DOCSLIB.ORG

Flight and Orbital Mechanics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Flight and Orbital Mechanics Lecture slides Challenge the future 1 Flight and Orbital Mechanics AE2-104, lecture hours 17+18: Perturbations Ron Noomen October 25, 2012 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 1 | Example: solar sail spacecraft Questions: • what is the purpose of this mission? • where is the satellite located? • why does it use a solar sail? • …. [Wikipedia, 2010] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 2 | Overview • Orbital mechanics (recap) • Irregularities gravity field • Third-body perturbations • Atmospheric drag • Solar radiation pressure • Thrust • Relativistic effects • Tidal forces • Thermal forces Special missions only; not treated here • Impacts debris/micrometeoroids AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 3 | Learning goals The student should be able to: • mention and describe the various perturbing forces that may act on an arbitrary spacecraft; • quantify the resulting accelerations; • make an assessment of the importance of the different perturbing forces, depending on the specifics of the mission (phase) at hand. Lecture material: • these slides (incl. footnotes) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 4 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits [Seligman, 2010] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 5 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits a: semi-major axis [m] e: eccentricity [-] [Cornellise, Schöyer and Wakker, 1979] θ: true anomaly [deg] E: eccentric anomaly [deg] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 6 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits: general equations 2 r a (1 e ) p ; r a (1 e) ; r a (1 e) 1 e cos 1 e cos p a 2 E E E V tot kin pot 2 r 2a 2 2 1 2 V ; Vcirc ; Vesc r a r a r 3 T 2 a AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 7 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits: equations (cnt’d) ellips: 0 ≤ e < 1 a > 0 Etot < 0 n 3 a satellite altitude specific energy 1 e E [km] [km2/s2/kg] tan tan 2 1 e 2 launch 0 -62.4 M E esin E platform M n(t t0) SpaceShipOne 100+ -61.4 (culmination) M Ei esin Ei Ei1 Ei imaginary sat 100 -30.8 1ecosEi Kepler’s Equation Kepler’s r a(1ecosE) Envisat 800 -27.8 LAGEOS 5900 -16.2 AE2104GEO Flight and Orbital35900 Mechanics -4.78 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits: equations (cnt’d) ellips: 0 ≤ e < 1 a > 0 Etot < 0 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 9 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits: equations (cnt’d) parabola: e = 1 a = ∞ Etot = 0 p r 1 cos 1 1 M tan tan3 2 2 6 2 M n (t t0) n p3 2 2 2 V Vesc r AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 10 | 2-dimensional Kepler orbits: equations (cnt’d) hyperbola: e > 1 a < 0 Etot > 0 e 1 F tan tanh 2 e 1 2 M e sinh F F M n (t t0) n (a)3 r a (1 e cosh F) 2 2 2 2 2 V Vesc V V r AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 11 | 3-dimensional Kepler orbits i: inclination [deg] [Cornelisse, Schöyer and Wakker, 1979] Ω: right ascension of the ascending node, or longitude of the ascending node [deg] ω: argument of pericenter [deg] u = ω + θ : argument of latitude [deg] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 12 | coordinates transformations 1) from spherical (r,λ,δ) (λ in X-Y plane; δ w.r.t. X-Y plane) to cartesian (x,y,z): x = r cos δ cos λ y = r cos δ sin λ z = r sin δ 2) from cartesian (x,y,z) to spherical (r,λ,δ): r = sqrt ( x2 + y2 + z2 ) 2 2 rxy = sqrt ( x + y ) λ = atan2 ( y / rxy , x / rxy ) δ = asin ( z / r ) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 13 | Orbital perturbations: introduction Questions: • what forces? • magnitude of forces? • how to model/compute in satellite orbit? • analytically? numerically? • accuracy? • efficiency? AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 14 | Inclusion in orbit modeling Option 1: include directly in equation of motion d x2 amain agrav adrag asolrad a3rdbody etcetera d t2 Option 2: express as variation of orbital elements da 2a2 p e.g. Sesin N dt p r (not further treated here; cf. ae4-874 and ae4-878) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 15 | Perturbations: • Irregularities gravity field • Third body • Atmospheric drag • Solar radiation pressure • Thrust AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 16 | Perturbations: • Irregularities gravity field • Third body • Atmospheric drag • Solar radiation pressure • Thrust AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 17 | Irregularities gravity field Already treated in lecture hours 15+16 e.g., North-South acceleration due to J2: 2 4 acc 3 J2 Re r sin( )cos( ) e.g., East-West acceleration due to J2,2: 2 4 acc 6 J2,2 Re r 3cos( )sin(2( 2,2)) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 18 | Perturbations: • Irregularities gravity field • Third body • Atmospheric drag • Solar radiation pressure • Thrust AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 19 | Third-body perturbations Reference frame M rsd rd rs G rs G Md 3 3 3 rs rsd rd Attractional forces (by definition): • satellite <-> Earth • satellite <-> perturbing body • Earth <-> perturbing body AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 20 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Attractional forces (practice): • Earth attracts satellite • perturbing body attracts satellite M << M , M • perturbing body attracts Earth sat E S • net effect counts M rr rr GGMmain ps p s3 s p 3 3 rs r ps r p AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 21 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) perturbing acceleration ap: rps rp a p p 3 3 r r ps p maximum when on straight line: main sat 3rd body 3 amppr 2 s a m r mainmax main p AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 22 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) 2 situations: 1. heliocentric (i.e., orbits around Sun) 2. planetocentric (i.e., orbits around Earth) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 23 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • influence increases with distance to Sun • perturbation O(10-7) m/s2 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 24 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • influence Sun decreases with distance to Sun • influence planets increases with distance to Sun AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 25 | • acceleration from Sun O(10-2) m/s2; dominant (central body!!) • near planet: 3rd body becomes dominant Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • in Solar System: Sun dominant • near Earth: Earth itself dominant AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 26 | • central body vs. 3rd body perturbation ?? Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Sphere of Influence: • area around planet where gravity from planet is dominant (compared with gravity of other celestial bodies) • 3-dimensional shape • boundary • 1st-order approximation: sphere with constant radius • definition for determination location: relative acceleration w.r.t. system 1 = relative acceleration w.r.t. system 2 Sun Earth sat AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 27 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) accSun,3rd accEarth,3rd accEarth,main accSun,main without derivation : 0.4 Mmain rSoI r3rd M3rd example : Earth main body, Sun 3rd body : 0.4 M Earth rSoI,Earth distEarthSun 930,000 km MSun AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 28 | Moon is at 384,000 km…. Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) planet Sphere of Influence [km] [% AU] [% distance planet-Sun] Mercury 1.1 × 105 0.08 0.2 Venus 6.2 × 105 0.4 0.6 Earth 9.3 × 105 0.6 0.6 Mars 5.8 × 105 0.4 0.3 Jupiter 4.8 × 107 32.2 6.2 Saturn 5.5 × 107 36.5 3.8 Uranus 5.2 × 107 34.6 1.8 Neptune 8.7 × 107 57.9 1.9 Pluto 3.2 × 106 2.1 0.1 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 29 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) 2 situations: 1. heliocentric (i.e., orbits around Sun) 2. planetocentric (i.e., orbits around Earth) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 30 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) center of ref. frame AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 31 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • influence of Sun as 3rd body increases with distance from Earth • effective 3rd body acceleration by Sun O(10-6) m/s2 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 32 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Question 1: a) Compute the dimension of the Sphere of Influence of the Earth (when the Sun is considered as the perturbing body). The SoI is given by the following general equation: 0.4 Mmain rSoI r3rd M3rd b) What is the value of the radial attraction exerted by the Earth at this distance? (if you were unable to make the question a, use a value of 1 × 106 km for this position). c) What is the effective gravitational acceleration by the Sun at this position? Assume that Earth, Sun and satellite are on a straight line. d) What is the relative perturbation of the solar attraction, compared to that of the main attraction of the Earth? 6 30 24 11 Data: 1 AU = 149.6 × 10 km, mSun = 2.0 × 10 kg, mEarth = 6.0 × 10 kg, μSun = 1.3271 × 10 3 2 3 2 km /s , μEarth = 398600 km /s . Answers: see footnotes below (BUT TRY YOURSELF FIRST!!) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 33 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • influence of Moon as 3rd body increases with distance from Earth • effective 3rd body acceleration by Moon O(10-5) m/s2 at GEO AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 34 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Conclusions: • Earth dominant (central body; within SoI) • Moon most important 3rd body; Sun directly after AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 35 | • effect of planets about 4 orders of magnitude smaller Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) [Wikimedia, 2010] celestial ΔV-budget body for GEO sat [m/s/yr] Moon 36.93 Sun 14.45 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 36 | Third-body perturbations (cnt’d) Question 2: Consider a hypothetical planet X with mass 5 × 1025 kg, orbiting the Sun in a circular orbit with radius 3 AU.
Recommended publications
  • AAS 13-250 Hohmann Spiral Transfer with Inclination Change Performed

