1 / 17

Challenges Identifying Newly Launched Objects

This overview discusses the background of challenges in identifying newly launched objects, preparing for success through methodology and tool development, operational performance insights, and conclusions drawn from the findings. The tool developed aids in quickly tracking and identifying payloads, crucial for mission assurance and flight safety.

youngf
Download Presentation

Challenges Identifying Newly Launched Objects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenges Identifying Newly Launched Objects Dr. T.S. Kelso

  2. Overview • Background • Preparing for Success • Methodology • Tool Development & Validation • Operational Performance • Conclusions

  3. Background • Large multi-payload deployments present unique SSA challenges • Cubesat form factor & design make it even more so • Need ways to quickly track & identify all payloads • Failing to do so jeopardizes mission assurance & safety of flight

  4. Preparing for Success • Operators can drive improvements • Pre-launch/post-deployment state vectors • Share data in advance with JSpOC • Develop independent tracking capability • Two-way ranging • GPS • Simultaneous Doppler tracking • Passive RFID techniques

  5. Methodology • 4 cases involving Planet cubesats examined • 2 prior to/2 following tool development • Looking for key milestones • Time to first TLE • Time to unique identification

  6. ISS Deployments (2016 May 16-Jun 2)

  7. PSLV-C34 Launch (2016 Jun 22)

  8. Tool Development • Assignment/matching process • Based on RMS not closest distance • Standard reporting • Best match to operator data • Best unique match to JSpOC data • Multiple allowable matches to JSpOC data • JSpOC objects having no matches • Tool takes ~1 minute for 88-object case

  9. Tool Validation • Two validation runs • All Planet TLEs against all JSpOC TLEs for Planet • All matches correct—No Type I or Type II errors • Correctly identified RapidEye as having no matches • RMS values of 0.1 to 15.0 km • All Planet TLEs against all ISS-related TLEs • All matches correct—No Type I or Type II errors • Correctly identified non-Planet objects as having no matches • Best results for non-matches had RMS values in the thousands of kilometers

  10. Operational Performance • Results detailed on following slides • PSLV-C37 demonstrated potential • Required confidence building • Found misidentification of INS-1B • KANOPUS-V-IK showed dramatic improvement • Significant delays for non-Planet objects • Still working some identifications due to anomalies

  11. PSLV-C37 Launch (2017 Feb 15), Part 1

  12. PSLV-C37 Launch (2017 Feb 15), Part 2

  13. PSLV-C37 Launch (2017 Feb 15), Part 3

  14. KANOPUS-V-IK Launch (2017 Jul 14), Part 1

  15. KANOPUS-V-IK Launch (2017 Jul 14), Part 2

  16. Conclusions • Significant improvement demonstrated • Having pre-launch vectors can help • Identification requires independent tracking data and willingness to share • Cubesat community needs to enable success • Find/test solutions • Seek ways to make available to all operators • We must do better to support mission assurance & safety of flight

  17. Questions?

More Related