You are on page 1of 44

SATELLITE ORBITS AND FLIGHT DYNAMICS

BY DR. ENG. MOHAMED AHMED ZAYAN

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 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Kepler Laws ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Julian Date......................................................................................................................................... 4 Sidereal and Universal Time............................................................................................................ 5 Reference Coordinate Systems ........................................................................................................ 6 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 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

3.2

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page ii

2/12/2006

3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9

Partial Derivative of the Earth Geopotential Acceleration ................................................. 28 Partial Derivatives of the Sun and the Moon (Point Mass) Accelerations.......................... 29 Partial Derivative of Solar Radiation Pressure Acceleration .............................................. 29 Partial derivative of the Atmospheric Drag acceleration .................................................... 29 Partial of Measurements with Respect to the State Vector ................................................. 30 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 Maneuver Implementation............................................................................................................. 35 4.2.1 Numerical Integration Methods .......................................................................................... 35 4.2.2 Satellite Orbits Correction .................................................................................................. 35 4.2.2.1 Thrust Forces ..................................................................................................... 36

4.2

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................37

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page iii

2/12/2006

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

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
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 2 2/12/2006

1.1 Background

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.

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 3

2/12/2006

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

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. given in [3]. (2-1) A table of Modified Julian Dates for the beginning of each month between 1975 and 2020 is

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

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 5

2/12/2006

2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems

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 T02 - 0S.0000062 T03 . [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 where the time argument T = (JD (UTI) 2451545)/36525 specifies the time in Julian centuries of Universal Time elapsed since 2000 Jan. 1.5 UT1. (2-5) , (2-4) (2-2)

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.

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 6

2/12/2006

2.4 Reference Coordinate Systems

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]

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 7

2/12/2006

2.5 The Two-Body Problem

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 M and the Earth is assumed to be spherically symmetric. The equations of motion for two masses m1, 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: &1 = Gm1 m2 (r2 r1 ) / r 3 m1& r &2 = Gm1 m2 (r1 r2 ) / r 3 m2& r (2-6) (2-7) (2-8)

r = r1 r2 ,
where G is the constant of gravitation and is

= G ( m1 + m2 ) .

(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: G = (6.67259 0.00085) 10 -11 m 3kg 1 s 2 (2-10)

[59]. Independent of the measurement of G itself, the gravitational coefficient GM , 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 = 398600 .4405 .001km 3 s -2 .

(2-11)

The corresponding value of the Earth's mass is given by


M = 5.974 10 24 kg .

(2-12)

The center of mass is at

(m1r1 + m 2 r2 ) /(m1 + m 2 ) ,
by combing the above equations yields & & + r / r 3 = 0 . r The cross product of the above equation with the position vector r & = (r r ) / r 3 = 0 . r & r

(2-13)

(2-14)

(2-15)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 8

2/12/2006

2.5 The Two-Body Problem

Since the cross product of the vector with it self vanishes. The left hand side may be further written as
&= r & &+r & r &= r & r r d &) = 0 . (r r dt dr , dt

(2-16)

The angular momentum per unit mass is


h = r v, h = r

(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 & & h = ( / r 3 )r (r r &) . r Since for any triple vector product
& ) = r (r.r &) r & (r.r ) r (r r

(2-18)

(2-19)

it follows that
& &h = r d (r / r ) . dt

(2-20)

Since h is a constant this equation can be integrated directly to yield


& h = ( r + re ) / r r

(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) & h = rr & h = h 2 = (r + re cos ) r r where is the angle between the vector r and e. solving for r gives r= h2 / 1 + e cos (2-23) (2-22)

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 p = h2 / , (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.
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 9 2/12/2006

2.5 The Two-Body Problem

b Apogee a ae E

Satellite r

Perigee

Focus Center of Mass

a semimajor axis b semiminor axis e eccentricity

True anomaly

E Eccentric anomaly M 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.

iz i

iy ir

j ix
Asending Node
ix is the intersection of orbit plane with the Equator (i,j) plane.

