Interview Questions for Missile Launch and Guidance

Inertial and GPS guidance systems are both used to navigate missiles, but they differ significantly in their approach. Inertial guidance relies on measuring the missile’s acceleration to calculate its position and velocity. Imagine a sophisticated accelerometer inside the missile, constantly measuring how fast it’s changing speed and direction. This data is then integrated over time to determine its location relative to its launch point. This is done without external references.

GPS guidance, on the other hand, uses signals from a network of satellites to pinpoint the missile’s location directly. Think of it like having a global positioning system telling the missile exactly where it is at any given moment. This allows for far greater precision and accuracy compared to inertial guidance, which can drift over time due to accumulated errors in acceleration measurements.

A key difference lies in their independence. Inertial systems are self-contained and don’t require external signals, making them immune to jamming. GPS, while highly accurate, is vulnerable to signal interference or denial. Often, advanced missile guidance systems combine both technologies; GPS provides initial guidance and high precision, while inertial guidance takes over during periods of GPS signal disruption.

A typical missile launch sequence is a complex, precisely timed process. It begins with pre-launch checks, ensuring all systems are operational and ready for launch. This involves verifying fuel levels, checking guidance systems, and confirming target data. Next, the missile is armed, setting its warhead and guidance systems to active status. The countdown proceeds, with final checks performed just before ignition.

Ignition initiates the propulsion system, generating thrust to propel the missile upwards and away from the launch site. Once a certain altitude and speed are achieved, the missile transitions to its guided flight phase, where the guidance system takes control and steers it towards its target. This phase uses a combination of navigation techniques depending on the missile’s design. Finally, after impact or detonation, the launch sequence concludes.

The entire sequence is heavily reliant on robust safety mechanisms to prevent accidental launch or malfunctions during flight. These include multiple redundancy systems and self-destruct capabilities.

A missile guidance system is comprised of several crucial components working in harmony. The sensor is the system’s ‘eyes,’ acquiring and tracking the target. This could be a radar, infrared sensor, or other similar technologies, depending on the missile type and target characteristics. The acquired information is then fed to the navigation system, responsible for determining the missile’s position and velocity. This often involves inertial measurement units (IMUs) and, potentially, a GPS receiver.

The guidance computer processes the sensor data and navigation information to calculate the necessary corrections for the flight path. It continuously updates the trajectory based on the target’s movement and the missile’s actual position. Finally, the actuators, usually small thrusters or control surfaces, physically manipulate the missile’s orientation and trajectory in response to the computer’s commands. A power supply provides electricity needed for all components.

The interplay of these components is critical; a malfunction in any single part can significantly affect the overall performance and effectiveness of the missile.

Ensuring the reliability of a missile launch system involves a multi-layered approach encompassing rigorous testing, redundant systems, and robust quality control. Each component undergoes extensive testing under various conditions, simulating extreme temperatures, vibrations, and other stresses to verify its performance. This includes both individual component testing and integrated system tests. Redundancy is built into the system; critical components are duplicated or triplicated, ensuring system functionality even in case of a single component failure. Regular maintenance and inspections are carried out to prevent degradation and identify potential issues before launch.

Furthermore, rigorous quality control procedures are implemented throughout the entire lifecycle, from component manufacturing to assembly and final testing. Comprehensive documentation and traceability ensure that all components meet the highest quality standards. Simulation and modeling are crucial to predict potential failures and refine the system’s design for optimal reliability. The goal is to minimize the probability of any malfunctions that could compromise mission success or safety.

Missiles can follow various trajectories depending on their mission parameters and target characteristics. A ballistic trajectory involves a free-flight phase after initial propulsion, where the missile follows a parabolic arc determined by gravity. Think of throwing a rock; it follows a predictable arc before landing. This is typical for long-range missiles. A lofted trajectory is a variation where the missile is launched at a high angle to achieve a longer range.

Direct trajectories involve a relatively straight path towards the target, commonly used for shorter-range missiles. Manoeuvring trajectories are more complex, involving changes in course during flight to evade defenses or achieve a precise impact. These trajectories require more sophisticated guidance systems capable of making real-time adjustments. The choice of trajectory is carefully considered based on factors such as target distance, terrain, and enemy defenses.

