swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Working meeting on Task 2

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Benoit Pigneur and Kartik Ariyur School of Mechanical Engineering Purdue University June 2013 Inexpensive Sensing For Full State Estimation of Spacecraft.
Advertisements

4 th Swarm DQW – Magnetic Session 23 Dec 2014Potsdam (D) ELM – “EXTENDED” LESUR MODEL OF DISTURBANCE CHARACTERISATION AND VFM CALIBRATION Lars Tøffner-Clausen,
Fundamentals of Data Analysis Lecture 12 Methods of parametric estimation.
Polarimetry Christoph Keller. Polarimetry Requirements Polarization sensitivity: amount of fractional polarization that can be detected above a (spatially.
Probabilistic video stabilization using Kalman filtering and mosaicking.
MSU CSE 803 Fall 2008 Stockman1 CV: 3D sensing and calibration Coordinate system changes; perspective transformation; Stereo and structured light.
Sensor Fusion. 21/ (MJ)Danish GPS Center2 Table of Contents Sensor fusion theory The upgraded testbed Sun sensor Magnetometer Rate gyros Data fusion.
4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D On Calibrating the Magnetometry Package Data Nils Olsen, DTU Space.
Overview and Mathematics Bjoern Griesbach
Physical Approach to the ASM-VFM residual investigation National Space Institute, DTU 3. December 2014.
Study of an Improved Comprehensive Magnetic Field Inversion Analysis for Swarm PM1, E2Eplus Study Work performed by Nils Olsen, Terence J. Sabaka, Luis.
4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Data Selection Model Parameterization Results: Statistics, Lithospheric Field, Core Field Perspective.
Kick off meeting, swarm E2E study, nio #1 8-Sep-15 Development Approach Task 1: Industrial Module –to be used by industry for their system simulation –Output:
Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques Slides for Chapter 5 of Data Mining by I. H. Witten, E. Frank and M. A. Hall 報告人:黃子齊
Vector Control of Induction Machines
Lecture 12 Statistical Inference (Estimation) Point and Interval estimation By Aziza Munir.
Secular variation in Germany from repeat station data and a recent global field model Monika Korte and Vincent Lesur Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research.
FLAO system test plan in solar tower S. Esposito, G. Brusa, L. Busoni FLAO system external review, Florence, 30/31 March 2009.
Inertial Navigation System Overview – Mechanization Equation
Final Presentation, Swarm E2E study, June 18, 2004, ESTEC, nio #1 1-Nov-15 Swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Final Presentation The Swarm E2E.
Introducing POMME Potsdam Magnetic Model of the Earth Star camera calibration Ring current field Static and annually varying external fields Internal field.
PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS FOR ENGINEERING Hossein Sameti Department of Computer Engineering Sharif University of Technology Principles of Parameter Estimation.
1 MODELING MATTER AT NANOSCALES 4. Introduction to quantum treatments The variational method.
ADCS Review – Attitude Determination Prof. Der-Ming Ma, Ph.D. Dept. of Aerospace Engineering Tamkang University.
Swarm ASM-VFM meeting 9-10 Apr 2015ESTEC (NL) Ideas for improving the disturbance model or Welcome to the Null-Space! Nils Olsen, Lars Tøffner-Clausen,
March 2004 At A Glance autoProducts is an automated flight dynamics product generation system. It provides a mission flight operations team with the capability.
A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration Zhengyou Zhang Sung Huh CSPS 643 Individual Presentation 1 February 25,
EECS 274 Computer Vision Geometric Camera Calibration.
Bundle Adjustment A Modern Synthesis Bill Triggs, Philip McLauchlan, Richard Hartley and Andrew Fitzgibbon Presentation by Marios Xanthidis 5 th of No.
1) Magnetic total field (T) obtained from airborne survey (see R.J.Blakely, 1995) (ΔT) Total field anomaly (IGRF removal), which satisfy potential theory,
CLIC Beam Physics Working Group CLIC pre-alignment simulations Thomas Touzé BE/ABP-SU Update on the simulations of the CLIC pre-alignment.
Study on the Impact of Combined Magnetic and Electric Field Analysis and of Ocean Circulation Effects on Swarm Mission Performance by S. Vennerstrom, E.
Use of the Moon as a calibration reference for NPP VIIRS Frederick S. Patt, Robert E. Eplee, Robert A. Barnes, Gerhard Meister(*) and James J. Butler NASA.
Study of an Improved Comprehensive Magnetic Field Inversion Analysis for Swarm MTR, E2Eplus Study Work performed by Nils Olsen, Terence J. Sabaka, Luis.
Earth’s Dynamic Magnetic Field: The State of the Art Comprehensive Model Terence J. Sabaka Geodynamics Branch NASA/GSFC with special thanks to Nils Olsen.
1 ASIPP Sawtooth Stabilization by Barely Trapped Energetic Electrons Produced by ECRH Zhou Deng, Wang Shaojie, Zhang Cheng Institute of Plasma Physics,
STSE Tides to Sense Earth, MTR 25 January 2016DTU, Lyngby/DK REPORT ON WP2X00: TIDAL SIGNAL RECOVERY USING THE COMPREHENSIVE INVERSION (CI) RESULTS FROM.
Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques By I. H. Witten, E. Frank and M. A. Hall Chapter 5: Credibility: Evaluating What’s Been Learned.
5 th Swarm Data Quality Workshop 7 – 10 September 2015IPG Paris/F PRELIMINARY NEW VERSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE INVERSION (CI) LEVEL-2 PRODUCTS Terence.
Fundamentals of Data Analysis Lecture 11 Methods of parametric estimation.
Magnetic Measurement Expert Group10-11 March 2016Warsaw / PL MAGNETOMETER – STAR-IMAGER ALIGNMENT: APPARENT EULER ANGLE VARIATION DUE TO MAGNETOSPHERIC.
Summary of Session 2M Swarm 5th Data Quality Workshop
ACC/GPSR Splinter Summary
Geometric Camera Calibration
What you will learn about today
Paper under review for JGR-Atmospheres …
Rotation of 67P. Mottola et al. (2014): Lightcurve photomerty -> Spin period of h.
The Swarm Advanced stellar Compass
Magnetic Splinter Meeting
Rapid core field variations just before Swarm
12. Principles of Parameter Estimation
Summary of part of L2 session
Background on Classification
MIRA, SVM, k-NN Lirong Xia. MIRA, SVM, k-NN Lirong Xia.
Optical Bench Anomaly Investigation and Modelling
Mac Keiser and Alex Silbergleit
The Brightness Constraint
GPI Astrometric Calibration
The Brightness Constraint
New "quite time" concept: application to Champ lithospheric field modelling Nils Olsen, Jesper Gjerløv & Co.
The SST CCI: Scientific Approaches
Characterization and Impact of DORIS scale variations
Mac Keiser and Alex Silbergleit
What you will learn about today
12. Principles of Parameter Estimation
Calibration and homographies
Physics 319 Classical Mechanics
MIRA, SVM, k-NN Lirong Xia. MIRA, SVM, k-NN Lirong Xia.
Human Gait Analysis using IMU Sensors
Screw Rotation and Other Rotational Forms
Presentation transcript:

swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Working meeting on Task 2 Eigil Friis-Christensen and Nils Olsen Danish Space Research Institute Copenhagen

Why in-flight alignment Why in-flight alignment? (Determination of the VFM – ASC transformation) VFM – ASC transformation (Euler angles) depend on ASC software parameter settings. In-orbit parameter change (e.g. to optimize performance) will require a new alignment but one-by-one parameter change may allow to determine the change by intercalibration of the individual camera heads Large discrepancy between pre-flight and in-flight estimated values for all previous missions means that preflight calibrations are not adequate for scientific use.

Principles of in-flight alignment Compare the observed vector field with a model vector field in the instrument frame Adjust a,b,g such that the difference is minimized in the LS sense Model field consists of main-field + Dst correction Discrepancy between observed and model field is due to error in the MF model (potential field) This error is absent if MF is co-estimated LT dependency of ionsopheric and magnetospheric sources (non-potential field due to data sampling near LT=0, although curl B = 0) existence of toroidal field contributions (curl B ¹ 0) Since the method aims to minimize |Bobs-Bmod|, it is important that this difference is not biased, i.e. its mean in the instrument frame should be zero This is a problem if the instrument (satellite) has a preferred flight direction (for instance, if the instruments z-axis is mostly in radial direction)

Coordinate system a b g

Some experiments 5 years of data from swarm1 Usual data selection criteria (quiet time, night-side, non-polar latitudes) Observed field consists of core, crust, ionospheric+magnetospheric (+induced), toroidal (all sources) core, crust, ionospheric+magnetospheric (+induced), (no toroidal field) core, toroidal (only toroidal field) Model field consists of core field + Dst-correction ”True” Euler angles with time-dependency a=20” (t/1000 days) b=10” g=30” (t/1000 days)2 Such a time-dependency is not relevant for swarm, for which a stability of the angles within 5” is required according to the SRD Such a stability has, however, not yet been proven in space This time dependency is used here to study the robustness of the solution.

Stable satellite, all source contributions rms misfit is the discrepancy between model field and true (observed) field (aligned using the estimated values of a,b,c) rms alignment error is the discrepancy between the true field and the aligned true field

Stable satellite, no toroidal field

Stable satellite, only toroidal field

All contributions, satellite spinning around x-axis

Satellite spinning around z-axis

Satellite spinning (tumbling) around x and z-axes

Application to swarm Rotation of the satellite around a specific axis does not help to find the Euler angle around that axis (explanation has been given by Terry Sabaka) Is it possible to recover the Euler angles if it is assumed that they are are constant? What is the minimum of attitude maneuvers needed for the estimation of the Euler angles?

Accumulated accuracy, stable satellite Value for time t is obtained using all data up to t (data accumulation) biased estimate of g (by 15-20”), even when data of 5 years are used

Satellite rotated by 180 deg around z-axis once per month

Satellite rotated by 180 deg around x-axis once per month

Satellite rotated by +/- 45 deg around x-axis once per month

Preliminary Conclusion and Recommendation With existing single satellite calibration methods: Only a fully spinning (tumbling) satellite allows to estimate time-varying Euler angles (values are off by 10”-100”) Reliable estimate of a,b possible if mechanical stability is assumed and data from several years are used. But g is biased (by 15-20”) Attitude maneuvers (rotation of the satellite around z axis) do not help to solve this problem But such maneuvers might be needed for the VFM-ASM calibration New calibration methods taking advantage of a multi satellite configuration may be developed and used in case of non-ideal distribution of sensor directions.

Preliminary Conclusion and Recommendation Single satellite calibration method requires: Rotation around x (flight direction) Rotations of ±180 deg ( ±90 deg is not sufficient) Sufficient amount of data sampled in the rotated configuration is important (the number of rotations is less important)) Possible solution: rotation / swapping of the whole boom (or of the VFM/ASC package) around x ”Mechanism need not be very reliable” (if mechanism of one satellite fails, intercalibration with the other satellites may help)