应用GPS载波确定载体姿态

本文简述了利用GPS载波相位技术进行载体姿态确定的原理，比较了目前已有的多种整周模糊度求解算法，选用最小二乘法进行了载体定姿实践，减少了备选整周模糊度的组合数，并采用多种约束信息来剔除不正确的模糊度组合，结合实验，指出了载体姿态变化和整周模糊度搜索速度的关系，提出了一种模糊度确定的辅助方法，并给出了应用算例。     

Determination of station positions and velocities from laser ranging observations to Ajisai,Starlette and Stella satellites

The positions and velocities of the four Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) stations: Yarragadee (7090), Greenbelt (7105), Graz (7839) and Herstmonceux (7840) from 5-year (2001–2005) SLR data of low orbiting satellites (LEO): Ajisai, Starlette and Stella were determined. The orbits of these satellites were computed from the data provided by 20 SLR stations. All orbital computations were performed by means of NASA Goddard’s GEODYN-II program. The geocentric coordinates were transformed to the topocentric North–South, East–West and Vertical components in reference to ITRF2005. The influence of the number of normal points per orbital arc and the empirical acceleration coefficients on the quality of station coordinates was studied. To get standard deviation of the coordinates determination lower than 1 cm, the number of the normal points per site had to be greater than 50. The computed positions and velocities were compared to those derived from LAGEOS-1/LAGEOS-2 data. Three parameters were used for this comparison: station coordinates stability, differences from ITRF2005 positions and velocities. The stability of coordinates of LEO satellites is significantly worse (17.8 mm) than those of LAGEOS (7.6 mm), the better results are for Ajisai (15.4 mm) than for Starlette/Stella (20.4 mm). The difference in positions between the computed values and ITRF2005 were little bit worse for Starlette/Stella (6.6 mm) than for LAGEOS (4.6 mm), the results for Ajisai were five times worse (29.7 mm) probably due to center of mass correction of this satellite. The station velocities with some exceptions were on the same level (≈1 mm/year) for all satellites. The results presented in this work show that results from Starlette/Stella are better than those from Ajisai for station coordinates determination. We can applied the data from LEO satellites, especially Starlette and Stella for determination of the SLR station coordinates but with two times lower accuracy than when using LAGEOS data.     

Development,integrated investigation,laboratory and in-flight testing of Chibis-M microsatellite ADCS

Design, analytical investigation, laboratory and in-flight testing of the attitude determination and control system (ADCS) of a microsatellites are considered. The system consists of three pairs of reaction wheels, three magnetorquers, a set of Sun sensors, a three-axis magnetometer and a control unit. The ADCS is designed for a small 10–50 kg LEO satellite. System development is accomplished in several steps: satellite dynamics preliminary study using asymptotical and numerical techniques, hardware and software design, laboratory testing of each actuator and sensor and the whole ADCS. Laboratory verification is carried out on the specially designed test-bench.In-flight ADCS exploitation results onboard the Russian microsatellite “Chibis-M” are presented. The satellite was developed, designed and manufactured by the Institute of Space Research of RAS. “Chibis-M” was launched by the “Progress-13M” cargo vehicle on January 25, 2012 after undocking from the International Space Station (ISS). This paper assess both the satellite and the ADCS mock-up dynamics. Analytical, numerical and laboratory study results are in good correspondence with in-flight data.     

充液航天器姿态控制研究进展

首先介绍了充液航天器刚-液耦合动力学建模的研究现状,以及目前被广泛使用的等效晃动力学模型的建模方法;其次针对不同执行器的选取,总结分析了基于李亚普诺夫稳定性原理、滑模控制、自适应反馈控制等充液航天器抑制液体燃料晃动、控制姿态的方案;最后,对目前国内充液航天器姿态控制问题进行了总结,并展望了充液航天器未来的研究方向.     

着陆姿态对地外天体表层采样的影响研究

表层采样技术是获得地外天体特性的重要手段,是完成地外天体采样任务的一项关键技术。文章结合4自由度表层采样装置的特点,建立了表层采样装置的逆运动学模型,分析了极限着陆姿态下表层采样装置安装位置在当地参考坐标系中的变化,并针对一次封装与二次封装过程中表层采样装置的位置和姿态要求,明确了末端采样器姿态补偿方法,提出了着陆姿态对表层采样影响的分析算法。仿真结果表明,该算法能有效分析着陆姿态对表层采样的影响,可为表层采样装置适应性设计提供支持。     

Route generation and description using the notions of object's influence area and spatial conceptual map

In the GRAAD Project we aimed at creatinga system which could generate route directions thatare comparable to route directions created by humanparticipants. With this goal in mind, we started froma linguistic and cognitive study of route directionsproduced by people and the study of cognitive modelsof mental maps. We proposed a new qualitative spatialmodel that can support the spatial properties of humanroute directions. This model is based on the notion ofobject's influence area which is used to modelneighborhood, orientation and distance. The proposedapproach relies on the manipulation of spatialentities in a spatial conceptual map (SCM) which isthe computarized analog of a mental map used bypeople. We developped the GRAAD System, software thatgenerates routes in a SCM and describes them innatural language. Finally, we conducted an experimentin order to compare GRAAD's route directions androutes described by human participants in similarexperimental conditions. GRAAD's output was notdistinguishable from route directions created by humanparticipants. In this paper we present the mainresults obtained during all phases of the GRAADProject.     