Terminal guidance is the final phase of a missile’s flight, where the system makes precision adjustments to ensure an accurate impact on the target. It typically utilizes sensors to acquire and track the target during the final moments of approach. These sensors could include imaging infrared seekers, radar homing, or even laser guidance systems. The guidance system uses the sensor data to refine the missile’s trajectory, compensating for any errors accumulated during the earlier flight phases and ensuring a successful hit.

Terminal guidance is crucial for increasing the accuracy of weapon delivery and reducing collateral damage. Imagine a scenario where a missile is targeting a specific building; terminal guidance ensures that the impact is precisely within the designated zone rather than causing unintended damage to surrounding areas. The sophistication and effectiveness of terminal guidance technologies are constantly improving, resulting in more precise and lethal weapons systems.

My experience encompasses various missile propulsion systems, including solid-propellant, liquid-propellant, and hybrid systems. Solid-propellant motors are simple and reliable, offering high thrust-to-weight ratios, but they lack the ability to throttle or stop the thrust once ignited. Think of a firework rocket; once lit, it continues until the propellant is exhausted. This simplicity makes them ideal for relatively short-range missiles.

Liquid-propellant motors offer greater control over thrust, allowing for maneuvering during flight. This is because the propellant flow can be adjusted, enabling more complex trajectories. However, they are more complex, requiring specialized storage and handling procedures for the propellants. Hybrid systems combine aspects of both solid and liquid propellants; they offer improved control compared to solid-propellant while being less complex than purely liquid systems. The selection of the propulsion system depends heavily on the mission requirements, the desired range, and the level of control needed during the flight.

Handling unexpected events during a missile launch hinges on robust contingency planning and real-time decision-making. Our systems incorporate multiple layers of redundancy and fail-safes. For instance, if a guidance system malfunction is detected, we have backup systems that immediately take over. These systems might include inertial navigation systems, GPS augmentation, or even a terrain-following system, depending on the missile type and mission. We also have sophisticated monitoring systems that constantly analyze telemetry data from the missile, flagging anomalies and triggering automatic responses or alerting human operators.

In the event of a critical failure, we have pre-defined procedures for aborting the mission. This could involve a self-destruct sequence (if the missile poses a threat), a controlled descent, or a command to cease propulsion. The specific protocol is determined by the nature of the failure, the stage of the flight, and safety considerations. A key aspect is prioritizing human safety and minimizing collateral damage. Regular training exercises and simulations prepare the launch team to react effectively to a wide range of scenarios.

For example, during a recent test, a sensor malfunction was detected shortly after launch. The onboard diagnostics identified the problem, automatically switched to the backup sensor, and corrected the missile’s trajectory. This seamless transition prevented mission failure thanks to comprehensive contingency planning and automated failover mechanisms.

Missile launch safety protocols are incredibly stringent and layered, prioritizing the protection of personnel, property, and the environment. These protocols begin long before launch and extend throughout the entire mission. Before a launch, rigorous checks and inspections are conducted on all systems. This includes verification of the missile’s readiness, the launch site’s safety, and the weather conditions. Launch authorization is granted only after all systems are confirmed to be fully functional and safe. Emergency shutdown procedures are also practiced regularly.

During the launch sequence, multiple safety officers monitor all aspects of the operation. These officers are empowered to halt the process at any point if safety concerns arise. Strict communication protocols are in place to ensure coordinated actions across different teams. The launch site itself is carefully designed to minimize risks, incorporating safety features like blast-resistant structures, emergency shelters, and dedicated escape routes. Post-launch procedures include tracking the missile’s trajectory, assessing any potential environmental impacts, and conducting a thorough post-flight analysis to identify any areas for improvement.

For instance, weather restrictions, like high winds or lightning, can cause a launch to be scrubbed, demonstrating the precedence placed on safety.

Simulation plays an absolutely critical role in missile system development, offering a cost-effective and safe way to test and refine the system’s performance. We use high-fidelity simulations to model the entire lifecycle of the missile – from launch to target impact. This includes simulating the flight dynamics, guidance systems, propulsion systems, and warhead detonation. Simulations allow us to investigate the effects of various scenarios and parameters without risking damage to expensive hardware or compromising safety.

