# Precise Mission Process Control Based on a Novel Dual-Code Group Network Plan Diagram
## 6 Results and Discussion
### Experiment Results and Discussion
#### 6.3.3 Experiment 3: With Disturbance and with Control  
In Experiment 3, we randomly apply delay disturbances during mission execution, and some missions are delayed. The system adopts the control strategy shown in Figure 16. We focus on whether the system can adjust the plan in time to eliminate the disturbance and ensure that E7 starts as planned. As depicted in Figure 20a, a disturbance is observed in mission G1 at \(t=3\). At this moment, G1 has been delayed. According to Table 3, the plan end time of G1 is 2, indicating that G1 has been delayed for 1 min at \(t=3\). Once G1 is delayed, it causes all subsequent missions to be delayed sequentially. At this moment, E7's plan start time is delayed to the 111 th minute, resulting in the output \(y(3)=111\
eq y_{e}\). This discrepancy indicates that the system has produced an error of 1 min. However, since G1 still has a disturbance, it is evident that the end signal of G1 is not obtained from the system observation. From the mission state of G1, it can be seen that \(s_{C_{1}}(3)=1\), indicating that G1 is not yet finished, and  
Figure 19: Diagram of the mission process in the case with disturbance and no control. (**a**–**c**) show the mission process at \(t=5\), \(t=29\), and \(t=128\), respectively. its delay is still continuing. At this moment, the control condition shown in Equation (48) is not satisfied, and the system is still nondeterministic at this moment. Consequently, \(t=3\) cannot be used as a controllable moment, and the system does not solve the control quantity at this time. As illustrated in Figure 20b, the disturbance of G1 has disappeared at time \(t=4\), resulting in \(s_{G_{1}}(4)=2\), which indicates that G1 has ended. From the system state, it can be seen that at this moment, the system is free of disturbances, which satisfies the control condition shown in Equation (48). Therefore, \(t=4\) is taken as the controllable moment, i.e., \(t_{\epsilon}=4\). At this moment, the system error is 2 min. According to the control strategy depicted in Figure 16, the system control quantity obtained by solving is \(u_{G_{2}}(4)=-2\), which indicates that the mission duration of mission G2 is reduced by 2 min. Figure 20a illustrates that G2 is in the critical path, which is unique at this moment. Consequently, G2 is in the critical path and is a valid, controllable mission. Table 3 indicates that the shortest mission duration for G2 is \(x_{G2}^{\min}=3\), and G2 can withstand a maximum error of 4 min. Consequently, based on the system error \(e(4)=2\), the eliminated error to be assigned to G2 is 2 min, and the control quantity obtained from this solution is \(u_{G2}(4)=-2\). As illustrated in Figure 20c, following the implementation of the control quantity at \(t=5\), the system states and output are updated in accordance with the state equation depicted in (30) and the output equation presented in (42). As evidenced in Figure 20c, all missions behind G2 are advanced by 2 min. At this juncture, the plan start time of E7 is adjusted to 110 min, which is equivalent to \(y(5)=110=y_{e}\). This outcome demonstrates the efficacy of the control strategy in eliminating the system error. As depicted in Figure 20d, there is a delay in mission A1 at \(t=29\). At this juncture, the system error is 3 min. As illustrated in Figure 20e, mission A1 is completed at \(t=30\). The system has no unfinished delayed missions and meets the control condition. At this moment, the system produces a control quantity of 3 min, 2 min, and 1 min of compressed mission duration for missions D2, C2, and F2, respectively. This is due to the fact that the system error at \(t=30\) is 3 min, and therefore, mission D2 is assigned 3 min of eliminated error. This implies that all missions on the critical path after D2 must start 3 min earlier.