles. The indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to some evaluation capabilities need to be assigned manually. Each indicator parameter value should reflect the quality of the indicator parameter under the evaluation capability corresponding to the indicator parameter value, and the quality of each indicator parameter value evaluated can be adjusted and changed according to actual conditions, and this application does not impose any restrictions on this.

[0048] In the process of determining the use effectiveness evaluation value, simulation is an indispensable technical means. For the evaluation of some single indicators of the use effectiveness of launch vehicles, since the actual flight test cannot meet the large-sample statistical analysis and identification, it is necessary to introduce simulation technology. The simulation of the combat and technical indicators of launch vehicles usually consists of two parts: a real-time simulation subsystem and a visual simulation subsystem. The hardware of the real-time simulation subsystem is mainly a high-performance computer, and the software includes dynamic simulation software and stand-alone simulation software; the hardware of the visual simulation subsystem is mainly a high-performance computer, and the software includes three-dimensional visual software for launch vehicle flight, two-dimensional parameter display software for launch vehicle flight, rocket body modal dynamic display software, and rocket liquid surface sloshing dynamic display software. It is mainly used to assess the use effectiveness of rockets, including launch orbits, carrying capacity, orbital accuracy, takeoff roll and other indicators. It can realistically simulate the rocket flight process, issue commands for rocket engine ignition and shutdown, booster separation, fairing separation, first and second stage separation, satellite separation, engine swing, etc., complete rocket attitude calculation and satellite orbit insertion simulation, simulate the output of single-machine data such as inertial group, gyroscope, GNSS, etc., and display the rocket's flight process from ignition and takeoff to satellite separation in real time through visual scenes.

[0049] In addition, the semi-physical simulation system is usually an indispensable analytical approach for simulating the single indicators of rocket performance. The semi-physical simulation system is divided into two parts: hardware and software. The hardware part mainly includes the rocket machine, stand-alone simulator, comprehensive test computer, rocket scale model, actuator, dynamic simulator and other parts, and the software part mainly includes flight control software, semi-physical dynamic simulation software, stand-alone simulator software and comprehensive test software. It is used to assess indicators including launch orbit, carrying capacity, binding of various elements, adaptability to complex environments (GNSS interference simulation), takeoff roll and other indicators. It provides real rocket machines and stand-alone simulators (strapdown inertial group simulator, rate gyro simulator, load reduction and addition table simulator, GNSS navigation receiver simulator, servo system simulator, etc.) to perform real-time closed-loop system simulation verification of the rocket flight process, and can simulate engine swings in the full rocket model through flight attitude data.

[0050] For example, a certain type of carrier rocket at a certain launch site is subjected to a flight simulation experiment according to the launch orbit, and multiple index parameter values ​​are simulated to realize the evaluation of the launch orbit insertion capability of a certain type of carrier rocket. The specific method is as follows: First, an orbit with an altitude of 200 to 2000 kilometers (km) is set, with an orbital inclination of 38.9° and an SSO orbit (sun synchronous orbit). The simulated theoretical initial data of the carrier rocket is used to optimize and generate the launch trajectory, and the orbit state setting is shown in Table 1.

[0051] Table 1:

[0052]

[0053]

[0054] That is to say, two orbital inclinations are selected, and in the case of the SSO orbit, a launch orbit of the carrier rocket is generated according to the orbital altitude from 200 to 2000 kilometers, and in the case of the orbital inclination of 38.9°, another launch orbit of the carrier rocket is generated according to the orbital altitude from 200 to 2000 kilometers.

[0055] In addition, digital simulation is performed by setting the maximum deviation value of each deviation item, as shown in Table 2. Each deviation item can be divided into three categories, namely method error, tool error and unguided error, a total of 100 items. Then, dynamic calculation is carried out according to digital simulation to calculate the data that should be input into the subsequent simulation, including the rocket body into orbit accuracy, engine swing angle and aerodynamics.

[0056] Table 2:

[0057]

[0058]

[0059]

[0060]

[0061] That is, the maximum deviation values ​​of the deviation items set for dynamic calculation are reflected in Table 2, and dynamic simulation calculation is performed on this basis to at least calculate the data subsequently input into the simulation model.

[0062] Furthermore, simulations were performed on orbital altitudes of 200 to 2000 km, orbital inclinations of 38.9° and SSO orbits, and the dynamic data calculated by the digital simulation was input into the simulation model. The simulation model was used to simulate the second-stage primary start-up state under the above-mentioned orbits to obtain multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities.

