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 Kepler’s 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. The satellite passes the equator and each latitude at the same local solar time each day. The complex mathematical formulation of orbit prediction and measurements modeling does not allow a direct inversion except for the simplified case of Keplerian orbits. and [5]. an instrument to study the tropics may be best put on a low inclination satellite).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. the measurements employed for an orbit determination cannot be expected to be exact quantities due to inevitable measurement (and model) errors. This feature enables regular data collection at consistent times as well as long-term comparisons. or by the latitude of the launch site. They have an inclination between 0 degrees (equatorial orbit) and 90 degrees (polar orbit). These satellites are not sun-synchronous.3 Inclined Orbits • Inclined orbits fall between those above. Most methods for preliminary orbit determination are based in Gauss’ algorithm [1]. 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]. These satellites operate in a sun-synchronous orbit. however. meaning the satellite passes overhead at essentially the same solar time throughout all seasons of the year. a true polar orbit has an inclination of 90 degrees). circling at near-polar inclination (the angle between the equatorial plane and the satellite orbital plane. Examples include range. so they will view a place on Earth at varying times.. elevation from ground stations of Dr. 1. so the orbital period is on the order of a few hours. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 2 2/12/2006 . A preliminary orbit determination may still be required in the case of launcher injection errors. The goal in orbit estimation is to determine the satellite orbit that best fits or matches a set of tracking data [4].1.1 Background 1.1.e.1. 1. range rate (Doppler). In addition.2 Polar Orbits Polar-orbiting satellites provide a more global view of Earth.1.1. These orbits may be determined by the region on Earth that is of most interest (i. 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. The orbital altitude of these satellites is generally on the order of a few hundred km. Eng. azimuth. The orbital plane of a sun-synchronous orbit must also rotate approximately one degree per day to keep pace with the Earth's surface.

Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 3 2/12/2006 . as well as Global Positioning System (GPS) data. solar radiation pressure on the satellites. In general. In sequential estimation [17]. the six satellite orbit parameters (position r and. in general. Batch estimation requires an a priori estimate or "first guess" of the state.1 Background known location. Dr. biases in the tracking data. velocity v) can be determined from a geometric computation based on very few observations. any parameter influencing the tracking data can be estimated. The final solution for sequential estimation thus incorporates several intermediate "solutions" from each small group of data. can be taken over a period of time. There are two major types of state estimation schemes commonly used for orbit determination: batch and sequential. For each group of observations. [15]. the better the quality of tracking data processed. and [16] determines a state vector based on a single large set of observation data that. While the actual state can change significantly over the span of the observations. 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. range and range rate from other satellites. Eng. Theoretically. [3] the observations are processed one at a time or in small groups instead of a single large group. The determined state is that which best fits the observable over the span of the observations. In theory. A batch estimator [5]. the more reliable the orbit solution. other parameters that can be estimated include the locations of the ground stations. coefficients of atmospheric drag. which is iteratively corrected to achieve the final state. which reduces the effects of old observation data on the current state estimate. Because actual observation data includes the effects of unordered or poorly modeled forces as well as random and systematic noise. An enhancement to sequential estimation is the use of extended Kalman filter.1. [3]. the determined state is valid only for a single point in time. In addition to the satellite orbits themselves. The estimated state from previous orbit estimation is typically used as the a priori value. thus ensuring that the latest estimate is influenced most heavily by the latest observation data. the a priori estimate is the determined state from the last group. and parameters of the Earth's gravitational field. it is often necessary to obtain more observations than the theoretical minimum.

These laws apply directly to satellite orbital motion. 2. well suited to finding the time difference between two dates or advancing a date by a . 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 due to the fact that the force resulting from the Earth’s central mass governs the motion of the satellite and all other forces acting on the satellite.1 Kepler Laws’ The main features of satellite orbits may still be described by a reasonably simple approximation. The civilian calendar is not. This can be proven mathematically. spherical Earth. [3].2 Julian Date The material of the following sections are based on [1]. which gives elliptical orbits a very distinct characteristic. characterizing orbital motion. elliptic equatorial cross section and other perturbations forces from the Sun and the Moon). (which are Earth’s oblateness. and [6]. Johann Kepler determined three laws. This means that the satellite moves fastest at its lowest altitude (perigee) and it moves slowest at its highest altitude (apogee). Kepler's First Law: Satellite orbits are elliptical Paths with the Earth at one focus of the ellipse. Kepler's Third Law: The Square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the orbit's semi-major axis. 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. thus the laws are from the point of view of an Earth-orbiting satellite. however. Simply states that orbits are shaped like ellipses (elongated circles). may be ignored. 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. These laws can be proven mathematically using Newton's law of gravitation. This is also known as the harmonic law. The word perturbation is used to signify forces other than those due to the gravitational potential of homogeneous.CHAPTER 2 2 ORBITAL MECHANICS AND REFERENCE SYSTEMS 2. which were found empirically about 400 years ago may.

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). • International Atomic Time (TAI). Presently. the Greenwich hour angle of the vernal equinox. also known as Greenwich Hour Angle. Therefore. Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time GMST. 4713 BC including the fraction of day. To cope with this difficulty. given in [3]. • • • Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST). • GPS Time. which for all practical purposes.0 UTC. (2-1) A table of Modified Julian Dates for the beginning of each month between 1975 and 2020 is 2. is always positive. Counting starts at noon for historical reasons to avoid a change of date in the middle of astronomical observations.184 s and the imperfections of existing clocks. denotes the Dr.3 Sidereal and Universal Time certain time increment. The Julian Date (JD) is the number of days since noon January 1. which provides the practical realization a uniform time scale based on atomic clocks and agrees with TT except for a constant offset of 32.5. 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. which is known as the Julian Date. The origin of GPS was arbitrarily chosen to coincide with UTC on 1980 January 6.2. a continuous day count is used in astronomy and commonly for space missions. the Julian Day numbers are already quite large (well over two millions) and it is desirable to start counting at midnight. today's realization of a mean solar time. It thus provides a continuous time scale. Eng. which is derived from GMST by a conventional relation. which likes TAI is an atomic time scale but differs in the chosen offset and the choice of atomic clocks used in its realization. a Modified Julian Date (MJD) is defined as: MJD = JD – 2400000. 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. Universal Time (UT1). Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 5 2/12/2006 .

the length of the year). Universal Time is therefore defined as a function of sidereal time.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.e.002737909350795 UT1 + 0s.e.2. (2-4) (2-2) 2. sidereal time cannot be computed from other time scales with sufficient precision but must derived from astronomical and geodetic observations.54841 + 8640184s. which directly reflects the rotation of the Earth.005 making it about four minutes shorter than a 24h solar day. because the rotation of the Earth cannot be predicted accurately. the Earth's spin period) amounts to 23h56m4s. which can be defined refer to the orbital plane and the rotation axis of the Earth as shown in Figure2-1. (2-5) .0000062×T3 where the time argument T = (JD (UTI) – 2451545)/36525 specifies the time in Julian centuries of Universal Time elapsed since 2000 Jan.5 UT1 at the beginning of the day.093104× T02 .5 UT1. 1. they are inertial. 1. 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.0000062× T03 .54841 + 8640184s. For an arbitrary time of the expression may be generalized to obtain the relation GMST = 24110s. As a result. Similar to sidereal is not possible to determine Universal Time by a direct conversion from e. Dr. i.4 Reference Coordinate Systems Two global coordinated systems are intended to be fixed in space. 0h UT1 is defined as the instant at which Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time has the value GMST (0hUT1) = 24110S.g. Every change in the Earth's rotation alters the length of the day. the length of a sidereal day (i.093104T2 – 0s. atomic time. 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.0S. [54]. Eng.812866×T0 + 0S. 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.812866×T0 + 1.e. Due to length-of-day variations with amplitude of several milliseconds. In terms of SI seconds. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 6 2/12/2006 . For any particular day.091±0s. and must therefore be taken into account in UT1.

which is called the geocentric equatorial coordinate system (x or i. y'. 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]. The other one refers to the ecliptic (the Earth's orbital plane).2. z or k). which is called the ecliptic coordinate system (x'. designated by γ. 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]. z'). the ICRS axes are chosen such a way as to be consistent with the previous FK5 system to within the accuracy of the latter. which is currently selected as the beginner of the year 2000. A standard reference frame is usually based on the mean equator and equinox of some fixed epoch. 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]. Eng. 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. which provides precise positions and proper motions of some 1500 stars for the epoch J2000 as referred to the given reference frame.5° and the line of intersection is a common axis of both coordinate systems. Its origin is located at the Earth's center of Figure 2-1 Equator and Ecliptic Planes [3] Dr. In 1991 to establish a new International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) adopt it for use from 1998 onwards [56]. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 7 2/12/2006 . It is perpendicular to both the North Celestial Pole (the z-axis) and the north pole of the ecliptic (the z'-axis). These planes are inclined at an angle є = 23. For a smooth transition to the new system. y or j.4 Reference Coordinate Systems The first one is the most common coordinate system for describing Earth-bound satellite orbits. Complementary to the ICRS. The x/x'-axis is defined as being the direction of the vernal equinox or First Point of Aries.

has been determined with considerable precision from the analysis of laser distance measurements of artificial Earth satellites [60].67259 ± 0. where G is the constant of gravitation and μ is μ = G ( m1 + m2 ) .5 The Two-Body Problem mass and its unit of length is the SI meter. (2-11) The corresponding value of the Earth's mass is given by M ⊕ = 5. GM ⊕ = 398600 .001km 3 s -2 . (2-12) The center of mass is at (m1r1 + m 2 r2 ) /(m1 + m 2 ) . the gravitational constant G can directly be determined from torsion balance experiments. Independent of the measurement of G itself.4405 ± . (2-9) By measuring the mutual attraction of two bodies of known mass. Due to the small size of the gravitational force. r ×& r (2-13) (2-14) (2-15) Dr. the gravitational coefficient GM ⊕ . Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 8 2/12/2006 . For this purpose.00085) × 10 -11 m 3kg −1 s −2 (2-10) [59].5 The Two-Body Problem The basic laws of orbital motion are derived from first principles.e. whose mass is negligible compared to the Earth's mass M ⊕ and the Earth is assumed to be spherically symmetric.2. The equations of motion for two masses m1. and G is presently only known with limited accuracy: G = (6. 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 . a satellite is considered. these measurements are extremely difficult.974 × 10 24 kg . however. r The cross product of the above equation with the position vector r & = − μ (r × r ) / r 3 = 0 . by combing the above equations yields & & + μr / r 3 = 0 . Eng. m2 at position r1. 2. the product of the gravitational constant and the Earth's mass. i.

1. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 9 2/12/2006 . solving for r gives r= h2 / μ 1 + e cosθ (2-23) (2-22) as the equation of the orbit.5 The Two-Body Problem Since the cross product of the vector with it self vanishes.2. iz is the normal to the plane motion. 2. (r × r dt dr .∴ h = r × (2-17) and it is constant for non-perturbated motion. (2-24) and e is the eccentricity. Eng. dt (2-20) Since h is a constant this equation can be integrated directly to yield & × h = μ ( 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). dt (2-16) The angular momentum per unit mass is h = r × v. To continue with equation (2-21) using (2-17) & ×h = r×r & ⋅ h = h 2 = μ (r + re cosθ ) r ⋅r where θ is the angle between the vector r and e. the angle from the perigee as shown in Figures 2-2. ir is along the radius vector r.r &) − r & (r. i. 3. away from the center of attraction.e.The semi-latus rectum is p = h2 / μ . which is the standard equation of a conic in polar form with the origin of coordinates at one focus .r ) r × (r × r (2-18) (2-19) it follows that & &×h = μ r d (r / r ) . The left hand side may be further written as &= r ×& &+r & ×r &= r ×& r r d &) = 0 . 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 = −( μ / r 3 )r × (r × r &) . Figure 2-3 represents the following unit vectors. r Since for any triple vector product & ) = r (r. Dr. iθ is perpendicular to r in the plane of the motion and in the direction of increasing the true anomaly θ. The angle θ is the true anomaly.

j. iθ is perpendicular to r in the direction of increasing θ. iz) Coordinates Systems Dr.2. iy. Radial Transverse (ir. iz). iz is normal to orbit palne. k). iz iθ iy ir i Ω θ ω j ix Asending Node ix is the intersection of orbit plane with the Equator (i. iy. iθ. i Figure 2-3 The Inertial Geocentric Equatorial (i. iθ.5 The Two-Body Problem b Apogee a ae E ν Satellite r θ Perigee Focus Center of Mass a semimajor axis b semiminor axis e eccentricity ν True anomaly θ E Eccentric anomaly M Mean anomaly Figure 2-2 Conical Orbit k ir. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 10 2/12/2006 . and (ix.j) plane. are in orbit plane. Eng.

(b) detailed view .Figure 2-4 Perifocal coordinate system (PQW frame) Figure 2-5 Topocentric-horizon coordinate system (SEZ frame): (a) overall view.

μ. and (2-27). using (2-24) μ p 3 dt = (2-28) Integration of this equation gives θ as a function of time in orbit. (1 + e cos θ ) 2 Eliminating r between equations (2-23). r −μ 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.1 Orbital Elements.5. Eliminating r.2. r a motion 1 2 mv 2 −μ E potential = ( ) per unit mass . Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 12 2/12/2006 . ∴ h = i z h = i z r 2θ ∴ dθ h = 2. So. and Euler Angles & using Assuming h. Energy Integral. and e are constant. 2. using equation (2-23). v 2 = ( μ / h) 2 [1 + 2e cosθ + e 2 ] Define the semi-major axis of the orbit a = p /(1 − e 2 ) = h 2 /( μ (1 − e 2 )) . The Dr. the total energy depends on the reciprocal semi-major axis of the orbit.5The Two-Body Problem Equation (2-17) can be written &) & + i θ rθ Q v = (i r r &) & + i θ rθ ∴ h = r × (i r r (2-25) (2-26) (2-27) &. then differentiating equation (2-22) and eliminating θ equation (2-27) & = μe sin θ / h r The square of the velocity v is given by (2-29) &) 2 &) 2 + ( rθ v 2 = (r v 2 =h 2 / r 2 + ( μe sin θ / h ) 2 . dt r dθ . Eng. substituting in equation (1-31) to get vis-viva law 2 1 v 2 = μ( − ) .

i z = μ / p [e sin θi r + (1 + e cosθ )i θ ] (r ) i r .2. 2. the velocity vector v with respect to axes (ir. the transformation from axes (ir. Eng. j. iy. iθ. e and θ represent a choice of the three orbital elements to define the motion in the plane of the orbit. iy. iz) to (i. iθ . Ω is the right ascension of ascending node. iz) is &i . sin Ω. j. i. and ω is the argument of perigee and from equations (2-24). θ. iz). (2-40) where Γ1 is the transformation matrix from (ir. is obtained by two rotational transformations (r ) i . and (2-36) ∴ ( v ) i r .i z = ri r . cos i ) iy = iz × ix and Γ2 is the transformation matrix from (ix. and (2-31) r = p /(1 + e cos θ ) . k) i x = (cos Ω. iθ. &i r + rθ ( v ) i r . Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 13 2/12/2006 . iz) with respect to axes (i.i z ( v) i . iz) to inertial axes (i. k) .0) i z = (sin i sin Ω. j.k = Γ2 Γ1 ( v ) i r .iθ . ω) as shown in Figure 2-3. ⎛ cos Ω − sin Ω cos i sin Ω sin i ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ Γ2 = ⎜ sin Ω cos Ω cos i − cos Ω sin i ⎟ .iθ . k) coordinate. In order to specify the orientation of the orbital plane in space three other orbital elements are required as described in the next section. iθ. e.5The Two-Body Problem parameters a. iy. (2-25). j. Ω.− sin i cos Ω. (2-24). ⎛ cos(θ + ω ) − sin(θ + ω ) 0 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ Γ1 = ⎜ sin(θ + ω ) cos(θ + ω ) 0 ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 1⎟ ⎠ ⎝ (2-41) where axes (ix.5.i z Referring to Figures 2-2 and 2-3. ⎟ ⎜ 0 sin i cos i ⎠ ⎝ (2-42) (2-43) Dr. where i is the inclination. j.iθ .iθ .k = Γ2 Γ1 (r ) i r . iz) to (ix.2 Position and Velocity from the Orbital Elements Given the 6 orbital elements (a. i z = r θ (2-36) (2-37) (2-38) (2-39) using equations (2-29).

2. 2. (2-48) (2-49) or e sin θ = p/μ j/r. from equation (2-37) and (2-39). π).5. 3-dimensional vector. and 3rd elements of the vector iz. 2-3. and (2-29) j = r. (2-50) Consequently θ can be uniquely determined by θ = arctan[ s μ / p /( p − r )] (2-51) The vector iz. Since i z r sin(θ + ω ) = i x × r r sin(θ + ω ) = i z ⋅ ( i x × r ) . (2-44) (2-45) (2-46) (2-47) and from equation (2-36) e cos θ = ( p / r ) − 1 . k). To have a unique determination of θ . respectively. is calculated as the unit form of r × v and is given in equation (2-41) in terms of the elements i and Ω.v = re sin θ μ / p . j.5The Two-Body Problem 2. Eng.2nd. This leads to Ω = arctan[ i z (1) /( −i z ( 2))] i = arccos[i z (3)] . e = 1− p /a . Equation (2-53) gives i uniquely because it defined only for positive angles in range (0.3 Orbital Elements from the Position and Velocity The position and velocity are given with respect to the inertial axes (i. and iz(3) are 1st. Equations (2-54) and (2-56) yield a unique solution for (θ + ω) and hence ω. p = h2 / μ . (2-52) (2-53) where iz(1). and (2-52) r cos(θ + ω ) = i x ⋅ r . so p is obtained by using the magnitude of h. Calculating the in plane orbital elements.5. iz(2). Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 14 2/12/2006 (2-54) (2-55) (2-56) . In order to derive ω from Figures 2-2. Also from a = p /(1 − e 2 ) . equations (2-41).4 Kepler’s 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. With reference to the following equation h = (r × v ) .

is defined as the following equation cos E = (ae + r cosθ ) / a or (2-57) r = a (1 − e cos E ) . to get the following identities relating the eccentric anomaly to the true anomaly (2-58) (2-59) cosθ = (cos E − e) /(1 − e cos E ) sin θ = ( 1 − e 2 sin E ) /(1 − e cos E ) .1 Solution for Ellipse An auxiliary variable E. a hyperbola (e >1). or a parabola (e = 1). (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 dθ = (1 − e cos E )dE . 1− e 2 (2-65) (2-66) θ 2 Equations (2-64). This can be equated to the conic equation from equations (2-33) and (2-36) r = a (1 − e 2 ) /(1 + e cosθ ) .5. or vice versa. Eng. and (2-66) can be used to calculate time in orbit given the angle from perigee. (2-67) It changes by 360o during one revolution.4. By differentiation of equation (2-58) sin θdθ = (1 − e 2 ) sin EdE . (1 + e cosθ ) 2 (2-63) Integration using equation (2.5The Two-Body Problem on whether the orbit is an ellipse (e < 1).33) the time from perigee tp is related to the eccentric anomaly E by E − e sin E = μ / a 3 t p (2-64) In order to express the angle from the perigee θ in terms of the eccentric anomaly tan tan θ 2 = = 1 − cosθ sin θ 1+ e E tan . the latter requires a numerical iterative solution. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 15 2/12/2006 . 2. which is called the eccentric anomaly.2. The angle on the left-hand side of equation (2-64) is the mean anomaly M and n is the mean motion M = μ / a 3 (t − t p ) = n(t − t p ) . but in contrast with the true and eccentric anomaly Dr.

Practically. since E only differs from M by a term of order e. Eng. however. e > 0. parabola or hyperbola if it is influenced only by the gravitational filed of a point mass or spherical body. it is customary to introduce the value M0 of the mean anomaly at some reference epoch t0. 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. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 16 2/12/2006 . 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.2.g. Applying Newton's method for this purpose. For highly eccentric orbits (e. Kepler's equation can. A common way is to start with an approximation of E 0 = MorE 0 = π (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. and the period of the ellipse is (2-68) T = 2π a 3 / μ . an approximate root Ei of f may be improved by computing Ei +1 = Ei − f ( Ei ) E − e sin Ei − M = Ei − i . 2. The orbit elements can be calculated from position and velocity vector at any time but these elements will be invariant except the true anomoly. be solved by iterative methods only.5. The mean anomaly at an arbitrary instant of time may be then found from M = M 0 + n(t − t p ) .6 Orbital Variation in Keplerian Elements Format The satellite orbit is an ellipse.8) the iteration should be started from E0 = π to avoid any convergence problems during the iteration. This relation states the third Kepler’s law. The orbital elements can be treated as the dependent Dr. 1 − e cos Ei f ′( Ei ) (2-72) The starting value E0 = M recommended above is well suited for small eccentricities.5The Two-Body Problem increases uniformly with time. Instead of specifying the time of perigee passage to describe the orbit.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.5. 2.

(r × v ) . dt μae Now to calculate out.(r × f ) / h dt (2-78) (2-79) (2-80) (2-81) = r × (f × r ). 2 (2-73) (2-74) ⎛−μ⎞ E potentialper unit mass = ⎜ ⎟. The material of this chapter is based on [52].v )(r. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 17 2/12/2006 . μ dt (2-77) Since h 2 = (r × v ). ⎟ ⎜ cos i ⎠ ⎝ (2-82) (2-83) (2-84) Dr. The change in the energy per unit mass over a time interval ∂ t is as follows: E kinematicper unit mass = 1 2 v . iz). In the limit this gives the rate of change of energy as da 2a 2 = ( v. Referring to the orbital plane axes (ir.f ) − (r.f )] / h .5The Two-Body Problem variables of a set of first order differential equations. In order to obtain the rate of change of eccentricity (e) h 2 = μa (1 − e 2 ) .f ) + (r. Ω . 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. Conversely.f ) . ⎝ r ⎠ ⎛−μ⎞ E totalper unit mass = ⎜ ⎟.2. Eng. ω) ⎛ sin i sin Ω ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ h = r × v = h⎜ − sin i cos Ω ⎟ .v / h = [r 2 ( v.f∂t . ⎝ 2a ⎠ ∂E = (2-75) (2-76) μ∂a 2a 2 = v. the position and velocity vectors can be calculated directly from the set of evolving parameters at any time. dh = (r × v ). By differentiate de 1 = [( pa − r 2 )( v.of -plan elements (i.f ) . iθ.v )(r.

⎟ ⎜ 0 sin i cos i ⎠ ⎝ (2-85) (2-86) which is an orthogonal matrix. The final form depends on the final axes in use. and the rate of change due to the external applied forces. ⎜ dh / dt ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ (2-87) Note that the elements i and Ω refer to the same axes as the vectors on the right hand side of the above equation in the inertial Equatorial Axes (i. due only to the external applied acceleration vector f.f ) + (r. transpose equals the inverse. By differentiating ~ dθ de p ⎛ 1 dh ⎞ re cos θ = − r sin θ + ⎜ (r. Therefore ⎛ h sin idΩ / dt ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ T ⎜ − hdi / dt ⎟ = Γ2 (r × f ) ijk . Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 18 2/12/2006 . is derived by applying the perturbation to the following equations h2 r= μ 1 + e cos θ (2-88) (2-89) h 2 = (r × v ). which consists of the rate of change due free motion of the satellite. Eng.v ) ⎟ dt dt h ⎝ h dt ⎠ re ~ ⎛ p ⎞ dh 2h dθ = ( p / h ) cos θ (r. k). ⎜ h & ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ where ⎛ cos Ω − sin Ω cos i sin Ω sin i ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ Γ2 = ⎜ sin Ω cos Ω cos i − cos Ω sin i ⎟ .2. is ∂θ . The rate of ~ change of the true anomaly θ.(r × v ) ~ r∂e cos θ − re sin θ∂θ = 2h∂h / μ . In the limit re sin θ ~ dθ de 2h dh = r cos θ − dt dt μ dt (2-90) (2-91) (2-92) h(r.v ) = rμe sin θ . The total rate of change of the true anomaly dθ.v ) − sin θ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ dt 2 μ dt ⎝h ⎠ (2-93) (2-94) Dr.f ) + ⎜ cos θ (r.5The Two-Body Problem Differentiate this equation and arrange the result in the form &⎞ ⎛ h sin iΩ ⎜ ⎟ r × f = Γ2 ⎜ − hi& ⎟ . j.

Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 19 2/12/2006 . dt dt dt equations depends on the axes in use.v = rv sin γ .v ) − μ sin θ ⎟ ⎟ = − sin θ ( p + r (1 + e cos θ ) − er cos θ ) h ⎝ ⎠ = − sin θ ( p + r ) h . dt reh ⎝ dt ⎠ (2-97) The variation of the argument of perigee ω is obtained by i x ⋅ r = (cos Ω sin Ω 0) ⋅ r = r cos(θ + ω ) . (2-98) Differentiation results in ~ ⎛ dθ dω ⎞ dΩ ⎜ (− sin Ω cos Ω 0) ⋅ r = −r sin(θ + ω )⎜ + ⎟ . (2-103) and r. e sin θ .f ) − ( p + r ) sin θ ⎟.2.5. dt ⎝ ⎠ (2-101) or ~ dω dΩ dθ = − cos i − . The final form of the From the orbital plane axes (ir.r = (− sin Ω cos Ω 0) Γ2 Γ1 ⎜ 0 ⎟ = cos i sin(θ + ω )r ⎜ 0⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2-100) ~ ⎛ d θ dω ⎞ dΩ ⎟ = −⎜ cos i ⎜ dt + dt ⎟ . 1 + e cos θ (2-104) where γ is the angle between the velocity vector v and iθ measured clockwise from the latter tan γ = also (2-105) Dr.5The Two-Body Problem ⎛ p ⎞ 2h ⎜ ⎜ h 2 cos θ (r.7 Tangential and Normal Components (2-102) We now have the required equations for variations of the orbital elements. dt ⎟ dt ⎝ dt ⎠ (2-99) Therefore ⎛r⎞ ⎜ ⎟ (− sin Ω cos Ω 0). iθ. iz) then r. Eng.f = rf r . (2-95) (2-96) And finally ~ dθ dh ⎞ 1 ⎛ = ⎜ p cos θ (r. 2.

z) From equation (2-32) v= μ p (1 + 2e cos θ + e 2 ) (2-111) v sin γ = v cos γ = μ p e sin θ (2-112) μ p (1 + e cosθ ) (2-113) r ⋅ f = r ( f t sin γ − f n cos γ ) vh v. 1⎟ ⎠ (2-115) − rf z cos γ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ =⎜ − rf z sin γ ⎟.8 Use of Tangential and Normal Component (t. n. Eng.5The Two-Body Problem v. θ.f = vf t = μre sin θf t − h fn v . (2-106) From equation (2-87). (2-114) By means of transformation from t n z axes to r θ z ⎛ sin γ ⎜ Γ3 = ⎜ sin γ ⎜ 0 ⎝ (r × f ) tnz − cos γ sin γ 0 0⎞ ⎟ 0⎟ .2. k) axes to (r.f = μ / p [ef r sin θ + (1 + e cos θ ) fθ ] = μe h sin θf r + h fθ r .5. z) axes ⎛ h sin idΩ / dt ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ T ⎜ − hdi / dt ⎟ = Γ2 (r × f ) ijk ⎜ dh / dt ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2-107) = Γ2T Γ2 Γ1 (r × f ) rθz ⎛ 0 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ = Γ1 ⎜ − rf z ⎟ . the required transformation from (i. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan 2/12/2006 . ⎜ rf ⎟ ⎝ θ ⎠ ⎛ cos(θ + ω ) − sin(θ + ω ) 0 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ Γ1 = ⎜ sin(θ + ω ) cos(θ + ω ) 0 ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 1⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2-108) (2-109) (2-110) 2. ⎜ rf sin γ + rf cos γ ⎟ t ⎝ n ⎠ Page 20 (2-116) Dr. j.

5.2. n. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 21 2/12/2006 . z) Axes [6] da 2a 2v f = μ t dt (2-118) (2-119) (2-120) (2-121) (2-122) (2-123) de 1 ⎛ r ⎞ = ⎜ 2( e + cos θ ) f t − sin θf n ⎟ dt v ⎝ a ⎠ dh rh ⎛ p ⎞ = ⎜ f t + e sin θf n ⎟ dt pv ⎝ r ⎠ θ∗ =θ +ω ~ dθ * dθ dθ dω dΩ = + + = h / r 2 − cos i dt dt dt dt dt ~ dθ 1 ⎛ r ⎞ = − ⎜ 2 sin θf t + ( 2e + cos θ ) f n ⎟ dt ev ⎝ a ⎠ dΩ r sin(ω + θ ) = fz dt h sin i di r cos(ω + θ ) = fz dt h ~ dω dΩ dθ = − cos i − dt dt dt (2-124) (2-125) (2-126) Dr. Eng. ⎜ dh / dt ⎟ ⎜ f sin γ + f cos γ ⎟ t ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ n ⎠ (2-117) 2.5The Two-Body Problem 0 ⎛ h sin idΩ / dt ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ − fz ⎜ − hdi / dt ⎟ = Γ1 r ⎜ ⎟.9 Summary Of Equations In Tangential-Normal (t.

3. The material of this chapter is based on [3]. 2 n n! du n (3-4) with degree n. The Earth’s gravity potential function is U= μ n R⊕ ∑ ∑ Pnm (sin φ )C nm cos(mλ ) + S nm sin(mλ )). r n=0 m=0 r n n ∞ (3-1) with coefficients C nm 2 − δ 0 m (n − m)! s n = P (sin φ ' ) cos(mλ' )ρ(S)d 3S n nm ∫ M ⊕ (n + m)! R⊕ 2 − δ 0 m (n − m)! s n P (sin φ ' ) sin( mλ' )ρ(S)d 3S .1. 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. the influence of the Sun. n nm ∫ M ⊕ (n + m)! R⊕ (3-2) (3-3) S nm = which describe the depends of the Earth’s internal mass distribution. 3. the Legendre polynomials is Pn (u ) = 1 dn (u 2 − 1) n .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]. and [6]. du m (3-5) R⊕ is the Equatorial radius of the Earth. S is point inside the Earth .1 Satellite Perturbations This chapter includes and analysis of Earth satellite perturbations as a result from the nonspherical shape of the Earth.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 Moon and any residual atmosphere. r is the satellite position.1. Geopotential Coefficients with m=0 are called zonal coefficients. and the associated Legendre polynomial of degree n and order m is defined as Pnm (u ) = (1 − u 2 ) m / 2 dm Pn (u ) .CHAPTER 3 3 SATELLITE PERTURBATIONS AND LINEARIZATION 3. since they describe the part of the potential that does not depend on the longitude.1.

λ is the longitude. new models are continuously being developed.( +C nmVn +1. which is equal to the gradient of U.1 } 2 R⊕ (3-9) = GM 1 . ρ (S) is the density at point S. Because the internal mass distribution of the Earth is not known. terrestrial gravimetry. may be directly calculated from the Vnm The acceleration & r and Wnm as & &= ∑& &nm .{( −C nmVn +1. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 23 2/12/2006 .Pnm (sin φ ).m +1 ) 2 R⊕ 2 + ( n − m + 2)! . .m n . but have to be determined indirectly by combined use of satellite tracking.m −1 + S nmWn +1.m −1 )} ( n − m )! Dr. and altimeter Data [3]. Although JGM-3 is a very elaborate global gravity model for precision orbit determination. & &= ∑& &nm . the geopotential coefficients cannot be calculated from the defining equation.1. 3.1. .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 .3. ϕ is the latitude of the satellite at point r. cos mλ n +1 ⎛R ⎞ =⎜ ⊕⎟ ⎝ r ⎠ .1Satellite Perturbations where r > S. x x y y z z n.m +1 − S nmWn +1. λ’.{− Cn 0Vn +1. sin mλ (3-6) Satisfy the recurrence relations. (3-7) & . & &= ∑& &nm . Pnm (sin φ ). Eng. ϕ’ is the corresponding quantities for S.m (3-8) with the partial accelerations & &nm = x m >0 ( m =0 ) GM . Joint Gravity Model of order and degree 70 (JGM-3) was issued in 1996 [3]. The gravity potential may written as U= GM ⊕ R⊕ ∑ (C nm nm V +S nmWnm ) .m n.

& &ef . And ⎛ + cos Θ + sin Θ 0 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ Rz ( Θ) = ⎜ − sin Θ + cos Θ 0 ⎟ . (3-16) Dr. the acceleration of a satellite by a point mass M is given by & & = GM ⋅ r s−r s−r 3 . The formulas given for yield the acceleration in an Earth-fixed coordinates system.rsf . To describe & in equation (3-15) r the satellite’s motion with respect to the center of the Earth.1. one has &sf = U T (t ).1Satellite Perturbations & &nm = y m >0 ( m =0 ) GM . 2 R⊕ (3-11) The derivations of these equations are given in [64].m +1 ) 2 R⊕ 2 + ( n − m + 2)! .2 Perturbation from the Sun and the Moon (Point-Mass) According to the Newton’s law of gravity.m+1 − S nmVn +1. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 24 2/12/2006 .{− C n 0 Wn +1.m −1 )} ( n − m )! & &nm = z GM .m − S nmWn +1.m )}. & & = GM r s s 3 . the value & refers to an inertial coordinate system in which the Earth is not at rest.( +C nmWn +1.m−1 + S nmVn +1.( −CnmVn +1. (3-15) where r and s are the geocentric coordinates of the satellite and of M. 3.1 } 2 R⊕ (3-10) = GM 1 .{( −C nmWn +1. 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. Eng.{( n − m + 1). respectively. ⎜ 0 0 1⎟ ⎠ ⎝ (3-14) Neglecting long and short-term perturbations of the Earth’s axis. but is itself subject to acceleration due to M. and & r r (3-12) where U = R Z ( Θ) (3-13) represent the rotation of the inertial system by Greenwich hour angle (GMST) Θ around the zaxis. known as precession and nutation. ref = U (t ).3. .

m is the satellite mass. and AU is the astronomical unit (the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun=1. A is surface area of the satellite. This results in an annual variation of the solar radiation pressure by about ±3.9.3 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.2 to 0. the reflectivity ε lies in the range from 0. CR is the radiation pressure coefficient stands for CR = 1 + ε. 3 m r⊗ & & = − P⊗ C R r (3-18) where P⊗ is the solar radiation pressure.3.g. called drag is directed opposite to the velocity of the satellite motion with respect to the atmospheric flux. the distance between an Earth-orbiting satellite and Sun varies between 147×106 km and 152×106 km during the course of the year.495979×108 km). 3.3%. (e. For many applications. Orbital perturbations due to the solar radiation pressure may be thus account with high precision. 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 . orientation and reflectivity are known. s−r s−r 3 − s s 3 (3-17) 3. In contrast to the gravitational perturbations. The dominant atmospheric force acting on low altitude satellites. the acceleration due to the solar radiation depends on the satellite mass and surface area. satellites with large solar arrays). Eng.4 Atmospheric Drag Acceleration Atmospheric forces represent the largest non-gravitational perturbations acting on low altitude satellites.1. even if no details of the satellite structure. Due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Consider a small element mass Δm of an atmosphere column that hits the satellite’s cross-sectional area A in some time interval Δt Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 25 2/12/2006 .1.1Satellite Perturbations Both values have to be subtracted to obtain the second derivative & & = GM ⋅ r Of the satellite’s Earth-centered Vector. hence decelerating the satellite. For typical materials used in the construction of satellites. (3-19) The previous equation is commonly used in orbit determination programs with the option of estimation of CR as a free parameter. r⊗ is the geocentric position vector of the Sun.

y (t 0 ) = (r T (t 0 ). the modeling of the complex properties and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere is a challenging task of modern precision orbit determination. Aside from the increased accuracy that may be obtained by accounting for Dr. As with the treatment of the perturbed satellite motion.t0). one may not obtain an analytical solution anymore in this case. The impulse dp exerted on the satellite is then given by Δp = Δmv r = ρAv r2 Δt . even increasing at higher altitudes. Typical values of CD range from 1. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 26 2/12/2006 .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. It is to take into account at least the major perturbations in the computation of Φ (t. 3. Eng.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.0. ρ is the atmospheric density at the location of the satellite. 66] is still widely used as a standard atmosphere and may be adequate for many applications. 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 ρ at the satellite location. but has to solve a special set of differential equations – the variational equations – by numerical method. and are commonly estimated as free parameters in orbit determination programs. A Varity of more or less complicated atmospheric models have been established recently. t 0 ) 0 ⎠ 6×6 ⎝ (3-23) (3-24) The state transition matrix Φ(t.5-3. can therefore be written as [3] 1 A & & = − C D ρv r2 e v . The algorithm of Harris-Priester [65. (3-20) where vr is satellite velocity relative to the atmosphere velocity. 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 satellite’s surface material. v T (t 0 )) T ⎛ ∂y (t ) ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ∂y (t ) ⎟ ⎟ = Φ (t .2Linearization and Variational Equations Δm = ρAv r Δt . with typical density differences for different models of about 20% at a lower of 300 km. r 2 m (3-22) (3-21) which is related to the resulting force F by F=Δp/Δt.3. There exist relatively simple atmospheric models that already allow for a reasonable atmospheric density computation.

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. t ) Φ (t .t0) determines the different forces acting on the satellite. yielding [3] 13×3 ⎛ 0 3×3 ⎞ d ⎜ ∂& &(r. 3. t ) ⎟ ⋅ Φ (t . 3. but may also be extended to the treatment of partial derivatives with respect to force model parameters. t0 ) = ⎜ ∂& dt ⎜ ∂r (t ) ⎝ 13×3 ⎞ &(r. where & and velocity respectively. v.2. the concept of the variational equations offers the advantage that it is not limited to the computation of the state transition matrix. t0)= 16×6. v. v.2Linearization and Variational Equations perturbations.CR). the initial value of the sensitivity matrix is given by S(t0) = 0.2 The Differential Equation of the Sensitivity Matrix The sensitivity matrix S(t. ⎜ ∂p(t ) ⎟ 0 ⎠ 6×6 ⎝ (3-26) where the parameter vector p (pi (i=1.ni) may contain the drag and the radiation pressure coefficient (CD.1 The Differential Equation of the State Transition Matrix The differential equation. v. p) ∂& &(r. The state transition matrix may therefore be obtained from [3] ⎛ 03×3 d ⎜ r &(r. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 27 2/12/2006 .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. p) ⎟ + ⎜ ∂& ⎟ ⎜ ∂r (t ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 6×n p (3-27) Since the state vector at t0 does not depend on any force model parameter. p) ⎟ ⋅ S(t ) r S(t ) 6×n p = ⎜ r ⎟ dt ⎜ ∂r (t ) ⎟ v ( t ) ∂ ⎝ ⎠ . Eng. 3. t0 ) . ⎛ 0 3×3 ⎞ ⎜ r &(r.2. ⎛ ∂y (t ) ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ = S(t .3. the thrust level of a maneuver or the size of certain gravity coefficients.2. which describes the change of the state transition matrix with time.…. follows from the equation of motion of the satellite. v. t0 ) ∂& r ⎟ ∂v (t ) ⎟ ⎠ 6× 6 (3-25) & is the acceleration vector and r. v are the position r and the initial value Φ (t0.

∂r (t ) Δr (3-31) & is the geopotential acceleration.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. v ( t ) ⎟ 0) 0 ⎠ ⎝ ⎛ ∂r (t ) ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎛ S r ⎞ ⎜ ∂p ⎟ ⎟ S=⎜ = ⎜ S ⎟ ⎜ ∂v(t ) ⎟ ⎝ v⎠ ⎜ ∂p ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ (3-29) . This technique is mainly applied to the computation of the state transition and sensitivity matrix where &(t ) & &(r. by decomposing Φ and S into the variational equation may then be written as & & && && ∂& r r && ) = ∂& && r . Since the acceleration due to the Earth’s attraction does not depend on the satellite’s velocity. Good result is obtained by restricting the partial ∂& r low-order geopotential coefficient. and Snm but they are not considered in most orbit determination programs.2. t ) ∂& r r r ≈ . Eng.v is the satellite velocity in r where & & / ∂r to terms involving the inertial frame. ∂& r ⎟ ∂p ⎠ 6×( 6+ n p ) (3-28) which is adequate for use with numerical methods for the solution of second-order differential equations. This is due to the fact that the estimation of Dr. v.S r ) + (Φ r r . S) = ∂& ⋅ (Φ . t + Δr ) − & &(r. Cnm. v. v ( t 0 ) ⎟ Φ=⎜ ⎜Φ ⎟ ⎟= ⎟ ∂v(t ) ⎝ v⎠ ⎜ ⎜ ∂ (r ( t .Sr ) ∂r ∂v &⎞ ⎛ ∂& r +⎜ ⎜ 0 3×6 ∂p ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ∂r (t ) ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎛ Φ r ⎞ ⎜ ∂ (r ( t 0 ) . r is the satellite position .3. 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.2Linearization and Variational Equations ⎛ 0 3×6 ⎛ 0 3×3 13×3 ⎞ ⎜ d ⎜ ⎟ & ∂& & (Φ . S (Φ (Φ r . 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 ⊕ . (3-30) 3. S) + ⎜ r r ⎜ ⎟ dt ⎜ 0 3×6 ⎝ ∂r ∂v ⎠ 6×6 ⎝ 0 3×n p ⎞ ⎟ & ⎟ . Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 28 2/12/2006 .

which cannot usually be predicted accurately enough from material constants and the satellite geometry. r m 2 A 1 & & = − C D ρv r2 v r . What is more important.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. ⎟ ⎠ (3-33) The derivative with respect to the solar or lunar mass M can be computed from & 1 ∂& r & &.3. 3. position is quite small and may therefore safely be neglected in most applications. Eng. (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 3×3 ∂r (r − s ) 5 ⎝ ⎞ ⎟.2. This allows the estimation of CR during an orbit determination.2. r m 2 The dependence on the satellite velocity is described by the partial derivatives Dr. 3. however. = 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.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.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 s−r s−r 3 & & = GM ⋅ r − s s 3 . is the partial derivative & r 1 ∂& A r⊗ & & = − P⊗ r AU 2 .7 Partial derivative of the Atmospheric Drag acceleration Starting from the basic expression A 1 & & = − C D ρv r2 e v .2. 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) . = r ∂GM GM (3-34) and are only required in special applications. 3.

Both angle and distance measurements may then be expressed as functions of the topocentric local tangent coordinates s. ∂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 ∂ρ 1 A v vT r = − C D vr v r − C D ρ ( r r + v r 1) r .3. Except ∂r for the simplistic models like that of Harris-Priester. only.2Linearization and Variational Equations & ∂& r 1 A v vT = − C D ρ ( r r + v r 1) . ⎜ s ⎟ ⎜ sin E ⎟ ⎝ Z⎠ ⎝ ⎠ (3-42) and Dr. north and zenith unit vectors (local tangential coordinates). neglect all light-time effects and consider the geometric measurement equations. Eng. ⎛ s E ⎞ ⎛ sin A cos E ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ s = ⎜ s N ⎟ = ⎜ cos A cos E ⎟ . space-fixed satellite position r and the Earth-fixed station coordinates Ref by s(t ) = E( U(t )r (t ) − R ef ) . to first order. the complexity of representing atmospheric density models renders the analytical computation of the density gradient extremely difficult. which provide a natural and convenient frame for describing a satellite’s motion with respect to an antenna. The mutual conversion between the Cartesian and spherical coordinates is provided by the relation. while ⎛ eT ⎛ − sin λ E ⎞ ⎜ T ⎟ ⎜ E = ⎜ e N ⎟ = ⎜ − sin ϕ cos λ ⎜ e T ⎟ ⎜ + cos ϕ cos λ ⎝ Z⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎞ ⎟ − sin ϕ sin λ cos ϕ ⎟ . 2 ∂r m ∂r 2 m vr ∂r (3-39) The ∂ρ describes the dependence of the atmospheric density on the satellite location. 3. (3-40) where U is the matrix describing the transformation from space-fixed to Earth fixed coordinate. which are related to the Earth-centered (geocentric equatorial coordinates).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. + cos ϕ sin λ sin ϕ ⎟ ⎠ + cos λ (3-41) is the orthonormal matrix made by the east. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 30 2/12/2006 .2.

Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 31 2/12/2006 . ∂r s (3-45) (3-44) Neglecting the light-time correction and propagation effects.2Linearization and Variational Equations A = arctan( E = arctan( sE ). The partials of a range or angle measurement z may then be expressed as dz dz = EU . while the partials with respect to the velocity vanish completely. as defined as the difference between the actual measurement z (affected by the Dr. ⎟ s2 ⎠ (3-47) As with the range measurements.3.9 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. respectively. ) (3-43) where A and E is the Azimuth and elevation. The elevation angle E specifies the latitude above the horizontal plane and is measured positively to the zenith. The azimuth angle A measures the longitude in the horizontal plane and is counted positively from North to East. station coordinates and others. ⎠ (3-46) and − s Es Z ∂E ⎛ =⎜ 2 ∂r ⎜ s 2 s 2 E + sN ⎝ corresponding partials are equal to zero. Eng. − s Ns Z 2 s2 s2 E + sN 2 ⎞ s2 E + sN ⎟ EU . For measurement Biases q = z. dr ds measurement with respect to the instantaneous position vectors is therefore given by ∂s sT = EU .z*. the following derivative is restricted to the simple bias values.2. the partial derivative of a range with s = |s|. the geometric angles do not depend on the velocity and the 3. measurement biases. antenna axis displacement. which are the most commonly considered measurements model parameters. Since many parameters are of interest only in specialized applications. 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 . sN sZ 2 s2 E + sN .

3. the corresponding partial derivatives ⎛ ∂z ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ∂q ⎟ ⎟.2Linearization and Variational Equations bias) and the corrected (bias free) value z*. Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 32 2/12/2006 . Eng. ⎝ 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).

The sum signal is essentially applied as a reference for the error signal. angle measurements are severely affected by systemic errors that are due to calibration deficiencies. the difference signal ∆ and the sum signal ∑ single.1 Angle Measurements Antenna auto-track mode may be achieved using the conical scan method.1. The material of this chapter is based on [36]. The error signal together with the sum signal is fed to a tracking unit to provide azimuth and elevation error outputs.2 Ranging Measurements The basic technique to generate ranging signal is common tone-ranging systems. The mono-pulse technique derives antenna-angle offsets by the extraction two signals from the satellite beacon. that are related to the satellite's position or velocity. which is known as major tone. although the error sources lead. The amplitude of the difference signal is proportional to the amplitude of the antenna-angle offset. This system modulate the carrier signal with a sine wave of frequency fo = 100 kHz. and 2τ is the two-way signal travel time. The phase shift Δϕ is directly proportional to the turn around signal travel . Within an orbit determination the systematic angle errors may partially absorbed by the estimation of angle measurement biases. Upon reception. In general. 4. The average of the uplink and downlink distance This is expressed as an equivalent range value s = (1/2)·cτ. where c is the speed light. To obtain these signals. in general. 4. The transmitter as well as the receiver may be either a ground station or a satellite.1.CHAPTER 4 4 SATELLITE ORBITS ESTIMATION AND DETERMINATION 4. the demodulator locks onto the incoming tone and determines its phase with respect to the outgoing tone. to varying angle errors. feed such as a corrugated horn is applied. and wind or snow loads. while the phase of the difference signal corresponds to the direction of the offset.1 Satellite Tracking and Observation Models Satellite Orbits determination requires input measurements. The amplitude modulation of the received signal leads to an error signal that can be used to steer the antenna. These data are collected by a satellite tracking system that measures the properties of electromagnetic wave propagation between the transmitter and the receiver. thermo-elastic distortions. where the antenna feed performs a slight rotation in such a way that the cone always covers the direction to the satellite. the pointing angles and the slant range.

