Advertisement

Force Models

  • James Miller
Chapter
  • 797 Downloads
Part of the Space Technology Library book series (SPTL, volume 37)

Abstract

The acceleration of a spacecraft is proportional to the vector sum of all the forces acting on the spacecraft. Each component of the resultant force is computed by individual force models. The required accuracy of force models is dependent on the magnitude of the force and the observability of the force in orbit determination software. By far the most important force model is gravity. Gravity force models are formulated as acceleration but this is only a matter of convenience because the mass of the spacecraft factors out of the equations of motion. Force models are generally independent of motion. Even though solar pressure and rocket thrust involve motion of molecules and photons, the force on the spacecraft does not depend on its motion. A notable exception is atmospheric drag forces that are dependent on the velocity of the spacecraft relative to the atmosphere.

Keywords

Orbit Determination Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) NEAR Mission Gravity Harmonic Coefficients Pyramid Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Balmino, G., B. Moynot J. Geophys. Res. 87, 9735, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordi, J. J., P. G. Antreasian, J. K. Miller and B. G. Williams, “Altimeter Range Processing Analysis for Spacecraft Navigation about Small Bodies”, AAS00-165, AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Clearwater FL, January 23, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordi, J. J., J. K. Miller, B. G. Williams, R. S, Nerem and F. J. Pelletier, “The Impact of Altimeter Range Observations on NEAR Navigation”, AIAA 2000–4423, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Denver, CO, August 14, 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garmier, R.and J. P. Barriot, Ellipsoidal Harmonic Expansions of the Gravitational Potential: Theory and Application. Celes. Mech. and Dyn. Astron. (in press),2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heiskanen, W.A. and H. Moritz 1967. Physical Geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaula, W.M. 1966. Theory of Satellite Geodesy. Blaisdell, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Llanos, P. J., J. K. Miller and G. R. Hintz, “Comet Thermal Model for Navigation”, AAS 13–259, 23rd Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Kauai, Hawaii, February 10, 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, J. K., P. J. Llanos and G. R. Hintz, “A New Gravity Model for Navigation Close to Comets and Asteroids”, AIAA 2014–4144, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, San Diego, CA, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, J. K. and G. R. Hintz, “A Comparison of Gravity Models used for Navigation Near Small Bodies”, AAS17-557, 2017 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Stevenson, WA, 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, J. K., “Planetary and Stellar Aberration”, EM 312-JKM-0311, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, June 16, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weeks, C. J. and Miller, J. K., “A Gravity Model for Navigation Close to Asteroids and Comets”, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol 52, No 3, July-September 2004, pp 381–389.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weeks, C. J., “The Effect of Comet Outgassing and Dust Emission on the Navigation of an Orbiting Spacecraft”, AAS 93–624, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Victoria B.C., Canada, August 16, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Werner, R. A., “The Gravitational Potential of a Homogeneous Polyhedron or Don’t Cut Corners”, Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy, Vol 59, 1994, pp 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.Porter RanchUSA

Personalised recommendations