[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: orekit-users@orekit.org*Subject*: Re: [Orekit Users] DSST & Sequential Estimation*From*: MAISONOBE Luc <luc.maisonobe@c-s.fr>*Date*: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:31:46 +0200*In-reply-to*: <sympa.1531312723.13944.818@orekit.org>*User-agent*: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.2.3)

w.grossman@ieee.org a écrit :

If I read the source material correctly, the advantage that DSST propagation has over Cowell is that large steps can be made while including special perturbations like drag, solar pressure, etc.

This is one of the advantages. Another one is that is can get both osculating and mean elements, depending on what you need. Mean elements are very useful for station keeping and orbit control as you do not want to waste fuel compensating for harmonic terms that indeed have a zero mean (but not all over the same period). The two main use cases for DSST I know of are: - long term propagation (for example end of life analysis) - station keeping There are other uses, of course, but probably more specialized (like for example precisely analysing the behaviour of short periodic terms to set up reference orbits for some specific missions).

In performing sequential estimation where updates come every one or ten seconds, why is this large-step capability an advantage worth the complexity? Assuming that there are even occasional measurement outages of one or two minutes minutes, is this large-step capability worth the complexity? What am I missing? Is numerical roundoff error accumulation a driving force?

No. For estimation with very frequent measurement, DSST is not particularly better than numerical propagator, except if you are really interested in mean elements, where DSST is great!

In a related question, the advantage equinoctal elements have over conventional elements isn't clear. I understand that the conventional elements have singularities, but so do equinoctal--just in different places. For example, what happens when the eccentricity is near-zero and the periapse location is unstable? Aren't we trading one set of singularities for another set?

No. Equinoctial elements are singular neither at zero eccentricity nor at zero inclination. They have been used for years for geostationary satellites for example. Equinoctial elements are singular at inclination = 180° (i.e. perfectly retrograde orbits), but the original DSST formulation in fact even removes this singularity. We did not do it in the Orekit implementation (i.e. our implementation *is* singular at i = 180°). The reason we did not do it is that we have never seen a real satellite with i=180°. To be honest I don't know what kind of mission would require that. So the reamining singularity is acceptable. best regards Luc

Thanks. Walter

**References**:**[Orekit Users] DSST & Sequential Estimation***From:*<w.grossman@ieee.org>

- Prev by Date:
**[Orekit Users] DSST & Sequential Estimation** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Orekit Users] [POLL] asking users for a proposed change in Orekit** - Previous by thread:
**[Orekit Users] DSST & Sequential Estimation** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Orekit Users] [POLL] asking users for a proposed change in Orekit** - Index(es):