Eng. Figure 4-1 Azimuth and Elevation Angles Y-axis=North. f5 == 32 Hz. Here.X-axis= East.1Satellite Tracking and Observation Models time τ= Δφ . 2πf 0 (4-1) and can be measured with a typical resolution of about σϕ = 10-2cyc = 2π×10-2. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 34 2/12/2006 . A representative sequence of major and minor tones is given by the frequencies f0 = 100 kHz. f1 = 20 kHz. 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. 2 f0 (4-2) which amounts to 1500 m in the given example.2π). the turn-around time can uniquely be measured up to a value of 1/8 s as determined by the lowermost minor-tone frequency.4. f2 = 4 kHz. f3 = 800 Hz. Z-axis= Zenuith Dr. the range measurements suffer from an in determination or ambiguity of Δs = c . and f6 = 8 Hz [67]. Because the phase shift can only be measured in the interval (0. f4 = 160 Hz. As a result. To overcome this difficulty. the two-way range is obtained with a typical accuracy of σρ = 10-2 · c/(2f0) = 15 m.

which is required in computation of satellite orbit.2.03 degree. and therefore.2Maneuver Implementation 4. 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. corresponding to the daily rotation of the Earth relative to the stars. Geostationary satellite orbits [26] are assumed to be equatorial orbits with a period equal to the sidereal day (86164.2 Maneuver Implementation 4. Although the perturbations on satellites in geostationary orbits are very small. but these are second order effects and need to be considered when extremely tight tolerance. vt. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 35 2/12/2006 . Station keeping. A satellite of a circular orbit with radius of approximately 42164 km will appear stationary to an observer on the earth. it is not common to require the adjustment of all the orbital elements. 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. i. i. therefore has to be performed.1 seconds).1 degree in both latitude and longitude due to narrow antenna beam width of the ground transmitter. Dr.4.e. 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 orbit’s ascending node. Due to their flexibility. Varieties of methods have been developed for the numerical integration of ordinary differential equations.2. Eng. vz) maneuver affect the 6 orbital elements. 4. and the spacecraft is maneuvered in order to keep it within strict latitude and longitude limit defining a dead-zone. In-plane perturbations also occur. is required. they become important due to the tight tolerance arising from the mission requirements. variable order and step-size multi-step methods are ideal candidates for use in general satellite orbit prediction and determination systems.2 Satellite Orbits Correction The three component of a corrective velocity (vn. The magnitude of the dead-zone depends upon the characteristics of the communication antennas and transponders. can only be achieved by using numerical methods for the solution of the equation of motion. about ± 0. The changes in the inclination of a geostationary orbit arise from the effects of the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun. It is common with modern communication satellites to require that the satellite remains stationary relative to the ground within ± 0.1 Numerical Integration Methods The high accuracy.e.

Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 36 2/12/2006 .4. + − v(tm ) = v(tm ) + Δv(tm ) .2Maneuver Implementation 4. dm = m (4-4) A spacecraft mass m experiences a thrust & ve .2. F= m (4-5) And the acceleration f = & m F = ve . constant thrust model is sufficient to describe the motion of a spacecraft during thrust.2. Eng. Despite the variety of the spacecraft propulsion systems. (4-3) A substantial amount of propellant is consumed during a single maneuver.1 Thrust Forces The maneuver may conveniently be treated as instantaneous velocity increment Δv occurring at the impulsive maneuver time tm whenever the thrust duration is small as compared to the orbital period. a simple. that a mass has a constant flow rate and making use of the total velocity increment Δv. m m m ( t 0 + Δt ) 1 m m0 (4-6) Integration over the burn time Δt. the total velocity increment is given by Δv = t 0 + Δt t0 ∫ f (t )dt = − ve Δv = − ∫ dm = − ve ln m(t0 + Δt ) m0 (4-7) & Δt m F . which results in continuous change of the spacecraft mass along the burn. The propulsion system ejects a mass of propellant per time interval dt at a velocity ve. ln(1 − & m m0 (4-8) Assuming. & dt . the acceleration may be expressed [3] as f (t ) = Δv Δt & m m(t ) 1 & Δt ⎞ ⎛ m ⎟ − ln⎜ ⎜1 − m ⎟ 0 ⎠ ⎝ ≈ (4-9) Dr.

GeorgeK. 2000.Wellstead. [6] Maxwell Noton. Satellite Orbit (Models. Medsker and L. UTOPIA: University of Texas Orbit Processor.B.” Chapter 12 in Recurrent Neural Networks: Design and Applications. “Adaptive Control Using Neural Networks and Approximate Models. 46(2):547-568. Spacecraft Navigation and Guidance.Reidel Publishing Company(1978). J. [14] Hagan.C.SMC13. A.D. “Neural Generalized Predictive Control. [5] Campbell J. [15] Schutz B.E. . Robert Bell. [4] Fallon L. Oxford University Press. Recursive Least Squares Estimators and Kalman Filters.Linkers and M.Lelic and P. Malabar.T. pp 5226-52644. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Int.A. Demuth.. Numerical Continuation Methods.” Proceedings of the 1996. [16] Long A. and P. [8] M. Voyager Orbit Determination at Jupiter.Tapley B. Control. Department of Aerospace Engineering.TR 80-1(1980). IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control. [13] Soloway. Wertz. [9] Narendra. [11] M. NewYork (1965). 475-485.. 1994.Jain. De Jesus..C. 1998.New York(1990). 277-281. 1999. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control. CRC Press. O. pp. Eberhard Gill. chapter Generalized Predictive Control in Clinical Anaesthesia. San Diego. pp. Mukhopadhyay. Generalized Pole Placement Self Tuning Controller.L.” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks Vol. L. 311-340. Communication Section 1998. Springer-Verlage London Limited.D. Methods of Orbit Determination.E. [12] D.Springer Verlag.J. “Neural Networks for Control”.S.-(Advances in Industrial Control Series). Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference. “Training Recurrent Networks for Filtering and Control. John Wiley&sons. Inc. K. 1996. Application). CA.. Eds. [7] Gwynne Gurevich. Haley. Springer Verlag Heidelburg New York (2000). Schultz.R. Florida(1976). Part 1.256-268(1983). M.Mahfonf. AC-28.1987. “Noise Cancellation Using Adaptive Digital Filter and Neural Network”. K. [2] Allgowe E. “Autonomous On-Board Orbit Control. Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control. pp. Reprint: Krieger Publishing Company. James R. Methods.Basic Algorithm. pp. 8. Mathematical Theory of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System.. and H. .. and R. [10] Hagan.REFERENCES [1] Escobal P. Zayan. D. Alexandria University Faculty of Engineering.T..A. and S. [3] Oliver Motenbruck. M. Department of Electrical.. 1642-1656. Master thesis. 1997..1999.” Flight Results and Applications”..

Rowton S. and White. 4.. Prentice-Hall. NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Res.. pages 111{151. (1993). Application of Kalman Filtering Techniques to the Apollo Program. and Glad.. chapter 5. Recent Advances in Dynamical Astronomy. Boston. (2000). Greenbelt. D. Model predictive control: Theory and practice . Prentice Hall. [21] Ljung.. Reidel Publ. Levine G. Modeling of Dynamic Systems. 1st edition. L.[ed. [25] Tapley B. Green belt Maryland(1993). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Constrained Model Predictive Control: Stability and Optimality. (Jehangir. Upper Saddle River. M. 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). Q. N. D.].. Stinchcombe... Nov. Englewood Clis.. Critical Design Review. [18] Garcia. J. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 25(3):335{348.Gevers. Towards a joint design on identification and control..Goddar Space Flight Center.. Predictive Control with Constraints.. D. GEODYN II Systems Description.(eds. Doll C. Introduction to Geostationary Orbits. [22] Ljung. AIAA Education Series. System Identification: Theory For the User. "Multilayer Feed-Forward Networks are Universal Approximators..Co. Information and System Sciences Series. Statistical Orbit Determination Theory." Neural Networks. K. J. M.. [30] Matra Marconi Space. Space Dynamics Confrenece.36:789{814..a survey. ESA SP-1053 (1983). USA. New Jersey (1974).Reidel Publishing Company. Essays on Control: Perspectives in the Theory and its Applications. Prett. [28]McCarthy J. J. [20] Maciejowski. Theory and application of Kalman filtering . T. M. Beri A.89 (1990). Birkh¨auser. J. CNES Toulouse. [27] Lawson C. N.M. [26] Pocha. 2. [29] Soop E. USA. C. [24] Kirschner S. D. Eng.Vol. D.J. L. B. [31] Battin R. Devolpe.. AGARD Dograph 139 (1970). [23] Hornik. O. Automatica. and Scokaert. (2001). and Morari. Holland. Rao. Automatica.3. R. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 38 2/12/2006 .. An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods of Astrodynamics. 2 edition. (1994). T. Solving Least Squares Problems. Broaddus S. An Introduction to Mission Design For Geostationary Satellites. (1989). 359-366. in Tapley B. P.).J. M. M. H. (1989). and 5 1996.. M. AGARDograph 139 (1970) [32] Battin R. Addison-Wesley Pub Co. New Dr. C. M.. Szebehely V.).. V. H. L. C. H. [17] Leondes C. Nilesat-101 Satellite Control System. J. [19] Mayne. DordrechtHollond (1973). NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Res. Published by D. E. M. E. Rawlings... (1999b).Devlop. Prentice-Hall. Maryland(1989).J.. 1987.

