142 views

Uploaded by Aarezu Omidi

- Drag Coefficient
- Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Calculation Of
- JT QB -1 (Previous Times Questions) (2)
- Jewish Standard, January 26, 2018
- Gravitation
- igpas2011
- Venus Parameters
- Narrative Paragraph
- Practise for Advanced Level by Yomal Amarathunge
- Satellite Antenna
- Chapter 3 Rotor
- Aircraft Drag Reduction an Overview
- NewsLetter SpaceSchool
- Physics Paper 6 Print Now
- Egg Drop Project & Human Table
- A Review of Space Tether Research - 2008 - Cartmell, McKenzie
- 8edpocch5
- Stokes Law and the Idea of Terminal Velocity
- WPH01_01_rms_20180815
- Untitled

You are on page 1of 14

R. E. Shanklin, Jr., T. Lee, M. K. Mallick, R. A. Kuseski, and J. O. Cappellari, Jr. Computer Sciences Corporation ABSTRACT Extensive comparlsons of the Harris-Priester, JacchiaRoberts, and MSIS (Mass Spectrometer/Incoherent Scatter) atmospheric density models as used in satellite orbit determination are summarized. The quantities compared include Bayesian weighted least squares differential correction statistics and orbit solution consistency and accuracy.

*This work was supported by the Operations Analysis Section, Operational Orbit Support Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under Contract NAS 5-24300.

i-i

SECTION

i -

INTRODUCTION

drag with

of

Earth

sat-

i000 due

kilomto

satellite

atmospheric

Adrag

im 2

density velocity reference drag mass of at the position to the of the satel-

where

relative

atmosphere area

A = satellite C D = satellite m = satellite Therefore, knowledge tion This three context are the and calculation of the

cross-sectional

coefficient

the

drag density

acceleration as

requires of posi-

atmospheric

a function

time. presents the results atmospheric of a comparative density The model, three the models models study of

paper

different of orbit

global

in the compared

Jacchia-Roberts Scatter

model, model.

Spectrometer!Incoherent

Harris-Priester profile

model of

on

theoretical

conditions. extreme

ultraviolet produces

artificial deduced

that

diurnal In

variathe mod-

tion ified

drag used

Harrls-Priester

the

EUV

1-2

heating

level

by

choosing

among

i0

different

tables the

representing

i0 different is modeled

diurnal

variation of

a correction

using

a power

a cosine

(References The

1 and

is based boundary

on

empirical exospheric

profiles (T).

density

calculation

integration cludes

corrections

particle

flux sea2

(so-called

geomagnetic) and

semiannual variation

variations, (References

is based

on

fitting the

spherical

surface

har-

monic

expansions

to match and

angular

exhibited

incoherent

includes flux

sections annual

solar

heating, variations,

variations,

variations,

diurnal

semidiurnal from

variations, equi-

diffusive

implemented his

module. Flight

Space 4),

developed some of

program

during

1 shows models

density two

different

levels the

and

level.

Jacchia-

densities, of 2.0

figure

ratios the

is apparent similar

the shape.

profiles

quite

in overall

1-3

TABLE

(kg/km 3) MSIS F10.7 = 116.2 F10.7 = 135.1 .203 E + 1 ;274E 0 F10.7 = 140.0 F10.7 = 165.3 .204 E + 1 .313E 0

JACCHIA-ROBERTS F10.7 = 116.2 -F10.7 = 135.1 .193 E + 1 .228E 0 F10.7 = 140.0 F10.7 = 165.3 .210 E + 1 .270E 0

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000

.205 E + 1 .224E 0

.206 E + 1 .255E 0

.459 E - 1 .129 E - 1 A25 E -- 2 .155 E -2 .521 E -- 3 .218 E -- 3 .963 E - 4 .451 E - 4 .227 E - 4 .112E-4 .691 E - 5 .464 E - 5 .316 E -- 5 .245 E 5

.583 E -- 1 .178 E -- 1 .631 E -- 2 .247 E -- 2 .879 E -- 3 .392 E -- 3 .182 E -- 3 .851 E -- 4 .451 E -- 4 .217 E--4 .127 E --4 .804 E --5 .462 E -- 5 .301 E -- 5 .201 E-- 5 .141 E--5

.559 E -- 1 .177 E -- 1 .637 E - 2 .246 E -- 2 .835 E -- 3 .353 E -- 3 .155 E - 3 .706 E - 4 .339 E - 4 .154E--4 .878 E - 5 .548 E - 5 .348 E - 5 .258 E -- 5 .201 E - 5 .155E--5

.636 E -- 1 .187 E1

.802 E - 1 .255 E -- 1 .926 E -- 2 .368 E - 2 .131 E - 2 .582 E - 3 .266 E - 3 .125 E -- 3 .600 E -- 4 .259E-4 .134 E -4 .728 E -5 .378 E - 5 .236 E - 5 .158 E - 5 .107 E-5

co

.102 E - 5 .761E--6

NOTES:

2. THESE PROFILES ARE FOR AUGUST 30, 1978, AT A LATITUDE AND A LOCAL SOLAR TIME OF 1:40 P.M.

OF 46 N, AN EAST LONGITUDE

2.0

1.6-

X _ X X X X

"_

CL

1.41.2 X

"_ ; r_

X

X

J--R

o_

_. 1.0

Z ,,, 0.8

X X

=-

X X X X

MSlS X

0.6

0.4

0.2

I 200

1 400 ALTITUDE

I 600 (kilometer=)

I 800

/ 1000

J-R

1.6

"_ 1.4-

X X X X X X

_

0

_:

x 1_

X

x

X

X

1.2

< cc >I.LM

1.0

X 0.8

0.6

x x

MSIS

0.40.2 I 200

q_ O

4_0 ALTITUDE

6{_]0 (kilometers)

800 L

10_0 ==

FIGURE

1. ATMOSPHERIC

MODEL DENSITY

RATIOS

1-5

SECTION 2 - COMPARATIVE STUDY STRUCTURE All the results presented in Section 3 of this paper are based on Goddard Tra3ectory Determination System (GTDS) Bayeslan weighted least squares differential correction solutions. Nine different series of six GTDS Differential Correction (DC) Program runs were made for each of the three atmospheric models. Three different satellites, with perigee heights between 310 and 560 kilometers, were studied; other orbital parameters for these satellites are given in Table 2. The nine series of orbit determination arcs are listed in Table 3. Each series contains six 30-hour-arc solutions. The solu-

tions are used to generate 30-hour ephemerides that overlap adjacent ephemerides by 6 hours. The ephemerides are then compared in order to determine the maximum position differences (in the orbital reference frame) during the overlap periods. The 162 DC Program solutions produce 135 maximum overlap position differences. These differences are used to evaluate the consistency and accuracy obtained when each of the three atmospheric models isused. Each differential correction solution is made up of seven numbers: three position coordinates, three velocity coor-

dinates, and the drag variation parameter (pl), which is a scaling factor in the drag acceleration equation, i.e.,

-_drag -

i CD A pll + 01) 2 m

--_ V IVl -_

This scaling factor is applied during generation of the ephemeris that uses the differential correction solution.

1-6

SATELLITE

DATE

INCLINAT)ON (degrees)

SAGE FEBRUARY 19, 1979 560

655 "

97 97

55

o3

SERIES NUMBER 1 2 3

SATELLITE

AE-3

4 5 6 7 8 MAGSAT

OCTOBER31--NOVEMBER 5, 1979 DECEMBER1--6, 1979 JANUARY 1--6, 1980 FEBRUARY 1-6_ 1980 MARCH 1--6, 1980

SAGE

co

.].-7

attitude

is not

considered, no

since aerodynamic

modeled.

The

is crude other

all

three

satellites, are

aerodynamic to on

forces expect

that

both of

the

results by same

this

because three

obtained to the

applying arcs

each the

atmospheric sets.

with

same

stated, for

aerodynamic atmospheric

forces

perturb

solutions manner.

in a similar

1-8

SECTION

3 - COMPARATIVE

STUDY

RESULTS

This study

section of

summarizes

the

results models

of In

this the

atmospheric (30-hour)

density orbit of

short-arc by-run erence First, ison merits cialized average Second, parison ferences residuals. such The large average of

A detailed,

presentation 5. Two

these

in Ref-

remarks not

these

results

a comparrelative spean

context--short-arc drag any runs and scaling series may of factor orbit

in which

is solved

determination sporadic

comdifRMS

contain

a few

a few Some of

with this

study

show

RMSs. average are maximum glven position in Table along and the 4.

series are

over of

all the

three EUV

also

given,

ranges

index The

(FI0.7)

particle

flux

index overlap

averages are

show about

differences the

smaller averages

than are

about

larger

than

Harris-Priester

averages.