Figure 2-3 The Inertial Geocentric Equatorial (i, j, k), Radial Transverse (ir, i, iz), and (ix, iy, iz) Coordinates Systems

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 10

2/12/2006

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

Equation (2-17) can be written


&) & + i r Q v = (i r r &) & + i r h = r (i r r

(2-25) (2-26) (2-27)

&. h = i z h = i z r 2

d h = 2, dt r
d . (1 + e cos ) 2

Eliminating r between equations (2-23), and (2-27), using (2-24)

p
3

dt =

(2-28)

Integration of this equation gives as a function of time in orbit. 2.5.1 Orbital Elements, Energy Integral, and Euler Angles

& using Assuming h, , and e are constant, then differentiating equation (2-22) and eliminating
equation (2-27)

& = e sin / h r
The square of the velocity v is given by

(2-29)

&) 2 &) 2 + ( r v 2 = (r v 2 =h 2 / r 2 + ( e sin / h ) 2 . Eliminating r, using equation (2-23), v 2 = ( / h) 2 [1 + 2e cos + e 2 ] Define the semi-major axis of the orbit a = p /(1 e 2 ) = h 2 /( (1 e 2 )) . So, substituting in equation (1-31) to get vis-viva law
2 1 v 2 = ( ) . r a motion
1 2 mv 2 E potential = ( ) per unit mass . r Etotal = ( ) per unit mass 2a E kinematic =

(2-30) (2-31)

(2-32)

(2-33)

(2-34)

The energy law states that the sum of kinetic energy and the potential energy is constant during

(2-35)

It is seen that, the total energy depends on the reciprocal semi-major axis of the orbit. The
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 12 2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

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)

r = p /(1 + e cos ) , the velocity vector v with respect to axes (ir, i, iz) is
&i , &i r + r ( v ) i r , i , i z = r

(2-36)

(2-37) (2-38) (2-39)

using equations (2-29), (2-24), and (2-36) ( v ) i r ,i ,i z = / p [e sin i r + (1 + e cos )i ] (r ) i r ,i ,i z = ri r . is obtained by two rotational transformations
(r ) i , j,k = 2 1 (r ) i r ,i ,i z ( v) i , j,k = 2 1 ( v ) i r ,i ,i z

Referring to Figures 2-2 and 2-3, the transformation from axes (ir, i, iz) to inertial axes (i, j, k)

(2-40)

where 1 is the transformation matrix from (ir, i, iz) to (ix, iy, iz).
cos( + ) sin( + ) 0 1 = sin( + ) cos( + ) 0 0 0 1

(2-41)

where axes (ix, iy, iz) with respect to axes (i, j, k)


i x = (cos , sin ,0) i z = (sin i sin , sin i cos , cos i ) iy = iz ix and 2 is the transformation matrix from (ix, iy, iz) to (i, j, k) coordinate.
cos sin cos i sin sin i 2 = sin cos cos i cos sin i . 0 sin i cos i

(2-42)

(2-43)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 13

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

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

h = (r v ) ,
p = h2 / , so p is obtained by using the magnitude of h. Also from a = p /(1 e 2 ) ,
e = 1 p /a ,

(2-44) (2-45)

(2-46) (2-47)

and from equation (2-36)

e cos = ( p / r ) 1 .
To have a unique determination of , from equation (2-37) and (2-39), and (2-29)
j = r.v = re sin / p ,

(2-48)

(2-49)

or
e sin = p/ j/r,

(2-50)

Consequently can be uniquely determined by

= arctan[ s / p /( p r )]

(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
= arctan[ i z (1) /( i z ( 2))] i = arccos[i z (3)] ,

(2-52) (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) r cos( + ) = i x r . Since i z r sin( + ) = i x r r sin( + ) = i z ( i x r ) . 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
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 14 2/12/2006

(2-54)

(2-55) (2-56)

2.5The Two-Body Problem

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 cos E = (ae + r cos ) / a or (2-57)

r = a (1 e cos E ) .
This can be equated to the conic equation from equations (2-33) and (2-36) r = a (1 e 2 ) /(1 + e cos ) , to get the following identities relating the eccentric anomaly to the true anomaly

(2-58)

(2-59)

cos = (cos E e) /(1 e cos E )


sin = ( 1 e 2 sin E ) /(1 e cos E ) . By differentiation of equation (2-58) sin d = (1 e 2 ) sin EdE , (1 e cos E ) 2

(2-60) (2-61)

(2-62)

or anticipating the time integral in equation (2-28) (1 e 2 ) 3 / 2 d = (1 e cos E )dE . (1 + e cos ) 2 (2-63)

Integration using equation (2.33) the time from perigee tp is related to the eccentric anomaly E by
E e sin E = / a 3 t p

(2-64)

In order to express the angle from the perigee in terms of the eccentric anomaly tan
tan

2
=

1 cos sin
1+ e E tan . 1 e 2

(2-65) (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
M = / a 3 (t t p ) = n(t t p ) .

(2-67)

It changes by 360o during one revolution, but in contrast with the true and eccentric anomaly
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 15 2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

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 M = M 0 + n(t t p ) , and the period of the ellipse is (2-68)

T = 2 a 3 / . This relation states the third Keplers law.


2.5.5 Computation Starting from Time in Orbit

(2-69)

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 E 0 = MorE 0 = (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

f ( E ) = E e sin E M

(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
Ei +1 = Ei f ( Ei ) E e sin Ei M = Ei i . 1 e cos Ei f ( Ei )

(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

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 16

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

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: E kinematicper unit mass = 1 2 v , 2 (2-73) (2-74)

E potentialper unit mass = , r E totalper unit mass = , 2a E =

(2-75) (2-76)

a
2a 2

= v.ft .

Referring to the orbital plane axes (ir, i, iz). In the limit this gives the rate of change of energy as
da 2a 2 = ( v.f ) . dt

(2-77)

Since h 2 = (r v ).(r v ) , dh = (r v ).(r f ) / h dt (2-78) (2-79) (2-80) (2-81)

= r (f r ).v / h
= [r 2 ( v.f ) (r.v )(r.f )] / h . In order to obtain the rate of change of eccentricity (e) h 2 = a (1 e 2 ) . By differentiate de 1 = [( pa r 2 )( v.f ) + (r.v )(r.f ) . dt ae Now to calculate out- of -plan elements (i, , )
sin i sin h = r v = h sin i cos . cos i

(2-82)

(2-83)

(2-84)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 17

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

Differentiate this equation and arrange the result in the form


& h sin i r f = 2 hi& , h & where
cos sin cos i sin sin i 2 = sin cos cos i cos sin i , 0 sin i cos i

(2-85)

(2-86)

which is an orthogonal matrix, transpose equals the inverse. Therefore


h sin id / dt T hdi / dt = 2 (r f ) ijk . dh / dt

(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 h2 r=

1 + e cos

(2-88) (2-89)

h 2 = (r v ).(r v )

~ re cos re sin = 2hh / . In the limit


re sin ~ d de 2h dh = r cos dt dt dt

(2-90)

(2-91) (2-92)

h(r.v ) = re sin . By differentiating


~ d de p 1 dh re cos = r sin + (r.f ) + (r.v ) dt dt h h dt
re ~ p dh 2h d = ( p / h ) cos (r.f ) + cos (r.v ) sin dt 2 dt h

(2-93) (2-94)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 18

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

p 2h h 2 cos (r.v ) sin = sin ( p + r (1 + e cos ) er cos ) h


= sin ( p + r ) h .

(2-95) (2-96)

And finally
~ d dh 1 = p cos (r.f ) ( p + r ) sin . dt reh dt

(2-97)

The variation of the argument of perigee is obtained by


i x r = (cos sin 0) r = r cos( + ) .

(2-98)

Differentiation results in
~ d d d ( sin cos 0) r = r sin( + ) + . dt dt dt

(2-99)

Therefore
r ( sin cos 0).r = ( sin cos 0) 2 1 0 = cos i sin( + )r 0

(2-100)

~ d d d = cos i dt + dt , dt

(2-101)

or ~ d d d = cos i . dt dt dt equations depends on the axes in use.


2.5.7 Tangential and Normal Components

(2-102)

We now have the required equations for variations of the orbital elements. The final form of the

From the orbital plane axes (ir, i, iz) then


r.f = rf r ,

(2-103)

and

r.v = rv sin ,
e sin , 1 + e cos

(2-104)

where is the angle between the velocity vector v and i measured clockwise from the latter tan = also (2-105)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 19

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

v.f = / p [ef r sin + (1 + e cos ) f ] =

e
h

sin f r +

h f r

(2-106)

From equation (2-87), the required transformation from (i, j, k) axes to (r, , z) axes
h sin id / dt T hdi / dt = 2 (r f ) ijk dh / dt

(2-107)

= 2T 2 1 (r f ) rz
0 = 1 rf z , rf cos( + ) sin( + ) 0 1 = sin( + ) cos( + ) 0 0 0 1

(2-108)

(2-109)

(2-110)

2.5.8 Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t, n, z)


From equation (2-32)

v=

(1 + 2e cos + e 2 )

(2-111)

v sin = v cos =

e sin

(2-112)

(1 + e cos )

(2-113)

r f = r ( f t sin f n cos )
vh v.f = vf t =

re

sin f t

h fn v

(2-114)

By means of transformation from t n z axes to r z


sin 3 = sin 0 (r f ) tnz cos sin 0 0 0 . 1

(2-115)

rf z cos = rf z sin , rf sin + rf cos t n


Page 20

(2-116)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

2/12/2006

2.5The Two-Body Problem

0 h sin id / dt fz hdi / dt = 1 r . dh / dt f sin + f cos t n

(2-117)

2.5.9 Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t, n, z) Axes [6]


da 2a 2v f = t dt

(2-118) (2-119) (2-120) (2-121) (2-122) (2-123)

de 1 r = 2( e + cos ) f t sin f n dt v a dh rh p = f t + e sin f n dt pv r

= +
~ d * d d d d = + + = h / r 2 cos i dt dt dt dt dt ~ d 1 r = 2 sin f t + ( 2e + cos ) f n dt ev a d r sin( + ) = fz dt h sin i di r cos( + ) = fz dt h ~ d d d = cos i dt dt dt

(2-124) (2-125) (2-126)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 21

2/12/2006

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 nonspherical 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
U=

n R Pnm (sin )C nm cos(m ) + S nm sin(m )), r n=0 m=0 r n n

(3-1)

with coefficients
C nm

2 0 m (n m)! s n = P (sin ' ) cos(m' )(S)d 3S n nm M (n + m)! R 2 0 m (n m)! s n P (sin ' ) sin( m' )(S)d 3S , n nm M (n + m)! R

(3-2) (3-3)

S nm =

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
Pn (u ) =

1 dn (u 2 1) n , 2 n n! du n

(3-4)

with degree n, and the associated Legendre polynomial of degree n and order m is defined as
Pnm (u ) = (1 u 2 ) m / 2 dm Pn (u ) , du m

(3-5)

R is the Equatorial radius of the Earth, r is the satellite position, S is point inside the Earth

3.1Satellite Perturbations

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
Vnm Wnm R = r
n +1

.Pnm (sin ). cos m


n +1

R = r

.
. Pnm (sin ). sin m

(3-6)

Satisfy the recurrence relations. The gravity potential may written as


U= GM R

(C

nm nm

+S nmWnm ) .

(3-7)

& , which is equal to the gradient of U, may be directly calculated from the Vnm The acceleration & r

and Wnm as

& &= & &nm , & &= & &nm , & &= & &nm , x x y y z z
n,m n,m n ,m

(3-8)

with the partial accelerations


& &nm = x
m >0 ( m =0 )

GM .{ Cn 0Vn +1,1 } 2 R (3-9)

GM 1 . .{( C nmVn +1,m +1 S nmWn +1,m +1 ) 2 R 2

( n m + 2)! .( +C nmVn +1,m 1 + S nmWn +1,m 1 )} ( n m )!

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 23

2/12/2006

3.1Satellite Perturbations

& &nm = y
m >0

( m =0 )

GM .{ C n 0 Wn +1,1 } 2 R (3-10)

GM 1 . .{( C nmWn +1,m+1 S nmVn +1,m +1 ) 2 R 2

( n m + 2)! .( +C nmWn +1,m1 + S nmVn +1,m 1 )} ( n m )!

& &nm = z

GM .{( n m + 1).( CnmVn +1,m S nmWn +1,m )}. 2 R

(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
&sf = U T (t ).& &ef , ref = U (t ).rsf , and & r r

(3-12)

where
U = R Z ( )

(3-13)

represent the rotation of the inertial system by Greenwich hour angle (GMST) around the zaxis. And
+ cos + sin 0 Rz ( ) = sin + cos 0 . 0 0 1

(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
& & = GM r sr sr
3

(3-15)

where r and s are the geocentric coordinates of the satellite and of M, respectively. To describe

& in equation (3-15) r the satellites motion with respect to the center of the Earth, the value &
refers to an inertial coordinate system in which the Earth is not at rest, but is itself subject to acceleration due to M.

& & = GM r

s s
3

(3-16)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 24

2/12/2006

3.1Satellite Perturbations

Both values have to be subtracted to obtain the second derivative

& & = GM r
Of the satellites Earth-centered Vector.

sr sr
3

s s
3

(3-17)

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] A r AU 2 , 3 m r

& & = P C R r

(3-18)

where P is the solar radiation pressure, A is surface area of the satellite, m is the satellite mass, r 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=1.495979108 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
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 25 2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

m = Av r t ,

(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 p = mv r = Av r2 t , can therefore be written as [3] 1 A & & = C D v r2 e v , r 2 m (3-22) (3-21)

which is related to the resulting force F by F=p/t. The satellite acceleration due to the drag

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.

y (t 0 ) = (r T (t 0 ), v T (t 0 )) T
y (t ) y (t ) = (t , t 0 ) 0 66

(3-23) (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
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 26 2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

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]
033 d r &(r, v, t ) (t , t0 ) = & dt r (t ) 133 &(r, v, t ) (t , t0 ) & r v (t ) 6 6

(3-25)

& is the acceleration vector and r, v are the position r and the initial value (t0, t0)= 166, where &
and velocity respectively.

