satellite orbits and flight dynamics_final
DESCRIPTION
Satellite Orbits and Flight Dynamics_finalTRANSCRIPT
-
SATELLITE ORBITS AND
FLIGHT DYNAMICS
BY
DR. ENG. MOHAMED AHMED ZAYAN
2006
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page ii 2/12/2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................1
1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Satellite Orbits ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1.1 Geostationary Orbits ............................................................................................ 1 1.1.1.2 Polar Orbits .......................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1.3 Inclined Orbits ..................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Orbits Determination and Estimation Methods .................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................4
2 ORBITAL MECHANICS AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS ...........................................................4
2.1 Kepler Laws ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Julian Date......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Sidereal and Universal Time............................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems ........................................................................................................ 6
2.5 The Two-Body Problem ................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Orbital Elements, Energy Integral, and Euler Angles......................................................... 12 2.5.2 Position and Velocity from the Orbital Elements ............................................................... 13 2.5.3 Orbital Elements from the Position and Velocity ............................................................... 14 2.5.4 Keplers Equation and the Time Dependence of the Motion.............................................. 14
2.5.4.1 Solution for Ellipse ............................................................................................ 15 2.5.5 Computation Starting from Time in Orbit .......................................................................... 16 2.5.6 Orbital Variation in Keplerian Elements Format ................................................................ 16 2.5.7 Tangential and Normal Components .................................................................................. 19 2.5.8 Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t, n, z)............................................................ 20 2.5.9 Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t, n, z) Axes [6]........................................ 21
CHAPTER 3 ...........................................................................................................................22
3 SATELLITE PERTURBATIONS AND LINEARIZATION.........................................................22
3.1 Satellite Perturbations.................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1 Gravitational Field of the Earth .......................................................................................... 22
3.1.1.1 Expansion of Spherical Harmonics.................................................................... 22 3.1.1.2 Geopotential Gravity Acceleration .................................................................... 23
3.1.2 Perturbation from the Sun and the Moon (Point-Mass)...................................................... 24 3.1.3 Solar Radiation Pressure..................................................................................................... 25 3.1.4 Atmospheric Drag Acceleration ......................................................................................... 25
3.2 Linearization and Variational Equations ..................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 The Differential Equation of the State Transition Matrix................................................... 27 3.2.2 The Differential Equation of the Sensitivity Matrix ........................................................... 27 3.2.3 Form and Solution of the Variational Equations ................................................................ 27
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page iii 2/12/2006
3.2.4 Partial Derivative of the Earth Geopotential Acceleration ................................................. 28 3.2.5 Partial Derivatives of the Sun and the Moon (Point Mass) Accelerations.......................... 29 3.2.6 Partial Derivative of Solar Radiation Pressure Acceleration .............................................. 29 3.2.7 Partial derivative of the Atmospheric Drag acceleration .................................................... 29 3.2.8 Partial of Measurements with Respect to the State Vector ................................................. 30 3.2.9 Partial with Respect to Measurement Model Parameters ................................................... 31
CHAPTER 4 ...........................................................................................................................33
4 SATELLITE ORBITS ESTIMATION AND DETERMINATION ................................................33
4.1 Satellite Tracking and Observation Models ................................................................................. 33 4.1.1 Angle Measurements .......................................................................................................... 33 4.1.2 Ranging Measurements....................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Maneuver Implementation............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.1 Numerical Integration Methods .......................................................................................... 35 4.2.2 Satellite Orbits Correction .................................................................................................. 35
4.2.2.1 Thrust Forces ..................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................37
-
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In little over a third of the 20th century, the launching of a satellite has gone from stopping the
nations' business to guarantee that it runs like clockwork. Today, satellites are commonplace
tools of technology, like clocks, telephones, and computers. Satellites serve us for navigation,
communications, environmental monitoring, and weather forecasting. Appropriately, the word
satellite means an attendant. In 1957, Russian launched the Sputnik satellite. U.S.A sent Alan
Shepard up and down in a Mercury capsule in 1961, as John Glenn circled the globe 3 times in
1962, and when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969.
1.1 Background
The job of the satellite control station is to determine and estimate satellite orbits, continuously
execute correction maneuvers necessary to maintain the correct orbit altitude, attitude position,
manage the payload and verify the efficiency of the space segment.
1.1.1 Satellite Orbits
Satellites can operate in several types of Earth orbit. The most common orbits for
environmental satellites are geostationary and polar, but some instruments also navigate in
inclined orbits. Other types of orbits are possible, such as the Molniya orbits commonly used
for Russian spacecrafts.
1.1.1.1 Geostationary Orbits
A geostationary (GEO=Geo-synchronous) orbit is one in which the satellite is always in the
same position with respect to the rotating Earth. The satellite orbits at an elevation of
approximately 35,790 km because that produces an orbital period (time for one orbit) equal to
the period of rotation of the Earth (23 hrs, 56 min, 4.09 sec). By orbiting at the same rate, in the
same direction as Earth, the satellite appears stationary (synchronous with respect to the
rotation of the Earth). Geostationary satellites provide a "big picture" view, enabling coverage a
large area of the Earth and weather events. This is especially useful for monitoring severe local
storms and tropical cyclones. Because a geostationary orbit must be in the same plane as the
Earth's rotation, that is the equatorial plane; it provides distorted images of the Polar Regions
with poor spatial resolution.
-
1.1 Background
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 2 2/12/2006
1.1.1.2 Polar Orbits
Polar-orbiting satellites provide a more global view of Earth, circling at near-polar inclination
(the angle between the equatorial plane and the satellite orbital plane, a true polar orbit has an
inclination of 90 degrees). These satellites operate in a sun-synchronous orbit. The satellite
passes the equator and each latitude at the same local solar time each day, meaning the satellite
passes overhead at essentially the same solar time throughout all seasons of the year. This
feature enables regular data collection at consistent times as well as long-term comparisons.
The orbital plane of a sun-synchronous orbit must also rotate approximately one degree per day
to keep pace with the Earth's surface.
1.1.1.3 Inclined Orbits
Inclined orbits fall between those above. They have an inclination between 0 degrees (equatorial orbit) and 90 degrees (polar orbit). These orbits may be
determined by the region on Earth that is of most interest (i.e., an instrument to
study the tropics may be best put on a low inclination satellite), or by the latitude
of the launch site. The orbital altitude of these satellites is generally on the order
of a few hundred km, so the orbital period is on the order of a few hours. These
satellites are not sun-synchronous, however, so they will view a place on Earth
at varying times.
1.1.2 Orbits Determination and Estimation Methods
It is important to distinguish between preliminary orbits determination (navigation) used for
direct computation of the six orbital elements (position r and, velocity v) with no a priori
knowledge of the spacecraft orbit [1], [2] and orbit estimation used for the improvement of a
priori orbital elements from large set of tracking data [3]. The complex mathematical
formulation of orbit prediction and measurements modeling does not allow a direct inversion
except for the simplified case of Keplerian orbits. In addition, the measurements employed for
an orbit determination cannot be expected to be exact quantities due to inevitable measurement
(and model) errors. A preliminary orbit determination may still be required in the case of
launcher injection errors. Most methods for preliminary orbit determination are based in Gauss
algorithm [1]. The goal in orbit estimation is to determine the satellite orbit that best fits or
matches a set of tracking data [4], and [5]. Tracking data or "observation" data includes any
observable quantities that are a function of the position and/or velocity of a satellite at a point in
time. Examples include range, range rate (Doppler), azimuth, elevation from ground stations of
-
1.1 Background
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 3 2/12/2006
known location, range and range rate from other satellites, as well as Global Positioning System
(GPS) data. In theory, the six satellite orbit parameters (position r and, velocity v) can be
determined from a geometric computation based on very few observations. Because actual
observation data includes the effects of unordered or poorly modeled forces as well as random
and systematic noise, it is often necessary to obtain more observations than the theoretical
minimum. A primary goal of orbit estimation schemes is to compute an orbit solution that uses
as much of the information in the tracking data as possible while not being overly influenced by
noise or spurious points. In general, the better the quality of tracking data processed, the more
reliable the orbit solution. Theoretically, any parameter influencing the tracking data can be
estimated. In addition to the satellite orbits themselves, other parameters that can be estimated
include the locations of the ground stations, biases in the tracking data, coefficients of
atmospheric drag, solar radiation pressure on the satellites, and parameters of the Earth's
gravitational field.
There are two major types of state estimation schemes commonly used for orbit
determination: batch and sequential. A batch estimator [5], [3], [15], and [16] determines a state
vector based on a single large set of observation data that, in general, can be taken over a period
of time. While the actual state can change significantly over the span of the observations, the
determined state is valid only for a single point in time. The determined state is that which best
fits the observable over the span of the observations. Batch estimation requires an a priori
estimate or "first guess" of the state, which is iteratively corrected to achieve the final state. The
estimated state from previous orbit estimation is typically used as the a priori value.
In sequential estimation [17], [3] the observations are processed one at a time or in small
groups instead of a single large group. For each group of observations, the a priori estimate is
the determined state from the last group. The final solution for sequential estimation thus
incorporates several intermediate "solutions" from each small group of data. An enhancement to
sequential estimation is the use of extended Kalman filter, which reduces the effects of old
observation data on the current state estimate, thus ensuring that the latest estimate is influenced
most heavily by the latest observation data.
-
CHAPTER 2
2 ORBITAL MECHANICS AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS
2.1 Kepler Laws
The main features of satellite orbits may still be described by a reasonably simple
approximation, even though elaborate models have been developed to compute the motion of
artificial Earth satellites to the high level of accuracy required for many applications
today. This is due to the fact that the force resulting from the Earths central mass governs the
motion of the satellite and all other forces acting on the satellite, (which are Earths oblateness,
elliptic equatorial cross section and other perturbations forces from the Sun and the Moon), may
be ignored. The word perturbation is used to signify forces other than those due to the
gravitational potential of homogeneous, spherical Earth.
Johann Kepler determined three laws, which were found empirically about 400
years ago may, characterizing orbital motion. These laws can be proven mathematically using
Newton's law of gravitation. These laws apply directly to satellite orbital motion, thus the laws
are from the point of view of an Earth-orbiting satellite.
Kepler's First Law: Satellite orbits are elliptical Paths with the Earth at one focus of the ellipse.
Simply states that orbits are shaped like ellipses (elongated circles). This can be proven
mathematically, once it's understood that the gravitational force between the Earth and the
satellite decreases in proportion to the square of distance between the two.
Kepler's Second Law: A line between the center of the Earth and the satellite sweeps out equal
areas in equal intervals of time. This means that the satellite moves fastest at its lowest altitude
(perigee) and it moves slowest at its highest altitude (apogee), which gives elliptical orbits a
very distinct characteristic,
Kepler's Third Law: The Square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the orbit's
semi-major axis. States that you can compute the time it takes the satellite to make one
complete orbit (the period) from the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse. This is also known as
the harmonic law.
2.2 Julian Date
The material of the following sections are based on [1], [3], and [6]. The civilian calendar is not,
however, well suited to finding the time difference between two dates or advancing a date by a
-
2.3 Sidereal and Universal Time
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 5 2/12/2006
certain time increment. To cope with this difficulty, a continuous day count is used in
astronomy and commonly for space missions, which is known as the Julian Date. The Julian
Date (JD) is the number of days since noon January 1, 4713 BC including the fraction of day. It
thus provides a continuous time scale, which for all practical purposes, is always positive.
Counting starts at noon for historical reasons to avoid a change of date in the middle of
astronomical observations. Presently, the Julian Day numbers are already quite large (well over
two millions) and it is desirable to start counting at midnight. Therefore, a Modified Julian Date
(MJD) is defined as:
MJD = JD 2400000.5. ( 2-1)
A table of Modified Julian Dates for the beginning of each month between 1975 and 2020 is
given in [3].
2.3 Sidereal and Universal Time
Today the following time scales are of prime relevance in the precision model of Earth orbiting
satellites:
Terrestrial Time (TT), a conceptually uniform time scale that would be measured by an ideal clock on the surface of the geoids. TT is measured in days
of 86400 SI seconds and is used as the independent argument of geocentric
ephemerides.
International Atomic Time (TAI), which provides the practical realization a uniform time scale based on atomic clocks and agrees with TT except for a
constant offset of 32.184 s and the imperfections of existing clocks.
GPS Time, which likes TAI is an atomic time scale but differs in the chosen offset and the choice of atomic clocks used in its realization. The origin of GPS
was arbitrarily chosen to coincide with UTC on 1980 January 6.0 UTC.
Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST), the Greenwich hour angle of the vernal equinox.
Universal Time (UT1), today's realization of a mean solar time, which is derived from GMST by a conventional relation.
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is tied to the International Atomic Time TAI by an offset of integer seconds that is regularly updated to keep UTC
in close agreement with UT1.
Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time GMST, also known as Greenwich Hour Angle, denotes the
-
2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 6 2/12/2006
angle between the mean vernal equinox of date and the Greenwich meridian. It is a direct
measure of the Earth's rotation and may jointly be expressed in angular units or units of time
with 360 corresponding to 24h. In terms of SI seconds, the length of a sidereal day (i.e. the
Earth's spin period) amounts to 23h56m4s.0910s.005 making it about four minutes shorter than
a 24h solar day. Due to length-of-day variations with amplitude of several milliseconds, sidereal
time cannot be computed from other time scales with sufficient precision but must derived from
astronomical and geodetic observations.
Universal Time UT1 is the presently adopted realization of a mean solar time scale with the
purpose of achieving a constant average length of the solar 24 hours. As a result, the length of
one second of Universal Time is not constant because the actual mean length of a day depends
on the rotation of the Earth apparent motion of the Sun (i.e. the length of the year). Similar to
sidereal is not possible to determine Universal Time by a direct conversion from e.g. atomic
time, because the rotation of the Earth cannot be predicted accurately. Every change in the
Earth's rotation alters the length of the day, and must therefore be taken into account in UT1.
Universal Time is therefore defined as a function of sidereal time; which directly reflects the
rotation of the Earth. For any particular day, 0h UT1 is defined as the instant at which
Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time has the value
GMST (0hUT1) = 24110S.54841 + 8640184s.812866T0
+ 0S.093104 - 020TS.0000062 . ( 2-2) 30T
[54]. In this expression the time argument
T0 = (JD (0hUT1)-241545)/ (36525) ( 2-3)
denotes the number of Julian centuries of Universal Time that have elapse 2000 Jan. 1.5 UT1 at
the beginning of the day. For an arbitrary time of the expression may be generalized to obtain
the relation
GMST = 24110s.54841 + 8640184s.812866T0 + 1.002737909350795 UT1 + 0s.093104T2
0s.0000062T3 , ( 2-4)
where the time argument
T = (JD (UTI) 2451545)/36525 ( 2-5)
specifies the time in Julian centuries of Universal Time elapsed since 2000 Jan. 1.5 UT1.
2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems
Two global coordinated systems are intended to be fixed in space, i.e. they are inertial, which
can be defined refer to the orbital plane and the rotation axis of the Earth as shown in Figure2-1.
-
2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 7 2/12/2006
The first one is the most common coordinate system for describing Earth-bound satellite orbits,
which is called the geocentric equatorial coordinate system (x or i, y or j, z or k). This system
gives the position of a point in space with respect to the Earth's equatorial plane (the plane
perpendicular to the rotation axis) and its origin is the center of the Earth.
The other one refers to the ecliptic (the Earth's orbital plane), which is called the
ecliptic coordinate system (x', y', z'). These planes are inclined at an angle = 23.5 and the
line of intersection is a common axis of both coordinate systems. The x/x'-axis is defined as
being the direction of the vernal equinox or First Point of Aries, designated by . It is
perpendicular to both the North Celestial Pole (the z-axis) and the north pole of the ecliptic (the
z'-axis). A standard reference frame is usually based on the mean equator and equinox of some
fixed epoch, which is currently selected as the beginner of the year 2000. Access to the Earth
Mean Equator and Equinox (mean of the lunisolar precession and Earth rotation axis nutation)
of J2000 (EME 2000) is provided by the FK5 star catalog [55], which provides precise
positions and proper motions of some 1500 stars for the epoch J2000 as referred to the given
reference frame. In 1991 to establish a new International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)
adopt it for use from 1998 onwards [56]. For a smooth transition to the new system, the ICRS
axes are chosen such a way as to be consistent with the previous FK5 system to within the
accuracy of the latter. The practical realization of the ICRS is designated the International
Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) and is jointly maintained by the IERS and the IAU Working
Group on Reference Frames [57].
Complementary to the ICRS, the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS)
provides the conceptual definition of an Earth-fixed reference system (aligned with the
equatorial plane and the Greenwich meridian) [58]. Its origin is located at the Earth's center of
Figure 2-1 Equator and Ecliptic Planes [3]
-
2.5 The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 8 2/12/2006
mass and its unit of length is the SI meter.
2.5 The Two-Body Problem
The basic laws of orbital motion are derived from first principles. For this purpose, a satellite is
considered, whose mass is negligible compared to the Earth's mass and the Earth is
assumed to be spherically symmetric. The equations of motion for two masses m
M
1, m2 at
position r1, r2 with large distance apart compared to their size or have an spherically
symmetrical mass distribution and never touch each other are as follows: 3
122111 /)( rmGmm rrr =&& ( 2-6) 3
212122 /)( rmGmm rrr =&& ( 2-7) 21 rrr = , ( 2-8)
where G is the constant of gravitation and is
)( 21 mmG += . ( 2-9) By measuring the mutual attraction of two bodies of known mass, the gravitational constant G
can directly be determined from torsion balance experiments. Due to the small size of the
gravitational force, these measurements are extremely difficult, however, and G is presently
only known with limited accuracy: 213-11 m 10 0.00085) (6.67259 = skgG ( 2-10)
[59]. Independent of the measurement of G itself, the gravitational coefficient , i.e. the
product of the gravitational constant and the Earth's mass, has been determined with
considerable precision from the analysis of laser distance measurements of artificial Earth
satellites [60].
