3.9 Article

Covariance analysis of periodic and quasi-periodic orbits around Phobos with applications to the Martian Moons eXploration mission

期刊

ASTRODYNAMICS
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 363-379

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s42064-023-0166-4

关键词

covariance analysis; Martian system; geodetic; navigation; Martian Moons eXploration (MMX); Phobos

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the internal composition of a celestial body is crucial for formulating theories about its origin. Analyzing moments of inertia and gravity field can provide deep insights into the distribution of mass beneath the body's crust. The Martian moons have not been extensively studied, posing questions about their origin and requiring further characterization. The Martian Moons eXploration mission aims to study Phobos over a prolonged period to refine our knowledge about its libration angle and gravitational field.
Understanding the internal composition of a celestial body is fundamental for formulating theories regarding its origin. Deep knowledge of the distribution of mass under the body's crust can be achieved by analyzing its moments of inertia and gravity field. In this regard, the two moons of the Martian system have not yet been closely studied and continue to pose questions regarding their origin to the space community; thus, they deserve further characterization. The Martian Moons eXploration mission will be the first of its kind to sample and study Phobos over a prolonged period. This study aims to demonstrate that the adoption of periodic and quasi-periodic retrograde trajectories would be beneficial for the scientific value of the mission. Here, a covariance analysis was implemented to compare the estimation of high-order gravitational field coefficients from different orbital geometries and for different sets of processed observables. It was shown that the adoption of low-altitude non-planar quasi-satellite orbits would help to refine the knowledge of the moon's libration angle and gravitational field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据