    AAS 13-250 Hohmann Spiral Transfer with Inclination Change Performed

    AAS 13-250 Hohmann Spiral Transfer With Inclination Change Performed By Low-Thrust System Steven Owens1 and Malcolm Macdonald2 This paper investigates the Hohmann Spiral Transfer (HST), an orbit transfer method previously developed by the authors incorporating both high and low- thrust propulsion systems, using the low-thrust system to perform an inclination change as well as orbit transfer. The HST is similar to the bi-elliptic transfer as the high-thrust system is first used to propel the spacecraft beyond the target where it is used again to circularize at an intermediate orbit. The low-thrust system is then activated and, while maintaining this orbit altitude, used to change the orbit inclination to suit the mission specification. The low-thrust system is then used again to reduce the spacecraft altitude by spiraling in-toward the target orbit. An analytical analysis of the HST utilizing the low-thrust system for the inclination change is performed which allows a critical specific impulse ratio to be derived determining the point at which the HST consumes the same amount of fuel as the Hohmann transfer. A critical ratio is found for both a circular and elliptical initial orbit. These equations are validated by a numerical approach before being compared to the HST utilizing the high-thrust system to perform the inclination change. An additional critical ratio comparing the HST utilizing the low-thrust system for the inclination change with its high-thrust counterpart is derived and by using these three critical ratios together, it can be determined when each transfer offers the lowest fuel mass consumption.
  • Astrodynamics

    Astrodynamics

    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
  • Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets

    Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets

    Delft University of Technology Faculty Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets. What Role do Power Limited Rockets have in Future Spaceflight Missions? (Dutch title: Optimaliseren van brandstofverbruik voor vermogen gelimiteerde raketten. De rol van deze raketten in toekomstige ruimtevlucht missies. ) A thesis submitted to the Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics as part to obtain the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE in APPLIED MATHEMATICS by NATHALIE OUDHOF Delft, the Netherlands December 2017 Copyright c 2017 by Nathalie Oudhof. All rights reserved. BSc thesis APPLIED MATHEMATICS \ Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets What Role do Power Limite Rockets have in Future Spaceflight Missions?" (Dutch title: \Optimaliseren van brandstofverbruik voor vermogen gelimiteerde raketten De rol van deze raketten in toekomstige ruimtevlucht missies.)" NATHALIE OUDHOF Delft University of Technology Supervisor Dr. P.M. Visser Other members of the committee Dr.ir. W.G.M. Groenevelt Drs. E.M. van Elderen 21 December, 2017 Delft Abstract In this thesis we look at the most cost-effective trajectory for power limited rockets, i.e. the trajectory which costs the least amount of propellant. First some background information as well as the differences between thrust limited and power limited rockets will be discussed. Then the optimal trajectory for thrust limited rockets, the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, will be explained. Using Optimal Control Theory, the optimal trajectory for power limited rockets can be found. Three trajectories will be discussed: Low Earth Orbit to Geostationary Earth Orbit, Earth to Mars and Earth to Saturn. After this we compare the propellant use of the thrust limited rockets for these trajectories with the power limited rockets.
  • A Strategy for the Eigenvector Perturbations of the Reynolds Stress Tensor in the Context of Uncertainty Quantification

    A Strategy for the Eigenvector Perturbations of the Reynolds Stress Tensor in the Context of Uncertainty Quantification

    Center for Turbulence Research 425 Proceedings of the Summer Program 2016 A strategy for the eigenvector perturbations of the Reynolds stress tensor in the context of uncertainty quantification By R. L. Thompsony, L. E. B. Sampaio, W. Edeling, A. A. Mishra AND G. Iaccarino In spite of increasing progress in high fidelity turbulent simulation avenues like Di- rect Numerical Simulation (DNS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES), Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models remain the predominant numerical recourse to study com- plex engineering turbulent flows. In this scenario, it is imperative to provide reliable estimates for the uncertainty in RANS predictions. In the recent past, an uncertainty estimation framework relying on perturbations to the modeled Reynolds stress tensor has been widely applied with satisfactory results. Many of these investigations focus on perturbing only the Reynolds stress eigenvalues in the Barycentric map, thus ensuring realizability. However, these restrictions apply to the eigenvalues of that tensor only, leav- ing the eigenvectors free of any limiting condition. In the present work, we propose the use of the Reynolds stress transport equation as a constraint for the eigenvector pertur- bations of the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor once the eigenvalues of this tensor are perturbed. We apply this methodology to a convex channel and show that the ensuing eigenvector perturbations are a more accurate measure of uncertainty when compared with a pure eigenvalue perturbation. 1. Introduction Turbulent flows are present in a wide number of engineering design problems. Due to the disparate character of such flows, predictive methods must be robust, so as to be easily applicable for most of these cases, yet possessing a high degree of accuracy in each.
  • Orbit Determination Using Modern Filters/Smoothers and Continuous Thrust Modeling

