Low-low satellite-to-satellite tracking: A comparison between analytical linear orbit perturbation theory and numerical integration

Journal of Geodesy

Volumn 79, Issue 1-3, 2005, Pages 160-166

  Visser, Pieter N A M ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Linear perturbation theory (LPT); Low low satellite to satellite tracking (ll SST); Numerical integration (NI)

Indexed keywords

ORBIT DETERMINATION; SATELLITE;

EID: 21444448228     PISSN: 09497714     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00190-005-0455-0     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Boyce WE, DiPrima RC (1986) Elementary differential equations and boundary value problems, 4th edn. Wiley, New York
2. Cheng MK (2002) Gravitational perturbation theory for intersatellite tracking. J Geod. 76(3):169-185
3. Clohessy WH, Wiltshire RS (1960) Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. J Aerospace Sci 27(9):653-658, 674
4. Colombo OL (1984) The global mapping of gravity with two satellites, vol 7, no. 3. Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Publications on Geodesy, New Series
5. Jekeli C (1999) The determination of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking. Celest Mech Dynam Astronom 75:85-101
6. Kaula WM (1966) Theory of satellite geodesy. Blaisdell, Waltham
7. Kaula WM (1983) Inference of variations in the gravity field from satellite-to-satellite range rate. J Geophys Res 88(B10):8345-8349
8. Klees R, Koop R, Visser P, van den Ijssel J (2000) Efficient gravity field recovery from GOCE gravity gradient observations. J Geod 74(7/ 8):561-571
9. Lemoine FG, Kenyon SC, Factor JK, Trimmer RG, Pavlis NK, Chinn DS, Cox CM, Klosko SM, Lutchke SB, Torrence MH, Wang YM, Williamson RG, Pavlis EC, Rapp RH, Olson TR (1998) The development of the joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Geopotential model EGM96. NASA/TP-1998-206861, Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland
10. Montenbruck O, Gill E (2000) Satellite orbits - models methods applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, ISBN 3-540-67280-X
11. Pail R, Plank G (2002) Assessment of three numerical solution strategies for gravity field recovery from GOCE satellite gravity gradiometry implemented on a parallel platform. J Geod 76(8):462-474
12. Rosborough GW (1987) Radial, transverse, and normal satellite position perturbations due to the geopotential. Celest Mech 40:409-421
13. Rummel R, Schwarz K, Gerstl M (1979) Least squares collocation and regularization. Bull Géod 53:343-361
14. Tapley BD, Reigber C (1999) GRACE: A satellite-to-satellite tracking geopotential mapping 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 September 1998, ISSN 0006-6729, p 291
15. Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Ries JC, Thompson PF, Watkins MF (2004) GRACE measurements of mass variability in the earth system. Science 305:1503-1505
16. Visser PNAM (1999) Gravity field determination with GOCE and GRACE. Adv Space Res 23(4):771-776
17. Visser PNAM, van den Ijssel J, Koop R, Klees R (2001) Exploring gravity field determination from orbit perturbations of the European gravity mission GOCE. J Geod 75(2/3):89-98
18. Visser PNAM, Sneeuw N, Gerlach C (2003) Energy integral method for gravity field determination from satellite orbit coordinates. J Geod 77(3/4):207-216
19. Wagner CA (1983) Direct determination of gravitational harmonics from low-low GRAVSAT Data. J Geophys Res 88(B12):10309-10321
20. Wagner CA (1987) Improved gravitational recovery for a geopotential research mission satellite pair flying en echelon. J Geophys Res 92(B8):8147-8155
21. Wolff M (1969) Direct measurement of the Earth's gravity potential using a satellite pair. J Geophys Res 74:5295-5300