DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft American National Standard Astrodynamics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft American National Standard Astrodynamics BSR/AIAA S-131-200X Draft American National Standard Astrodynamics – Propagation Specifications, Test Cases, and Recommended Practices Warning This document is not an approved AIAA Standard. It is distributed for review and comment. It is subject to change without notice. Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are aware and to provide supporting documentation. Sponsored by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Approved XX Month 200X American National Standards Institute Abstract This document provides the broad astrodynamics and space operations community with technical standards and lays out recommended approaches to ensure compatibility between organizations. Applicable existing standards and accepted documents are leveraged to make a complete—yet coherent—document. These standards are intended to be used as guidance and recommended practices for astrodynamics applications in Earth orbit where interoperability and consistency of results is a priority. For those users who are purely engaged in research activities, these standards can provide an accepted baseline for innovation. BSR/AIAA S-131-200X LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING DATA WILL BE ADDED HERE BY AIAA STAFF Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191 Copyright © 200X American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America ii BSR/AIAA S-131-200X Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... x 1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Tailoring ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Applicable Documents ..................................................................................................................................... 1 4 Vocabulary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 4.1 Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms ................................................................................................................... 1 4.2 Terms and Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 5 5 Units, Precision, Time, Constants, Conversions, and Coordinates ................................................................ 18 5.1 Units............................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 Presentation of Units...................................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.2 Recommended Practice ................................................................................................................................. 19 5.2 Precision, Accuracy, and Uncertainty ............................................................................................................ 19 5.2.1 Expression of Uncertainty .............................................................................................................................. 19 5.2.2 Recommended Practice ................................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Time Systems ................................................................................................................................................ 20 5.3.1 UTC Leap Seconds ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3.2 Presentation of Time ...................................................................................................................................... 23 5.3.3 Earth Orientation Parameter Data ................................................................................................................. 24 5.3.4 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 24 5.3.5 Recommended Practice ................................................................................................................................. 25 5.4 Constants ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 5.4.1 Fundamental Defining Parameters ................................................................................................................ 25 5.4.2 Astronomical Parameters ............................................................................................................................... 25 5.4.3 Recommended Practice ................................................................................................................................. 26 5.5 Coordinate Systems....................................................................................................................................... 26 5.5.1 The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) ................................................................................... 26 5.5.2 The International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) ..................................................................................... 27 5.5.3 Geocentric Celestial Reference System ........................................................................................................ 28 5.5.4 Implementation of the International Celestial Reference Frame .................................................................... 28 5.5.5 CIP, CIO, and TIO ......................................................................................................................................... 29 5.5.6 Celestial and Terrestrial Frame Transformations ........................................................................................... 29 5.5.7 Origins of Celestial Coordinate Frames ......................................................................................................... 32 5.5.8 Satellite Based Coordinate Frames ............................................................................................................... 33 5.5.9 Recommended Practice ................................................................................................................................. 35 iii BSR/AIAA S-131-200X 6 Force Models ................................................................................................................................................. 36 6.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 6.2 Central Body Gravitational Attraction ............................................................................................................. 