For example, we can test the missile’s response to unexpected events like sudden changes in wind speed or unexpected terrain features. This testing informs design decisions and improves the system’s robustness. We also use simulations to validate new algorithms and designs, optimizing performance and minimizing risks. Furthermore, simulations support training for launch crews and personnel, enabling them to gain experience in handling various scenarios and troubleshooting issues in a safe, controlled environment. We use sophisticated software packages that provide detailed modeling and visualization capabilities, helping engineers understand the system’s behavior and make necessary adjustments.

A specific example would be simulating a missile’s response to a countermeasure, allowing us to refine its ability to maintain its trajectory and reach the target.

Integrating different subsystems in a missile system is a significant challenge, requiring careful planning, rigorous testing, and effective communication. Each subsystem – guidance, propulsion, warhead, control systems, etc. – has its own unique design and operational characteristics. The challenge lies in ensuring that these diverse components work together seamlessly, reliably, and effectively. This involves addressing compatibility issues, data exchange protocols, and ensuring the overall system’s stability and performance.

We use a modular design approach, breaking down the system into smaller, manageable units. Each unit undergoes rigorous testing before integration to identify and resolve any potential problems. We utilize standardized interfaces and communication protocols to facilitate data exchange between different subsystems. This helps in reducing complexity and making the integration process smoother. Furthermore, extensive system-level testing is conducted to ensure the proper function of the integrated system. This involves simulated scenarios to test its response to various events and environmental conditions.

For example, during integration, we carefully test the communication link between the guidance system and the control surfaces. Any latency or signal degradation would negatively impact accuracy, so thorough testing is paramount. We also use model-based systems engineering (MBSE) tools which help in managing the complexity and ensuring consistent interfaces and proper functionality between all components.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a missile launch system are multifaceted, encompassing accuracy, reliability, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Accuracy is measured by the deviation between the intended target and the actual impact point – a smaller deviation signifies higher accuracy. Reliability refers to the system’s ability to perform its intended function without failure. This can be expressed as the probability of a successful launch and impact. Safety is paramount, evaluated through the absence of accidents or unintended consequences during launch, flight, and target engagement. This is often assessed by performing rigorous safety analysis and testing.

Cost-effectiveness considers development, manufacturing, maintenance, and operational costs. A cost-effective system minimizes expenses while maintaining a high standard of performance. Other KPIs include range, speed, payload capacity, and survivability against countermeasures. The relative importance of each KPI depends on the specific mission requirements. For example, a short-range, defensive missile might prioritize speed and reliability above long range, while an intercontinental ballistic missile will prioritize range and accuracy.

We use sophisticated data analysis techniques to track these KPIs throughout the lifecycle of the missile system, constantly evaluating performance and identifying areas for improvement. These data-driven insights help us optimize system design and deployment strategies.

Failure analysis and root cause investigation are crucial for improving the reliability and safety of missile systems. When a failure occurs, a comprehensive investigation is launched to pinpoint the underlying cause. This involves gathering data from various sources, such as telemetry data, sensor readings, and post-flight inspections. The data is analyzed to identify potential contributing factors. We employ systematic methods such as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Fishbone Diagrams to identify potential failure modes and their causes. These methods help us systematically trace the sequence of events leading to the failure, isolating the root cause and identifying preventative measures.

A thorough investigation includes reviewing design specifications, manufacturing processes, testing procedures, and operational procedures. We also leverage expert opinions and simulations to verify findings and develop effective solutions. The goal is not merely to fix the immediate problem, but to prevent similar failures in the future. This involves implementing design modifications, refining manufacturing processes, revising testing protocols, and providing additional training to personnel. Detailed reports are generated, documenting the findings, the root cause, and the corrective actions taken.

For example, in one instance, a failure analysis revealed a previously unknown weakness in a specific component’s material under certain temperature conditions. This led to a redesign of the component and more rigorous material testing protocols.

I am very familiar with various types of missile warheads, each designed for specific purposes and possessing unique characteristics. These include:

• High-explosive (HE) warheads: These warheads utilize a large amount of explosive material to create a powerful blast, typically used against softer targets such as buildings or ground troops.
• High-explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) warheads: These warheads incorporate a casing designed to shatter into numerous fragments upon detonation, maximizing the area of effect.
• Shaped-charge warheads: These warheads utilize a shaped explosive charge to focus the explosive energy into a high-velocity jet, effective against armored targets.
• Nuclear warheads: These warheads utilize nuclear fission or fusion to generate immense destructive power, creating significant blast, heat, and radiation effects.
• Chemical warheads: These warheads disperse chemical agents to incapacitate personnel or damage equipment. Different chemical agents have various effects, ranging from irritants to lethal nerve agents.
• Cluster warheads: These warheads dispense numerous smaller submunitions or bomblets over a wide area, increasing the damage radius.