[0063] S102: Setting a first weight scaling table and a second weight scaling table.

[0064] The first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between any two evaluation capabilities among multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between any two indicators among multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability.

[0065] In this application, the use efficiency evaluation is carried out by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a systematic and hierarchical analysis method that combines qualitative and quantitative methods. The Analytical Hierarchy Process mainly decomposes the target to be achieved into multiple components according to the nature of the research object, decomposes and combines a complex unstructured problem into several parts or several factors, and the upper level dominates all or some elements of the adjacent lower level, so that a top-down hierarchical structure is formed. The advantages and disadvantages of each indicator in the system are judged by comparing the two related indicators, and the weights between the indicators are calculated by using the judgment results, so as to rank the main influencing factors. It divides the evaluation problem into different hierarchical structures, and by constructing a judgment matrix, the importance of the lowest level relative to the highest level is obtained layer by layer from top to bottom. Taking the three-layer structure consisting of the target layer, the criterion layer (sub-criterion layer), and the indicator layer (scheme layer) as an example, the target layer in this application can be used to calculate the use energy efficiency evaluation value, the criterion layer corresponds to each evaluation capability, and the indicator layer corresponds to each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability.

[0066] Furthermore, the first weight scale table is used to describe the weight scales between the two evaluation capabilities of orbital insertion capability, launch capability, response capability, command capability, storage capability, and maneuverability. The second weight scale table is used to describe the weight scales between the two indicator parameter values ​​in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability, such as the importance of the storage method to the storage time and the importance of the storage time to the storage method in the storage capability. The smaller the data of the weight scale, the lower the importance of one indicator to another indicator, the larger the data of the weight scale, the higher the importance of one indicator to another indicator, and the data of the weight scale of 1 means that one indicator is equally important as another indicator.

[0067] Illustratively, Table 3 reflects the weight scale from 1 to 9 and its meaning.

[0068] Table 3:

[0069] <![CDATA[Weight scale a i,j > meaning 1 Indicator i is as important as indicator j 3 Indicator i and indicator j are slightly important 1 / 3 The importance of indicator j to indicator i 2 Indicator i and indicator j are between equally important and slightly important 5 Indicators i and j are obviously important 4 Indicators i and j are between slightly important and obviously important 7 Indicators i and j are very important 9 Indicators i and j are absolutely important 8 Indicators i and j are between very important and absolutely important

[0070] That is to say, through Figure 3 It can be reflected that when indicator i and indicator j are equally important, the weight scale a is given i,j When the index i and index j are slightly important, the weight scale a is given. i,j is 3. And the weight scale a of the importance of index i to index j is i,j Equal to the weight scale a of the importance of indicator j to indicator i j,i The reciprocal of .

[0071] Exemplarily, Table 4 is the first weight scale table of the present application.

[0072] Table 4:

[0073] B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B1 1 3 4 5 7 9 B2 1 / 3 1 3 4 5 7 B3 1 / 4 1 / 3 1 3 5 6 B4 1 / 5 1 / 4 3 1 3 5 B5 1 / 7 1 / 5 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 2 B6 1 / 9 1 / 7 1 / 6 1 / 5 1 / 2 1

[0074] In other words, Table 4 can reflect the weight scales between the multiple evaluation capabilities, that is, the weight scale of the orbital capability B1 to the launch capability B2 is 3, and the weight scale of the launch capability B2 to the orbital capability B1 is 1 / 3.

[0075] Exemplarily, Table 5 is a second weight scale table corresponding to pairwise indicator parameters in the orbital insertion capability of the present application.

[0076] Table 5:

[0077] C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 1 1 / 3 1 / 2 1 / 2 C2 3 1 3 3 C3 2 1 / 3 1 2 C4 2 1 / 3 1 / 2 1

[0078] In other words, Table 5 can reflect the weight scales between the launch orbit C1, carrying capacity C2, orbit insertion accuracy C3, and satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy C4 of the orbit insertion capability. That is, the weight scale of the launch orbit C1 to the carrying capacity C2 is 1 / 3, and the weight scale of the carrying capacity C2 to the launch orbit C1 is 3.

[0079] Exemplarily, Table 6 is a second weight scale table corresponding to pairwise indicator parameters in the transmission capability of the present application.

[0080] Table 6:

[0081]

[0082]

[0083] That is to say, Table 6 can reflect the weight scales between the two indicator parameters in the postponement method C5, postponement time C6, takeoff roll C7, and window accuracy C8 of the launch capability, that is, the weight scale of the postponement method C5 to the postponement time C6 is 3, and the weight scale of the postponement time C6 to the postponement method C5 is 1 / 3.

[0084] Exemplarily, Table 7 is a second weight scale table corresponding to each pair of indicator parameters in the responsiveness of the present application.

[0085] Table 7:

[0086] C9 C10 C11 C12 C9 1 5 5 7 C10 1 / 5 1 3 3 C11 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 5 C12 1 / 7 1 / 4 1 / 5 1

[0087] That is to say, Table 7 can reflect the weight scales between the two indicator parameters of the launch cycle C9, propellant filling method C10, propellant filling time C11, and whether the front end is unattended C12 of the response capability, that is, the weight scale of the launch cycle C9 to the propellant filling method C10 is 5, and the weight scale of the propellant filling method C10 to the launch cycle C9 is 1 / 5.

[0088] Exemplarily, Table 8 is a second weight scale table corresponding to pairwise indicator parameters in the charge capability of the present application.

[0089] Table 8:

[0090] C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C13 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 C14 1 / 3 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 C15 1 / 3 1 / 2 1 3 4 5 5 5 C16 1 / 3 1 / 2 1 / 3 1 3 5 5 5 C17 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 / 4 1 / 3 1 3 5 3 C18 1 / 5 1 / 4 1 / 5 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 3 1 / 2 C19 1 / 5 1 / 4 1 / 5 1 / 5 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 1 / 3 C20 1 / 5 1 / 4 1 / 5 1 / 5 1 / 3 2 3 1

[0091] In other words, Table 8 can reflect the weight scales between any two parameters in the command and control capability parameters C13, communication bandwidth C14, transmission delay C15, bit error rate C16, measurement and control method C17, telemetry C18, external measurement C19, and security control C20, that is, the weight scale of the parameter setting C13 to the communication bandwidth C14 is 3, and the weight scale of the communication bandwidth C14 to the parameter setting C13 is 1 / 3.

[0092] Exemplarily, Table 9 is a second weight scale table corresponding to each pair of index parameters in the storage capacity of the present application.

[0093] Table 9:

[0094] C21 C22 C21 1 3 C22 1 / 3 1

[0095] That is to say, Table 9 can reflect the weight scale between the two index parameters in the storage method C21 and the storage time C22 of the storage capacity, that is, the weight scale of the storage method C21 to the storage time C22 is 3, and the weight scale of the storage time C22 to the storage method C21 is 1 / 3.

[0096] Exemplarily, Table 10 is a second weight scale table corresponding to each pair of indicator parameters in the mobility of the present application.

[0097] Table 10:

[0098] C23 C24 C25 C23 1 3 3 C24 1 / 3 1 5 C25 1 / 3 1 / 5 1

[0099] That is to say, Table 10 can reflect the weight scales between the maneuvering speed C23, turning radius C24, and climbing angle C25 of the maneuverability, that is, the weight scale of the maneuvering speed C23 to the turning radius C24 is 3, and the weight scale of the turning radius C24 to the maneuvering speed C23 is 1 / 3.

[0100] S103: Calculate a first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table.

[0101] Specifically, the target weight coefficient is calculated by the following formula:

[0102]

[0103] In formula (1), i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,j is the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter.

[0104] Alternatively, the target weight coefficient can be calculated using the following formula:

[0105]

[0106] In formula (2), i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,jis the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter.

[0107] That is to say, when the target weight coefficient is the first weight coefficient, the preset parameters refer to each evaluation capability, α i,j The weight scale used to describe the i-th evaluation capability and the j-th evaluation capability, w i is the first weight coefficient of the i-th evaluation capability, and n is the number of multiple evaluation capabilities.

[0108] Exemplarily, according to the weight scales between the evaluation capabilities in Table 4, formula (1) is the square root method, and formula (2) is the sum-product method. The square root method or the sum-product method can be selected to calculate the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability.

[0109] Exemplarily, the present application calculates the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability by the sum-product method. Table 11 shows the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability.

[0110] Table 11:

[0111] Evaluation ability The first weight coefficient of evaluation ability Orbital Capability B1 0.4926 Launch capability B2 0.1626 Responsiveness B3 0.1232 Accusation ability B4 0.0985 Storage capacity B5 0.0689 Mobility B6 0.0542

[0112] Furthermore, after calculating the target weight coefficient, the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, and the method also includes: calculating a consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient; determining whether the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient meets the consistency condition by comparing the consistency index correction parameter with the preset correction parameter; when the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient does not meet the consistency condition, resetting the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0113] The consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient is calculated in the following manner: based on the target weight coefficient, the maximum characteristic root is calculated; based on the maximum characteristic root and the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, the consistency index is calculated, the preset parameters corresponding to the first weight coefficient are multiple evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameters corresponding to the second weight coefficient are multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability; based on the consistency index and the correction factor corresponding to the number, the consistency index correction parameter is calculated.

[0114] The consistency index is calculated by the following formula:

[0115]

[0116] In formula (3), CI is the consistency index, λ max is the maximum characteristic root, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0117] The maximum characteristic root of the evaluation ability is calculated by the following formula:

[0118]

[0119] In formula (4), λ max is the maximum characteristic root, i is the i-th preset parameter, AW i Refers to the indicator parameter value of the i-th preset parameter, w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

[0120] Furthermore, if the target weight coefficient is the first weight coefficient, then according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, the maximum characteristic root corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities is calculated by formula (4), and then the number of evaluation capabilities and the maximum characteristic root are substituted into formula (3) to calculate the consistency index corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities; then the consistency index is compared with the correction factor corresponding to the number of multiple evaluation capabilities, and the ratio is used as the consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities; the consistency index correction parameters corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities are compared with the preset correction parameters. If the consistency index correction parameters corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities are less than the preset correction parameter 0.1, it is considered that the first weight scale table meets the consistency condition and there is no need to reset the weight scales of the first weight scale table; if the consistency index correction parameters corresponding to the multiple evaluation capabilities are greater than or equal to the preset correction parameter 0.1, it is considered that the first weight scale table does not meet the consistency condition and it is necessary to reset the weight scales of the first weight scale table until the first weight scale table meets the consistency condition.

[0121] Exemplarily, when the number of preset parameters is 1, the corresponding correction factor is 0, when the number of preset parameters is 2, the corresponding correction factor is 0, when the number of preset parameters is 3, the corresponding correction factor is 0.58, when the number of preset parameters is 4, the corresponding correction factor is 0.90, when the number of preset parameters is 5, the corresponding correction factor is 1.12, when the number of preset parameters is 6, the corresponding correction factor is 1.24, when the number of preset parameters is 7, the corresponding correction factor is 1.32, when the number of preset parameters is 8, the corresponding correction factor is 1.41, and when the number of preset parameters is 9, the corresponding correction factor is 1.45.

[0122] S104: For each evaluation capability, according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability, calculate the second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability.

[0123] Furthermore, according to the second weight scale table corresponding to each evaluation capability in Tables 5 to 10, the square root method or the sum-product method can be selected to calculate the second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability. That is, when the target weight coefficient is the second weight coefficient, the preset parameter refers to each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability, α i,j It is used to describe the weight scale of the i-th indicator parameter value and the j-th indicator parameter value under an evaluation capability, w i is the second weight coefficient of the i-th indicator parameter value under an evaluation capability, and n is the number of multiple indicator parameter values ​​under an evaluation capability.

[0124] Exemplarily, the present application calculates the second weight coefficients of multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability by using the sum-product method. Table 12 reflects the second weight coefficients of multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability.

[0125] Table 12:

[0126]

[0127]

[0128] S105: Calculate the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its corresponding second weight coefficient.

[0129] Specifically, the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated in the following manner: based on the first weight coefficient and the second weight coefficient, the comprehensive weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability is calculated; based on the each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its comprehensive weight coefficient, the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated.

[0130] That is to say, for each indicator parameter value, the product of the first weight coefficient of the evaluation capability to which the indicator parameter value belongs and the first weight coefficient of the indicator parameter value is used as the comprehensive weight coefficient of the indicator parameter value; the products of each indicator parameter value and its comprehensive weight coefficient are summed, and the sum is used as the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle.

[0131] Exemplarily, Table 13 is used to indicate the comprehensive weight coefficients of various indicator parameter values.

[0132] Table 13:

[0133]

[0134]

[0135] Exemplarily, the first weight coefficient of the orbital insertion capability B1, 0.4926, is multiplied by the second weight coefficient of the launch orbit C1, 0.125, to calculate the comprehensive weight coefficient of the launch orbit, 0.0616.

[0136] Furthermore, this application analyzes the combat capability requirements of a certain type of launch vehicle, proposes the construction principles of its usage effectiveness index system, and establishes 26 indicator parameter values ​​under six evaluation capabilities for this type of rocket to calculate the usage effectiveness evaluation value, so as to reflect the energy efficiency of the launch vehicle through the usage effectiveness evaluation value, so as to facilitate technical personnel to improve the capabilities of the launch vehicle.

[0137] Based on the same application concept, the embodiments of the present application also provide a device for determining the launch vehicle utilization efficiency corresponding to the method for determining the launch vehicle utilization efficiency provided in the above embodiments. Since the principle of solving the problem by the device in the embodiments of the present application is similar to the method for determining the launch vehicle utilization efficiency in the above embodiments of the present application, the implementation of the device can refer to the implementation of the method, and the repeated parts will not be repeated.

[0138] For example, Figure 2 This is a functional module diagram of a device for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 2 As shown, the device 10 for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle includes: an acquisition module 101, which acquires multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; a setting module 102, which sets a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, wherein the first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two evaluation capabilities in multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two indicators in multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; a first calculation module 103, which calculates a first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table; a second calculation module 104, which calculates a second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability for each evaluation capability; an evaluation module 105, which calculates the use energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability and its corresponding second weight coefficient.

[0139] Based on the same application concept, see Figure 3As shown, it is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of the present application, the electronic device 20 includes: a processor 201, a memory 202 and a bus 203, the memory 202 stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor 201, when the electronic device 20 is running, the processor 201 and the memory 202 communicate through the bus 203, and the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor 201 when running, as in the steps of the method for determining the use effectiveness of a launch vehicle as described in any of the above embodiments.

[0140] Specifically, when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor 201, the following processing can be performed: obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, the first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two evaluation capabilities in the multiple evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scale between two indicators in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; according to the first weight scale table, calculating the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability; for each evaluation capability, according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability, calculating the second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability; according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, the various indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability and the corresponding second weight coefficient, calculating the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle.

[0141] Based on the same application concept, an embodiment of the present application also provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method for determining the launch vehicle's performance provided in the above embodiment are executed.

[0142] Specifically, the storage medium can be a general storage medium, such as a mobile disk, a hard disk, etc. When the computer program on the storage medium is run, the above-mentioned method for determining the use efficiency of the launch vehicle can be executed, by obtaining multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities, and setting weight scales for the parameters in the multiple evaluation capabilities in pairs to obtain a first weight scale table, and setting weight scales for the indicators in the multiple indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability in pairs to obtain a second weight scale table, and then calculating the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability through the first weight scale table, and calculating the second weight coefficient corresponding to the multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability through the second weight scale table, thereby calculating the use efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle through the first weight coefficient, the second weight coefficient and each indicator parameter value, so that technical personnel can determine whether each launch vehicle has the ability to complete the specified combat mission under certain combat conditions by using the energy efficiency evaluation value, solving the technical problem that the content considered in the energy efficiency evaluation in the prior art is not comprehensive enough and the evaluation accuracy is low, and achieving the technical effect of improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the evaluation.

[0143] Those skilled in the art can clearly understand that, for the convenience and simplicity of description, the specific working process of the system and device described above can refer to the corresponding process in the aforementioned method embodiment, and will not be repeated here. In the several embodiments provided in the present application, it should be understood that the disclosed system, device and method can be implemented in other ways. The device embodiments described above are merely schematic. For example, the division of the units is only a logical function division. There may be other division methods in actual implementation. For example, multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed can be through some communication interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection of devices or units, which can be electrical, mechanical or other forms.

[0144] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separated, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, that is, they may be located in one place or distributed on multiple network units. Some or all of the units may be selected according to actual needs to achieve the purpose of the solution of this embodiment.

[0145] In addition, each functional unit in each embodiment of the present application may be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit may exist physically separately, or two or more units may be integrated into one unit.

[0146] If the function is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium that is executable by a processor. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present application, or the part that contributes to the prior art or the part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product, and the computer software product is stored in a storage medium, including a number of instructions to enable a computer device (which can be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to perform all or part of the steps of the method described in each embodiment of the present application. The aforementioned storage medium includes: U disk, mobile hard disk, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), disk or optical disk, etc., various media that can store program codes.

[0147] The above are only specific implementations of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any technician familiar with the technical field can easily think of changes or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed in the present application, which should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application should be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle, characterized in that: The method comprises: Obtain multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; Setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, wherein the first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between two evaluation capabilities in a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between two indicators in a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; Calculating a first weight coefficient for each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table; For each evaluation capability, according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability, calculate the second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability; The energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated based on the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, the various indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability and the corresponding second weight coefficient.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that After calculating the target weight coefficient, the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, the method further includes: Calculate the consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient; Determining whether the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient meets the consistency condition by comparing the consistency index correction parameter with the preset correction parameter; When the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient does not meet the consistency condition, the weight scale table corresponding to the target weight coefficient is reset.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that The consistency index correction parameter corresponding to the target weight coefficient is calculated in the following way: According to the target weight coefficient, the maximum characteristic root is calculated; Calculate the consistency index according to the number of preset parameters corresponding to the maximum characteristic root and the target weight coefficient, the preset parameters corresponding to the first weight coefficient are multiple evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameters corresponding to the second weight coefficient are multiple indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability; The consistency index correction parameter is calculated according to the consistency index and the correction factor corresponding to the quantity.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that The consistency index is calculated by the following formula: Among them, CI is the consistency index, λ max is the maximum characteristic root, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

5. The method according to claim 3 or 4, characterized in that: The maximum characteristic root is calculated by the following formula: Among them, λ max is the maximum characteristic root, i is the i-th preset parameter, AW i Refers to the indicator parameter value of the i-th preset parameter, w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, and n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The target weight coefficient is calculated by the following formula: Among them, i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,j is the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter, Among them, the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, the preset parameter corresponding to the first weight coefficient is a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameter corresponding to the second weight coefficient is a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The target weight coefficient is calculated by the following formula: Among them, i is the i-th preset parameter, j is the j-th preset parameter, and w i is the target weight coefficient of the i-th preset parameter, n is the number of preset parameters corresponding to the target weight coefficient, α i,j is the weight scale of the i-th preset parameter and the j-th preset parameter, Among them, the target weight coefficient includes the first weight coefficient or the second weight coefficient, the preset parameter corresponding to the first weight coefficient is a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the preset parameter corresponding to the second weight coefficient is a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated by the following method: Calculate the comprehensive weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under each evaluation capability according to the first weight coefficient and the second weight coefficient; The energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle is calculated based on the parameter values ​​of each indicator under each evaluation capability and its comprehensive weight coefficient.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multiple evaluation capabilities include orbital insertion capability, launch capability, response capability, command and control capability, storage capability, and maneuverability. Among them, the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the orbital insertion capability include: launch orbit, carrying capacity, orbital insertion accuracy, and satellite-rocket separation attitude accuracy; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch capability include: postponement method, postponement time, take-off roll, and window accuracy; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the response capability include: launch cycle, propellant filling method, propellant filling time, and front-end unmanned operation; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the command and control capability include: binding of various elements, communication bandwidth, transmission delay, bit error rate, measurement and control method, telemetry, external measurement, and security control; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the storage capability include: storage method and storage time; the multiple indicator parameter values ​​corresponding to the maneuverability capability include: maneuvering speed, turning radius, and climbing angle.

10. A device for determining the use efficiency of a launch vehicle, characterized in that: The device for determining the use efficiency of the launch vehicle comprises: An acquisition module is used to obtain multiple index parameter values ​​corresponding to the launch vehicle under multiple evaluation capabilities; A setting module, setting a first weight scale table and a second weight scale table, wherein the first weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between two evaluation capabilities in a plurality of evaluation capabilities, and the second weight scale table is used to indicate the weight scales between two indicators in a plurality of indicator parameter values ​​of each evaluation capability; A first calculation module calculates a first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability according to the first weight scale table; A second calculation module, for each evaluation capability, calculates a second weight coefficient of each indicator parameter value under the evaluation capability according to the second weight scale table corresponding to the evaluation capability; The evaluation module calculates the energy efficiency evaluation value of the launch vehicle according to the first weight coefficient of each evaluation capability, the various indicator parameter values ​​under each evaluation capability and the corresponding second weight coefficient.

Images