Search

This report explains the data reduction and spacecraft position determination used in conjunction with two ATS experiments - Trilateration and Turnaround Ranging - and describes in detail a multilateration program that is used for part of the data reduction process. The process described is for the determination of the inertial position of the satellite, and for formating input for related programs. In the trilateration procedure, a geometric determination of satellite position is made from near simultaneous range measurements made by three different tracking stations. Turnaround ranging involves two stations; one, the master station, transmits the signal to the satellite and the satellite retransmits the signal to the slave station which turns the signal around to the satellite which in turn retransmits the signal to the master station. The results of the satellite position computations using the multilateration program are compared to results of other position determination programs used at Goddard. All programs give nearly the same results which indicates that because of its simplicity and computational speed the trilateration technique is useful in obtaining spacecraft positions for near synchronous satellites.

A preliminary Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) geopotential and center of mass station coordinate solution was obtained from satellite orbital data using numerical integration theory. This geodetic solution is a prelude to a more general solution which will combine the 1971 International Satellite Geodesy Experiment (ISAGEX) laser data with the present data being employed. The present GSFC geopotential solution consists of the spherical harmonic coefficients through degree and order eight with higher order satellite resonant coefficients. The solution represents a first iteration result from 17 satellites with approximately 150 weekly orbital arcs containing some 40,000 optical observations. The GSFC preliminary result is compared with final results from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) solutions including the 1969 SAO Standard Earth II solution. One aspect of interest for the comparison is that SAO uses an analytic theory for the orbital solution whereas GSFC uses a numerical integration theory. The comparison of geopotential results shows that good agreement exists in general but that there are some areas of minor differences.

Goddard range and range rate system measurements and data processing techniques for orbit calculation

A refinement in the satellite geopotential solution for a Goddard Earth Model (GEM 3) was obtained. The solution includes the addition of two low inclination satellites, SAS at 3 deg and PEOLE at 15 deg, and is based upon 27 close earth satellites containing some 400,000 observations of electronic, laser, and optical data. In addition, a new combination satellite/gravimetry solution (GEM 4) was derived. The new model includes 61 center of mass tracking station locations with data from GRARR, Laser, MOTS, Baker-Nunn, and NWL Tranet Doppler tracking sites. Improvement was obtained for the zonal coefficients of the new models and is shown by tests on the long period perturbations of the orbits. Individual zonal coefficients agree very closely among different models that contain low inclination satellites. Tests of models with surface gravity data show that the GEM 3 satellite model has significantly better agreement with the gravimetry data than the GEM 1 satellite model, and that it also has better agreement with the gravimetry data than the 1969 SAO Standard Earth 2 model.