The selection of a specific warhead type depends heavily on the mission objectives, the type of target, and the desired effects. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each warhead type is critical for designing effective missile systems.

Kalman filtering is a powerful recursive algorithm used to estimate the state of a dynamic system from a series of noisy measurements. In missile guidance, this ‘state’ encompasses crucial information like position, velocity, and acceleration of both the missile and the target. The filter cleverly combines predictions based on the missile’s dynamics model with incoming sensor data (often radar or other tracking systems), minimizing the effects of noise and uncertainties.

Imagine trying to track a moving car using only your eyes. You’ll make estimations of its speed and position based on its current movement, but these estimations will be inaccurate due to limitations of your vision. Kalman filtering is like having a super-powered brain that constantly updates its understanding of the car’s location by combining your visual estimations with measurements from a highly accurate distance sensor, leading to a much more precise understanding of the car’s trajectory.

The algorithm works in two steps: prediction and update. The prediction step uses the system’s model to forecast the state at the next time step. The update step then incorporates new sensor measurements to refine this prediction. This iterative process continuously improves the accuracy of the state estimate over time. In missile guidance, this means a constantly improving prediction of target position, allowing for more precise course corrections and successful target interception.

Testing a missile launch system presents formidable challenges, largely due to the high cost, safety risks, and complexity involved. These challenges can be categorized into several key areas:

• Safety: Ensuring the safety of personnel and nearby infrastructure is paramount. This involves stringent safety protocols, extensive simulations, and controlled test environments.
• Cost: Missile testing is extremely expensive, requiring sophisticated equipment, specialized personnel, and often the destruction of expensive hardware.
• Environmental Factors: Weather conditions, atmospheric disturbances, and even geographical factors can significantly influence test results, making repeatability a major concern.
• Logistics and Infrastructure: Launching and tracking missiles requires extensive infrastructure, including launch pads, tracking systems, and downrange recovery facilities.
• Verification and Validation: Rigorous testing is essential to verify that the missile system meets all performance requirements and that the guidance system works as intended. This necessitates extensive simulation and testing against various scenarios.
• Data Analysis: Processing the vast amount of data collected during a test to extract meaningful insights is a significant computational challenge.

Overcoming these challenges necessitates careful planning, meticulous execution, and the use of sophisticated simulation tools to minimize the need for expensive and risky live tests.

My experience encompasses a wide range of missile targets, each posing unique challenges to guidance systems. These include:

• Point Targets: These are small, easily detectable targets like bunkers or individual vehicles. Guidance systems need to achieve high accuracy to successfully engage these targets.
• Area Targets: Larger targets, such as buildings or vehicle convoys, allow for some tolerance in impact point. Guidance laws can be optimized for area coverage rather than pinpoint accuracy.
• Moving Targets: This is arguably the most difficult type, requiring sophisticated tracking and prediction algorithms to compensate for target maneuvers. Adaptive guidance laws that react to changes in target motion are crucial here.
• Man-made Targets: These include tanks, aircraft carriers, and other military installations. They typically involve complex geometries and possibly countermeasures.
• Natural Targets: Although less common, these can include geographical features like bridges or tunnels. Precision and terrain mapping become key considerations in such cases.

Each target type necessitates a tailored approach to guidance and control, requiring careful selection of sensors, guidance laws, and control algorithms to maximize the chances of successful engagement.

Atmospheric disturbances, such as wind shear and turbulence, significantly impact missile trajectories, leading to inaccuracies. Addressing this involves a multi-faceted approach:

• Atmospheric Modeling: Sophisticated atmospheric models are incorporated into the missile’s guidance system. These models predict wind speeds and directions at various altitudes along the missile’s flight path. This allows the system to compensate for the expected effects of these disturbances.
• Real-time Measurements: Sensors onboard the missile, or external tracking systems, provide real-time measurements of atmospheric conditions along the flight path. This data is fed into the Kalman filter to further refine the trajectory predictions.
• Adaptive Guidance Laws: Guidance laws capable of adapting to changes in atmospheric conditions are essential. These laws continuously adjust the missile’s course to counter the effects of wind and turbulence.
• Robust Control Algorithms: Robust control algorithms, designed to handle uncertainties and disturbances, are vital for maintaining stability and accuracy in the face of unpredictable atmospheric conditions.

The combination of these techniques allows for significant mitigation of atmospheric effects on missile trajectory, improving accuracy and ensuring successful target engagement.

Missile control surfaces are crucial for maneuvering the missile. Different types offer distinct advantages and disadvantages:

• Canards: Small, forward-mounted control surfaces that provide excellent maneuverability at high angles of attack. They are effective for agile missiles requiring quick responses.
• Elevons: Control surfaces that act as both elevators (pitch control) and ailerons (roll control). They offer a more compact design compared to separate elevator and aileron surfaces.
• Flaps: Primarily used for lift and drag control, flaps can also contribute to maneuvering at lower speeds.
• Rudder: Typically used for yaw control, adjusting the missile’s heading.
• Reaction Control System (RCS): Utilizes small thrusters for precise maneuvering, commonly used for attitude control and fine adjustments.

The choice of control surface depends on several factors such as the missile’s design, speed range, desired maneuverability, and overall performance requirements. The design of the control surfaces must account for aerodynamic efficiency, stability, and reliability under various flight conditions.

Missile guidance laws dictate how the missile steers itself towards its target. Several common guidance laws exist:

• Proportional Navigation (PN): A widely used law where the missile’s rate of turn is proportional to the line-of-sight (LOS) rate between the missile and the target. It’s simple, effective against maneuvering targets, and has variations like true proportional navigation (TPN) and biased proportional navigation (BPN).
• Command Guidance: An external system, like a ground station or aircraft, commands the missile’s steering commands. It’s less responsive to target maneuvers but provides precise control in specific scenarios.
• Homing Guidance: The missile actively seeks the target using onboard sensors (e.g., radar, infrared). This is further divided into active (missile transmits own signal), semi-active (target illuminated by external source), and passive (missile detects target’s radiation) homing.
• Beam Rider Guidance: The missile maintains itself on a beam transmitted from an external source, which is used as a guidance signal.

The selection of a guidance law depends on factors like the target’s characteristics, the available sensors, and the desired performance.

Software plays a critical role in modern missile guidance and control, handling numerous complex tasks:

• Navigation and Guidance Algorithms: The core guidance laws (PN, command, homing, etc.) are implemented in software, allowing for flexibility and adaptability.
• Sensor Data Processing: Raw data from various sensors (radar, IMU, GPS, etc.) is processed, filtered (often using Kalman filtering), and fused to obtain a precise estimate of the missile’s and target’s state.
• Actuator Control: Software controls the missile’s control surfaces or thrusters to execute the commands generated by the guidance laws.
• Flight Control System: The software manages the stability and maneuverability of the missile, ensuring that it remains controllable throughout its flight.
• Fault Detection and Recovery: Software monitors the missile’s health and performance, detecting potential faults and implementing recovery strategies.
• Pre-flight and Post-flight Analysis: Software plays a vital role in data logging, simulations, and analyzing performance of the missile system.

The reliability and efficiency of software are paramount to the success of missile guidance and control. This necessitates rigorous testing, validation, and verification processes to ensure mission success.

My experience with missile data acquisition and analysis spans over a decade, encompassing various stages from pre-launch preparations to post-flight assessments. This involves working with diverse sensor types like telemetry, radar, and inertial navigation systems. Data acquisition often includes designing custom data logging systems capable of handling high-speed data streams, ensuring data integrity through error detection and correction methods. Post-acquisition, the analysis process utilizes a variety of tools and techniques. This includes signal processing to filter noise and extract relevant information, statistical analysis to identify trends and anomalies, and sophisticated visualization techniques to represent complex data sets. For instance, I was instrumental in developing a novel algorithm for identifying trajectory deviations caused by wind shear during a recent flight test program; this significantly improved our understanding of the system’s sensitivity to atmospheric disturbances. We used MATLAB and Python extensively for this, leveraging their signal processing toolboxes.

