Download presentation
Published byIbrahim Oswell Modified over 10 years ago
1
Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides
AGI User's Conference October 2005 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 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
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?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.