    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
  • Brief Introduction to Orbital Mechanics Page 1

    Brief Introduction to Orbital Mechanics Page 1

    Brief Introduction to Orbital Mechanics Page 1 Brief Introduction to Orbital Mechanics We wish to work out the specifics of the orbital geometry of satellites. We begin by employing Newton's laws of motion to determine the orbital period of a satellite. The first equation of motion is F = ma (1) where m is mass, in kg, and a is acceleration, in m/s2. The Earth produces a gravitational field equal to Gm g(r) = − E r^ (2) r2 24 −11 2 2 where mE = 5:972 × 10 kg is the mass of the Earth and G = 6:674 × 10 N · m =kg is the gravitational constant. The gravitational force acting on the satellite is then equal to Gm mr^ Gm mr F = − E = − E : (3) in r2 r3 This force is inward (towards the Earth), and as such is defined as a centripetal force acting on the satellite. Since the product of mE and G is a constant, we can define µ = mEG = 3:986 × 1014 N · m2=kg which is known as Kepler's constant. Then, µmr F = − : (4) in r3 This force is illustrated in Figure 1(a). An equal and opposite force acts on the satellite called the centrifugal force, also shown. This force keeps the satellite moving in a circular path with linear speed, away from the axis of rotation. Hence we can define a centrifugal acceleration as the change in velocity produced by the satellite moving in a circular path with respect to time, which keeps the satellite moving in a circular path without falling into the centre.
  • Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success

    Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2014 Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success Shane B. Robinson Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, Shane B., "Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success" (2014). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2175. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2175 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPACECRAFT GUIDANCE TECHNIQUES FOR MAXIMIZING MISSION SUCCESS by Shane B. Robinson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Mechanical Engineering Approved: Dr. David K. Geller Dr. Jacob H. Gunther Major Professor Committee Member Dr. Warren F. Phillips Dr. Charles M. Swenson Committee Member Committee Member Dr. Stephen A. Whitmore Dr. Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2013 [This page intentionally left blank] iii Copyright c Shane B. Robinson 2013 All Rights Reserved [This page intentionally left blank] v Abstract Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success by Shane B. Robinson, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2013 Major Professor: Dr. David K. Geller Department: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Traditional spacecraft guidance techniques have the objective of deterministically min- imizing fuel consumption.
  • Assessment of Earth Gravity Field Models in the Medium to High Frequency Spectrum Based on GRACE and GOCE Dynamic Orbit Analysis

    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.
  • The Evolution of Earth Gravitational Models Used in Astrodynamics

    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.
  • Draft American National Standard Astrodynamics

    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
  • Richard Dalbello Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Intelsat General

    Richard Dalbello Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Intelsat General

    Commercial Management of the Space Environment Richard DalBello Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Intelsat General The commercial satellite industry has billions of dollars of assets in space and relies on this unique environment for the development and growth of its business. As a result, safety and the sustainment of the space environment are two of the satellite industry‘s highest priorities. In this paper I would like to provide a quick survey of past and current industry space traffic control practices and to discuss a few key initiatives that the industry is developing in this area. Background The commercial satellite industry has been providing essential space services for almost as long as humans have been exploring space. Over the decades, this industry has played an active role in developing technology, worked collaboratively to set standards, and partnered with government to develop successful international regulatory regimes. Success in both commercial and government space programs has meant that new demands are being placed on the space environment. This has resulted in orbital crowding, an increase in space debris, and greater demand for limited frequency resources. The successful management of these issues will require a strong partnership between government and industry and the careful, experience-based expansion of international law and diplomacy. Throughout the years, the satellite industry has never taken for granted the remarkable environment in which it works. Industry has invested heavily in technology and sought out the best and brightest minds to allow the full, but sustainable exploitation of the space environment. Where problems have arisen, such as space debris or electronic interference, industry has taken 1 the initiative to deploy new technologies and adopt new practices to minimize negative consequences.
  • The Joint Gravity Model 3

    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.