Calibration of Atmospheric Density Model Using Orbital Data of Multiple Satellites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In orbit dynamics, most perturbations are well modeled, while the inaccuracy of the atmospheric density model turns into the biggest error source in orbit prediction and determination. The commonly used empirical atmospheric density models, such as, Jacchia, MSIS, DTM and Russian GOST, still have a relative error about 10% − 30%. Because of the uncertainty of the density distribution of atmosphere, estimating the atmospheric density by a deterministic model cannot achieve high accuracy. The better way to improve the model precision is calibrating the model with updated measurements. Two-line element set is accessible orbital data of satellite, which can be used in the model calibration. In this paper, an algorithm for calibrating atmospheric density model is developed. First, the density distribution of atmosphere is represented by a power series expansion whose coefficients are denoted by spherical harmonic expansions. Then, the expansion coefficients and the ballistic coefficients of the satellites are identified simultanteneously by solving a nonlinear least squares problem. The simulation results show that the relative error of the atmospheric density is less than 3%, and the relative error of the ballistic coefficient is less than 0.3% after calibration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it