GM
-23skm001.4405.398600 =GM . ( 2-11) The corresponding value of the Earth's mass is given by
kg 10 5.974 24=M . ( 2-12) The center of mass is at
)/()( 212211 mmmm ++ rr , ( 2-13) by combing the above equations yields
0/ 3 =+ rrr && . ( 2-14) The cross product of the above equation with the position vector r
0/)( 3 == rrrrr && . ( 2-15)
-
2.5 The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 9 2/12/2006
Since the cross product of the vector with it self vanishes. The left hand side may be further
written as
0)( ==+= rrrrrrrr &&&&&&&dtd . ( 2-16)
The angular momentum per unit mass is
dtdrrh == v, rh , ( 2-17)
and it is constant for non-perturbated motion, also the h is normal to the plane of motion and the
absolute value h = |h| is known as areal velocity. By taking the vector product of equation of
motion with h
)()/( 3 rrrhr &&& = r . ( 2-18) Since for any triple vector product
).().()( rrrrrrrrr &&& = ( 2-19) it follows that
)/( rdtd rhr =&& . ( 2-20)
Since h is a constant this equation can be integrated directly to yield
rr /)( erhr += & ( 2-21) where e is a constant of integration and is called eccentricity vector and it is along the vector
to the point of closest approach (perigee). To continue with equation (2-21) using (2-17)
)cos(2 rerh +=== hrrhrr && ( 2-22) where is the angle between the vector r and e. solving for r gives
cos1/2
ehr += ( 2-23)
as the equation of the orbit, which is the standard equation of a conic in polar form with the
origin of coordinates at one focus .The semi-latus rectum is
/2hp = , ( 2-24) and e is the eccentricity. The angle is the true anomaly, the angle from the perigee as shown in Figures 2-2. Figure 2-3 represents the following unit vectors.
1. ir is along the radius vector r, i.e. away from the center of attraction.
2. i is perpendicular to r in the plane of the motion and in the direction of
increasing the true anomaly . 3. iz is the normal to the plane motion.
-
2.5 The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 10 2/12/2006
aFocusCenter of Mass
ae
Satellite
PerigeeApogeeb
E r
a semimajor axisb semiminor axise eccentricity
True anomalyE Eccentric anomalyM Mean anomaly
Figure 2-2 Conical Orbit
ir, i, iy, are in orbit plane. i is perpendicular to r in the direction of increasing . iz is normal to orbit palne.
ix is the intersection of orbit plane with the Equator (i,j) plane.
j
i
ix Asending Node
k
iy ir
i
iz
i
Figure 2-3 The Inertial Geocentric Equatorial (i, j, k), Radial Transverse (i , i , i ), and r z(i , i , i ) Coordinates Systems x y z
-
Figure 2-4 Perifocal coordinate system (PQW frame)
Figure 2-5 Topocentric-horizon coordinate system (SEZ frame):
(a) overall view; (b) detailed view
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 12 2/12/2006
Equation (2-17) can be written
)(
)(
&&
&&Qrr
rr
r
r
iirhiiv+=
+= ( 2-25)
&2rh zz iih == . ( 2-26)
2rh
dtd = , ( 2-27)
Eliminating r between equations (2-23), and (2-27), using (2-24)
23 )cos1(
eddt
p += . ( 2-28)
Integration of this equation gives as a function of time in orbit. 2.5.1 Orbital Elements, Energy Integral, and Euler Angles
Assuming h, , and e are constant, then differentiating equation (2-22) and eliminating using equation (2-27)
&
her /sin=& ( 2-29) The square of the velocity v is given by
222 )()( && rrv += ( 2-30) 2222 )/sin(/ herhv += . ( 2-31)
Eliminating r, using equation (2-23),
]cos21[)/( 222 eehv ++= ( 2-32) Define the semi-major axis of the orbit
))1(/()1/( 222 ehepa == . ( 2-33) So, substituting in equation (1-31) to get vis-viva law
)12(2ar
v = . ( 2-34) The energy law states that the sum of kinetic energy and the potential energy is constant during
motion
massunit per
massunit per
2
)2
(
)(
21
aE
rE
mvE
total
potential
kinematic
=
=
=
. ( 2-35)
It is seen that, the total energy depends on the reciprocal semi-major axis of the orbit. The
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 13 2/12/2006
parameters a, e and represent a choice of the three orbital elements to define the motion in the plane of the orbit. In order to specify the orientation of the orbital plane in space three other
orbital elements are required as described in the next section.
2.5.2 Position and Velocity from the Orbital Elements
Given the 6 orbital elements (a, e, , i, , ) as shown in Figure 2-3, where i is the inclination, is the right ascension of ascending node, and is the argument of perigee and from equations (2-24), (2-25), and (2-31)
)cos1/( epr += , ( 2-36) the velocity vector v with respect to axes (ir, i, iz) is
iiv iii && rr rzr +=,,)( , ( 2-37) using equations (2-29), (2-24), and (2-36)
])cos1(sin[/)( ,, iiv iiir eep rz ++= ( 2-38) rrzr ir iii =,,)( . ( 2-39)
Referring to Figures 2-2 and 2-3, the transformation from axes (ir, i, iz) to inertial axes (i, j, k)
is obtained by two rotational transformations
zr
zr
iiikji
iiikji
vv
rr
,,12,,
,,12,,
)()(
)()(
==
, ( 2-40)
where 1 is the transformation matrix from (ir, i, iz) to (ix, iy, iz).
++++
=1000)cos()sin(0)sin()cos(
1
( 2-41)
where axes (ix, iy, iz) with respect to axes (i, j, k)
xzy
z
x
iiiiii
ii
==
=)cos,cossin,sin(sin
)0,sin,(cos ( 2-42)
and 2 is the transformation matrix from (ix, iy, iz) to (i, j, k) coordinate.
=ii
iiii
cossin0sincoscoscossin
sinsincossincos
2 . ( 2-43)
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 14 2/12/2006
2.5.3 Orbital Elements from the Position and Velocity
The position and velocity are given with respect to the inertial axes (i, j, k). Calculating the in
plane orbital elements. With reference to the following equation
)( vrh = , ( 2-44) /2hp = , ( 2-45)
so p is obtained by using the magnitude of h. Also from
)1/( 2epa = , ( 2-46) ape /1= , ( 2-47)
and from equation (2-36)
1)/(cos = rpe . ( 2-48) To have a unique determination of , from equation (2-37) and (2-39), and (2-29)
prej /sin. == vr , ( 2-49) or
rjpe //sin = , ( 2-50) Consequently can be uniquely determined by
)]/(/arctan[ rpps = ( 2-51) The vector iz, 3-dimensional vector, is calculated as the unit form of r v and is given in
equation (2-41) in terms of the elements i and . This leads to
))]2(/()1(arctan[ zz ii = ( 2-52) )]3(arccos[ zi i= , ( 2-53)
where iz(1), iz(2), and iz(3) are 1st,2nd, and 3rd elements of the vector iz, respectively. Equation
(2-53) gives i uniquely because it defined only for positive angles in range (0, ). In order to
derive from Figures 2-2, 2-3, equations (2-41), and (2-52) ri =+ xr )cos( . ( 2-54)
Since
rii =+ xz r )sin( ( 2-55) )()sin( rii =+ xzr . ( 2-56)
Equations (2-54) and (2-56) yield a unique solution for ( + ) and hence . 2.5.4 Keplers Equation and the Time Dependence of the Motion
An integral for the time in orbit was given at equation (2-28) but the solution differs depending
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 15 2/12/2006
on whether the orbit is an ellipse (e < 1), a hyperbola (e >1), or a parabola (e = 1).
2.5.4.1 Solution for Ellipse
An auxiliary variable E, which is called the eccentric anomaly, is defined as the following
equation
araeE /)cos(cos += ( 2-57) or
)cos1( Eear = . ( 2-58) This can be equated to the conic equation from equations (2-33) and (2-36)
)cos1/()1( 2 eear += , ( 2-59) to get the following identities relating the eccentric anomaly to the true anomaly
)cos1/()(coscos EeeE = ( 2-60) )cos1/()sin1(sin 2 EeEe = . ( 2-61)
By differentiation of equation (2-58)
2
2
)cos1(sin)1(sin
EeEdEed
= , ( 2-62)
or anticipating the time integral in equation (2-28)
dEEee
de )cos1()cos1(
)1(2
2/32
=+
. ( 2-63)
Integration using equation (2.33) the time from perigee tp is related to the eccentric anomaly E
by
ptaEeE3/sin = ( 2-64)
In order to express the angle from the perigee in terms of the eccentric anomaly
sincos1
2tan = ( 2-65)
2tan
11
2tan E
ee
+= . ( 2-66)
Equations (2-64), and (2-66) can be used to calculate time in orbit given the angle from perigee,
or vice versa, the latter requires a numerical iterative solution. The angle on the left-hand side of
equation (2-64) is the mean anomaly M and n is the mean motion
)()(/ 3 pp ttnttaM == . ( 2-67) It changes by 360o during one revolution, but in contrast with the true and eccentric anomaly
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 16 2/12/2006
increases uniformly with time. Instead of specifying the time of perigee passage to describe the
orbit, it is customary to introduce the value M0 of the mean anomaly at some reference epoch t0.