中国深空网首次△DOR联合测轨试验分析

通过分析中国深空网首次△DOR（Delta Differential One way Ranging,双差分单向测距）联合测轨试验的干涉测量事后数据,重点从观测量随机精度、闭合时延等方面讨论了国内深空网与国内VLBI（Very Long Baseline Interferometry,甚长基线干涉测量）观测网、国内深空网与国际深空网的联合干涉处理情况,并与ESOC（European Space Operation Center,欧洲空间操作中心）数据处理结果进行了比对.试验结果表明：我国深空网已具备独立或联合开展深空探测器导航测轨的系统支持能力;深空站系统具备高速率数据接收、采集、记录、传输能力,采集数据处理精度优于1 ns;深空网干涉测量信号处理中心具备多体制信号的干涉处理分析能力,其分析精度与ESOC处理精度差异在0.1 ns量级.     

磁强计在航天器上的应用与前景

随着科学的进步,磁强计已被广泛地应用于航天器.本文首先根据磁强计测量原理的不同,对其进行分类.分别介绍各类磁强计的物理测量原理,描述其特性、精度、适用范围.同时概括目前在航天器得到较广泛应用的磁强计.在此基础上,进一步具体分析磁强计作为卫星载荷、姿态测量和控制以及自主导航轨道计算的方法、作用和特点.然后,针对这三个方面应用指出其在航天器上应用存在主要问题和关键技术.最后,对磁强计在航天器上的应用进行总结.同时对其未来的发展进行展望,磁强计在航天器上仍有着良好发展前景.     

大气层内导弹姿态控制方法研究

本文以大气层内导弹为研究对象,对导弹的姿态控制方法进行研究.根据大气层内导弹运动方程组及空气动力方程等得出导弹的姿态控制系统数学模型.由于导弹的姿态控制数学模型是强耦合、非线性的,因而在控制器设计之前,采用小扰动理论进行线性化处理,得到俯仰、偏航、滚转三个通道的传递函数.针对特征点,采用PD控制方法分别设计三通道的控制律,在此基础上,进一步设计了基于增益调度的PD控制规律.仿真结果表明,提出的姿态控制方法可以实现大气层内导弹的姿态控制,满足指标要求.     

DORIS geodesy: A dynamic determination of geocentre location

Geoscience Australia contributed a multi-satellite, multi-year weekly time series to the International DORIS Service combined submission for the construction of International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2008 (ITRF2008). This contributing solution was extended to a study of the capability of DORIS to dynamically estimate the variation in the geocentre location. Two solutions, comprising different constraint configurations of the tracking network, were undertaken. The respective DORIS satellite orbit solutions (SPOT-2, SPOT-4, SPOT-5 and Envisat) were verified and validated by comparison with those produced at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), DORIS Analysis Centre, for computational consistency and standards. In addition, in the case of Envisat, the trajectories from the GA determined SLR and DORIS orbits were compared. The results for weekly dynamic geocentre estimates from the two constraint configurations were benchmarked against the geometric geocentre estimates from the IDS-2 combined solution. This established that DORIS is capable of determining the dynamic geocentre variation by estimating the degree one spherical harmonic coefficients of the Earth’s gravity potential. It was established that constrained configurations produced similar results for the geocentre location and consequently similar annual amplitudes. For the minimally constrained configuration Greenbelt–Kitab, the mean of the uncertainties of the geocentre location were 2.3, 2.3 and 7.6 mm and RMS of the mean uncertainties were 1.9, 1.2 and 3.5 mm for the X, Y and Z components, respectively. For GA_IDS-2_Datum constrained configuration, the mean of the uncertainties of the geocentre location were 1.7, 1.7 and 6.2 mm and RMS of the mean uncertainties were 0.9, 0.7 and 2.9 mm for the X, Y and Z components, respectively. The mean of the differences of the two DORIS dynamic geocentre solutions with respect to the IDS-2 combination were 1.6, 4.0 and 5.1 mm with an RMS of the mean 21.2, 14.0 and 31.5 mm for the Greenbelt–Kitab configuration and 4.1, 3.9 and 4.3 mm with an RMS 8.1, 9.0 and 28.6 mm for the GA_IDS-2_Datum constraint configuration. The annual amplitudes for each component were estimated to be 5.3, 10.8 and 11.0 mm for the Greenbelt–Kitab configuration and 5.3, 9.3 and 9.4 mm for the GA_IDS-2_Datum constraint configuration. The two DORIS determined dynamic geocentre solutions were compared to the SLR determined dynamic solution (which was determined from the same process of the GA contribution to the ITRF2008 ILRS combination) gave mean differences of 3.3, −4.7 and 2.5 mm with an RMS of 20.7, 17.5 and 28.0 mm for the X, Y and Z components, respectively for the Greenbelt–Kitab configuration and 1.1, −5.4 and 4.4 mm with an RMS of 9.7, 13.3 and 24.9 mm for the GA_IDS-2_Datum configuration. The larger variability is reflected in the respective amplitudes. As a comparison, the annual amplitudes of the SLR determined dynamic geocentre are 0.9, 1.0 and 6.8 mm in the X, Y and Z components. The results from this study indicate that there is potential to achieve precise dynamically determined geocentre from DORIS.