Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T23:25:49.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Observational Techniques and Precise Orbit Determination of Artificial Satellites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

B. E. Schutz
B. E. Schutz*
Affiliation:
Center for Space Research, University of Texas Austin, Texas, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Modern observational techniques using ground-based and space-based instrumentation have enabled the measurement of the distance between the instrument and satellite to better than one centimeter. Such high precision instrumentation has fostered applications with centimeter-level requirements for satellite position knowledge. The determination of the satellite position to such accuracy requires a comparable modeling of the forces experienced by the satellite, especially when classical orbit determination methods are used. Geodetic satellites, such as Lageos, in conjunction with high precision ground-based laser ranging, have been used to improve for modeling of forces experienced by the satellite. Space-based techniques, such as Global Positioning System (GPS), offer alternatives, including kinematic techniques which require no modeling of the satellite forces, or only rudimentary models. This paper will describe the various techniques and illustrate the accuracies achieved with current satellites, such as TOPEX/POSEIDON, GPS/MET and the expectations for some future satellites.

Type
Dynamics and Astrometry: Present and Future
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 165: Dynamics and Astrometry of Natural and Artificial Celestial Bodies , 1997 , pp. 79 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer 1997

References

Hoffmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., and Collins, J.: 1993, GPS: Theory and Practice, Springer-Verlag, Wien and New York.Google Scholar
Lundberg, J.B.: 1985, “Computational errors and their control in the determination of satellite orbits”, CSR-85-3, March 1985, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Center for Space Research.Google Scholar
Lundberg, J.B., Schutz, B.E., Fields, R., and Watkins, M.: 1991, “Application of Encke’s method to long arc orbit determination solutions”, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 14(3), 683–686.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D.: 1996, “IERS Conventions (1996)”, IERS Tech. Note 21, Obs. de Paris.Google Scholar
Melbourne, W., Davis, E., Yunck, T., and Tapley, B.: 1994, “The GPS flight experiment on TOPEX/POSEIDON”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 2171–2174.Google Scholar
Montenbruck, O.: 1992, “Numerical integration methods for orbital motion”, Celest. Mech. 53, 59–69.Google Scholar
Schutz, B.E. and Tapley, B.: 1980, “Orbit determination and model improvement for Seasat and Lageos”, AlAA/’AAS, Danvers, Paper 80-1679.Google Scholar
Schutz, B.E., Tapley, B., Abusali, P., and Rim, H.: 1994, “Dynamic orbit determination using GPS measurements from TOPEX/POSEIDON”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 2179–2182.Google Scholar
Schutz, B. et al.: 1995, “GPS tracking experiment of a free-flyer deployed from Space Shuttle”, Proceedings of GPS-95, Institute of Navigation, 229–235.Google Scholar
Shampine, L. and Gordon, M.: 1975, Computer Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations: The Initial Value Problem, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Tapley, B., Schutz, B.E., Eanes, R., Ries, J., and Watkins, M.: 1993, “Lageos laser ranging contributions to geodynamics, geodesy and orbital dynamics”, Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Earth Dynamics (Smith, D., Turcotte, D., eds), American Geophysical Union 24, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunck, T., et al.: 1994, “First assessment of GPS-based reduced dynamic orbit determination on TOPEX/POSEIDON”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 541–544.Google Scholar