38 6.2.1 Earth Gravitational Models ............................................................................................................................. 39 6.3 Atmospheric Drag .......................................................................................................................................... 44 6.3.1 Corrections to Atmospheric Models ............................................................................................................... 45 6.3.2 Specific Details of Atmospheric Drag ............................................................................................................. 46 6.3.3 US Standard 1976 (0–1,000 km) [Static] ....................................................................................................... 49 6.3.4 DTM (200–1,200 km) ..................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3.5 Jacchia Models .............................................................................................................................................. 50 6.3.6 Jacchia-Roberts 1971 .................................................................................................................................... 50 6.3.7 MSIS Models ................................................................................................................................................. 50 6.3.8 MET88/MET 99 .............................................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.9 GRAM 99 (0–2,500 km) ................................................................................................................................. 51 6.3.10 GOST
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling
    Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling by Zachary James Folcik B.S. Computer Science Michigan Technological University, 2000 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2008 © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author:_______________________________________________________ Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics May 23, 2008 Certified by:_____________________________________________________________ Dr. Paul J. Cefola Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Supervisor Certified by:_____________________________________________________________ Professor Jonathan P. How Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Advisor Accepted by:_____________________________________________________________ Professor David L. Darmofal Associate Department Head Chair, Committee on Graduate Students 1 [This page intentionally left blank.] 2 Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling by Zachary James Folcik Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on May 23, 2008 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics ABSTRACT The development of electric propulsion technology for spacecraft has led to reduced costs and longer lifespans for certain
    [Show full text]
  • The Lageos System
    NASA TECHNICAL NASA TM X-73072 MEMORANDUM (NASA-TB-X-73072) liif LAGECS SYSTEM (NASA) E76-13179 68 p BC $4.5~ CSCI 22E Thls Informal documentation medium is used to provide accelerated or speclal release of technical information to selected users. The contents may not meet NASA formal editing and publication standards, my be re- vised, or may be incorporated in another publication. THE LAGEOS SYSTEM Joseph W< Siry NASA Headquarters Washington, D. C. 20546 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMlNlSTRATlCN WASHINGTON, 0. C. DECEMBER 1975 1. i~~1Yp HASA TW X-73072 4. Titrd~rt. 5.RlpDltDM December 1975 m UG~SSYSEM 6.-0-cad8 . 7. A#umrtsI ahr(onninlOlyceoa -* Joseph w. Siry . to. work Uld IYa n--w- WnraCdAdbar I(ASA Headquarters Office of Applications . 11. Caoa oc <irr* 16. i+ashingtcat, D. C. 20546 12TmdRlponrrd~~ 12!3mnm&@~nsnendAddrs Technical Memorandum 1Sati-1 Aeronautics and Space Adninistxation Washington, D. C. 20546 14. sponprip ~gmcvu 15. WDPa 18. The LAGEOS system is defined and its rationale is daveloped. This report was prepared in February 1974 and served as the basis for the LAGMS Satellite Program development. Key features of the baseline system specified then included a circular orbit at 5900 km altitude and an inclination of lloO, and a satellite 60 cm in diameter weighing same 385 kg and mounting 440 retro- reflectors, each having a diameter of 3.8 cm, leaving 30% of the spherical surface available for reflecting sunlight diffusely to facilitate tracking by Baker-Nunn cameras, The satellite weight was increased to 411 kg in the actual design thr~aghthe addition of a 4th-stage apogee-kick motor.
    [Show full text]
  • Lageos Orbit Decay Due to Infrared Radiation from Earth
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870006232 2020-03-20T12:07:45+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server Lageos Orbit Decay Due to Infrared Radiation From Earth David Parry Rubincam JANUARY 1987 NASA Technical Memorandum 87804 Lageos Orbit Decay Due to Infrared Radiation From Earth David Parry Rubincam Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 1987 1 LAGEOS ORBIT DECAY r DUE TO INFRARED RADIATION FROM EARTH by David Parry Rubincam Geodynamics Branch, Code 621 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 i INTRODUCTION The Lageos satellite is in a high-altitude (5900 km), almost circular orbit about the earth. The orbit is retrograde: the orbital plane is tipped by about 110 degrees to the earth’s equatorial plane. The satellite itself consists of two aluminum hemispheres bolted to a cylindrical beryllium copper core. Its outer surface is studded with laser retroreflectors. For more information about Lageos and its orbit see Smith and Dunn (1980), Johnson et al. (1976), and the Lageos special issue (Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, B 11, September 30, 1985). For a photograph see Rubincam and Weiss (1986) and a structural drawing see Cohen and Smith (1985). Note that the core is beryllium copper (Johnson et ai., 1976), and not brass as stated by Cohen and Smith (1985) and Rubincam (1982). See Table 1 of this paper for other parameters relevant to Lageos and the study presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Earth Gravity Field Models in the Medium to High Frequency Spectrum Based on GRACE and GOCE Dynamic Orbit Analysis
    Article Assessment of Earth Gravity Field Models in the Medium to High Frequency Spectrum Based on GRACE and GOCE Dynamic Orbit Analysis Thomas D. Papanikolaou 1,2,* and Dimitrios Tsoulis 3 1 Geoscience Australia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston, ACT 2609, Australia 2 Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, Docklands, VIC 3008, Australia 3 Department of Geodesy and Surveying, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 22 October 2018; Accepted: 23 November 2018; Published: 27 November 2018 Abstract: An analysis of current static and time-variable gravity field models is presented focusing on the medium to high frequencies of the geopotential as expressed by the spherical harmonic coefficients. A validation scheme of the gravity field models is implemented based on dynamic orbit determination that is applied in a degree-wise cumulative sense of the individual spherical harmonics. The approach is applied to real data of the Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation (GOCE) and Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite missions, as well as to GRACE inter-satellite K-band ranging (KBR) data. Since the proposed scheme aims at capturing gravitational discrepancies, we consider a few deterministic empirical parameters in order to avoid absorbing part of the gravity signal that may be included in the monitored orbit residuals. The present contribution aims at a band-limited analysis for identifying characteristic degree ranges and thresholds of the various GRACE- and GOCE-based gravity field models. The degree range 100–180 is investigated based on the degree-wise cumulative approach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Earth Gravitational Models Used in Astrodynamics
    JEROME R. VETTER THE EVOLUTION OF EARTH GRAVITATIONAL MODELS USED IN ASTRODYNAMICS Earth gravitational models derived from the earliest ground-based tracking systems used for Sputnik and the Transit Navy Navigation Satellite System have evolved to models that use data from the Joint United States-French Ocean Topography Experiment Satellite (Topex/Poseidon) and the Global Positioning System of satellites. This article summarizes the history of the tracking and instrumentation systems used, discusses the limitations and constraints of these systems, and reviews past and current techniques for estimating gravity and processing large batches of diverse data types. Current models continue to be improved; the latest model improvements and plans for future systems are discussed. Contemporary gravitational models used within the astrodynamics community are described, and their performance is compared numerically. The use of these models for solid Earth geophysics, space geophysics, oceanography, geology, and related Earth science disciplines becomes particularly attractive as the statistical confidence of the models improves and as the models are validated over certain spatial resolutions of the geodetic spectrum. INTRODUCTION Before the development of satellite technology, the Earth orbit. Of these, five were still orbiting the Earth techniques used to observe the Earth's gravitational field when the satellites of the Transit Navy Navigational Sat­ were restricted to terrestrial gravimetry. Measurements of ellite System (NNSS) were launched starting in 1960. The gravity were adequate only over sparse areas of the Sputniks were all launched into near-critical orbit incli­ world. Moreover, because gravity profiles over the nations of about 65°. (The critical inclination is defined oceans were inadequate, the gravity field could not be as that inclination, 1= 63 °26', where gravitational pertur­ meaningfully estimated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Gravity Model 3
    Journal of Geophysical Research Accepted for publication, 1996 The Joint Gravity Model 3 B. D. Tapley, M. M. Watkins,1 J. C. Ries, G. W. Davis,2 R. J. Eanes, S. R. Poole, H. J. Rim, B. E. Schutz, and C. K. Shum Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin R. S. Nerem,3 F. J. Lerch, and J. A. Marshall Space Geodesy Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland S. M. Klosko, N. K. Pavlis, and R. G. Williamson Hughes STX Corporation, Lanham, Maryland Abstract. An improved Earth geopotential model, complete to spherical harmonic degree and order 70, has been determined by combining the Joint Gravity Model 1 (JGM 1) geopotential coef®cients, and their associated error covariance, with new information from SLR, DORIS, and GPS tracking of TOPEX/Poseidon, laser tracking of LAGEOS 1, LAGEOS 2, and Stella, and additional DORIS tracking of SPOT 2. The resulting ®eld, JGM 3, which has been adopted for the TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data rerelease, yields improved orbit accuracies as demonstrated by better ®ts to withheld tracking data and substantially reduced geographically correlated orbit error. Methods for analyzing the performance of the gravity ®eld using high-precision tracking station positioning were applied. Geodetic results, including station coordinates and Earth orientation parameters, are signi®cantly improved with the JGM 3 model. Sea surface topography solutions from TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry indicate that the ocean geoid has been improved. Subset solutions performed by withholding either the GPS data or the SLR/DORIS data were computed to demonstrate the effect of these particular data sets on the gravity model used for TOPEX/Poseidon orbit determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Orbit Determination