ference between the Jacchia-Roberts and MSIS be considered either large or significant. The study that are same information five is given series of for Magsat The

averages

in Table Magsat

5. results

This show

arcs. and

Jacchia-Roberts larger

MSIS

average

differences average

about

9 percent

than

the

Harris-Priester

1-9

TABLE 4. COMPARATIVE ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY MODEL STUDY FOR AE-3 (AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1978)

RESULTS

HARRIS-PRI SERIES I I'_ i._= C) AUGUST AUGUST 1-6 14-19 (1 RANGE OF F10'7 ) RANGI_ OF Kp 0-6 0-6 0-6 AVERAGE WEIGHTED RMS 4.9 7.3 7.3

MODEL

MSIS MODEL AVERAGE WEIGHTED RMS 8.4 8.5 7.2 MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE POSITION (meters) 265 324 164

SEPTEMBER 2-8

AVERAGES

6.5

208

7.2

184

8.0

251

co

DENSITY MODEL STUDY RESULTS FOR MAGSAT 1979; JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH 1980)

HARRIS

PRIESTER

RESULTS MAXIMUM

JACCHIA-

ROBEHTS

RESULTS MAXIMUM

WEIGHTED RMS

WEIGHTED" RMS

t-'

I OCT. 31 NOV. 5, 1979 207.5-214.9 0.- 4 8.3 204 7.8 1 16 8.0 190

DEC. 1 -6,

1979

152.2-

223.4

0 -4

12.4

204

11.5

175

12.8

25b

JAN. 1

6, 19_0

181:1.9 212.4

1--.5

9.4

213

9.5

166

11.3

28S

FEB. 1 - 6, 1980

212,6 _ 231.7

0-4

12.7

326

12.5

298

13.8

313

MAR.

E, 1980

170.2

-176.7

O. 3

9.8

.161

13.4

396

10.0

159

AVEHAGES

"

30.6

222

10.9

242

11.2

243

"=

As that in the

zn the the

case

of

AE-3,

the

Magsat

three

density

context and

RMSs SAGE

differences 6. Both

for the

the and

serzes the

arcs

RMSs all

overlap

differences models

3 percent; equivalent

three

atmospheric

produce

essentially

errors.

DENSITY 1979)

MODEL STUDY

RESULTS

10.9

108

JACCHIA--ROBERTS

11.2

! 14

MSIS

11.0

112

g

o0

237.7 X 10-22WATTS METER -2 VARIED FROM 1 TO 7. HERTZ -1 AND Kp

1-12

SECTION 4 - CONCLUSION

The results for presented satellites in above this 300 and paper support the the conclusion Harrisdensity and es-

that,

kilometers, MSIS

atmospheric density

similar

profiles results

sentially drag

when

the is

variation by

parameter arc of

and

quality is

adjacent which

overlap the

imposthe

predict or best

produce

determinaatmos-

However, may

problem

switching

models

in marked

improvements.

1-13

REFERENCES

i.

I. Harris and W. Priester, "Atmospheric Structure and Its Variations in the Region From 120 to 800 Km," COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere (CIRA) 1965, Space Research IV, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam Goddard Space Flight Center, X-582-76-77, Mathematical Theory of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System, J. O. Cappellari, Jr., C. E. Velez, and A. J. Fuchs (editors), April 1976 L. G. Jacchia, Revised Static Models of the Thermosphere and Exosphere With Empirical Temperature Profiles, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Special Report No. 332, Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1971 A. E. Hedin et al., "A Global Tropospheric Model Based on Mass Spectrometer and Incoherent Scatter Data: MSIS i. N 2 Density and Temperature," Journal of Geophysical Research, 1977, vol. 82, pp. 2139-2147 Computer parative Context T. Lee, Sciences Corporation, CSC/TM-81/6166, ComStudy of Atmospheric Density Models int_ of Spacecraft Orbit Determination, R. Kuseski, M. Mallick, and R. Shanklin, Jr., September 1981

2.

3.

4.

5.

