Download presentation

1
**Methods of Orbit Propagation**

Struggled certain places in GP, may need to extend up front material Need to place talking points in notes areas Carrico asked for chart on orbit accuracies from different prop types Berry thought my Cowell definitions were incorrect, maybe just delete this Need to add some humor Methods of Orbit Propagation Jim Woodburn

2
**Why are you here? You want to use space You operate a satellite**

You use a satellite You want to avoid a satellite You need to exchange data You forgot to leave the room after the last talk

3
**Motivation Accurate orbit modeling is essential to analysis**

Different orbit propagation models are required Design, planning, analysis, operations Fidelity: “Need vs. speed” Orbit propagation makes great party conversation STK has been designed to support all levels of user need

4
**Agenda Analytical Methods Semi-analytical Methods Numerical Methods**

Exact solutions to simple approximating problems Approximate solutions to approximating problems Semi-analytical Methods Better approximate solutions to realistic problems Numerical Methods Best solutions to most realistic problems

5
Analytical Methods Definition – Position and velocity at a requested time are computed directly from initial conditions in a single step Allows for iteration on initial conditions (osculating to mean conversion)

6
**Analytical Methods Complete solutions General perturbations Two body**

Vinti General perturbations Method of averaging Mean elements Brouwer Kozai

7
**Two-Body Spherically symmetric mass distribution Gravity is only force**

Many methods of solution Two Body propagator in STK

8
**Vinti’s Solution Solved in spheroidal coordinates**

Includes the effects of J2, J3 and part of J4 But the J2 problem does not have an analytical solution This is not a solution to the J2 problem This is also not in STK

9
**Interpolation with complete solutions**

Standard formulations Lagrangian interpolation, order 7 [8 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed separately Hermitian interpolation, order 7 [4 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed together Why interpolate? Just compute directly!

10
**Complete Soln Pros and Cons**

Fast Provide understanding Capture simple physics Serve as building blocks for more sophisticated methods Can be taught in undergraduate classes Not accurate Need something more difficult to teach in graduate classes

11
**General Perturbations**

Use simplified equations which approximate perturbations to a known solution Method of averaging Analytically solve approximate equations Using more approximations

12
**GP – Central Body Gravity**

Defined by a potential function Express U in terms of orbital elements Average U over one orbit Separate into secular and long term contributions Analytically solve for each type of contribution

13
GP Mean Elements Selection of orbit elements and method of averaging define mean elements Only the averaged representation is truly mean Brouwer Kozai It is common practice to “transform” mean elements to other representations

14
J2 and J4 propagators J2 is dominant non-spherical term of Earth’s gravity field Only model secular effects of orbital elements Argument of Perigee Right Ascension of the Ascending Node Mean motion (ie orbital frequency) Method Escobal’s “Methods of Orbit Determination” J2 First order J2 terms J4 First & second order J2 terms; first order J4 terms J4 produces a very small effect (takes a long time to see difference)

15
J2 and J4 equations First-order J2 secular variations:

16
**SGP4 General perturbation algorithm Uses TLEs (Two Line Elements)**

Developed in the 70’s, subsequently revised Mean Keplerian elements in TEME frame Incorporates both SGP4 and SDP4 Uses TLEs (Two Line Elements) Serves as the initial condition data for a space object Continually updated by USSTRATCOM They track space objects, mostly debris Updated files available from AGI’s website Propagation valid for short durations (3-10 days)

17
**Interpolation with GP Standard formulations**

Lagrangian interpolation, order 7 [8 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed separately Should be safe Hermitian interpolation, order 7 [4 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed together Beware – Velocity is not precisely the derivative of position Why interpolate? Just compute directly!

18
**GP Methods – Pros & Cons Pros Cons Fast Provide insight**

Useful in design Less accurate Difficult to code Difficult to extend Nuances Assumptions Force coupling Insight – rates of orbit elements, frequency of effects on orbital elements Design – critical inclination, frozen orbits Assumptions – central body specific – relative periods of 3rd bodies, is J2 the dominant perturbation

19
Numerical Methods Definition – Orbit trajectories are computed via numerical integration of the equations of motion One must marry a formulation of the equations of motion with a numerical integration method

20
**Cartesian Equations of Motion (CEM)**

Conceptually simplest Default EOM used by HPOP, Astrogator

21
**Integration Methods for CEM**

Multi-step Predictor–Corrector Gauss-Jackson (2) Adams (1) Single step Runge-Kutta Bulirsch-Stoer

22
**Numerical Integrators in STK**

Gauss-Jackson (12th order multi-step) Second order equations Runge-Kutta (single step) Fehlberg 7-8 Verner 8-9 4th order Bulirsch-Stoer (single step)

23
**Integrator Selection Multi-step Single step Pros Cons Pros Cons**

Very fast Kick near circular butt Cons Special starting procedure Restart Fixed time steps Error control Pros Plug and play Change force modeling Change state Error control Cons Slower Not good party conversation

24
**Interpolation with CEM**

Standard formulation Lagrangian interpolation, order 7 [8 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed separately Hermitian interpolation, order 5 [2 sample pnts] Position, Velocity, Acceleration computed together Integrator specific interpolation Multi-step accelerations and sums

25
**CEM Pros and Cons Pros Cons**

Simple to formulate the equations of motion Accuracy limited by acceleration models Lots of numerical integration options Physics is all in the force models Six fast variables

26
**Variation of Parameters**

Formulate the equations of motion in terms of orbital elements (first order) Analytically remove the two body part of the problem VOP is NOT an approximation

27
**VOP Process Two/three step process**

Integrate changes to initial orbit elements Apply two body propagation Rectification Integrate Propagate

28
VOP Process tk tk+1 tk+2 Time

29
**VOP - Lagrange Perturbations disturbing potential**

Eq. of motion – Lagrange Planetary Equations

30
VOP - Poisson Perturbations expressed in terms of Cartesian coordinates Natural transition from CEM

31
VOP - Gauss Perturbations expressed in terms of Radial (R), Transverse (S) and Normal (W) components Provides insight into which perturbations affect which orbital elements (maneuvering)

32
VOP - Herrick Uses Cartesian (universal) elements and Cartesian perturbations Implementation in STK

33
**Interpolation with VOP**

Standard formulation Lagrangian interpolation, order 7 [8 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed separately Hermitian interpolation, order 7 [4 sample pnts] Position, Velocity computed together Danger due to potentially large time steps Variation of Parameters Special VOP interpolator, order 7 [8 sample pnts] Deals well with large time steps in the ephemeris Performs Lagrangian interpolation in VOP space

34
**VOP Pros & Cons Pros Cons Fast when perturbations are small**

Share acceleration model with CEM (minus 2Body) Physics incorporated into formulation Errors at level of numerical precision for 2Body Additional code required Error control less effective Loses some advantages in a high frequency forcing environment

35
Encke’s Method Complete solution generated by combining a reference solution with a numerically integrated deviation from that reference Reference is usually a two body trajectory Can choose to rectify Not in STK (directly)

36
Encke Process tk tk+1 tk+2 Time

37
**Encke Applications Orbit propagation Orbit correction**

Fixing errors in numerical integration Eclipse boundary crossings AIAA , AAS Coupled attitude and orbit propagation AAS Transitive partials

38
**Semi-analytical Methods**

Definition – Methods which are neither completely analytic or completely numerical. Typically use a low order integrator to numerically integrate secular and long periodic effects Periodic effects are added analytically Use VOP formulation Almost/Almost compromise

39
**Semi-analytical Process**

Convert initial osculating elements to mean elements Integrate mean element rates at large step sizes Convert mean elements to osculating elements as needed Interpolation performed in mean elements

40
**Semi-analytical Uses Long term orbit propagation and studies**

Constellation design Formation design Orbit maintenance

41
**Semi-analytic in STK - LOP**

Long Term Orbit Propagator Developed at JPL Arbitrary degree and order gravity field Third body perturbations Solar pressure Drag – US Standard Atmosphere

42
**Semi-analytic in STK - Lifetime**

Developed as NASA Langley Hard-coded to use 5th order zonals Third body perturbations Solar pressure Atmospheric drag – selectable density model

43
**DSST Draper Semi-analytic Satellite Theory**

Very complete semi-analytic theory J2000 Modern atmospheric density model Tesseral resonances

44
**Semi-analytical Methods – Pros & Cons**

Fast Provide insight Useful in design Orbit Constellations/Formations Closed Orbits Difficult to code Difficult to extend Nuances Assumptions Force coupling Insight – rates of orbit elements, frequency of effects on orbital elements Design – critical inclination, frozen orbits Assumptions – central body specific – relative periods of 3rd bodies, is J2 the dominant perturbation

45
Questions?

46
**RAAN evolution comparison**

Evolution of the Right Ascension of the Ascending Node 45.0 44.9 Two-Body: Constant 44.8 44.7 44.6 J2: Secular Only 44.5 44.4 HPOP 2x0: Periodic and Secular 44.3 44.2 44.1 1 Jan :00:00.00 1 Jan :30:00.00 1 Jan :00:00.00 (UTCG)

47
**SRP boundary mitigation**

Crossing lighting boundaries Penumbra event occurs over short time intervals Discontinuity in force model sampling Without mitigation, propagation is sensitive to sampling steps STK’s Method: uses Encke correction to account for lighting changes More efficient than re-starting integrator at boundary AGI authored papers (Jim Woodburn) AIAA , AAS

48
**Numerical integrators (cont’d)**

Bulirsch-Stoer Uses first-order form of equations of motion Handles discontinuities gracefully Able to use VOP formulation Richardson extrapolation with automatic step size control 2 steps 4 steps 6 steps t+h t extrapolate

49
**Comparing integrators**

LEO 24 hours Nearly circular, 28 deg inclination TwoBody vs. J2 vs. RK RK vs. BS vs. GJ Stepsizes: 60, 30, 15 sec SRP Mitigation: On and Off

50
**Choosing settings Table of ephemeris runs**

Leo 1 day e=0.001, 740km altitude, 14 revs per day Meo 3 days circular, 4 revs per day Heo 7 days Molniya, 2 revs per day Geo 14 days 7 different force model settings 3 integrators (RK78, BS, GJ) 4 formulations (standard, reg. time, vop, vop reg. time) 5 different error tolerances used for RK78 and BS

51
**Choosing settings (cont’d)**

1,344 cases total Truth model RK78, 10 sec max step size Table of differences available from Help system

52
**Take-aways MEO GEO LEO, HEO max difference is 2mm over all 336 cases**

306 have less than 1 mm difference GEO max difference is 9mm over all 336 cases 289 have less than 1 mm difference LEO, HEO About half of LEO cases have less than 1 mm difference HEO cases have the most diversity Sensitive to SRP VOP may not adequately sample large gravity fields Boundary mitigation works better in real time, not reg. time

53
**Cowell (based on Vallado)**

Cowell’s Formulation – Specifies a formulation of the second order equations of motion in terms of Cartesian elements Cowell’s Method – Specifies Cowell’s Formulation of equations of motion used with a numerical integration scheme based on finite differences (Gauss-Jackson)

Similar presentations

OK

ASEN 5050 SPACEFLIGHT DYNAMICS General Perturbations Alan Smith University of Colorado – Boulder Lecture 25: Perturbations 1 “It causeth my head to ache”

ASEN 5050 SPACEFLIGHT DYNAMICS General Perturbations Alan Smith University of Colorado – Boulder Lecture 25: Perturbations 1 “It causeth my head to ache”

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use **cookies**. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy & Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.

Ads by Google

Ppt on 3g mobile technology Ppt on bluetooth applications pdf Ppt on mergers and acquisition process Ppt on child labour issues in india Ppt on uses of plants for grade 1 Mobile application development seminar ppt on 4g Appt on falls of neuse Ppt on cloud computing in ieee format Ppt on viruses and anti viruses for computer Ppt on disaster management in hindi