    Preface The modem field of orbit determination (OD) originated with Kepler's inter­ pretations of the observations made by Tycho Brahe of the planetary motions. Based on the work of Kepler, Newton was able to establish the mathematical foundation of celestial mechanics. During the ensuing centuries, the efforts to im­ prove the understanding of the motion of celestial bodies and artificial satellites in the modem era have been a major stimulus in areas of mathematics, astronomy, computational methodology and physics. Based on Newton's foundations, early efforts to determine the orbit were focused on a deterministic approach in which a few observations, distributed across the sky during a single arc, were used to find the position and velocity vector of a celestial body at some epoch. This uniquely categorized the orbit. Such problems are deterministic in the sense that they use the same number of independent observations as there are unknowns. With the advent of daily observing programs and the realization that the or­ bits evolve continuously, the foundation of modem precision orbit determination evolved from the attempts to use a large number of observations to determine the orbit. Such problems are over-determined in that they utilize far more observa­ tions than the number required by the deterministic approach. The development of the digital computer in the decade of the 1960s allowed numerical approaches to supplement the essentially analytical basis for describing the satellite motion and allowed a far more rigorous representation of the force models that affect the motion. This book is based on four decades of classroom instmction and graduate- level research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Celestial Mechanics Approach: Theoretical Foundations
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RERO DOC Digital Library J Geod (2010) 84:605–624 DOI 10.1007/s00190-010-0401-7 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The celestial mechanics approach: theoretical foundations Gerhard Beutler · Adrian Jäggi · Leoš Mervart · Ulrich Meyer Received: 31 October 2009 / Accepted: 29 July 2010 / Published online: 24 August 2010 © Springer-Verlag 2010 Abstract Gravity field determination using the measure- of the CMA, in particular to the GRACE mission, may be ments of Global Positioning receivers onboard low Earth found in Beutler et al. (2010) and Jäggi et al. (2010b). orbiters and inter-satellite measurements in a constellation of The determination of the Earth’s global gravity field using satellites is a generalized orbit determination problem involv- the data of space missions is nowadays either based on ing all satellites of the constellation. The celestial mechanics approach (CMA) is comprehensive in the sense that it encom- 1. the observations of spaceborne Global Positioning (GPS) passes many different methods currently in use, in particular receivers onboard low Earth orbiters (LEOs) (see so-called short-arc methods, reduced-dynamic methods, and Reigber et al. 2004), pure dynamic methods. The method is very flexible because 2. or precise inter-satellite distance monitoring of a close the actual solution type may be selected just prior to the com- satellite constellation using microwave links (combined bination of the satellite-, arc- and technique-specific normal with the measurements of the GPS receivers on all space- equation systems. It is thus possible to generate ensembles crafts involved) (see Tapley et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of the Geocentric Gravitational Constant from Laser
    VOL. 5, NO. 12 GEOPHYSICALRESEARCH LETTERS DECEMBER1978 DETERMINATION OF THE GEOCENTRI½ GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT FROM LASER RANGING ON NEAR-EARTH SATELLITES 1 2 • Francis 3. Lerch, Roy E. Laubscher, Steven M. Klosko 1 1 David E. Smith, Ronald Kolenkiewicz, Barbara H. Putney, 1 2 James G. Marsh, and Joseph E. Brownd 1 GeodynamicsBranch, GoddardSpace Flight Center Computer Sciences Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland 3EG&GWashington Analytical ServicesCenter, Inc., Riverdale, Maryland Abstract. Laser range observations taken on earth plus moon Ms/(Me + Mm) of 328900.50+ the near-earth satellites of Lageos (a -- 1.92 .03. Assuming the AU and the IAG value of c, e.r.), Starlette (a -- 1.15 e.r.), BE-C (a = 1.18 this yields a value of GM of 398600.51 + .03 when e.r.) and Geos-3 (a -- 1.13 e.r.), have been using an earth to moon mass ratio of 81.3007 combined to determine an improved value of the (Wong and Reinbold, 1973). geocentric gravitational constant (GM). The In this paper we use near-earth laser ranging value of GM is 398600.61 km3/sec2, based upon a in a new determination of GM. These results speed of light, c, of 299792.5 kin/sec. Using the basically confirm those obtained from inter- planetary and lunar laser experiments, but km/secIAGadopted scales valueGM to of 398600.44 c equallin• km /sec299792.458 2. The further reduces the uncertainty of GM. uncertainty in this value is assessed to be + .02 km3/sec2. Determinations of GM from the-data Near Earth Laser Ranging Experiment. The taken on these four satellites individually show experiment reported here was performed in the variations of only .04 km3/sec2 from the combined development of the recent Goddard Earth Models result.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Laser-Ranged Satellite for General Relativity and Space Geodesy IV
    A new laser-ranged satellite for General Relativity and Space Geodesy IV. Thermal drag and the LARES 2 space experiment 1,2 3 3 Ignazio Ciufolini∗ , Richard Matzner , Justin Feng , David P. Rubincam4, Erricos C. Pavlis5, Giampiero Sindoni6, Antonio Paolozzi6 and Claudio Paris2 1Dip. Ingegneria dell'Innovazione, Universit`adel Salento, Lecce, Italy 2Museo della fisica e Centro studi e ricerche Enrico Fermi, Rome, Italy 3Theory Group, University of Texas at Austin, USA 4NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA 5Goddard Earth Science and Technology Center (GEST), University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA 6Scuola di Ingegneria Aerospaziale , Sapienza Universit`adi Roma, Italy In three previous papers we presented the LARES 2 space experiment aimed at a very accurate test of frame-dragging and at other tests of fundamental physics and measurements of space geodesy and geodynamics. We presented the error sources in the LARES 2 experiment, its error budget, Monte Carlo simulations and covariance analyses confirming an accuracy of a few parts per thousand in the test of frame-dragging, and we treated the error due to the uncertainty in the de Sitter effect, a relativistic orbital perturbation. Here we discuss the impact in the error budget of the LARES 2 frame-dragging experiment of the orbital perturbation due to thermal drag or thermal thrust. We show that the thermal drag induces an uncertainty of about one part per thousand in the LARES 2 frame-dragging test, consistent with the error estimates in our previous papers. arXiv:1911.05016v1 [gr-qc] 12 Nov 2019 1 Introduction: thermal drag and LARES 2 We recently described a new satellite experiment to measure the General Relativistic phenomenon know as frame dragging, or the Lense-Thirring effect.
