STEREO Mission Design and Navigation Review Action Item 2
Closed, June 27, 2006
From: Strikwerda, Tom [Tom.Strikwerda@jhuapl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:34 PM To: David Folta Cc: Guzman, Jose J.; Dunham, David Subject: Re: STEREO MDNav AI #2 Response Thank you Dave! Regards, ----------------------------- Tom Strikwerda Applied Physics Laboratory/Johns Hopkins University 240-228-5847 - office 240-228-0355 - fax tom.strikwerda@jhuapl.edu On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:29 PM, David Folta wrote: Mike, My response to close the action item. The analysis provided was excellent and shows that the 1 second rate does not drastically improve the definitive as I thought it might. With this information, we can close the action. Thanks and sorry for the tardiness. Dave At 10:38 AM 5/2/2006 -0400, Michael Mesarch wrote: Dave, here is the response to AI#2 from the STEREO MDNav Review from October 12. The original action was "During attenuation near perigee, investigate the use of Doppler at a rate of 1 sample per 1 second versus 1 sample per 10 seconds to help reduce noise". The response from Dr. John Lorah of Honeywell is ... ****************** I went ahead and did some ODEAS runs to look at using 1-second data around perigee instead of 10-second data. I re-ran the jobs right after P4, called out in Table 6-2 in the latest report. For the attenuated spans, I used a 1-second rate, and also increased the noise to 3 times the nominal 10-second value. The attached file has some detailed results, hopefully not too much info. The short answer is that it agrees with our statement that the 1-second rate doesn't really help. The four tables in the file have the definitive position, definitive velocity, predictive position, and predictive velocity errors, respectively. The rows in each table are for different runs, with a pair at each of 6, 12, and 24-hours definitive. The first row of each pair is a repeat of Table 6-2, while the second row in each pair is the same thing at the 1-second rate. The shaded column is the total error. Notice that the extra data makes very little difference in general, sometimes making things slightly better, sometimes actually making things worse. I highlighted in red what I think is the most relevant set of numbers. I think the thing that prompted the question was our statements that the definitive velocity around perigee did not meet the 0.1 meter goal in general. Notice that the extra data in the 6 hour case does not put the velocity anywhere near the goal. ****************** See attached file for referenced data. Dave, if you concur with this answer please do so in a reply which cc's Tom Strikwerda, the review chair. Thank you. Michael ********************************* NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Flight Dynamics Analysis Branch Code 595 Greenbelt, MD 20771 E-mail: Michael.A.Mesarch@nasa.gov Ph#: 301-286-9917 *********************************