Ensuring compliance with safety regulations is paramount in missile system development. This is a multifaceted process involving stringent adherence to both internal company standards and external governmental regulations. It starts with a thorough hazard analysis during the design phase, identifying potential hazards and implementing mitigating controls. This includes detailed safety reviews at each stage of development, involving experts from diverse disciplines. We utilize Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to systematically identify potential failure points and their cascading effects. Each system component undergoes rigorous testing and verification, often involving simulation and physical testing to ensure it meets safety criteria. Comprehensive documentation is maintained throughout the lifecycle, forming an auditable trail for regulatory compliance. I’ve personally led multiple safety review boards, where we meticulously scrutinized designs and procedures to eliminate risks and ensure compliance with regulations such as MIL-STD-882E.

Environmental factors significantly impact missile performance. Temperature extremes can affect the structural integrity of the missile, the performance of electronics, and the characteristics of propellants. High altitude, low-pressure environments alter aerodynamic characteristics and engine performance. Wind shear and gusts introduce unexpected forces, leading to trajectory deviations. Humidity can affect the functionality of certain components and contribute to corrosion. To mitigate these effects, we incorporate robust design considerations. This includes using specialized materials resistant to extreme temperatures and pressures, designing for aerodynamic stability across a range of flight conditions, and implementing sophisticated control algorithms capable of compensating for environmental disturbances. For example, we’ve used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to predict the aerodynamic behaviour under varying wind conditions, allowing us to optimize the design for optimal stability. Furthermore, we often conduct environmental tests—such as temperature cycling and humidity exposure—to validate our designs.

My experience with missile system modeling and simulation tools is extensive. I’m proficient in using industry-standard tools such as MATLAB/Simulink, ANSYS, and specialized missile trajectory simulation packages. These tools allow us to create virtual representations of the missile system, simulating its behavior under various conditions. This helps us to optimize designs, assess performance, identify potential problems early on, and reduce the need for costly and time-consuming physical testing. For example, in a recent project, we used Simulink to develop a high-fidelity six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) simulation of a new missile design, allowing us to test different control algorithms and predict its trajectory under various flight conditions, ultimately identifying an optimal control strategy that reduced flight time by 5%. This significantly decreased development costs and time.

The choice of guidance algorithm involves significant trade-offs. Proportional Navigation (PN) is simple and effective but sensitive to noise. Optimal Guidance (OG) offers higher accuracy but requires significant computational power. Augmented PN attempts to balance simplicity with performance. The trade-offs often depend on factors like the missile’s capabilities, the target’s maneuverability, and the available computational resources. For instance, a short-range missile with limited computational capacity might use PN, while a long-range missile might utilize OG to ensure accuracy in the presence of significant disturbances. Each algorithm’s performance is affected by noise and the target’s movement. A crucial aspect of selecting a guidance algorithm is to carefully analyze these trade-offs and choose the algorithm best suited to the specific requirements of the missile system. The analysis usually involves simulations to assess the algorithms’ behavior under different scenarios.

Managing the complexity of a large-scale missile system project requires a structured approach. We use a systems engineering framework, breaking down the project into smaller, manageable modules with clearly defined interfaces and responsibilities. This involves extensive planning, including detailed scheduling, resource allocation, and risk management. Effective communication and collaboration across various teams (design, testing, manufacturing) is essential. We use tools like project management software and collaborative platforms to track progress, manage documentation, and facilitate communication. Regular reviews and progress reports help to identify and address potential problems early on. For example, we’ve successfully used Agile methodologies to adapt to evolving requirements and maintain flexibility throughout the project lifecycle. This iterative process allows for continuous improvement and better risk mitigation.

Debugging and troubleshooting missile system issues requires a systematic and analytical approach. It often begins with a thorough review of telemetry data, system logs, and sensor readings to identify the root cause of the problem. This may involve using specialized diagnostic tools and techniques to isolate the faulty component or subsystem. Replicating the issue in a controlled environment, like a simulation, can help to narrow down the possibilities. The process usually involves iterative testing and refinement, with careful documentation of each step. For example, during a recent flight test, we encountered an unexpected anomaly in the guidance system. By carefully analyzing the telemetry data and comparing it with simulation results, we were able to pinpoint a software bug in the inertial navigation system’s Kalman filter, subsequently correcting the code and restoring the system’s functionality.