1-14

- Drag CoefficientUploaded byAkashoujo Akari
- Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Calculation OfUploaded byAnoop George
- JT QB -1 (Previous Times Questions) (2)Uploaded byRohit
- Jewish Standard, January 26, 2018Uploaded byNew Jersey Jewish Standard
- GravitationUploaded byRoushan Singh
- igpas2011Uploaded byYan Fahmi Swastiraras
- Venus ParametersUploaded byjatete
- Narrative ParagraphUploaded byCedie Gatmaitan
- Practise for Advanced Level by Yomal AmarathungeUploaded byYomal Amarathunge
- Satellite AntennaUploaded bywkkchamara
- Chapter 3 RotorUploaded byC V CHANDRASHEKARA
- Aircraft Drag Reduction an OverviewUploaded byLuis Guillermo
- NewsLetter SpaceSchoolUploaded byNarayan Prasad
- Physics Paper 6 Print NowUploaded byJoe
- Egg Drop Project & Human TableUploaded byMabellee Cabrera
- A Review of Space Tether Research - 2008 - Cartmell, McKenzieUploaded byrshegde
- 8edpocch5Uploaded byhagamok
- Stokes Law and the Idea of Terminal VelocityUploaded byOlajide Emmanuel Olorunfemi
- WPH01_01_rms_20180815Uploaded byOxygen Carbon
- UntitledUploaded byAbdullah Razi Ahmad
- Satellite Networking - VL-3Uploaded byGhulam Shabbir
- 5.Gps Based Vehicle Navigation SystemUploaded byBaneeIshaqueK
- Kinetics and evaporation of water drops in air.pdfUploaded byMariano Luna
- Variation Aircraft Lift and Drag During Cruise With Respect to Wing Sweep and Aspect Ratio (Revision 2)Uploaded byChan Teng Yan
- DUDA.topicality.noviceUploaded byBryan Adam San Miguel
- 00523166Uploaded byGayathri Srinivasa
- F.M-01 L#14Uploaded byAns ahmed
- 03. Center of UniverseUploaded byAlexa Yaw
- Mixing POFUploaded bySam Mathew
- Di MentionUploaded byPuviin Varman

- AnechoicUploaded byAarezu Omidi
- Portable AnechoiUploaded byAarezu Omidi
- Tridiagonal Matrix Algorithm2Uploaded byAarezu Omidi
- H8 Control for Telecommunication SatellitesUploaded byAarezu Omidi
- A Decomposition-Based Approach to LinearUploaded byAarezu Omidi
- 00_04_25Uploaded byAarezu Omidi
- COTS-Based Applications in Space AvionicsUploaded byAarezu Omidi
- MAE2_Lecture15Uploaded byAarezu Omidi

- Manual telescopeUploaded byNikola Ignjatovic
- MATTEINIUploaded byMihail Pandrea
- ABS _NDT of HullWelds 2002Uploaded byAndy Satriawan
- Analysis of Non-repetitive SignalsUploaded byRômulo Santos
- Transportation Engineering Lab ManualUploaded byउमेश गावंडे
- SPSOUploaded bygondronk
- Navier-Stokes Flow in Cylindrical Elastic TubesUploaded byTaha Sochi
- Recrystallization in Organic Chemistry LabUploaded byrc865
- No Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox in Clifford SpacesUploaded byKathryn Wilson
- 1861 Algorithms for Non Negative Matrix FactorizationUploaded byTeksen Aksun
- SBL101 Essentials Cell BiologyUploaded bymaniiiiiiii
- Tetrahedron 2004 60 10575Uploaded byabder
- HILTI Technology ManualUploaded byRoger Yan
- Fatigue of WeldingUploaded by1420637
- Production of Green Aromatics and Olefins From Lignocellulosic BiUploaded byOlibear Arellano
- Chapter 3- Static Performance CharactersticsUploaded byRay Debashish
- Pressuremeter TestingUploaded byEmina Balic
- SnS Lab Manual Rev3Uploaded byAbdul Wasey
- GT2012_68485_FINALUploaded byMatthew Shilton
- ComptonUploaded byMujahid
- MCQ Xth Chemistry - CopyUploaded byDakshita Gandhi
- GS-EML500-E-7thUploaded byAfrizal Setiawan
- Researxh for Exergy AnalysisUploaded byMuhammad Shafique
- Nano PolymersUploaded byయుగంధర్ వన్నెంరెడ్డి
- Residual Stress and Debonding of DLC Films on Metallic SubstratesUploaded bynguyenthanhhop
- Fine Milling With Bead Mills 0 935 987 1811Uploaded bytrydeep
- ima5101-2018-00-wsn5Uploaded bySanil Castillo
- JEE Main - Physics - Refraction of LightUploaded byEdnexa
- tunneling in swelling groundUploaded bysri_dk1294
- 2016 Mechanics of Human Voice Production and Control 3Uploaded byJavier Bonilla Naranjo