Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of three machine learning algorithms on improving orbit prediction accuracy

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Astrodynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 11 February 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

In this paper, the recently developed machine learning (ML) approach to improve orbit prediction accuracy is systematically investigated using three ML algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), and Gaussian processes (GPs). In a simulation environment consisting of orbit propagation, measurement, estimation, and prediction processes, totally 12 resident space objects (RSOs) in solar-synchronous orbit (SSO), low Earth orbit (LEO), and medium Earth orbit (MEO) are simulated to compare the performance of three ML algorithms. The results in this paper show that ANN usually has the best approximation capability but is easiest to overfit data; SVM is the least likely to overfit but the performance usually cannot surpass ANN and GPs. Additionally, the ML approach with all the three algorithms is observed to be robust with respect to the measurement noise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Abbreviations

RSO(s):

resident space object(s)

SSO:

solar-synchronous orbit

LEO:

low Earth orbit

MEO:

medium Earth orbit

SVM:

support vector machine

ANN:

artificial neural network

GPs:

Gaussian processes

RSW:

local orbital frame (orthogonal axes along radial/along-track/cross-track directions respectively)

e :

orbit prediction errors in RSW frame

ex, ey, ez :

position components of e (km)

evx, evy, evz :

velocity components of e (m/s)

eζ :

a general reference to one of six components of e above

eT :

vector of true prediction error

eres :

vector of residual error

êML :

vector of ML-predicted orbit prediction error

P ML(eζ):

performance of the ML model on the component eζ

m :

number of learning variables for ML models

n :

number of data points in the training data

k :

number of basis functions of GP models

References

  1. Kelso, T. S. Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 Collision. Information on http://celestrak.com/events/collision/ (cited 15 Feb 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abu-Mostafa, Y. S., Magdon-Ismail, M., Lin, H. T. Learning from Data. AMLBook, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hartikainen, J., Seppänen, M., Särkkä, S. State-space inference for non-linear latent force models with application to satellite orbit prediction. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ampatzis, C, Izzo, D. Machine learning techniques for approximation of objective functions in trajectory optimisation. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2009, Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Space, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sharma, S., Cutler, J. W. Robust orbit determination and classification: a learning theoretic approach. The Interplanetary Network Progress Report 42–203, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barton, K. E., McLaughlin, C. A. Long short-term memory neural networks for the prediction of localized atmospheric density for orbit determination. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ertl, C. A., Christian, J. A. Identification of partially resolved objects in space imagery with neural networks. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Parrish, N. L., Scheeres, D. J. Optimal low-thrust trajectory correction with neural networks. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Smet, S. D., Scheeres, D. J., Parker, J. S. Systematic exploration of solar gravity driven orbital transfers in the Martian system using artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jia, S. Y., Shan, J. J. Neural network-based adaptive sliding mode control for gyroelastic body. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2019, 55(3): 1519–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xia, X., Jia, Y., Xu, S., Wang, X. An adaptive nonsingular terminal sliding mode tracking control using neural networks for space manipulators actuated by CMGs. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Improving orbit prediction accuracy through supervised machine learning. Advances in Space Research, 2018, 61(10): 2628–2646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Exploring capability of support vector machine for improving satellite orbit prediction accuracy. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 2018, 15(6): 366–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Artificial neural network-based machine learning approach to improve orbit prediction accuracy. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2018, 55(5): 1248–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Gaussian Processes for improving orbit prediction accuracy. Acta Asstronautica, 2019, 161: 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Machine learning approach to improve satellite orbit prediction accuracy using publicly available data. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40295-019-00158-3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maisonobe, L., Pommier, V., Parraud, P. Orekit: An open source library for operational flight dynamics applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vapnik, V. N. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, 2000.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Abu-Mostafa, Y., Magdon-Ismail, M., Lin, H. E. Chapter 8: Support Vector Machines. In: Learning from Data. AMLBook, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Steinwart, I., Christmann, A. Support Vector Machines. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, 2008.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Abu-Mostafa, Y., Magdon-Ismail, M., Lin, H. E. Chapter 7: Neural networks. In: Learning from Data. AMLBook, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen, M. A. Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Determination Press, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Du, K. L., Swamy, M. N. S. Neural Networks and Statistical Learning. London: Springer-Verlag London, 2014.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy, K. P. Machine Learning: a Probabilistic Perspective. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Almosallam, I. A., Jarvis, M. J., Roberts, S. J. GPz: Non-stationary sparse Gaussian processes for heteroscedastic uncertainty estimation in photometric redshifts. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2016, 462(1): 726–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Almosallam, I. Heteroscedastic Gaussian processes for uncertain and incomplete data. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oxford, Oxfordshire: University of Oxford, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Quinonero-Candela, J., Rasmussen, C. E. A unifying view of sparse approximate Gaussian process regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2005, 6: 1939–1959.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Christopher, M. B. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, 2006.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Rasmussen, C. E., Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2005.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Peng, H., Bai, X. L. Generalization capability of machine learning approach among different satellites: validated using TLE data. In: Proceedings of 2018 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would acknowledge the research support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) FA9550-16-1-0184 and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) N00014-16-1-2729. Large amount of simulations of RSOs have been supported by the HPC cluster in School of Engineering, Rutgers University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Hao Peng & Xiaoli Bai

Authors
  1. Hao Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoli Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoli Bai.

Additional information

Hao Peng has been a postdoctoral associate at Rutgers University since August 2016. He received his Ph.D. degree of engineering in 2016 from Beihang University. His current study focuses on introducing machine learning, data mining, and artificial intelligence techniques into the aerospace field to solve previously seemingly impossible tasks. His research interests also include dynamical system theory, restricted three-body problem, space trajectory design, orbit control, and optimal control problems. Dr. Peng's academic activities are actively updated at https://SpaceResearch.top, Google Scholar, and Research Gate.

Xiaoli Bai has been an assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Rutgers University since July 2014. She obtained her Ph.D. degree of aerospace engineering in 2010 from Texas A&M University. One consequence of her dissertation is a set of methods which significantly enhances and accelerates the fundamental processes underlying the creation and maintenance of space debris catalogs. Her current research interests include astrodynamics and space situational awareness with a focus on the unstable and inactive space debris that are out of control and have uncertain origins; spacecraft guidance, control, and space robotics; and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle navigation and control. Dr. Bai was a recipient of Outstanding Young Aerospace Engineer Award from Texas A&M University in 2018, A. Water Tyson Assistant Professor Award from Rutgers in 2018, the 2016 Air Force Office of Scientific Research Young Investigator Research Program Award the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Foundation John Leland Atwood Graduate Award, and Amelia Earhart Fellowship. E-mail: xiadi.bai@rutgers.edu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, H., Bai, X. Comparative evaluation of three machine learning algorithms on improving orbit prediction accuracy. Astrodyn 3, 325–343 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-018-0055-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-018-0055-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation