Quickly deorbiting Particles #100

FG-TUM · 2022-02-01T14:29:50Z

Issue

There are some particles within the initial dataset (pos.csv and vel.csv) that start below 200km height or very rapidly enter this region.

The problem

Not sure if this is a problem or actually correct 🤷

What needs to be done

Check with SGP4 how their trajectories should behave.
~~Think about kicking them out of our initial dataset.~~

How it can be tested or reproduced

Start LADDS with Varying particle numbers #94 and Activity State #92

Data

Particles are decaying in the following order:

ID	R(x,y,z)	V(x,y,z)
14602	2.286903211942516009e+03,-4.924930657135219917e+03,-3.709959725356161925e+03	6.640730702493964799e+00,2.850908697674449030e-02,4.060542150746119461e+00
1044	7.959990383084414134e+02,-5.434544157369949062e+03,3.617530886596166056e+03	5.575151404622890716e+00,3.857782086152595991e+00,4.699332598057933907e+00
16994	-3.470807614167617885e+03,1.701218186935247104e+03,-5.323314274793743607e+03	-4.673971539058348057e+00,4.368737053757707045e+00,4.411740428332399766e+00
13596	-6.113234595731898480e+03,-2.000900686372357541e+03,-1.398251200140821993e+03	2.747434188325709403e+00,-4.300541142017045182e+00,-5.876151811716860962e+00
9922	4.926890676981820434e+03,-4.308628256904763475e+03,-7.521081316020640770e+02	-1.411367874355691443e+00,-3.154183649737692940e-01,-7.649761632191638405e+00
16958	4.929517712944133336e+02,4.965070664383092662e+03,4.304696078663269873e+03	4.809392745928553307e-03,5.098523455162852436e+00,-5.867696139705106617e+00
16962	3.915780882640784739e+02,1.355728810123747508e+03,6.446215692338352710e+03	3.487462302913870160e-01,7.591061255216228432e+00,-1.613909493205398782e+00
10436	-4.856393488978643290e+03,4.162614634097271846e+03,1.648763115892629457e+03	-4.619796436144683938e+00,-2.906580234839983845e+00,-5.637389273912086551e+00
12585	-2.667510541093097800e+03,-1.124916874679311150e+03,-5.937809198352886597e+03	-7.026733042388327632e+00,-3.383676004375416602e-01,3.247555574030018821e+00
15419	1.251982052796900916e+03,5.573017142487786259e+03,3.322826671382406403e+03	-6.040301819160348806e+00,-1.434616935670598670e+00,4.670912101362452162e+00

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

gomezzz · 2022-02-01T15:31:22Z

@FG-TUM positions and velocities with SGP4 after 36 000 seconds , so 10hrs. Should be ok? :)

ID	R(x,y,z)	V(x,y,z)
14602.0	-4936.26786345 -1153.14088672 -4190.09232618	4.15821306 -5.66730393 -3.34252803
1044.0	-2769.0613533 5231.31287057 -5852.71379964	-3.78744963 -4.89547236 -2.07263033
16994.0	2308.09319727 -2748.57604182 -5473.68198509	-5.58611947 3.52770577 -4.16650428
13596.0	-3071.67632629 3357.05378926 4754.51267419	-6.8282225 -2.88599732 -2.37623582
9922.0	1050.57440208 390.33783171 6483.70518382	5.86979706 -5.08663398 -0.65964574
16958.0	66.40028294 -3560.44392875 5528.96457518	0.57743744 6.5287911 4.20836994
16962.0	-277.26730159 -6369.44890198 1668.23514863	0.47693773 1.94087992 7.51773009
10436.0	5498.18462631 -3951.03159405 -1067.31207924	3.45834173 3.57971103 5.69337022
12585.0	5.12973015e+03 -7.85038307e-01 -4.15403467e+03	-4.77921486 -1.36423152 -5.95221654
15419.0	4912.97322866 409.74484035 -4414.96688717	2.31133414 6.67897964 3.1985337

FG-TUM · 2022-02-01T17:04:28Z

@FG-TUM positions and velocities with SGP4 after 36 000 seconds , so 10hrs. Should be ok? :)