3.2.2 The Differential Equation of the Sensitivity Matrix


The sensitivity matrix S(t,t0) determines the different forces acting on the satellite.
y (t ) = S(t , t0 ) , p(t ) 0 66

(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]
133 0 33 d & &(r, v, p) & &(r, v, p) S(t ) r S(t ) 6n p = r dt r (t ) v ( t ) . 0 33 r &(r, v, p) + & r (t ) 6n p

(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

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 27

2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

0 36 0 33 133 d & & & ( , S) = & ( , S) + r r dt 0 36 r v 66

0 3n p & , & r p 6( 6+ n p )

(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

& & && && & r r && ) = & && r , S ( ( r ,S r ) + ( r r ,Sr ) r v & & r + 0 36 p
r (t ) r (r ( t 0 ) , v ( t 0 ) = = v(t ) v (r ( t , v ( t ) 0) 0 r (t ) S r p S= = S v(t ) v p

(3-29)

(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

&(t ) & &(r, v, t + r ) & &(r, v, t ) & r r r , r (t ) r

(3-31)

& is the geopotential acceleration, r is the satellite position ,v is the satellite velocity in r where &
& / r to terms involving the inertial frame. Good result is obtained by restricting the partial & r

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 GM , Cnm, and Snm but they are not considered in most orbit determination programs. This is due to the fact that the estimation of
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 28 2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

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 sr sr
3

& & = GM r

s s
3

(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]
1 & & r (r s ) T = GM 1 3 ( r s ) r s 3 33 r (r s ) 5 .

(3-33)

The derivative with respect to the solar or lunar mass M can be computed from
& 1 & r & &, = r GM GM

(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
& r 1 & A r & & = P r AU 2 , = 3 CR CR m r

(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 A 1 & & = C D v r2 e v , r m 2 A 1 & & = C D v r2 v r . r m 2 The dependence on the satellite velocity is described by the partial derivatives
Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 29 2/12/2006

(3-36)

for the acceleration due to atmospheric drag the derivative with respect to the drag coefficient is (3-37)

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

& & r 1 A v vT = C D ( r r + v r 1) . v 2 m vr

(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:
& v 1 & A 1 A v vT r = C D vr v r C D ( r r + v r 1) r . 2 r m r 2 m vr r

(3-39)

The

describes the dependence of the atmospheric density on the satellite location. Except r

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 s(t ) = E( U(t )r (t ) R ef ) , (3-40)

where U is the matrix describing the transformation from space-fixed to Earth fixed coordinate, while eT sin E T E = e N = sin cos e T + cos cos Z 0 sin sin cos , + cos sin sin + cos (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.
s E sin A cos E s = s N = cos A cos E , s sin E Z

(3-42)

and

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 30

2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

A = arctan( E = arctan(

sE ), sN sZ
2 s2 E + sN

, )

(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 dz dz = EU . dr ds measurement with respect to the instantaneous position vectors is therefore given by s sT = EU , r s (3-45) (3-44)

Neglecting the light-time correction and propagation effects, the partial derivative of a range

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
A s N = 2 2 r sE + sN sE s + s2 N
2 E

0 EU ,

(3-46)

and

s Es Z E = 2 r s 2 s 2 E + sN corresponding partials are equal to zero.

s Ns Z
2 s2 s2 E + sN

2 s2 E + sN EU . s2

(3-47)

As with the range measurements, the geometric angles do not depend on the velocity and the

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

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 31

2/12/2006

3.2Linearization and Variational Equations

bias) and the corrected (bias free) value z*, the corresponding partial derivatives
z q , i

(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).

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 32

2/12/2006

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

time

, 2f 0

(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 s =
c , 2 f0

(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

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 34

2/12/2006

4.2Maneuver Implementation

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.

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 35

2/12/2006

4.2Maneuver Implementation

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(tm ) = v(tm ) + v(tm ) .

(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.
& dt . dm = m

(4-4)

A spacecraft mass m experiences a thrust


& ve . F= m

(4-5)

And the acceleration f =


& m F = ve . m m
m ( t 0 + t ) 1 m m0

(4-6)

Integration over the burn time t, the total velocity increment is given by

v =

t 0 + t

t0

f (t )dt = ve
v =

dm = ve ln

m(t0 + t ) m0

(4-7)

& t m F . ln(1 & m m0

(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
f (t ) = v t

& m
m(t )

& t m ln 1 m 0

(4-9)

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 36

2/12/2006

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;

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., DordrechtHollond (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 38 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, 481494(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 39

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 303,604608, 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 40 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] Zamarre o 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] Zamarre o 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 ModelBased 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.

Dr. Eng. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan

Page 41

2/12/2006