Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides T.S. Kelso 2007 January 29.

Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides

T.S. Kelso

2007 January 29

Pg 2 of 29

Overview

• Introduction

• Objectives

• Test & Truth Data

• Methodology & Results

• Conclusions

• Future Research

Pg 3 of 29

Introduction

• TLEs are the only source of full-catalog elements

• TLEs do not come with covariance data

• Several past attempts to estimate covariance– MAESTRO

• Used limited-access observations• Same observations used to create TLEs

– COVGEN• Performed TLE consistency check with publicly available data• Incorrectly assumed errors were unbiased and independent of

propagation direction

Pg 4 of 29

Objectives

• Examine COVGEN approach– Test original assumptions– Use high-precision ephemerides (GPS)– Ensure all test data is publicly available

Pg 5 of 29

Test Data

• Used only operational GPS satellites

• Eliminated satellites with extended outages

• Selected period where remaining satellites were outage free

• Days 150-210 of 2006 selected– Obtained all SEM almanacs for this period– Obtained all TLEs for selected satellites for this period– All data publicly available from CelesTrak

Pg 6 of 29

Test Data

Pg 7 of 29

Truth Data

• Used GPS Precise Ephemerides from NGA– ECEF position and velocity at 15-min intervals– Accurate to better than 25 cm

• Agreement with IGS data was 16.8 cm ±1.1 cm (1σ)• IGS data advertised as accurate to < 5 cm

– Data publicly available• http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/sathtml/PEexe.html

Pg 8 of 29

Methodology: Almanac Comparison

• Compare SEM almanacs to precise ephemerides– Propagate IAW IS-GPS-200D to same time points as

precise ephemerides– Precise ephemerides used as reference– RIC coordinates of almanac position error calculated– Collected RIC error as a function of propagation interval

• Interval limited to ±15 days from epoch (TOA)

Pg 9 of 29

Results: Almanac Comparison

Pg 10 of 29


Pg 11 of 29


Pg 12 of 29


Pg 13 of 29


• In-track error dominant

• Radial and cross-track errors not significantly biased

• In-track error showed a range of biases

• Errors symmetric to propagation direction

• Errors grow as a function of propagation interval

Pg 14 of 29

Methodology: TLE Comparison

• Compare TLEs to precise ephemerides– Propagate IAW SGP4 to same time points as precise

ephemerides– Precise ephemerides used as reference– RIC coordinates of TLE position error calculated– Collected RIC error as a function of propagation interval

• Interval limited to ±15 days from TLE epoch

Pg 15 of 29

Results: TLE Comparison

Pg 16 of 29


Pg 17 of 29


Pg 18 of 29


Pg 19 of 29


• In-track error dominant

• Significant biases in in-track error

• Errors clearly not symmetric with respect to propagation direction

• Biases increase with propagation direction

• Variances often nearly static

Pg 20 of 29

Results: Almanac & TLE Comparison

• Error profiles significantly different– Maximum errors comparable over ±15 day interval– Minimum 1σ almanac error smaller than minimum 1σ

TLE error– Minimum almanac error occurred at 0 propagation time– Minimum TLE error occurred prior to TLE epoch– Almanac errors only moderately biased– TLE errors significantly biased– Almanac errors symmetric– TLE errors asymmetric

Pg 21 of 29

Methodology: TLE Consistency

• Compare each pair of TLEs– TLEi propagated tj-ti and compared to TLEj at tj

– TLEj propagated ti-tj and compared to TLEi at ti

– RIC position difference calculated relative to reference– Collected RIC difference as a function of propagation

interval• Interval limited to ±15 days from reference TLE epoch

Pg 22 of 29

Results: TLE Consistency

Pg 23 of 29


Pg 24 of 29


Pg 25 of 29


Pg 26 of 29


• Good overall match to TLE comparison errors

• Artificial pinching at 0 propagation time

• Slight skewing due to minimum error not being at 0 propagation time

Pg 27 of 29

Conclusions

• Almanac and TLE prediction errors comparable– Error profiles differ significantly

• TLE consistency analysis does reasonably approximate true error characteristics

• Significant biases in TLE errors can lead to an overestimation in total error

• Removing bias could improve prediction

• Error characteristics differ significantly within orbit class

Pg 28 of 29

Future Research

• Use Kalman filter to:– Estimate and eliminate bias while calculating covariance– Regenerate improved TLE

• Allows use of improved data in existing software

• Provides covariance for uncertainty estimation

• Additionally, perform analysis for LEO and GEO satellites to confirm results of this study

Questions?

Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides T.S. Kelso 2007 January 29.

Documents

Transcript of Validation of SGP4 and IS-GPS-200D Against GPS Precise Ephemerides T.S. Kelso 2007 January 29.