-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
High Fidelity Orbital Dynamics #846
Comments
Hello @AmolikaSoni , There are a number of things that may have come into play to explain the divergence. Have you taken steps to ensure that the BSK scenario you ran effectively makes use of the full spherical harmonics model (and doesn't default to point-mass gravity) ? Something else to check would be the proper modeling of the Earth's rotation : if I am not mistaken, unless the Earth gravity model is explicitly connected to Spice, the Earth will basically remain inertially fixed. I would also try to display the osculating orbital elements instead of the cartesian components of position/velocity to see if something obvious stands out. |
Howdy @AmolikaSoni , I agree with @bbercoviciUspace comments. Basilisk dynamics includes the ability to include N-th order spherical harmonics, polyhedral gravity models, lumped mass models. By default, if you just use You ask if we are going to include higher fidelity gravity modeling, we already do this. We just don't provide the data files for higher order spherical harmonics. You can readily create this on your own from the sources you site. Take a look at https://avslab.github.io/basilisk/_modules/scenarioOrbitMultiBody.html to see how a spherical harmonics file is loaded. |
Hi @schaubh & @bbercoviciUspace ,
Here is a snippet of my python code. Can you please take a look and let me know if I have missed anything?
|
I think you need to add the following gravBodies['earth'].useSphericalHarmonicsGravityModel = True My guess is that that above scenario only accounts for a point-mass earth due to the missing line. My recommendation to plot the orbital elements still holds : I think you will find that the RAAN is constant, whereas the high-fidelity data you are comparing the BSK orbit with must exhibit a secular drift caused by J2. |
@bbercoviciUspace I added the line as you have mentioned. (Although, I did not find any such line in the example codes and hence I did not add it to my original code). |
How do these orbital elements compare to the reference solution ? Do they look the same when |
Hi @schaubh, I ran the |
@bbercoviciUspace I did the comparison for orbital elements as you suggested. There is absolutely no change. |
Howdy @AmolikaSoni , you create an exponential atmosphere module, but you never specify the atmosphere parameters? You only set There is Right now we just have sample values for Earth. If you are comparing BSK to another simulation, I'd ensure you are using the same atmosphere model and values. In your sim you are making an eclipse module, but it is not used anywhere. The solar flux module just provides the local solar value in the solar system. Given you are doing a test at LEO, I think the SRP force would be comparatively small. Right now you are simply not setting up your atmosphere model. |
Hi @schaubh ,
I have been using the SC Object Position & Velocity to mimic GPS data and subsequently use it to test my orbit determination algorithm for a SSO orbit small sat. I tried to compare the dynamics with the library offered by https://www.orekit.org/
I observed that the orbit data generated by https://www.orekit.org/ and BSK diverge and reach up to an error of ~2kms over 24hr of orbit.
I have plots to demonstrate the same.
I was wondering if the orbital dynamics in Basilisk can be updated to reach this level of fidelity. I see that the gravity data being used it GGM03S https://www2.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/ggm03/. Upon a bit of Google search, I found that GGM05 is also available now https://www2.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/
Are there any plans to update the gravity data?
Is there any provision to customize and use higher-fidelity data?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: