Satellite clusters for future gravity field missions

  • Nico Sneeuw
  • Hanspeter Schaub
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 129)


The current missions champ and grace have already contributed drastically to our knowledge of the Earth’s gravity field in terms of accuracy, homogeneity and time- and space-resolution. The future mission goce will further add to that in terms of spatial resolution. Nevertheless, each of these missions has its own limitations. At the same time several geoscience disciplines push for ever higher requirements on spatial resolution, time resolution and accuracy. Future gravity field missions will need to address these requirements.

A number of new technologies may enable these future missions. They include laser tracking and atomic interference. Most likely, a mission that implements such technologies, will make use of the concept of formation flying. This paper will discuss the feasibility of low-Earth satellite clusters. It focuses in particular on the stability of satellite formations under the influence of perturbations by the Earth’s flattening. Depending on initial conditions several types of relative J 2 orbits can be attained.

By interpreting the low-low satellite-to-satellite tracking observable as gradiometry this paper furthermore indicates how satellite clusters may be employed in satellite gravimetry.


Gravity Field Gravity Gradient Relative Orbit Satellite Formation Satellite Cluster 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aguirre-Martinez, M. and Sneeuw, N. (2003). Needs and tools for future gravity measuring missions. Space Science Reviews, 108(1–2):409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bender, P. L., Hall, J. L., Ye, J., and Klipstein, W. M. (2003). Satellite-satellite laser links for future gravity missions. Space Science Reviews, 108(1–2):377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer, D. (1959). Solution of the problem of artificial satellite theory without drag. The Astronomical Journal, 64(1274):378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter, T. E. (1998). State transition matrix for terminal rendezvous studies: Brief survey and new example. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 31(1):148–155.Google Scholar
  5. Clohessy, W. H. and Wiltshire, R. S. (1960). Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, 27(9):653–658.Google Scholar
  6. Hill, G. W. (1878). Researches in the lunar theory. Am. Journal of Math., I:5–26,129–147,245–260.Google Scholar
  7. Humi, M. and Carter, T. (2003). The Clohessy-Wiltshire equations can be modified to include quadratic drag. In Proc. AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, number AAS 03-240, Ponce, Puerto Rico. AAS/AIAA.Google Scholar
  8. Inalhan, G., Tillerson, M., and How, J. P. (2002). Relative dynamics & control of spacecraft formations in eccentric orbits. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 25(1):48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lyddane, R. H. (1963). Small eccentricities or inclinations in the Brouwer theory of the artificial satellite. The Astronomical Journal, 68(8):555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGuirk, J. M., Foster, G. T., Fixler, J. B., Snadden, M. J., and Kasevich, M. A. (2002). Sensitive absolute-gravity gradiometry using atom interferometry. Physical Review A, 65:doi 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033608.Google Scholar
  11. Rummel, R., Reigber, Ch., and Ilk, K.-H. (1978). The use of satellite-to-satellite tracking for gravity parameter recovery. In Proc. European Workshop On Space Oceanography, Navigation And Geodynamics (SONG), volume SP-137, pages 153–161, Schloss Elmau. ESA.Google Scholar
  12. Schaub, H. (2004). Relative orbit geometry through classical orbit element differences. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 27(5):839–848.Google Scholar
  13. Schaub, H. and Alfriend, K. T. (2001). J 2 invariant relative orbits for spacecraft formations. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 79(2):77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schaub, H. and Junkins, J. L. (2003). Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems. AIAA Education Series, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  15. Schweighart, S. A. and Sedwick, R. J. (2002). A high fidelity linearized J 2 model for satellite formation flight. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 6(25): 1073–1080.Google Scholar
  16. Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Ries, J. C, Thompson, P. F., and Watkins, M. M. (2004). GRACE measurement of mass variability in the Earth system. Science, 305:503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Sneeuw
    • 1
  • Hanspeter Schaub
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geomatics EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgary
  2. 2.Aerospace and Ocean Engineering DepartmentVirginia TechVirginia

Personalised recommendations