(1994). [42] W. J. Low-Thrust Navigation to Comets or Asteroid. Mathematical Formulation of the Double Precession Orbit Determination Program(DPODP).Haeussermann.. M. (2002). [43] M. Elshishtawy. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 29(4). G. D. [33] Moyer T. Optimization Techniques for Orbit Estimation and Determination to Control the Satellite Motion . Addison Wesely. Digital Control of Dynamic Systems. 481494(1974) [35] Tapley B. [47] Bymes. Shih-Che (1993). 29:402-407.: 12th World Congress IFAC. Modern Control Engineering.F. M.. Salehi. Dr. 1328-1332 (1993).E. Denmark 1996. and Control System. Sliding Mode Controller Design for Spacecraft Attitude Tracking Maneuvers. Bryson. Ferrara and P. [40] M. 14(9):550-555. V. [37] Rafal Wisniewski. Nguib Aly. D.07 page 2231-2248. Pergamon Press. I. Aly.. Precision Orbit Determination For TOPEX/POSEIDON. Nistri (1993). On the Attitude Stabilization of Rigid Spacecraft. A. [45] Yon-Pin. Blaisedell. [39] A. Ch. Satellite Attitude Control Using Only Electromagnetic Actuation . Sidney. 1980. paper #164. In proc. Automatica. 7:537-556. Saturn Launch Vehicle’s Navigation Guidance. IEEE AC. ESA journal. C. Waterman. Franklin. [44] R. JPL Technical Report 32-1527 (1971). Brusch. Celestial Mechanics 8. F. Applied Optimal Control..99. J of Spacecraft. W. Noton. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 39 2/12/2006 . Zayan. and A. Ch. 1977. Automatica 27(1). Kreutz-Delgado (1991). 11:215-231. 1987. G. 1972. [38] M. J of the British Interplanetary Society. Leondes C.York (1987). Y. Aalborg Unversity. [41] G. Eng. A Sliding Manifold Approach to Satellite Attitude Control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. M.D Thesis Department of Control Engineering. T. [36] A. [46] Cavallo. A. The Attitude Control Problem. 1979.. 87-95. Isidori (1991). [34] Curkendall D. Ho. Sequential Filter Design for Precesion Orbit Determination and Physical Constant Determination. S. J. Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch vehicle. De Maria. D. Nonton.board Computer.Ph. 1976. D. Volume 5 Track 7. Guidance Law for the Ariane On. [48] Wen. and L. 1969.. E. F. Powel. Ting-Yung and K.

.604608.stk. 1989. 2002. NASA. 1976. [54] Aoki S. Ward (1989). N. No. [59] Cohen E. Lederle T. Part 1. Braun. Karlsruhe. 85-95. 1995. du Mont B.4. Zayan. 2000. Lestrade J. IERS Technical Note21. The study was performed by Fokker Space & Systems and the University of Amesterdam partially funded by the Dutch Space Agency. Roser S. Bien R. ICRS.32. Feissel M.A.karsten. Celestial Mechanics 2. Geophsical Research Letters 16. Version 6.. Haung C. Schwerdtfeger H. Walter H. IEEE AC.. Nguib Aly. Veroffentlichungen Astronomisches Rechen-Institut Heidelbeg Nr.. and L. D....Zadeh. K. 1982.. [63] M. 6-2671. [58] McCarthy D. Aly. J. G.. [61] www.... [50] G. IERS Convention 1996. [56] Feissel M. [52] A. The Extradalactic Refrence System of the International Earth Rotation Service.nasa. Maneuver Simulation of a Non-Linear System using Membership Function Optimization of a Fuzzy Logic Controller.. [60] Ries J. No.. Satellite Orbits Control using Adaptive Neural Predictive Control“. C.. Kaplan G. Determination of the Gravitational Coefficients of the Earth from Near-Earth Satellites. “The Technical Language of Technical Computing”.scharm. Autonomous Spacecraft Attitude Control Using Magnetic Torquing Only. Mignard F. Guinot B. The New Definition of Universal Time. Schutz B.0. F.. Wiley.. In proc. 2003..L.. h. Astronomy and astrophysics 303. Optimal Attitude Control of Satellites by Artificial Neural Networks. E. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 92. [53] MATLAB Soft Ware Package. On the Computationof the Sperical Harmonic Terms neededduring the Numerical Integration of the Orbital Motion of an Artificial Satellite. H Kaplan. D. Burkhardt G.com. Jahreib H.. [55] Fricke W. F. Verlag G. Eng. 1996. R. 271-274. Hering.. E. Bastian U. Math Work Inc.88 Release 12. [57] Arias E. M.207-216 (1970).[49] Musser. . Jahrling R.361. paper # 519. IEEE AC. Seildelman P. Charlot P. Taylor B. The Basic Fundemental Stars.0. Schwan H. McCarthy D. Modern Spacecraft Dynamics and Control. Fifth Fundemenetal Catalogue(FK5). Centeral Bureau of IERS-Observatoire de Paris. paper #1218. M..org [62] www.. 1987. Eanes R. 1988. Dr. K.: Flight Mechanics Estimation Theory Symposium. L.. L33-L36. The 1986 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constant. 1998. Kinoshita H. Astronomy and astrophysics 331.R..2.. [64] Cunningham L.. Astronomy and Astrophysics 105.. 359.E.. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 40 2/12/2006 . The Adaptation of ICRS on 1 January 1998: Meaning and Consequences.. 1993 [51] Hossein S..

McAvoy (1989). Tuffs. Vol.[65] Harris & priester 1962. [67] Zarrouati O. [68] Bhat. (1998). (2000). [71] Camacho. Inc. AC-30(9):834{844. greenbelt. Domirciogiu. “Generalized Predictive Control . R. and D. 1989. Application to a Highly Non-Linear System. Eng. 137-148. L.1989. Department of Electrical Engineering. ed. F. Philadelphia. Noise Models.. O. 13th World Congress International Federation of Automatic Control. CNES. E. [77] Ljung. C. Link¨oping University.. [73] D.” IEE Proceedings-D. System Identification Toolbox { User's Guide. Dr. Application to a Highly Non-Linear System . “Properties of Generalized Predictive Control”. [72] D. No. [80] Ljung. Link¨oping. 1987. Goddard Space Flight Center. [66] Long A. San Francisco.Multivariable and Nonlinear Methods. MA. Taylor and Francis. L. Schnabel.. “Advances in Model-Based Predictive Control” in Advances in ModelBased Predictive Control. L. Vega (1999 . and Glad. Oxford University Press. T. Volume 23.J.. Mohtadi and P. N. Clarke. Technical Report LiTH-ISY-R-2182. USA. (1985). [74] H. P. W. [69] Zamarre ٌo J. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. [75] D. Capperllari J. W. “CGPC with Guaranteed Stability Properties. 859-875. 1996. by D. 149-158. Clarke. et al. Estimation Focus In System Identification: Predetermine. E.M. P. Clarke. The Math-Works. 1994. 12. American Control Conference. Natick. Dennis. Mohamed Ahmed Zayan Page 41 2/12/2006 . W Clarke and C. Mathematical Theory of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System. Siam Classic in Applied Mathematics. C. Mohtadi. [76] J. 139. Control Theory . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. (2000). W.Part 1: The Basic Algorithm. and Prediction. B. 5 edition. T. July 1992. Berlin. [70] Zamarre ٌo J. Pittsburg. Sweden. Springer. C. Model Predictive Control. W. pp. pp. Issue 6.. C. (1999a). London. L. Automatica Volume 25..” Automatica. Cepadues Edition (1987).M. Vega (1996 . [78] Ljung. Use of Neural Network for Dynamic Modeling and Control of Chemical Process Systems. Clarke.( Neural Predictive Control. Numerical Methods for unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations. Maryland. Asymptotic Variance Expressions for Identified Black-Box Transfer Function Models. . [79] Ljung. and Bordons. 4.( Neural Predictive Control. Trajectoires Spatiales.