The mean anomaly at an arbitrary instant of time may be then found from
)(0 pttnMM += , ( 2-68) and the period of the ellipse is
/2 3aT = . ( 2-69) This relation states the third Keplers law.
2.5.5 Computation Starting from Time in Orbit
In order to obtain the position of the satellite at time t one has to know the time of perigee
passage and the semi-major axis to calculate the mean anomaly. Kepler's equation can,
however, be solved by iterative methods only. A common way is to start with an approximation
of
== 00 MorEE ( 2-70) and employ Newton's method to calculate successive refinements Ei until the result changes by
less than a specified amount from one iteration to the next. Defining an auxiliary function
MEeEEf = sin)( ( 2-71) the solution of Kepler's equation is equivalent to finding the root of f(E) for a given value of M.
Applying Newton's method for this purpose; an approximate root Ei of f may be improved by
computing
i
iii
i
iii Ee
MEeEEEfEfEE
cos1sin
)()(
1 ==+ . ( 2-72)
The starting value E0 = M recommended above is well suited for small eccentricities, since E
only differs from M by a term of order e. For highly eccentric orbits (e.g. e > 0.8) the iteration
should be started from E0 = to avoid any convergence problems during the iteration.
2.5.6 Orbital Variation in Keplerian Elements Format
The satellite orbit is an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola if it is influenced only by the gravitational
filed of a point mass or spherical body. The orbit elements can be calculated from position and
velocity vector at any time but these elements will be invariant except the true anomoly.
Practically, the satellite motion is perturbated by different forces and the calculation of the orbit
elements will yield a different set of values over an interval of time. This orbit with varying
parameters is called an osculating orbit. The orbital elements can be treated as the dependent
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 17 2/12/2006
variables of a set of first order differential equations. Conversely, the position and velocity
vectors can be calculated directly from the set of evolving parameters at any time. The material
of this chapter is based on [52]. In the following analysis [6] let indicate a change in an orbital variable due to the application of a vector f of acceleration other than due to the
spherically symmetrical central gravitational field. The change in the energy per unit mass over
a time interval t is as follows: 2
massunit per 21 vEkinematic = , ( 2-73)
=r
E potential
massunit per , ( 2-74)
=a
Etotal 2 massunit per , ( 2-75)
taaE == fv.
2 2 . ( 2-76)
Referring to the orbital plane axes (ir, i, iz). In the limit this gives the rate of change of energy
as
).(22
fva
dtda = . ( 2-77)
Since
)).((2 vrvr =h , ( 2-78)
hdtdh /)).(( frvr = ( 2-79)
h/).( vrfr = ( 2-80) hr /)].)(.().([ 2 frvrfv = . ( 2-81)
In order to obtain the rate of change of eccentricity (e)
)1( 22 eah = . ( 2-82) By differentiate
).)(.().)([(1 2 frvrfv += rpaaedt
de . ( 2-83)
Now to calculate out- of -plan elements (i, , )
==i
ii
hcos
cossinsinsin
vrh . ( 2-84)
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 18 2/12/2006
Differentiate this equation and arrange the result in the form
=
hihih
&&&sin
2fr , ( 2-85)
where
=ii
iiii
cossin0sincoscoscossin
sinsincossincos
2 , ( 2-86)
which is an orthogonal matrix, transpose equals the inverse. Therefore
ijkfr )(/
//sin
2 =
T
dtdhdthdi
dtidh. ( 2-87)
Note that the elements i and refer to the same axes as the vectors on the right hand side of the above equation in the inertial Equatorial Axes (i, j, k). The final form depends on the final axes
in use. The total rate of change of the true anomaly d, which consists of the rate of change due free motion of the satellite, and the rate of change due to the external applied forces. The rate of
change of the true anomaly , due only to the external applied acceleration vector f, is , is derived by applying the perturbation to the following equations
~
cos1
2
e
hr += ( 2-88)
)).((2 vrvr =h ( 2-89) /2~sincos hhreer = . ( 2-90)
In the limit
dtdhh
dtder
dtdre 2cos~
sin = ( 2-91)
sin).( erh =vr . ( 2-92) By differentiating
++=dtdh
hhp
dtder
dtdre 1).().(sin
~cos vrfr ( 2-93)
dtdhh
hphp
dtdre
+=
sin2).(cos).(cos)/(~
2vrfr ( 2-94)
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 19 2/12/2006
( ) hererphhp cos)cos1(sinsin
2).(cos2 ++=
vr ( 2-95)
hrp )(sin += . ( 2-96) And finally
+=dtdhrpp
rehdtd sin)().(cos1
~fr . ( 2-97)
The variation of the argument of perigee is obtained by ( ) )cos(0sincos +== rx rri . ( 2-98)
Differentiation results in
( )
++=
dtd
dtdr
dtd
~)sin(0cossin r . ( 2-99)
Therefore
( ) ( ) rir
)sin(cos00 0cossin .0cossin 12 +=
= r ( 2-100)
+=
dtd
dtd
dtdi
~cos , ( 2-101)
or
dtd
dtdi
dtd ~cos = . ( 2-102)
We now have the required equations for variations of the orbital elements. The final form of the
equations depends on the axes in use.
2.5.7 Tangential and Normal Components
From the orbital plane axes (ir, i, iz) then
rrf=fr. , ( 2-103) and
sin. rv=vr , ( 2-104) where is the angle between the velocity vector v and i measured clockwise from the latter
cos1sintane
e+= , ( 2-105)
also
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 20 2/12/2006
frhf
he
feefp
r
r
+=++=
sin
])cos1(sin[/.fv. ( 2-106)
From equation (2-87), the required transformation from (i, j, k) axes to (r, , z) axes
ijkfr )(/
//sin
2 =
T
dtdhdthdi
dtidh ( 2-107)
zrfr )(122 = T ( 2-108)
=
rfrf z
0
1 , ( 2-109)
++++
=1000)cos()sin(0)sin()cos(
1
( 2-110)
2.5.8 Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t, n, z)
From equation (2-32)
)cos21( 2eep
v ++= ( 2-111)
sinsin ep
v = ( 2-112)
)cos1(cos ep
v += ( 2-113)
t
nt
nt
vf
fvhf
vhre
ffr
===
.
sin
)cossin(
fv
fr
. ( 2-114)
By means of transformation from t n z axes to r z
=
1000sinsin0cossin
3
. ( 2-115)
+
=
cossinsincos
)(
tn
z
z
tnz
rfrfrfrf
fr , ( 2-116)
-
2.5The Two-Body Problem
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 21 2/12/2006
+=
cossin
0
//
/sin
1
tn
z
fffr
dtdhdthdi
dtidh. ( 2-117)
2.5.9 Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t, n, z) Axes [6]
tfva
dtda
22= ( 2-118)
+= nt farfe
vdtde sin)cos(21 ( 2-119)
+= nt fefrp
pvrh
dtdh sin ( 2-120)
+= ( 2-121)
dtdirh
dtd
dtd
dtd
dtd =++= cos/
~2
* ( 2-122)
++= nt faref
evdtd )cos2(sin21
~ ( 2-123)
zfihr
dtd
sin)sin( += ( 2-124)
zfhr
dtdi )cos( += ( 2-125)
dtd
dtdi
dtd ~cos = ( 2-126)
-
CHAPTER 3
3 SATELLITE PERTURBATIONS AND LINEARIZATION
3.1 Satellite Perturbations
This chapter includes and analysis of Earth satellite perturbations as a result from the non-
spherical shape of the Earth, the influence of the Sun, the Moon and any residual atmosphere.
The material of this chapter is based on [3], and [6].
3.1.1 Gravitational Field of the Earth
The Earth is not a perfect sphere but has the form of an oblate spheroid with an equatorial
diameter that exceeds the polar diameter by about 20 km. The resulting equatorial bulge exerts
a force that pulls the satellite back to the equatorial plane whenever it is above or below this
plane and tries to align the orbital plane with the equator.
3.1.1.1 Expansion of Spherical Harmonics
In order to evaluate of the acceleration vector due to non-spherical Earth the expansion of the
potential function is generalized [32] [63]. The Earths gravity potential function is
)),sin()cos()(sin0 0
mSmCPrR
rU nmnmnm
n
n
mn
n
+= = =
( 3-1)
with coefficients
S)S()cos()(sin)!()!(2 3''0 dmP
Rs
mnmn
MC nmn
nm
nm +=
( 3-2)
S)S()sin()(sin)!()!(2 3''0 dmP
Rs
mnmn
MS nmn
nm
nm +=
, ( 3-3)
which describe the depends of the Earths internal mass distribution. Geopotential Coefficients
with m=0 are called zonal coefficients, since they describe the part of the potential that does not
depend on the longitude, the Legendre polynomials is
nn
n
nn udud
nuP )1(
!21)( 2 = , ( 3-4)
with degree n, and the associated Legendre polynomial of degree n and order m is defined as
)()1()( 2/2 uPduduuP nm
mm
nm = , ( 3-5)
R is the Equatorial radius of the Earth, r is the satellite position, S is point inside the Earth
-
3.1Satellite Perturbations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 23 2/12/2006
where r > S, is the longitude, is the latitude of the satellite at point r, , is the corresponding quantities for S, (S) is the density at point S. Because the internal mass distribution of the Earth is not known, the geopotential
coefficients cannot be calculated from the defining equation, but have to be determined
indirectly by combined use of satellite tracking, terrestrial gravimetry, and altimeter Data [3].
Joint Gravity Model of order and degree 70 (JGM-3) was issued in 1996 [3]. Although JGM-3
is a very elaborate global gravity model for precision orbit determination, new models are
continuously being developed.
3.1.1.2 Geopotential Gravity Acceleration
Several recurrence relations [3] for the evaluation of the Legendre polynomials can be used
where
mPr
RW
mPr
RV
nm
n
nm
nm
n
nm
sin).(sin.
cos).(sin.
1
1
+
+
=
= . ( 3-6)
Satisfy the recurrence relations. The gravity potential may written as
)( nmnmnmnm WSVCRGMU +=
. ( 3-7)
The accelerationr , which is equal to the gradient of U, may be directly calculated from the V&& nm and Wnm as
===mn
nmmn
nmmn
nm zzyyxx,,,
,, &&&&&&&&&&&& , ( 3-8)
with the partial accelerations
}{{
})(.)!(
)!2(
)(.21.
.
1,11,1
1,11,12
0
1,102
)0(
++
++++
>
+
=
++++
=
=
mnnmmnnm
mnnmmnnm
m
nn
m
nm
WSVCmn
mn
WSVCR
GM
VCR
GMx&&
( 3-9)
-
3.1Satellite Perturbations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 24 2/12/2006
}{{
})(.)!(
)!2(
)(.21.
.
1,11,1
1,11,12
0
1,102
)0(
++
++++
>
+
=
++++
=
=
mnnmmnnm
mnnmmnnm
m
nn
m
nm
VSWCmn
mn
VSWCR
GM
WCR
GMy&&
( 3-10)
{ })(.)1(. ,1,12 mnnmmnnmnm WSVCmnRGMz ++ +=&& . ( 3-11) The derivations of these equations are given in [64].
The formulas given for yield the acceleration in an Earth-fixed coordinates system. To
obtain the acceleration in an inertial coordinates system some coordinates transformation are
required. Using indices ef and sf to distinguish Earth-fixed from space-fixed coordinates, one has
efT
sfsfef tandt rUrrUr &&&& ).( , ).( == , ( 3-12) where
)(= ZRU ( 3-13) represent the rotation of the inertial system by Greenwich hour angle (GMST) around the z-
axis. And
+++
=1000cossin0sincos
)(zR . ( 3-14)
Neglecting long and short-term perturbations of the Earths axis, known as precession and
nutation.
3.1.2 Perturbation from the Sun and the Moon (Point-Mass)
According to the Newtons law of gravity, the acceleration of a satellite by a point mass M is
given by
3rsrsr
= GM&& , ( 3-15)
where r and s are the geocentric coordinates of the satellite and of M, respectively. To describe
the satellites motion with respect to the center of the Earth, the value r in equation (3-15)
refers to an inertial coordinate system in which the Earth is not at rest, but is itself subject to
acceleration due to M.
&&
3ssr GM=&& . ( 3-16)
-
3.1Satellite Perturbations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 25 2/12/2006
Both values have to be subtracted to obtain the second derivative
33 ss
rsrsr
= GM&& ( 3-17)
Of the satellites Earth-centered Vector.
3.1.3 Solar Radiation Pressure
A satellite that is exposed to solar radiation experience a small force that is arises from the
absorption or reflection of photons. In contrast to the gravitational perturbations, the
acceleration due to the solar radiation depends on the satellite mass and surface area. Due to the
eccentricity of the Earths orbit, the distance between an Earth-orbiting satellite and Sun varies
between 147106 km and 152106 km during the course of the year. This results in an annual
variation of the solar radiation pressure by about 3.3%. For typical materials used in the
construction of satellites, the reflectivity lies in the range from 0.2 to 0.9. For many applications, (e.g. satellites with large solar arrays), it suffices to assume that the surface points
in the direction of the Sun one can obtain the following expression for the acceleration of the
satellite due to the solar radiation pressure [3]
23 AU
rr
= rmACP R&& , ( 3-18)
where is the solar radiation pressure, A is surface area of the satellite, m is the satellite mass,
is the geocentric position vector of the Sun, and AU is the astronomical unit (the semi-major
axis of the Earths orbit about the Sun=1.49597910
P
r8 km). CR is the radiation pressure
coefficient stands for
CR = 1 + . ( 3-19) The previous equation is commonly used in orbit determination programs with the option of
estimation of CR as a free parameter. Orbital perturbations due to the solar radiation pressure
may be thus account with high precision, even if no details of the satellite structure, orientation
and reflectivity are known.
3.1.4 Atmospheric Drag Acceleration
Atmospheric forces represent the largest non-gravitational perturbations acting on low altitude
satellites. The dominant atmospheric force acting on low altitude satellites, called drag is
directed opposite to the velocity of the satellite motion with respect to the atmospheric flux,
hence decelerating the satellite. Consider a small element mass m of an atmosphere column
that hits the satellites cross-sectional area A in some time interval t
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 26 2/12/2006
tAvm r= , ( 3-20) where vr is satellite velocity relative to the atmosphere velocity, is the atmospheric density at
the location of the satellite. The impulse dp exerted on the satellite is then given by
tAvmvp rr == 2 , ( 3-21) which is related to the resulting force F by F=p/t. The satellite acceleration due to the drag
can therefore be written as [3]
vrD vmAC er 2
21 =&& , ( 3-22)
where m is the satellite mass and the drag coefficient CD is dimensionless quantity that
describes the interaction of the atmosphere with the satellites surface material. Typical values
of CD range from 1.5-3.0, and are commonly estimated as free parameters in orbit determination
programs. The direction of the drag acceleration is always anti-parallel to the relative velocity
vector indicated by the unit vector ev= vr/vr As the drag force depends on the atmospheric
density at the satellite location, the modeling of the complex properties and dynamics of the Earths atmosphere is a challenging task of modern precision orbit determination. A Varity of
more or less complicated atmospheric models have been established recently, with typical
density differences for different models of about 20% at a lower of 300 km, even increasing at
higher altitudes. There exist relatively simple atmospheric models that already allow for a
reasonable atmospheric density computation. The algorithm of Harris-Priester [65, 66] is still
widely used as a standard atmosphere and may be adequate for many applications.
3.2 Linearization and Variational Equations
The state vector at some specified epoch at t0 determines the form of the orbit and its orientation
in space. TTT ttt ))(),(()( 000 vry = ( 3-23)
),()()(
0660
tttyty =
( 3-24)
The state transition matrix (t,t0) is described as any change of the initial state vector at t0
results in a change of position and velocity of the two-body at a later epoch t. It is to take into
account at least the major perturbations in the computation of (t,t0). As with the treatment of
the perturbed satellite motion, one may not obtain an analytical solution anymore in this case,
but has to solve a special set of differential equations the variational equations by numerical
method. Aside from the increased accuracy that may be obtained by accounting for
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 27 2/12/2006
perturbations, the concept of the variational equations offers the advantage that it is not limited
to the computation of the state transition matrix, but may also be extended to the treatment of
partial derivatives with respect to force model parameters.
3.2.1 The Differential Equation of the State Transition Matrix
The differential equation, which describes the change of the state transition matrix with time,
follows from the equation of motion of the satellite. The state transition matrix may therefore be
obtained from [3]
),()(
),,()(
),,(10
),( 066
3333
0 ttt
tt
tttdtd
=
vvrr
rvrr &&&& ( 3-25)
and the initial value (t0, t0)= 166, where is the acceleration vector and r, v are the position
and velocity respectively.
r&&
3.2.2 The Differential Equation of the Sensitivity Matrix
The sensitivity matrix S(t,t0) determines the different forces acting on the satellite.
),()()(
0660
tttt S
py =
, ( 3-26)
where the parameter vector p (pi (i=1,,ni) may contain the drag and the radiation pressure
coefficient (CD,CR), the thrust level of a maneuver or the size of certain gravity coefficients. The
differential equation of the sensitivity matrix that gives the partial derivatives of the state vector
with respect to the force model parameter vector may be obtained in a completely analogous
way, yielding [3]
p
p
n
n
t
ttt
tdtd
+
=
6
33
3333
6
)(),,(
0
)()(
),,()(
),,(10
)(
rpvrr
Sv
pvrrr
pvrrS
&&
&&&&
. ( 3-27)
Since the state vector at t0 does not depend on any force model parameter, the initial value of
the sensitivity matrix is given by S(t0) = 0.