    [Show full text]
  • LARES, Laser Relativity Satellite
    LARES,LARES, LaserLaser RelativityRelativity Satellite:Satellite: TowardsTowards aa OneOne PercentPercent MeasurementMeasurement ofof FrameFrame DraggingDragging byby LAGEOS,LAGEOS, LAGEOSLAGEOS 2,2, LARESLARES andand GRACEGRACE by ΙΙΙgnazio Ciufolini presented by Rolf Koenig (Univ. Salento) (GFZ) A. Paolozzi*, E. Pavlis* , R. Koenig* , J. Ries* , R. Matzner* , G. Sindoni*, H. Neumayer* *Sapienza Un. Rome, *Maryland Un ., *GFZ-German Research Centre for Geosciences-Potsdam, *Un. Texas Austin 17 Int. Workshop on Laser Ranging, Bad Kötzting, 16-3-2010 ContentContent BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON FRAME -DRAGGING and GRAVITOMAGNETISM EXPERIMENTS * The 2004 -2007 measurements using the GRACE Earth ’s gravity models and the LAGEOS satellites • * LARES: 2011 DRAGGINGDRAGGING OFOF INERTIALINERTIAL FRAMESFRAMES ((FRAMEFRAME --DRAGGINGDRAGGING asas EinsteinEinstein namednamed itit inin 1913)1913) The “local inertial frames ” are freely falling frames were, locally, we do not “feel ” the gravitational field, examples: an elevator in free fall, a freely orbiting spacecraft. In General Relativity the axes of the local inertial frames are determined by gyroscopes and the gyroscopes are dragged by mass -energy currents, e.g., by the Earth rotation. Thirring 1918 Braginsky, Caves and Thorne 1977 Thorne 1986 I.C. 1994-2001 GRAVITOMAGNETISM:GRAVITOMAGNETISM: ff ramerame --draggingdragging isis alsoalso calledcalled gravitomagnetismgravitomagnetism forfor itsits formalformal analogyanalogy withwith electrodynamicselectrodynamics InIn electrodynamicselectrodynamics
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Averaged Regularized Formulations As an Alternative to Semi-Analytical Orbit Propagation Methods
    Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Non-averaged regularized formulations as an alternative to semi-analytical orbit propagation methods Davide Amato ¨ Claudio Bombardelli ¨ Giulio Ba`u ¨ Vincent Morand ¨ Aaron J. Rosengren Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract This paper is concerned with the comparison of semi-analytical and non-averaged propagation methods for Earth satellite orbits. We analyse the total integration error for semi-analytical methods and propose a novel decomposition into dynamical, model truncation, short-periodic, and numerical error com- ponents. The first three are attributable to distinct approximations required by the method of averaging, which fundamentally limit the attainable accuracy. In contrast, numerical error, the only component present in non-averaged methods, can be significantly mitigated by employing adaptive numerical algorithms and regularized formulations of the equations of motion. We present a collection of non-averaged methods based on the integration of existing regularized formulations of the equations of motion through an adaptive solver. We implemented the collection in the orbit propagation code THALASSA, which we make publicly available, and we compared the non-averaged methods to the semi-analytical method implemented in the orbit prop- agation tool STELA through numerical tests involving long-term propagations (on the order of decades) of LEO, GTO, and high-altitude HEO orbits. For the test cases considered, regularized non-averaged methods were found to be up to two times slower than semi-analytical for the LEO orbit, to have comparable speed for the GTO, and to be ten times as fast for the HEO (for the same accuracy).
    [Show full text]