ID R(x,y,z) V(x,y,z)
14602.0 -4936.26786345 -1153.14088672 -4190.09232618 4.15821306 -5.66730393 -3.34252803
1044.0 -2769.0613533 5231.31287057 -5852.71379964 -3.78744963 -4.89547236 -2.07263033
16994.0 2308.09319727 -2748.57604182 -5473.68198509 -5.58611947 3.52770577 -4.16650428
13596.0 -3071.67632629 3357.05378926 4754.51267419 -6.8282225 -2.88599732 -2.37623582
9922.0 1050.57440208 390.33783171 6483.70518382 5.86979706 -5.08663398 -0.65964574
16958.0 66.40028294 -3560.44392875 5528.96457518 0.57743744 6.5287911 4.20836994
16962.0 -277.26730159 -6369.44890198 1668.23514863 0.47693773 1.94087992 7.51773009
10436.0 5498.18462631 -3951.03159405 -1067.31207924 3.45834173 3.57971103 5.69337022
12585.0 5.12973015e+03 -7.85038307e-01 -4.15403467e+03 -4.77921486 -1.36423152 -5.95221654
15419.0 4912.97322866 409.74484035 -4414.96688717 2.31133414 6.67897964 3.1985337

So that's now only Keplerian and not SGP4, right?

gomezzz · 2022-02-01T17:06:51Z

So that's now only Keplerian and not SGP4, right?

Yes.... on it.... 🙈

FG-TUM · 2022-02-07T14:43:29Z

related #104

FG-TUM · 2022-02-07T15:05:06Z

@gomezzz These are the particles with the current state of #103 which dip below 150km:

Iteration	Id
81	13741
210	15350
349	15722
498	8773

No further burn ups in the first month (= until iteration 262800). The IDs match the IDs from initial_population.csv.

To reproduce run branch mergeBranch and change logLevel to debug.

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T11:01:25Z

ID 13741 seems fairly correct to me, propagating for 810s with SGP4

EDIT: FYI it seems it has an unstable orbit to begin with, 50 days before t0 it would have decayed already. Currently I don't have a way to check for this, but I think it is ok? (given that with SGP4 I only check if it is at a suitable altitude at the specific time)

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T11:06:54Z

Not succeding in identifying
15350,COSMOS 1408 DEB,0.6685802097473679,0.15,passive,-1028.5801349043247,-2899.5448576576864,6227.4846363317865,-0.21087962094981652,-6.760802031349593,-2.946045836559842

in the current dataset, will skip for now

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T11:08:57Z

| 1982-092ALN | COSMOS 1408 DEB | 0.00665160000000 | 0.668580 | 0.150000 | passive | 1717.570400 | 6333.953980 | -711.400470 | -0.752475 | 1.062623 | 7.647231

I cannot confirm to be decaying that rapidly. SGP4 gives

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T11:11:17Z

8773 | 2004-045D | DELTA 2 DEB | 0.00048017000000 | 0.027522 | 0.036564 | passive | 3940.571250 | -4686.886008 | -4933.578002 | 5.950605 | 3.746647 | -0.493804

looks like this

so it does also not decay with SGP4 in the timeframe (it goes down to 173km at 5100s)

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T11:15:28Z

We might want to create the same plots with our propagator as a sanity check (I am actually a little scared of it now :) )

FG-TUM · 2022-02-08T12:16:20Z

ToDo:

FG-TUM · 2022-02-08T12:45:00Z

simData.tar.gz

@gomezzz

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T13:25:19Z

Starting with drag on 10s

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T13:30:45Z

For dt=1 drag on

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T13:32:01Z

dt=10, drag off

gomezzz · 2022-02-08T13:32:47Z

dt=1, drag off

gomezzz · 2022-02-09T12:28:16Z

TODOs

Plot altitude distribution of our particles to get an idea of most important ones @gomezzz
Let's pick particles at specific altitudes (175km , 225km , 275km, 350km, 500km, 1000km) and run them with different timesteps (1s, 2.5s,5s,7.5s,10s or similar)
Create particles with above specifications @gomezzz
Work out analytical error bound @FG-TUM

gomezzz · 2022-02-12T09:47:14Z

Altitude distribution of particles (incl. ISS, Starlink, didn't think it would matter for this)

Log-scale for more insight on smaller values

gomezzz · 2022-02-12T10:39:43Z

@FG-TUM As discussed some objects. In addition to discussed I also created some with a little eccentric orbit. Note, that I set M = 50kg, radius= 1m, B* = 0.0005 , let me know if should change those?