3.2.3 Form and Solution of the Variational Equations
By combining the differential equations for the state transition matrix and the sensitivity matrix
one obtains the form of the variational equations
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 28 2/12/2006
)6(663
363
66
3333
0
00),(
10),(
p
p
n
n
dtd
+
+
=
prS
vr
rrS &&&&&& , ( 3-28)
which is adequate for use with numerical methods for the solution of second-order differential
equations, by decomposing and S into the variational equation may then be written as
+
+
=
pr
SvrS
rrS r
&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&
630
),(),(),( rrrrr ( 3-29)
=
=
=
=
pv
pr
SS
S
vrv
vrr
)(
)(
)(,(()(
)(,(()(
0)0
0)0
t
t
ttt
ttt
v
r
v
r
. ( 3-30)
3.2.4 Partial Derivative of the Earth Geopotential Acceleration
Due to complex structure of the partial derivative of the Geopotential gravity and a finite
accuracy of the derivative is sufficient it may therefore preferable to replace the rigorous
computation by a simple quotient approximation. This technique is mainly applied to the
computation of the state transition and sensitivity matrix where
rvrrrvrr
rr
+
),,(),,()()( tt
tt &&&&&& , ( 3-31)
where is the geopotential acceleration, r is the satellite position ,v is the satellite velocity in
inertial frame. Good result is obtained by restricting the partial
r&&rr /&& to terms involving the
low-order geopotential coefficient.
Since the acceleration due to the Earths attraction does not depend on the satellites
velocity, the partial derivatives with respect to the position are all that is required to compute
the contribution of the geopotential to the variational equations for the state transition matrix. In
the case of the sensitivity matrix neglecting the influence of Earth rotation parameters on the
acceleration the only model parameters of interest are , CGM nm, and Snm but they are not
considered in most orbit determination programs. This is due to the fact that the estimation of
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 29 2/12/2006
these force parameters is not possible for individual satellites but requires the simultaneous
consideration of a large set of observations from different satellite orbits.
3.2.5 Partial Derivatives of the Sun and the Moon (Point Mass) Accelerations
According to the perturbation of the Sun and the Moon in an Earth-centered in inertial frame
are given by
33 ss
rssr = rGM&& . ( 3-32)
Only the direct gravitational attraction depends on the satellite coordinates and the partial
derivates of the acceleration with respect to r are therefore given by [3]
=
5333 )(
)()(31srsrsr1
srrr TGM&&
. ( 3-33)
The derivative with respect to the solar or lunar mass M can be computed from
rr &&&&GMGM
1= , ( 3-34)
and are only required in special applications.
3.2.6 Partial Derivative of Solar Radiation Pressure Acceleration
Due to large distance of the Sun the partial derivative of the acceleration with respect to
satellite, position is quite small and may therefore safely be neglected in most applications.
What is more important, however, is the partial derivative
23
1 AUrrr
== rmAP
CC RR&&&& , ( 3-35)
this is required to compute the influence of variation in the radiation pressure coefficient on the
satellite trajectory. This allows the estimation of CR during an orbit determination, which cannot
usually be predicted accurately enough from material constants and the satellite geometry.
3.2.7 Partial derivative of the Atmospheric Drag acceleration
Starting from the basic expression
vrD vmAC er 2
21 =&& , ( 3-36)
for the acceleration due to atmospheric drag the derivative with respect to the drag coefficient is
rrD vmAC vr 2
21 =&& . ( 3-37)
The dependence on the satellite velocity is described by the partial derivatives
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 30 2/12/2006
)(21 1vv
vr
rr
Trr
D vvmAC +=
&& . ( 3-38)
The partial derivative with respect to position involves a direct term describing the atmospheric
density variations as well as a minor contribution resulting from the changing atmospheric wind
velocity:
rv1vv
rv
rr
+
= r
rr
Trr
DrrD vvmACv
mAC )(
21
21 && . ( 3-39)
The r
describes the dependence of the atmospheric density on the satellite location. Except for the simplistic models like that of Harris-Priester, the complexity of representing atmospheric
density models renders the analytical computation of the density gradient extremely difficult.
3.2.8 Partial of Measurements with Respect to the State Vector
In the computation of partial derivatives that describe the dependence of a measurement on the
instantaneous position and velocity of the satellite one may, to first order, neglect all light-time
effects and consider the geometric measurement equations, only. Both angle and distance
measurements may then be expressed as functions of the topocentric local tangent coordinates
s, which are related to the Earth-centered (geocentric equatorial coordinates), space-fixed
satellite position r and the Earth-fixed station coordinates Ref by
))()(()( efttt RrUEs = , ( 3-40) where U is the matrix describing the transformation from space-fixed to Earth fixed coordinate,
while
+++
=
=
sinsincoscoscoscossinsincossin
0cossin
TZ
TN
TE
eee
E , ( 3-41)
is the orthonormal matrix made by the east, north and zenith unit vectors (local tangential
coordinates), which provide a natural and convenient frame for describing a satellites motion
with respect to an antenna. The mutual conversion between the Cartesian and spherical
coordinates is provided by the relation.
=
=
EEAEA
Z
N
E
sincoscoscossin
sss
s , ( 3-42)
and
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 31 2/12/2006
)arctan(
),arctan(
22NE
Z
N
E
E
A
sss
ss
+=
=, ( 3-43)
where A and E is the Azimuth and elevation, respectively. The azimuth angle A measures the
longitude in the horizontal plane and is counted positively from North to East. The elevation
angle E specifies the latitude above the horizontal plane and is measured positively to the
zenith.
The partials of a range or angle measurement z may then be expressed as
EUsr d
dzddz = . ( 3-44)
Neglecting the light-time correction and propagation effects, the partial derivative of a range
measurement with respect to the instantaneous position vectors is therefore given by
EUsrs
s
T
= , ( 3-45)
with s = |s|, while the partials with respect to the velocity vanish completely. Using the basic
expression for azimuth and elevation the partial derivatives of azimuth and elevation with
respect to the position vector
EUss
sss
sr
+
+= 0A 2
N2E
E2N
2E
N , ( 3-46)
and
EUs
ss
sss
ss
sss
ssr
+
+
+=
2
2N
2E
2N
2E
2
ZN
2N
2E
2
ZEE . ( 3-47)
As with the range measurements, the geometric angles do not depend on the velocity and the
corresponding partials are equal to zero.
3.2.9 Partial with Respect to Measurement Model Parameters
The precise prediction of an observation for a given satellite position involves various
measurement model parameters like Transponder delay, antenna axis displacement,
measurement biases, station coordinates and others. Since many parameters are of interest only
in specialized applications, the following derivative is restricted to the simple bias values,
which are the most commonly considered measurements model parameters. For measurement
Biases q = z- z*, as defined as the difference between the actual measurement z (affected by the
-
3.2Linearization and Variational Equations
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 32 2/12/2006
bias) and the corrected (bias free) value z*, the corresponding partial derivatives
iqz , ( 3-48)
are equal to +1 (if qi = qz is the bias value related to the measurement z) or 0 (if qi is the bias
value of some other measurement type).
-
CHAPTER 4
4 SATELLITE ORBITS ESTIMATION AND DETERMINATION
4.1 Satellite Tracking and Observation Models
Satellite Orbits determination requires input measurements, the pointing angles and the slant
range, that are related to the satellite's position or velocity. These data are collected by a satellite
tracking system that measures the properties of electromagnetic wave propagation between the
transmitter and the receiver. The transmitter as well as the receiver may be either a ground
station or a satellite. The material of this chapter is based on [36].
4.1.1 Angle Measurements
Antenna auto-track mode may be achieved using the conical scan method, where the antenna
feed performs a slight rotation in such a way that the cone always covers the direction to the
satellite. The amplitude modulation of the received signal leads to an error signal that can be
used to steer the antenna. The mono-pulse technique derives antenna-angle offsets by the
extraction two signals from the satellite beacon. To obtain these signals, the difference signal
and the sum signal single, feed such as a corrugated horn is applied. The sum signal is
essentially applied as a reference for the error signal. The amplitude of the difference signal is
proportional to the amplitude of the antenna-angle offset, while the phase of the difference
signal corresponds to the direction of the offset. The error signal together with the sum signal is
fed to a tracking unit to provide azimuth and elevation error outputs.
In general, angle measurements are severely affected by systemic errors that are due to
calibration deficiencies, thermo-elastic distortions, and wind or snow loads. Within an orbit
determination the systematic angle errors may partially absorbed by the estimation of angle
measurement biases, although the error sources lead, in general, to varying angle errors.
4.1.2 Ranging Measurements
The basic technique to generate ranging signal is common tone-ranging systems. The average
of the uplink and downlink distance This is expressed as an equivalent range value s = (1/2)c,
where c is the speed light, and 2 is the two-way signal travel time. This system modulate the
carrier signal with a sine wave of frequency fo = 100 kHz, which is known as major tone. Upon
reception, the demodulator locks onto the incoming tone and determines its phase with respect
to the outgoing tone. The phase shift is directly proportional to the turn around signal travel
-
4.1Satellite Tracking and Observation Models
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 34 2/12/2006
time
02 f = , ( 4-1)
and can be measured with a typical resolution of about = 10-2cyc = 210-2. As a result, the two-way range is obtained with a typical accuracy of = 10-2 c/(2f0) = 15 m. Because the phase shift can only be measured in the interval (0,2), the range measurements suffer from an
in determination or ambiguity of
02 fcs = , ( 4-2)
which amounts to 1500 m in the given example. To overcome this difficulty, the ranging signal
is supplemented by a series of sub-harmonic minor tones, which are derived from the major
tone and coherently modulated on the carrier. A representative sequence of major and minor
tones is given by the frequencies f0 = 100 kHz, f1 = 20 kHz, f2 = 4 kHz, f3 = 800 Hz, f4 = 160 Hz,
f5 == 32 Hz, and f6 = 8 Hz [67]. Here, the turn-around time can uniquely be measured up to a
value of 1/8 s as determined by the lowermost minor-tone frequency.
Figure 4-1 Azimuth and Elevation Angles
Y-axis=North,X-axis= East, Z-axis= Zenuith
-
4.2Maneuver Implementation
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 35 2/12/2006
4.2 Maneuver Implementation
4.2.1 Numerical Integration Methods
The high accuracy, which is required in computation of satellite orbit, can only be achieved by
using numerical methods for the solution of the equation of motion. Varieties of methods have
been developed for the numerical integration of ordinary differential equations. Multi-step
methods with the availability of variable-order and step-size are suited for the satellite orbits
from near circular orbits to high eccentricity orbits without any precautions. Due to their
flexibility, variable order and step-size multi-step methods are ideal candidates for use in
general satellite orbit prediction and determination systems.
4.2.2 Satellite Orbits Correction
The three component of a corrective velocity (vn, vt, vz) maneuver affect the 6 orbital elements,
and therefore, it is not common to require the adjustment of all the orbital elements.
Geostationary satellite orbits [26] are assumed to be equatorial orbits with a period equal to the
sidereal day (86164.1 seconds), i.e. corresponding to the daily rotation of the Earth relative to
the stars. A satellite of a circular orbit with radius of approximately 42164 km will appear
stationary to an observer on the earth. Although the perturbations on satellites in geostationary
orbits are very small, they become important due to the tight tolerance arising from the mission
requirements. Station keeping, therefore has to be performed, and the spacecraft is maneuvered
in order to keep it within strict latitude and longitude limit defining a dead-zone. The magnitude
of the dead-zone depends upon the characteristics of the communication antennas and
transponders. It is common with modern communication satellites to require that the satellite
remains stationary relative to the ground within 0.1 degree in both latitude and longitude due
to narrow antenna beam width of the ground transmitter. If the inclination of the orbits drifts
away from the Equator then the satellite will appear to have a daily oscillation in latitude equal
to the magnitude of the non-zero inclination. The changes in the inclination of a geostationary
orbit arise from the effects of the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun. The
perturbations caused by the Sun and the Moon are predominantly out-of-plane effects causing a
change in the inclination and in the right ascension of the orbits ascending node. In-plane
perturbations also occur, but these are second order effects and need to be considered when
extremely tight tolerance, i.e. about 0.03 degree, is required.
-
4.2Maneuver Implementation
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 36 2/12/2006
4.2.2.1 Thrust Forces
The maneuver may conveniently be treated as instantaneous velocity increment v occurring at
the impulsive maneuver time tm whenever the thrust duration is small as compared to the orbital
period.
)(v)(v)(v mmm ttt += + . ( 4-3) A substantial amount of propellant is consumed during a single maneuver, which results in
continuous change of the spacecraft mass along the burn. Despite the variety of the spacecraft
propulsion systems, a simple, constant thrust model is sufficient to describe the motion of a
spacecraft during thrust. The propulsion system ejects a mass of propellant per time interval dt
at a velocity ve.
dtmdm &= . ( 4-4) A spacecraft mass m experiences a thrust
em vF &= . ( 4-5) And the acceleration
emm
mvFf
&== . ( 4-6)
Integration over the burn time t, the total velocity increment is given by
0
0)(
1 )(lnvv)(fv0
0
0
0m
ttmdmdttttm
mem
tt
te
+=== ++
( 4-7)
0
1ln(Fvm
tmm
= && . ( 4-8)
Assuming, that a mass has a constant flow rate and making use of the total velocity increment
v, the acceleration may be expressed [3] as
tv
mtmtm
mt
=
0
1ln
1)(
)(f &&
( 4-9)
-
REFERENCES
[1] Escobal P.R; Methods of Orbit Determination; John Wiley&sons, Inc., NewYork (1965). Reprint: Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida(1976).
[2] Allgowe E.L., GeorgeK.; Numerical Continuation Methods;SMC13;Springer Verlag,New York(1990).
[3] Oliver Motenbruck, Eberhard Gill; Satellite Orbit (Models, Methods, Application); Springer Verlag Heidelburg New York (2000).
[4] Fallon L.; Recursive Least Squares Estimators and Kalman Filters;D.Reidel Publishing Company(1978).
[5] Campbell J. K.; Voyager Orbit Determination at Jupiter; IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-28,256-268(1983).
[6] Maxwell Noton; Spacecraft Navigation and Guidance.-(Advances in Industrial Control Series); Springer-Verlage London Limited, 1998.
[7] Gwynne Gurevich, Robert Bell, James R. Wertz; Autonomous On-Board Orbit Control, Flight Results and Applications, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), pp 5226-52644, 2000.
[8] M. A. Zayan; Noise Cancellation Using Adaptive Digital Filter and Neural Network, Master thesis, Alexandria University Faculty of Engineering, Department of Electrical, Communication Section 1998.
[9] Narendra, K.S. and S. Mukhopadhyay; Adaptive Control Using Neural Networks and Approximate Models, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks Vol. 8, pp. 475-485, 1997.
[10] Hagan, M.T. and H.B. Demuth; Neural Networks for Control, Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, , pp. 1642-1656,1999.
[11] M.A.Lelic and P.E.Wellstead; Generalized Pole Placement Self Tuning Controller. Part 1.Basic Algorithm. Int. J. Control, 46(2):547-568.1987.
[12] D.A.Linkers and M.Mahfonf; Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control, chapter Generalized Predictive Control in Clinical Anaesthesia. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[13] Soloway, D. and P.J. Haley; Neural Generalized Predictive Control, Proceedings of the 1996; IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pp. 277-281, 1996.
[14] Hagan, M.T., O. De Jesus, and R. Schultz; Training Recurrent Networks for Filtering and Control, Chapter 12 in Recurrent Neural Networks: Design and Applications, L. Medsker and L.C.Jain, Eds., CRC Press, pp. 311-340, 1999.
[15] Schutz B.E.,Tapley B.D; UTOPIA: University of Texas Orbit Processor; Department of Aerospace Engineering,TR 80-1(1980).
[16] Long A..C.; Mathematical Theory of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System;
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 38 2/12/2006
Goddar Space Flight Center; Greenbelt, Maryland(1989).
[17] Leondes C. T.[ed.]; Theory and application of Kalman filtering . NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Res. Devolpe., AGARD Dograph 139 (1970).
[18] Garcia, C. E., Prett, D. M., and Morari, M. (1989); Model predictive control: Theory and practice - a survey. Automatica, 25(3):335{348.Gevers, M. (1993). Essays on Control: Perspectives in the Theory and its Applications, chapter 5. Towards a joint design on identification and control, pages 111{151. Birkhauser, Boston.
[19] Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., and Scokaert, P. O. M. (2000); Constrained Model Predictive Control: Stability and Optimality. Automatica,36:789{814.
[20] Maciejowski, J. M. (2001); Predictive Control with Constraints. Addison-Wesley Pub Co, 1st edition.
[21] Ljung, L. and Glad, T. (1994); Modeling of Dynamic Systems. Information and System Sciences Series. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, N.J. USA.
[22] Ljung, L. (1999b); System Identification: Theory For the User. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. USA, 2 edition.
[23] Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M. and White, H. (1989); "Multilayer Feed-Forward Networks are Universal Approximators," Neural Networks, 2, 359-366.
[24] Kirschner S.M., Beri A. C., Broaddus S. R., Doll C. E.; Spacecraft Preliminary Orbit Determination Using Tracking Measurements Obtained from the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) and the Ground Spaceflight Tracking Data Network (GSTDN). Space Dynamics Confrenece, CNES Toulouse, Nov.89 (1990).
[25] Tapley B. D.; Statistical Orbit Determination Theory; in Tapley B. D., Szebehely V.(eds.), Recent Advances in Dynamical Astronomy. D. Reidel Publ.Co., Dordrecht-Hollond (1973).
[26] Pocha, J. J. (Jehangir. J.); An Introduction to Mission Design For Geostationary Satellites; Published by D.Reidel Publishing Company, Holland; 1987.
[27] Lawson C. L.; Solving Least Squares Problems; Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1974).
[28]McCarthy J.J., Rowton S.; GEODYN II Systems Description; NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Green belt Maryland(1993).
[29] Soop E. M.; Introduction to Geostationary Orbits. ESA SP-1053 (1983).
[30] Matra Marconi Space; Critical Design Review, Nilesat-101 Satellite Control System,Vol.3, 4, and 5 1996.
