Accommodation Coeffi cient Estimation of a Small Spacecraft Surface Based on Flight Data

This paper proposes a method for estimation of surface accommodation coefficient for a small spacecraft with a complex shape. The method combines modeling of gas-surface interaction of a free molecular flow (computational experiment) and analyzing orbital motion (ballistic experiment). The computational experiment includes determining attitude dependence of the drag coefficient. Direct simulation Monte Carlo is used for aerodynamic calculations. The accommodation coefficient is varied. The ballistic experiment is performed under the assumption of a known atmospheric density model and considered both angular and orbital motion. Spacecraft attitude is determined and it’s averaged projection area is estimated. Processing trajectory information is used for estimation of the ballistic coefficient. Accommodation coefficient is the agreement factor and it is selected by comparing the drag coefficient estimated from the computational experiment with the results of the ballistic experiment. The averaged projection area is used for estimating the drag coefficient, which can lead to results ambiguity. The method illustrated for SamSat-Ion and SamSat-Ionosphere small spacecraft, which have complex geometry. However, the small spacecraft attitude has low sensitivity to aerodynamic disturbances due to large residual magnetic moment, so orbital motion information was used. The proposed method requires a priori information on the averaged projection area of the small spacecraft, so the angular motion of the small spacecraft should correspond to the steady-state mode. The proposed method may provide more reliable estimate of the drag coefficient. Further estimation of the atmospheric density can be made by the already determined drag coefficient.

1. Barinova E. V., Belokonov I. V., Elisov N. A., Kramlih А. V., Lomaka I. А., Nikolaev P. N., Timbay I. A. Some Features of Dynamics and Attitude Control of Nanosatellites in Low Orbits, Gyroscopy and Navigation, 2023, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 183—204.

2. Bernstein V., Pilinski M. Drag Coefficient Constraints for Space Weather Observations in the Upper Thermosphere, Space Weather, 2022, vol. 20, iss. 5, pp. 1—28.

3. Pilinski M., Brian M. A., Scott E. P. Drag Coefficients of Satellites with Concave Geometries: Comparing Models and Observations, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2011, vol. 48, iss. 2, pp. 312—325.

4. Sinpetru L. A., Crisp N. H., Mostaza-Prieto D., Livadiotti S., Roberts P. C. E. ADBSat: Methodology of a novel panel method tool for aerodynamic analysis of satellites, Computer Physics Communications, 2022, vol. 275.

5. Bird G. A. Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994.

6. Maxwell J. C. On stresses in rarified gases arising from inequalities of temperature, Journal The Royal Society, 1878, vol. 27, pp. 304—308.

7. Nocilla S. The surface re-emission law in free molecular flow, 1963 Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, New York, USA, 1963, pp. 327—346.

8. Cercignani C., Lampis M. Kinetic models for gas-surface interactions, Journal Transport Theory and Statistical Physics, 1971, vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 101—114.

9. Lord R. G. Some extensions to the Cercignani-Lampis gas-surface scattering kernel, Journal Physics of Fluids, 1991, vol. 3, pp. 1427—1433.

10. El’yasberg P. E. Applied problems of space ballistics, Moscow, Nauka, 1973, 144 p. (in Russian).

11. Manturov А. I. Mechanics of spacecraft motion control. Samara state aerospace university, Samara, 2003, 63 p. (in Russian).

12. Picone J. M., Hedin A. E., Drob D. P., Aikin A. C. NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 2002, vol. 107, iss. A12, pp 1—16.

13. Abrashkin V. I., Puzin Y. Y., Filippov A. S., Voronov K. E., Dorofeev A. S., Piyakov A. V., Semkin N. D., Sazonov V. V., Chebukov S. Y. Detection of the rotational motion of the aist-2d small spacecraft by magnetic measurements, Cosmic Research, 2019, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 48—60.

14. Sazonov V. V. Construction of an Interactive Geometric Model of a Spacecraft’s Outer Surface, Mathematical Models and Computer Simulations, 2021, vol. 13, pp. 116—125.

15. Mehta P. M., Walker A., Mclaughlin C. Comparing Physical Drag Coefficients Computed Using Different Gas Surface Interaction Models, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2014, vol. 51, iss. 3, pp. 873—883.

16. Belokonov I. V., Lomaka I. A. Postflight Recovery of the Rotational Motion of a Small Space Vehicle from Solar Sensor Information, Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International, 2023, vol. 62, iss. 2, pp. 214—224.

17. Belokonov I. V., Lomaka I. A. On the issue of identification of design parameters of a nanosatellite, Space technique and technologies, 2022. vol. 38, no. 3 pp. 37—52 (in Russian).

18. Belokonov I. V., Kramlikh А. V., Lomaka I. A., Nikolaev P. N. Reconstruction of a Spacecraft’s Attitude Motion Using the Data on the Current Collected from Solar Panels, Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences International, 2019, vol. 58, iss. 2, pp. 286—296.

19. Narkeliūnas J. А numerical approach to estimate the ballistic coefficient of space debris from TLE orbital data, NASA report ARC-E-DAA-TN29522, 2016.

20. Sun Y. Wang B., Meng X. et al. Analysis of Orbital Atmospheric Density from QQ-satellite Precision Orbits Based on GNSS Observations, Remote Sensing, 2022, vol. 14, pp. 1—21.

21. Romanazzo M., Steiger C., Tran Viet., Emanuelli P., Floberghagen R., Fehringer M. Low Orbit Operations of ESA’s Gravity Mission GOCE, 2013 Proceedings of 5th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EUCASS), Munich, Germany, 2013. pp. 1—14.