1 / 29

Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides

Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides. T.S. Kelso 2007 January 29. Overview. Introduction Objectives Test & Truth Data Methodology & Results Conclusions Future Research. Introduction. TLEs are the only source of full-catalog elements

emmy
Download Presentation

Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides T.S. Kelso 2007 January 29

  2. Overview • Introduction • Objectives • Test & Truth Data • Methodology & Results • Conclusions • Future Research

  3. Introduction • TLEs are the only source of full-catalog elements • TLEs do not come with covariance data • Several past attempts to estimate covariance • MAESTRO • Used limited-access observations • Same observations used to create TLEs • COVGEN • Performed TLE consistency check with publicly available data • Incorrectly assumed errors were unbiased and independent of propagation direction

  4. Objectives • Examine COVGEN approach • Test original assumptions • Use high-precision ephemerides (GPS) • Ensure all test data is publicly available

  5. Test Data • Used only operational GPS satellites • Eliminated satellites with extended outages • Selected period where remaining satellites were outage free • Days 150-210 of 2006 selected • Obtained all SEM almanacs for this period • Obtained all TLEs for selected satellites for this period • All data publicly available from CelesTrak

  6. Test Data

  7. Truth Data • Used GPS Precise Ephemerides from NGA • ECEF position and velocity at 15-min intervals • Accurate to better than 25 cm • Agreement with IGS data was 16.8 cm ±1.1 cm (1σ) • IGS data advertised as accurate to < 5 cm • Data publicly available • http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/sathtml/PEexe.html

  8. Methodology: Almanac Comparison • Compare SEM almanacs to precise ephemerides • Propagate IAW IS-GPS-200D to same time points as precise ephemerides • Precise ephemerides used as reference • RIC coordinates of almanac position error calculated • Collected RIC error as a function of propagation interval • Interval limited to ±15 days from epoch (TOA)

  9. Results: Almanac Comparison

  10. Results: Almanac Comparison

  11. Results: Almanac Comparison

  12. Results: Almanac Comparison

  13. Results: Almanac Comparison • In-track error dominant • Radial and cross-track errors not significantly biased • In-track error showed a range of biases • Errors symmetric to propagation direction • Errors grow as a function of propagation interval

  14. Methodology: TLE Comparison • Compare TLEs to precise ephemerides • Propagate IAW SGP4 to same time points as precise ephemerides • Precise ephemerides used as reference • RIC coordinates of TLE position error calculated • Collected RIC error as a function of propagation interval • Interval limited to ±15 days from TLE epoch

  15. Results: TLE Comparison

  16. Results: TLE Comparison

  17. Results: TLE Comparison

  18. Results: TLE Comparison

  19. Results: TLE Comparison • In-track error dominant • Significant biases in in-track error • Errors clearly not symmetric with respect to propagation direction • Biases increase with propagation direction • Variances often nearly static

  20. Results: Almanac & TLE Comparison • Error profiles significantly different • Maximum errors comparable over ±15 day interval • Minimum 1σ almanac error smaller than minimum 1σ TLE error • Minimum almanac error occurred at 0 propagation time • Minimum TLE error occurred prior to TLE epoch • Almanac errors only moderately biased • TLE errors significantly biased • Almanac errors symmetric • TLE errors asymmetric

  21. Methodology: TLE Consistency • Compare each pair of TLEs • TLEi propagated tj-ti and compared to TLEj at tj • TLEj propagated ti-tj and compared to TLEi at ti • RIC position difference calculated relative to reference • Collected RIC difference as a function of propagation interval • Interval limited to ±15 days from reference TLE epoch

  22. Results: TLE Consistency

  23. Results: TLE Consistency

  24. Results: TLE Consistency

  25. Results: TLE Consistency

  26. Results: TLE Consistency • Good overall match to TLE comparison errors • Artificial pinching at 0 propagation time • Slight skewing due to minimum error not being at 0 propagation time

  27. Conclusions • Almanac and TLE prediction errors comparable • Error profiles differ significantly • TLE consistency analysis does reasonably approximate true error characteristics • Significant biases in TLE errors can lead to an overestimation in total error • Removing bias could improve prediction • Error characteristics differ significantly within orbit class

  28. Future Research • Use Kalman filter to: • Estimate and eliminate bias while calculating covariance • Regenerate improved TLE • Allows use of improved data in existing software • Provides covariance for uncertainty estimation • Additionally, perform analysis for LEO and GEO satellites to confirm results of this study

  29. Questions?

More Related