[31] Battin R. H., Levine G. M.; Application of Kalman Filtering Techniques to the Apollo Program. NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Res.Devlop., AGARDograph 139 (1970)
[32] Battin R. H.; An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods of Astrodynamics. AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 39 2/12/2006
York (1987).
[33] Moyer T. D.; Mathematical Formulation of the Double Precession Orbit Determination Program(DPODP). JPL Technical Report 32-1527 (1971).
[34] Curkendall D. W., Leondes C. T.; Sequential Filter Design for Precesion Orbit Determination and Physical Constant Determination. Celestial Mechanics 8, 481-494(1974)
[35] Tapley B. D.; Precision Orbit Determination For TOPEX/POSEIDON,99,(1994).
[36] A.F. Aly, M. Nguib Aly, M.E. Elshishtawy, M. A. Zayan; Optimization Techniques for Orbit Estimation and Determination to Control the Satellite Motion , paper #164, Volume 5 Track 7.07 page 2231-2248, IEEE AC, (2002).
[37] Rafal Wisniewski; Satellite Attitude Control Using Only Electromagnetic Actuation .Ph.D Thesis Department of Control Engineering, Aalborg Unversity, Denmark 1996.
[38] M. Noton, S. V. Salehi.; Low-Thrust Navigation to Comets or Asteroid. ESA journal, 11:215-231, 1987.
[39] A. E. Bryson, Y. C. Ho; Applied Optimal Control. Blaisedell, 1969.
[40] M. Nonton; Modern Control Engineering. Pergamon Press, 1972.
[41] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powel; Digital Control of Dynamic Systems. Addison Wesely, 1980.
[42] W.Haeussermann; Saturn Launch Vehicles Navigation Guidance, and Control System. Automatica, 7:537-556, 1979.
[43] M. D. Waterman; Guidance Law for the Ariane On- board Computer. J of the British Interplanetary Society, 29:402-407, 1976.
[44] R. G. Brusch; Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch vehicle. J of Spacecraft, 14(9):550-555, 1977.
[45] Yon-Pin, Ch. and L. Shih-Che (1993); Sliding Mode Controller Design for Spacecraft Attitude Tracking Maneuvers. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 29(4), 1328-1332 (1993).
[46] Cavallo, A., G. De Maria, F. Ferrara and P. Nistri (1993); A Sliding Manifold Approach
to Satellite Attitude Control. In proc.: 12th World Congress IFAC, Sidney.
[47] Bymes, Ch. I. and A. Isidori (1991); On the Attitude Stabilization of Rigid Spacecraft.
Automatica 27(1), 87-95.
[48] Wen, J. Ting-Yung and K. Kreutz-Delgado (1991); The Attitude Control Problem. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 40 2/12/2006
[49] Musser, K.L. and L.E. Ward (1989); Autonomous Spacecraft Attitude Control Using Magnetic Torquing Only. In proc.: Flight Mechanics Estimation Theory Symposium, NASA.
[50] G.scharm, L.karsten; Optimal Attitude Control of Satellites by Artificial Neural Networks. The study was performed by Fokker Space & Systems and the University of Amesterdam partially funded by the Dutch Space Agency, 1993
[51] Hossein S.Zadeh; Maneuver Simulation of a Non-Linear System using Membership Function Optimization of a Fuzzy Logic Controller, paper # 519, IEEE AC, 2002.
[52] A. F. Aly, M. Nguib Aly, M.A. Zayan; Satellite Orbits Control using Adaptive Neural Predictive Control, paper #1218, 6-2671, IEEE AC, 2003.
[53] MATLAB Soft Ware Package; The Technical Language of Technical Computing; Version 6.0.0.88 Release 12, Math Work Inc, 2000.
[54] Aoki S., Guinot B., Kaplan G. h. , Kinoshita H., McCarthy D. D., Seildelman P. K.; The New Definition of Universal Time, Astronomy and Astrophysics 105, 359- 361, 1982.
[55] Fricke W., Schwan H., Lederle T., Bastian U., Bien R., Burkhardt G., du Mont B., Hering, R., Jahrling R., Jahreib H., Roser S., Schwerdtfeger H., Walter H. G.; Fifth Fundemenetal Catalogue(FK5). Part 1. The Basic Fundemental Stars; Veroffentlichungen Astronomisches Rechen-Institut Heidelbeg Nr.32; Verlag G. Braun, Karlsruhe, 1988.
[56] Feissel M., Mignard F.; The Adaptation of ICRS on 1 January 1998: Meaning and Consequences; Astronomy and astrophysics 331, L33-L36, 1998.
[57] Arias E. F., Charlot P., Feissel M., Lestrade J.; The Extradalactic Refrence System of the International Earth Rotation Service, ICRS, Astronomy and astrophysics 303,604-608, 1995.
[58] McCarthy D. D.; IERS Convention 1996; IERS Technical Note21, Centeral Bureau of IERS-Observatoire de Paris, 1996.
[59] Cohen E.R., Taylor B. N.; The 1986 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constant, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 92, No.2, 85-95, 1987.
[60] Ries J, C., Eanes R. J., Haung C., Schutz B. E.; Determination of the Gravitational Coefficients of the Earth from Near-Earth Satellites, Geophsical Research Letters 16, No.4, 271-274, 1989.
[61] www.nasa.org
[62] www.stk.com.
[63] M. H Kaplan; Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control. Wiley, 1976.
[64] Cunningham L. E; On the Computationof the Sperical Harmonic Terms neededduring the Numerical Integration of the Orbital Motion of an Artificial Satellite, Celestial Mechanics 2,207-216 (1970).
-
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 41 2/12/2006
[65] Harris & priester 1962,
[66] Long A. C., Capperllari J. O, ; Mathematical Theory of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System; Goddard Space Flight Center; greenbelt, Maryland. et al.1989.
[67] Zarrouati O.; Trajectoires Spatiales; CNES, Cepadues Edition (1987).
[68] Bhat, N., T.J. McAvoy (1989); Use of Neural Network for Dynamic Modeling and Control of Chemical Process Systems. American Control Conference, Pittsburg.
[69] Zamarreo J.M., P. Vega (1996 .(Neural Predictive Control. Application to a Highly Non-Linear System. 13th World Congress International Federation of Automatic Control, San Francisco.
[70] Zamarreo J.M., P. Vega (1999 ( ; Neural Predictive Control. Application to a Highly Non-Linear System .Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 12, 149-158.
[71] Camacho, E. F. and Bordons, C. (1998); Model Predictive Control. Springer, Berlin.
[72] D. W. Clarke, C. Mohtadi and P. C. Tuffs; Generalized Predictive Control - Part 1: The Basic Algorithm, Automatica, Volume 23, pp. 137-148, 1987.
[73] D. W Clarke and C. Mohtadi; Properties of Generalized Predictive Control, Automatica Volume 25, Issue 6, pp. 859-875, 1989.
[74] H. Domirciogiu, and D. W. Clarke; CGPC with Guaranteed Stability Properties, IEE Proceedings-D, Vol. 139, No. 4, July 1992.
[75] D. W. Clarke; Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control in Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control, ed. by D. W. Clarke, Oxford University Press, 1994.
[76] J. E. Dennis, R. B. Schnabel; Numerical Methods for unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations, Siam Classic in Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1996.
[77] Ljung, L. (1985); Asymptotic Variance Expressions for Identified Black-Box Transfer Function Models. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-30(9):834{844.
[78] Ljung, L. (1999a); Estimation Focus In System Identification: Predetermine, Noise Models, and Prediction. Technical Report LiTH-ISY-R-2182, Department of Electrical Engineering, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
[79] Ljung, L. (2000); System Identification Toolbox { User's Guide. The Math-Works, Inc., Natick, MA. USA, 5 edition.
[80] Ljung, L. and Glad, T. (2000); Control Theory - Multivariable and Nonlinear Methods. Taylor and Francis, London.
1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Satellite Orbits 1.1.1.1 Geostationary Orbits 1.1.1.2 Polar Orbits 1.1.1.3 Inclined Orbits
1.1.2 Orbits Determination and Estimation Methods
2 Orbital Mechanics and Reference Systems 2.1 Kepler Laws 2.2 Julian Date 2.3 Sidereal and Universal Time 2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems 2.5 The Two-Body Problem 2.5.1 Orbital Elements, Energy Integral, and Euler Angles 2.5.2 Position and Velocity from the Orbital Elements 2.5.3 Orbital Elements from the Position and Velocity 2.5.4 Keplers Equation and the Time Dependence of the Motion 2.5.4.1 Solution for Ellipse
2.5.5 Computation Starting from Time in Orbit 2.5.6 Orbital Variation in Keplerian Elements Format 2.5.7 Tangential and Normal Components 2.5.8 Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t, n, z) 2.5.9 Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t, n, z) Axes [6]
3 Satellite Perturbations and Linearization 3.1 Satellite Perturbations 3.1.1 Gravitational Field of the Earth 3.1.1.1 Expansion of Spherical Harmonics 3.1.1.2 Geopotential Gravity Acceleration
3.1.2 Pe