Circular ones, Orbit plot as sanity check

CSV

,ID,NAME,BSTAR,M[kg],RADIUS[m],TYPE,r_x[km],r_y[km],r_z[km],v_x[km],v_y[km],v_z[km]
0,0,0,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6546.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.803346421130089,0.0
1,1,1,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6596.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.773714103191374,0.0
2,2,2,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6646.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.744416817599543,0.0
3,3,3,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6721.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.701085412477791,0.0
4,4,4,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6871.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.616560806262886,0.0
5,5,5,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,7371.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.353696169118902,0.0

Eccentric ones ( I made them more eccentric the further out they are)

CSV

,ID,NAME,BSTAR,M[kg],RADIUS[m],TYPE,r_x[km],r_y[km],r_z[km],v_x[km],v_y[km],v_z[km]
0,0,0,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6525.952875,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.827280875297626,0.0
1,1,1,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6562.60775,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.813168652963749,0.0
2,2,2,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6595.739625,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.803207111167101,0.0
3,3,3,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6638.66775,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.796008675002738,0.0
4,4,4,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6699.225,0.0,0.0,0.0,7.809415650248493,0.0
5,5,5,0.0005,50,1.0,passive,6633.9,0.0,0.0,0.0,8.129817005080428,0.0

(these might go fairly low but should not hit Earth, I might have to reduce eccentricity if we need them to stay higher, lowest goes down to 154km I think)

EDIT: So, these are only keplerian, so we have no TLE / SGP4 baseline.... will look instead for suitable targets in our dataset instead.

gomezzz · 2022-02-12T16:27:29Z

@FG-TUM Alrighty, I have collected some from out dataset for you.

Some low ones with low eccentricity I can find at

--
207km SMA

ID 15722
SATCAT_ID 1982-092ALN
NAME COSMOS 1408 DEB

--
224km SMA

ID 15751
SATCAT_ID 1982-092AMX
NAME COSMOS 1408 DEB

--
261km SMA

ID 15012
SATCAT_ID 1982-092AK
NAME COSMOS 1408 DEB

--
294km SMA (did not make up that name :) )

ID 12733
SATCAT_ID 2018-006A
NAME LKW-3

--
400km SMA

ID 11279
SATCAT_ID 2015-049Q
NAME CZ-6 R/B

--
500km SMA

ID 13189
SATCAT_ID 2019-003E
NAME EPSILON R/B

--
1000km SMA

ID 3062
SATCAT_ID 1982-055AA
NAME COSMOS 1375 DEB

FG-TUM · 2022-02-13T11:57:56Z

Alrighty, I have collected some from out dataset for you.

Input, yaml, and HDF5 output. Generated with f947e12 from #109

Everything was simulated until T=10000[s]

testPop.tar.gz

gomezzz · 2022-02-13T12:41:00Z

SGP4 Altitudes

dt = 10

dt = 8

dt = 4

dt = 2

dt = 1

@FG-TUM I think we have a problem with our propagator :)

gomezzz · 2022-02-13T12:54:41Z

1 to 1 comparison (dt = 1)

gomezzz · 2022-02-13T13:02:15Z

1 to 1 (dt = 10)

gomezzz · 2022-02-16T08:54:10Z

I think this can be closed? @FG-TUM

FG-TUM · 2022-02-16T09:04:00Z

Conclusion: effect was due to a too large deltaT. Steps to raise precision will be taken in other PRs/Issues.

FG-TUM assigned gomezzz Feb 1, 2022

FG-TUM mentioned this issue Feb 7, 2022

Complex Particle Model + Breakups #103

Merged

4 tasks

gomezzz assigned FG-TUM and unassigned gomezzz Feb 8, 2022

FG-TUM closed this as completed Feb 16, 2022

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Quickly deorbiting Particles #100

Quickly deorbiting Particles #100

FG-TUM commented Feb 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 1, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 1, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 7, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 7, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited by FG-TUM

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 16, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 16, 2022

Quickly deorbiting Particles #100

Quickly deorbiting Particles #100

Comments

FG-TUM commented Feb 1, 2022 • edited Loading

Issue

The problem

What needs to be done

How it can be tested or reproduced

Data

gomezzz commented Feb 1, 2022 • edited Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 1, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 1, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 7, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 7, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022 • edited Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 • edited Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 • edited Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 9, 2022 • edited by FG-TUM Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022 • edited Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022 • edited Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022

gomezzz commented Feb 16, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 16, 2022

FG-TUM commented Feb 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

FG-TUM commented Feb 8, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 9, 2022 •

edited by FG-TUM

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gomezzz commented Feb 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading