# Precise Mission Process Control Based on a Novel Dual-Code Group Network Plan Diagram
## 6 Results and Discussion  
### Multi-Role, Multi-Stage Group Cooperative Mission Description  
In order to verify the effectiveness of the control strategy, we constructed a group cooperative mission to be accomplished by nine executors. Each executor needs to execute multiple sub-missions, and there are cooperative relationships between some missions, and the whole plan contains 56 missions in total. All the mission information is shown in Table 2, and we artificially added the global start mission START and the global end mission FINISH.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mission**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Executor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mission Duration (min)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mission Controllability**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Minimum Mission Duration (min)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Prior-Mission Post-Mission**} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline START & START & 0 & 0 & 0 & & G1 \\ A1 & A & 2 & 0 & 0.5 & B1 & A2, D1 \\ A2 & A & 10 & 1 & 15 & A1 & A3 \\ A3 & A & 60 & 0 & 30 & A2 & A4 \\ A4 & A & 2 & 0 & 1 & A3 & A5 \\ A5 & A & 2 & 0 & 1 & A4 & FINISH \\ B1 & B & 2 & 0 & 0.5 & H1 & B2 \\ B2 & B & 15 & 1 & 10 & B1 & B3 \\ B3 & B & 2 & 0 & 10 & B2 & B4 \\ B4 & B & 14 & 0 & 2 & B3, D4, C4, B5, C6 \\ B5 & B & 20 & 0 & 1 & B4 & FINISH \\ C1 & C & 2 & 0 & 1.5 & D1 & E1, C2 \\ C2 & C & 17 & 1 & 5 & C1 & C3 \\ C3 & C & 30 & 0 & 5 & D3, C2 & C4, F3 \\ C4 & C & 2 & 1 & 2 & C3 & C5 \\ C5 & C & 20 & 1 & 1 & C4 & C6 \\ C6 & C & 3 & 0 & 2 & B4, C5 & D6, C7 \\ C7 & C & 10 & 0 & 1 & C6, E7 & C8 \\ C8 & C & 2 & 0 & 1 & C7 & FINISH \\ D1 & D & 32 & 0 & 1.5 & A1 & D2, C1 \\ D2 & D & 3 & 1 & 5 & D1 & D3 \\ D3 & D & 15 & 0 & 5 & D2, H2 & D4, C3 \\ D4 & D & 3 & 1 & 2 & D3 & D5, B4 \\ D5 & D & 8 & 1 & 1 & D4 & D6 \\ D6 & D & 3 & 0 & 20 & D5, C6 & D7 \\ D7 & D & 5 & 0 & 2 & D6 & F6, D8 \\ D8 & D & 3 & 0 & 1 & D7, F7 & D9 \\ D9 & D & 8 & 0 & 1 & D8 & FINISH \\ E1 & E & 2 & 0 & 1.5 & C1 & E2, F1 \\ E2 & E & 5 & 1 & 5 & E1 & E3 \\ E3 & E & 4 & 0 & 5 & E2, F3 & E4 \\ E4 & E & 8 & 1 & 3 & E3 & B4, E5 \\ E5 & E & 3 & 0 & 2 & E4 & E6 \\ E6 & E & 3 & 1 & 3 & E5, F6 & E7 \\ E7 & E & 5 & 0 & 5 & C7 & E8 \\ E8 & E & 2 & 0 & 1 & E7 & E9, F7 \\ E9 & E & 5 & 0 & 1 & E8 & FINISH \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Multi-actor, multi-stage group cooperative mission information. Mission E7 is the constant critical mission \(m^{*}\) shown in red.  
The mission number, executor, mission duration, mission type, shortest mission duration, prior-mission, and post-mission for each mission are listed in Table 2. Mission type 1 represents a controllable mission, then the shortest mission duration is less than the initial mission duration, and if the mission type is 0, it represents an uncontrollable mission, and the shortest mission duration is equal to the initial mission duration. We see from Table 2 that the whole network plan has only one start node START and one end node FINISH, in which the START mission has no prior-mission and the FINISH mission has no post-mission, which meets the requirements of the group network plan diagram. We select mission E7 as the constant critical mission \(m^{*}\), as shown in red in Table 2. Generally, missions that satisfy Theorem 2 could be both selected as the constant critical mission. It means that the constant critical mission is artificially assigned, and it generally has special meaning in the actual problem background. It usually represents the mission that the commander is most concerned with in the overall network plan diagram. According to Theorem 2, the constant critical mission is especially important because it has no parallel missions. The compliance of mission E7 with Theorem 2 is explained in detail later.