Advertisement

Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy

, Volume 123, Issue 2, pp 169–202 | Cite as

Highly physical penumbra solar radiation pressure modeling with atmospheric effects

  • Robert Robertson
  • Jakob Flury
  • Tamara Bandikova
  • Manuel Schilling
Original Article

Abstract

We present a new method for highly physical solar radiation pressure (SRP) modeling in Earth’s penumbra. The fundamental geometry and approach mirrors past work, where the solar radiation field is modeled using a number of light rays, rather than treating the Sun as a single point source. However, we aim to clarify this approach, simplify its implementation, and model previously overlooked factors. The complex geometries involved in modeling penumbra solar radiation fields are described in a more intuitive and complete way to simplify implementation. Atmospheric effects are tabulated to significantly reduce computational cost. We present new, more efficient and accurate approaches to modeling atmospheric effects which allow us to consider the high spatial and temporal variability in lower atmospheric conditions. Modeled penumbra SRP accelerations for the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites are compared to the \(\hbox {sub-nm}/\hbox {s}^{2}\) precision GRACE accelerometer data. Comparisons to accelerometer data and a traditional penumbra SRP model illustrate the improved accuracy which our methods provide. Sensitivity analyses illustrate the significance of various atmospheric parameters and modeled effects on penumbra SRP. While this model is more complex than a traditional penumbra SRP model, we demonstrate its utility and propose that a highly physical model which considers atmospheric effects should be the basis for any simplified approach to penumbra SRP modeling.

Keywords

Penumbra Solar radiation pressure Spacecraft navigation Orbit determination Atmospheric optics Refraction Satellite accelerometry GRACE 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research began in 2010 during a Research Internships in Science and Engineering (RISE) internship funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and carried out at the Institute for Geodesy (IFE) at Leibniz Universität in Hannover, Germany. Robert Robertson was supported by a Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) Graduate Research Fellowship. The authors would like to thank Professor David Vokrouhlický from Charles University in Prague for providing invaluable guidance on understanding and implementing his SRP modeling methods which our work builds upon. Jakob Flury was supported by the Center of Excellence QUEST and by the DFG Sonderforschungsbereich SFB1128 “Relativistic Geodesy and Gravimetry with Quantum Sensors”.

References

  1. Anderson, G.P., Chetwynd, J.H., Clough, S.A., Shettle, E.P., Kneizys, F.X.: AFGL atmospheric constituent profiles (0–120 km). Tech. Rep. AFGL-TR-86-0110, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory (1986)Google Scholar
  2. Ångström, A.: On the atmospheric transmission of Sun radiation and on dust in the air. Geogr. Ann. 11, 156–166 (1929). doi: 10.2307/519399 Google Scholar
  3. ASTM: Standard tables for reference solar spectral irradiances: direct normal and hemispherical on 37\(^\circ \) tilted surface. doi: 10.1520/G0173-03R12 (2012)
  4. ASTM: Standard solar constant and zero air mass solar spectral irradiance tables. doi: 10.1520/E0490 (2014)
  5. Auer, L.H., Standish, E.M.: Astronomical refraction: computational method for all zenith angles. Astron. J. 199(5), 2472–2474 (2000). doi: 10.1086/301325 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D.R.: Rayleigh scattering by air. Planet. Space Sci. 32, 785–790 (1984). doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(84)90102-8 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettadpur, S.: Gravity recovery and climate experiment product specification document (Rev 4.5—February 20, 2007). Tech. Rep. GRACE 327-720/CSR-GR-03-02, Center for Space Research, The University of Texas at Austin. ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/grace/doc/ProdSpecDoc_v4.5.pdf (2007)
  8. Bettadpur, S.: Recommendation for a-priori bias & scale parameters for Level-1B ACC data (Release 00). http://podaac-www.jpl.nasa.gov/ (2009)
  9. Bird, R.E.: A simple, solar spectral model for direct-normal and diffuse horizontal irradiance. Sol. Energy 32(4), 461–471 (1984). doi: 10.1016/0038-092X(84)90260-3 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, W.S., Glenn, J.H., Carpenter, M.S., O’Keefe, J.A.: Effect of refraction on the setting Sun as seen from space in theory and observation. Astron. J. 68, 348 (1963). doi: 10.1086/108982 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, M., Ries, J.C., Tapley, B.D.: Assessment of solar radiation model for GRACE orbit determination. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 129, 501–510 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. COESA: US Standard Atmosphere Supplements, 1966. Commitee for the Extension of the Standard Atmosphere, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1966)Google Scholar
  13. Doornbos, E., Scharroo, R., Klinkrad, H., Zandbergen, R., Fritsche, B.: Improved modelling of surface forces in the orbit determination of ERS and ENVISAT. Can. J. Remote Sens. 28(4), 535–543 (2002). doi: 10.5589/m02-055 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Doornbos, E., Förster, M., Fritsche, B., van Hellepute, T., van den IJssel, J., Koppenwallner, G., Lühr, H., Rees, D., Visser, P., Kern, M.: Air density models derived from multisatellite drag observations. In: Proceedings of the ESA’s Second Swarm International Science Meeting (2010)Google Scholar
  15. ESA: Gravity Recovery and Steady-state Ocean Circulation Mission. Tech. Rep. ESA SP-1233(1), ESA publication division (1999)Google Scholar
  16. Ferraz-Mello, S.: Sur le probleme de la pression de radiations dans la theorie des satellites artificiels. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sci. 258, 463 (1964)Google Scholar
  17. Ferraz-Mello, S.: Analytical study of the Earth’s shadowing effects on satellite orbits. Celest. Mech. 5(1), 80–101 (1972). doi: 10.1007/BF01227825 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. Flury, J., Bettadpur, S., Tapley, B.D.: Precise accelerometry onboard the GRACE gravity field satellite mission. Adv. Space Res. 42(8), 1414–1423 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2008.05.004 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. Garfinkel, B.: An investigation in the theory of astronomical refraction. Astron. J. 50, 169–179 (1944). doi: 10.1086/105767 MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. Garfinkel, B.: Astronomical refraction in a polytropic atmosphere. Astron. J. 72, 235–254 (1967). doi: 10.1086/110225 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. Gueymard, C.: Parameterized transmittance model for direct beam and circumsolar spectral irradiance. Solar Energy 71(5), 325–346 (2001). doi: 10.1016/s0038-092x(01)00054-8 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. Hubaux, C., Lematre, A., Delsate, N., Carletti, T.: Symplectic integration of space debris motion considering several Earth’s shadowing models. Adv. Space Res. 49(10), 1472–1486 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.02.009 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  23. Jursa, A.S. (ed).: Handbook of geophysics and the space environment. Air Force Geophysics Laboratory Hanscom (1985)Google Scholar
  24. Kabeláč, J.: Shadow function—contribution to the theory of the motion of artificial satellites. Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechoslov. 39(4), 213–220 (1988)zbMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozai, Y.: Effects of Solar Radiation Pressure on the Motion of an Artificial Satellite. SAO Special Report 56 (1961)Google Scholar
  26. Lála, P.: Semi-analytical theory of solar pressure perturbations of satellite orbits during short time intervals. Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechoslov. 22(2), 63–72 (1971)ADSGoogle Scholar
  27. Lála, P., Sehnal, L.: The Earth’s shadowing effects in the short-periodic perturbations of satellite orbits. Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechoslov. 20, 328 (1969)ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. Lelli, L., Kokhanovsky, A.A., Rozanov, V.V., Vountas, M., Sayer, A.M., Burrows, J.P.: Seven years of global retrieval of cloud properties using space-borne data of GOME-1. Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss. 4, 4991–5035 (2011). doi: 10.5194/amtd-4-4991-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Link, F.: Eclipses de satellites artificiels. Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechoslov. 13(1), 1–8 (1962)zbMATHMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  30. McCartney, E.J.: Optics of the Atmosphere: Scattering by Molcules and Particles. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  31. McMahon, J.W., Scheeres, D.J.: New solar radiation pressure force model for navigation. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 33, 1418–1428 (2010). doi: 10.2514/1.48434 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. Montenbruck, O., Gill, E.: Satellite Orbits—models, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Picard, A., Davis, R.S., Gläser, M., Fujii, K.: Revised formula for the density of moist air (CIPM-2007). Metrologia 45(2), 149 (2008). doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/45/2/004 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  34. Reigber, C., Schwintzer, P., Lühr, H.: The CHAMP geopotential mission. In: Marson I, Sünkel H (eds) Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, Vol. 40, No. 3-4, Sep.-Dec. 1999, Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity and the International Geoid Commission, Trieste 7–12 Sept. 1998, ISSN 0006-6729, pp. 285–289 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Rossow, W.B., Schiffer, R.A.: Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80, 2261–2288 (1999). doi: 10.1175/1520-0477 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  36. Rothman, L.S., Gordon, I.E., Babikov, Y., Barbe, A., Benner, D.C., Bernath, O.F., Birk, M., Bizzocchi, L., Boudon, V., Brown, L.R., et al.: The HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 130, 4–50 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  37. Sassen, K., Wang, Z., Liu, D.: Global distribution of cirrus clouds from cloudsat/cloud-aerosol lidar and infrared pathfinder satellite observations (CALIPSO) measurements. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos.) 113(D8), D00A12 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2008JD009972 ADSGoogle Scholar
  38. Seidelmann, P.K. (ed.): Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, United States Naval Observatory, Washington, DC (1992)Google Scholar
  39. Shettle, E.P., Fenn, R.W.: Models of the atmospheric aerosols and their optical properties. In: AGARD Conference Proceedings, Lyngby, Denmark, 183 (1976)Google Scholar
  40. Shettle, E.P., Fenn, R.W.: Models of the Aerosols of the Lower Atmosphere and the Effects of Humidity Variations On Their Optical Properties. Tech. Rep. TR-79-0214, ADA 085951, AFGL (1979)Google Scholar
  41. Shoemake, K.: Animating rotation with quaternion curves. In: ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics. ACM, vol. 19, pp. 245–254 (1985). doi: 10.1145/325165.325242
  42. Tapley, B.D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M., Reigber, C.: The gravity recovery and climate experiment, mission overview and early results. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31(9), L09,607 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2004GL019920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tapley, B.D., Ries, J.C., Bettadpur, S., Cheng, M.: Neutral density measurements from the gravity recovery and climate experiment accelerometers. J. Spacecr. Rockets 44(6), 1220–1225 (2007). doi: 10.2514/1.28843
  44. Thomas, G., Stamnes, K.: Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Atmospheric and Space Science, Cambridge University Press (2002). http://books.google.com/books?id=DxR2nEp0CUIC
  45. Van Helleputte, T., Doornbos, E., Visser, P.: CHAMP and GRACE accelerometer calibration by GPS-based orbit determination. Adv. Space Res. 43(12), 1890–1896 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.02.017 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  46. Vokrouhlický, D., Farinella, P., Mignard, F.: Solar radiation pressure perturbations for Earth satellites, I. A complete theory including penumbra transitions. Astron. Astrophys. 280, 295–312 (1993)ADSGoogle Scholar
  47. Vokrouhlický, D., Farinella, P., Mignard, F.: Solar radiation pressure perturbations for Earth satellites, IV. Effects of the Earth’s polar flattening on the shadow structure and the penumbra transitions. Astron. Astrophys. 307, 635–644 (1996)ADSGoogle Scholar
  48. Wyatt, S.P.: The effect of radiation pressure on the secular acceleration of satellites. SAO Special Report 60 (1961)Google Scholar
  49. Wylie, D., Jackson, D.L., Menzel, W.P., Bates, J.J.: Trends in global cloud cover in two decades of HIRS observations. J. Clim. 18, 3021–3031 (2005). doi: 10.1175/JCLI3461.1 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  50. Ziebart, M.: Generalized analytical solar radiation pressure modeling algorithm for spacecraft of complex shape. J. Spacecr. Rockets 41(5), 840–848 (2004)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Robertson
    • 1
  • Jakob Flury
    • 2
  • Tamara Bandikova
    • 2
  • Manuel Schilling
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Space Science and Engineering ResearchVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Institute of GeodesyLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations