This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

Eclipse Prediction Algorithms for Low-Earth-Orbiting Satellites

Xianghua Jia 1, Ming Xu*,1, Xiao Pan 1, Xintao Mao 2,3

1
School of Astronuatics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
2 Beijing Institute of Control Engineering, Beijing 100094, China
3 Beijing Sunwise Space Technology Co.,Ltd, Beijing 100094, China
* e: xuming@buaa.edu.cn

Earth-orbiting satellites experience a partial or full eclipse when they pass through the night side of the Earth.

These eclipse events can have significant impacts on the satellite due to the dramatic change of the solar

radiation incident. It is therefore essential to propose a high-precision eclipse prediction algorithm or even a

spaceborne algorithm applied to the satellite to predict the eclipse events autonomously. This paper proposes two

eclipse prediction algorithms based on an atypical eclipse condition. The first is the numerical variable-step

algorithm whose computation efficiency is superior to the previous fixed-step algorithm due to adopting multi-

scale step sizes. The other is the autonomous spaceborne algorithm which, based on the analytical solution of the

eclipse condition, predicts the penumbra and umbra. Both algorithms have been implemented to the Sun-

synchronous orbit and the prediction results are compared with that of the Satellite Tool Kit (abbr. STK)

software. It is indicated that the numerical variable-step algorithm is of high prediction accuracy, while the

autonomous spaceborne algorithm is more suitable for the on-board processor to predict the eclipse due to its

reduced computational demands.

Eclipse condition, Eclipse prediction, Numerical variable-step algorithm, Autonomous spaceborne algorithm

I. INTRODUCTION

Earth-orbiting satellites experience partial or full eclipse when passing through the area of penumbra or umbra, as

shown in Fig.1. Eclipse events have significant impacts on the satellite. Firstly, the eclipse can affect the management of

the satellites energy system because the satellite may excessively use the stored energy when passing through the

penumbral or umbral region. Also, some satellites may fail to complete the imaging task as the region observed is on the

dark side of the Earth. Moreover, the thermal control of satellites temperature is also affected by the eclipse events, as

the heat absorbed by the satellite in the sunlight region should be dissipated in the eclipse region, otherwise the

satellites thermal equilibrium will inevitably be destroyed. Besides, the eclipse events can affect the trajectory

propagation of the satellite, for the solar radiation pressure (abbr. SRP) perturbing acceleration is small or non-existant

1-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

when the satellite is in the penumbra or umbra. It is therefore vital to know exactly when the satellite enters or leaves the

shadow region because the eclipse influences the orbit, function, and service life of the satellite. Recently, with the

advancements in autonomy for satellites, such as satellites which can autonomously arrange imaging tasks, or open and

close shutters, it is increasingly important that a satellite can predict eclipse events independently. It is therefore

essential to propose an autonomous spaceborne algorithm for the eclipse prediction.

Penumbra
Sun Earth Umbra
Penumbra

Fig.1 Earths penumbra and umbra

There exist two particular categories of shadow model for Earth-orbiting satellites: the cylindrical and conical

shadow model, respectively. Previous work related to eclipse prediction can be traced to Escobal [1], who presented both

models by finding two non-spurious roots of a quartic polynomial in the cosine of the true anomaly, and then used fixed-

step numerical method to solve the quartic polynomial for the eclipse prediction with heavy computation. Vallado [2]

described these shadow models by numerically finding the solution of the quartic polynomial with Newton-Raphson

iteration technique, but the calculation precision is subject to the initial iterative value. Based on the shadow models

developed by Escobal [1], Hubaux et al. [3] proposed another method to model the Earths shadow crossings by defining

a smooth shadow function, which is applied to the symplectic integration of the space debris motion. Mullins [4]

computed the positions of satellites entering or leaving Earths shadow by solving a quartic equation, and the

coefficients of the equation were simplified to reduce computation time. However, the simplification leads to

propagation error which makes the computed results deviate from the true values. Neta and Vallado [5] used an iteration

method to compute the positions of satellites transiting through the penumbra or umbra, however, the midpoint of the

roots interval is chosen as the initial iterative value, which results in a relatively slow convergence rate. Several scholars

[6]-[7] employed the angular separation theory to transform the eclipse events into the two-dimensional geometrical

problem. However, the angular separation is relatively small which may lead to large error for the eclipse prediction.

Adhya et al. [8] formulized the eclipse events into a quadratic equation with one unknown through using the line

intersection method, and this method can be used to deal with the eclipse prediction under the consideration of the

2-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

Earths oblateness. However, it is quite difficult to solve the quadratic equation due to variable discriminants. Whereas a

numerical investigation conducted by Vokrouhlicky et al. [9] showed that the oblateness of the Earth does not make

significant differences to the LEO satellites with respect to a spherical Earth. Besides, Ref. [9] indicated that the oblate

Earth may bring changes to the timing of transiting through the penumbra and umbra and the overall duration of the

eclipse periods. Woodburn [10] demonstrated that such mistiming has important impacts on the precise numerical

integration of orbit, and Hujsak [11] believed that these impacts depend on how the step of integration method crosses

the boundary between sunlight region and the penumbra or the boundary between the penumbra and the umbra. Recently,

Srivastava et al. [12] reported a spherical Earth conical shadow model described with the projection map technique, and

adopted the fixed-step numerical method to predict the eclipse events, which requires a large amount of computation

time. Even though a considerable amount of work based on different shadow models has been carried out to achieve the

eclipse prediction, these ones are not suitable for satellites to autonomously predict the eclipse events due to heavy

computational burden. Thus, it is necessary to propose the autonomous spaceborne algorithm with reliable accuracy and

less computation.

In this paper, we present the eclipse condition based on the conical shadow model in an innovative approach.

According to the eclipse condition, numerical variable-step algorithm and autonomous spaceborne algorithm are put

forward to predict the crossing moments of penumbra and umbra for the LEO satellites. Firstly, the eclipse condition is

described. Secondly, two eclipse prediction algorithms based on the eclipse condition are presented, and their

performance is assessed. Finally, a concluding discussion is drawn.

II. ECLIPSE PREDICTION CONDITION

The conical shadow model is employed in this paper to deal with the eclipse prediction. In this model, the

penumbra or umbra is demonstrated by the distance between the celestial bodies (i.e., the Earth and Sun) and their

diameters, as shown in Fig.2. Thus, the two vectors r and rs are defined as the position vectors of the satellite and the

Sun with respect to the geocenter in the Earth-centered inertial (abbr. ECI) coordinate frame. Geometrically, an

instantaneous plane So can be constructed by the two unparallel vectors of rs and r at any moment. The two solid circles

represent the Earth and the Sun, and the dashed circle indicates the instantaneous orbit whose radius is the distance from

the satellite to the geocenter at this epoch. O (or P) represents the center of the Earth (or the center of the Sun), C

represents the position of the satellite at this epoch, A1 (or A2) represents the penumbral cone vertex(or the umbral cone

vertex), B1 and D1 denote the penumbral terminals in the instantaneous orbit, similarly, B2 and D2 denote the umbral

3-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

terminals in the instantaneous orbit, represents the angle between OC and OA2, similarly, 1 (or 2) denotes the angle

between OB1 (or OB2) and OA2.

C B1

B2
1
2
P A1 O A2

D2
S0
D1

Fig.2 Earths conical shadow geometry with the penumbra/umbra shadow angle method

From the penumbral cone geometry, the expression of 1 is

R R
1 = arccos e arccos e
x1 r (1)

Re AU
x1 R R
s e

Similarly, from the umbral cone geometry, the expression of 2 is

R R
2 = arccos e arccos e
x2 r (2)

Re AU
x2 R R
s e

Also, the expression of can be described as follows

r r
arccos s (3)
rs r

where Re is the mean radius of the Earth, Rs is the radius of the Sun which is approximately equal to 696000 km, AU is

the distance between the Earth and the Sun, x1 (or x2) denotes the distance between the center of the Earth and the

penumbral (or umbral) cone vertex, and r (or rs ) is the magnitude of the vector r (or rs).

The eclipse prediction is implemented as follows. Firstly, compute the satellite position vector r and the Sun

position vector rs in the ECI coordinate frame. Then, compute the angle , 1 and 2, and compare the angle with 1

4-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

and 2. If 2 1 , the satellite is in the penumbral region; if 2 , the satellite is in the umbral region, otherwise,

the satellite is in the sunlit region; when is equal to 1 (or 2), it means that the satellite is just entering or leaving the

penumbra (or umbra). Thus, the magnitude comparison of two angles in the two-dimensional plane can be regarded as

the eclipse prediction condition, which is much more useful than the previous conditions in releasing computational

burden and deriving the analytic solution. Two prediction algorithms based on the eclipse condition will be given in the

following sections.

III. NUMERICAL VARIABLE-STEP ALGORITHM AND ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FOR THE ECLIPSE
PREDICTION

The previous section has given the eclipse condition to predict the penumbral or umbral crossing moments. Based

on the eclipse condition, the high-precision numerical variable-step algorithm is proposed in this section. Also, this

section derives the analytical solution of the eclipse condition used to deduce the autonomous spaceborne algorithm in

the section IV.

III.I. Numerical Variable-step Algorithm

The previous fixed-step numerical algorithm costs a great deal of computation when checking the eclipse condition

step by step. The eclipses will occur at some specific moments, thus a numerical variable-step algorithm with multi-

scale step sizes is beneficial as it avoids meaningless integrations far away from these moments. The numerical variable-

step algorithm can be accomplished as follows, shown in Fig.3. According to the eclipse condition, the angle , 1 and

2 are computed with numerical method every other certain step, and then the angle is compared with 1 (or 2) to

determine the potential shadow moments when the satellite enters or emerges from the penumbra (or umbra).

Afterwards the computational procedure continues near the potential shadow moments with a much smaller step size to

provide the updated potential shadow moments. Next, the computational procedure is repeated until the computed

results reach the previously defined precision requirement. As mentioned above, the numerical variable-step algorithm

can guarantee fairly high precision through gradually decreasing the step size and improve the computational efficiency

due to avoiding a lot of insignificant computations at the same time.

5-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

3

1.5
1 1
2.5 2 2
1.4

decrease step
2 1.3

1.2
/ rad

/ rad
1.5
1.1

1 1

0.9
0.5

0.8

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500
a) Time/s b) Time/s

Fig.3 Numerical variable-step algorithm: a) big step, b)small step

III.II. Analytical Solution of the Eclipse Condition

The analytical solution concerning the angle is given in this section. Expanding the Earth-satellite vector, r, in the

ECI coordinate frame to yield [2]

cos u cos sin u cos i sin

(4)
r cos u sin sin u cos i cos
sin u sin i

where u is the argument of latitude , is the right ascension of the ascending node, and i is the inclination. Expanding

the Earth-Sun vector, rs, in the ECI coordinate frame to arrive at the following equation as demonstrated in Ref. [2]

cos

rs sin cos (5)
sin sin

where is solar longitude and is the angle between ecliptic and equatorial planes.

Combine Eqs. (3), (4) and (5) to obtain:

cos C sin u D cos u (6)

where

C C1 sin C2 cos C3 (7)

D D1 sin D2 cos

6-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

C1 cos i cos
C cos i sin cos


2
. (8)
3 sin i sin sin
C
D sin cos
1

D2 cos

Eq. (6) is an analytical expression of the cosine of the angle . Thus, the condition denoting the satellite just

entering or exiting the penumbra corresponds to:

C sin u D cos u cos 1 . (9)

Similarly, the condition denoting the satellite just entering or exiting the umbra corresponds to:

C sin u D cos u cos 2 . (10)

As one contribution of this paper, the analytical solutions of the eclipse condition, Eqs. (9) and (10), are derived to

solve the eclipse prediction from the orbital argument of latitude, and the solutions will be used to create the innovative

autonomous spaceborne algorithm proposed in the next section.

IV. AUTONOMOUS SPACEBORNE ALGORITHM FOR THE ECLIPSE PREDICTION

Based on the analytical solution mentioned above, the spaceborne algorithm which is suitable for satellites to

predict the shadow moments autonomously is proposed in this section. Firstly we choose an epoch, and then assume the

satellite is in the termination point of the penumbral region at this epoch. In other words, Eq. (9) is valid at this moment

as the satellite just enters or leaves the penumbra. Rewriting Eq. (9) by moving cos1 to the left-hand side, and then

denote the rewritten equation as the function of u, i.e., f(u), as follows

f u C sin u D cos u cos 1 0 (11)

Similarly, as for the epoch chosen to assume the satellite is in the termination point of the umbral region, the

following function of u is valid according to Eq. (10)

f u C sin u D cos u cos 2 0 . (12)

Actually, the satellite may be not in the termination point of the penumbral region at the chosen epoch. However,

the root of Eq. (11) denotes the argument of latitude of the satellites entering or leaving the penumbra near this epoch,

7-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

which is abbreviated as ALSEP or ALSLP, respectively. Similarly, the root of Eq. (12) indicates the argument of

latitude of the satellites entering or leaving the umbra abbreviated as ALSEU or ALSLU near this epoch, respectively.

p
Assume the roots of Eq. (11) are uinp (denotes ALSEP) and uout (denotes ALSLP). Similarly, the roots of Eq. (12)

u
are uinu (denotes ALSEU) and uout (denotes ALSLU). Also assume that the actual value of the satellites argument of

latitude is u at the epoch t. Therefore, the penumbra entry timing tinp near this epoch can be calculated according to the

equation: tinp t T uinp u , where T is the orbital node period according to Ref. [2]. The same approach can be
2
p
employed to calculate the penumbra exit timing tout u
, the umbra entry timing tinu and the umbra exit timing tout .

This section has transformed the penumbra and umbra predictions into solving the nonlinear Eqs. (11) and (12) at a

specific epoch. The coefficients of these two nonlinear equations, C and D, are the function of , i , and . To

simplify the computation, only the long-term perturbations are taken into consideration. Therefore, the orbital inclination

i is taken as a constant. While the right ascension of the ascending node satisfies a certain linear function versus time.

Then, the angle between ecliptic and equatorial planes, , is seen as the constant which is approximately equal to

23.439302. Even though the solar longitude varies significantly versus time, its values can be fixed at one epoch in

a short period. A series of time points called updated moments are chosen every other few days to further simplify the

computation, as follows. The value of changes with the updated moments but is fixed during a time interval near the

updated moment. At the same time, the value of on the updated moments is precisely acquired from the orbital

propagation, besides the value of during time interval near the updated moment is solved with the linear function.

Thus, the autonomous spaceborne algorithm for the eclipse prediction is designed into a two-layer structure: the iterative

algorithm on the updated moments in the external structure and the analytical algorithm between the updated moments

in the internal structure. Fig.4 shows the structure of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm, where um denotes the

updated moments.

iterative algorithm

Time/day

analytical algorithm

Fig.4 Structure of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm

8-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

IV.I. Iterative Algorithm on the Updated Moments

Newton iteration method, as mentioned in Ref. [13], is used to solve the nonlinear Eq. (11) or (12) on the updated

moments. The iterative formula is:

f xk
xk 1 xk (13)
f xk

where xk denotes the initial iterative value of the current iterative process, and xk+1 is the final iterative value.

p
At the first updated moment, the roots of the nonlinear Eq. (11) or (12), uinp uout u
or uinu uout , acquired by fairly

precise numerical method are used as the initial iterative value to start the iterative procedure. In the following iterative

process, the final iterations of the current updated moment are used as the initial iterative values for the next updated

moment. The iterative procedure is shown in Fig.4.

p
For the case of penumbra, two roots can be solved from Eq. (11), uinp and uout , which are the arguments of latitude

of the satellites entering and leaving the penumbra, i.e., ALSEP and ALSLP respectively. Through the Newton iteration

p
algorithm, any initial value inside the interval [0, 2] will converge to uinp or uout , because only two roots can be solved

from Eq. (11). In other words, the interval [0, 2] can be divided into two different regions P in and Pout, and any value

p
inside the region Pin will converge to uinp by several iterations, and Pout to uout . Choosing one non-Sun-synchronous orbit

as simulation example, and it is indicated that the transient Pin and Pout are varying with an annual cycle due to the

annual revolution of the Sun, as shown in Fig.5.

2 2 2 2
3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4

Pout Pi n Pin Po u t
0 0 0 0
Po u t Pi n
Pin Pout
5 4 7 4 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 4
3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
a) b) c) d)

Fig.5 Transient Pin and Pout in the interval [0, 2] for non-Sun-synchronous orbit: a) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 January, 2016; b) the

transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 April, 2016; c) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 July, 2016; d) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1

October, 2016.

Similarly, for the case of umbra, two roots denoted as uinu and uout
u
are solved from Eq. (12). The interval [0, 2] can

also be divided into two different regions Qin and Qout, and any value inside the region Qin will converge to uinu by

9-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

u
several iterations, and Qout to uout . Actually, Qin (or Qout) is close to Pin (or Pout), which inherits from the fact that the

penumbra is adjacent to umbra.

For the non-Sun-synchronous orbit, the ALSEP will change from 0 to 2, which causes that all the transient Pin

regions have no intersection with each other. The same conclusions can be achieved for P out, Qin and Qout. However, the

Sun-synchronous orbit has a fixed local time of descending node, which causes the arguments of latitude of the

satellites entering or leaving the penumbra and umbra, uinp , uout

p u
, uinu and uout , to oscillate around a fixed value, due to

the angle between ecliptic and equatorial planes. Therefore, there exist intersections for all the transient P in regions, as

well as Pout, Qin and Qout.

Take the Sun-synchronous orbit for example to conduct the numerical simulation. The altitude of the orbit is 500km,

the local time of descending node is 10:30AM, the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.001, the inclination is 97.402, the

argument of perigee is 0and the mean anomaly is 0. The numerical simulation is implemented during one year. Fig.6

shows the differences between the iterations and the approximations acquired by fairly precise numerical method during

one year. The legend diffALSEP indicates the differences between the iterations and the approximations of ALSEP.

Similarly, other legends have corresponding meanings. It is indicated that the four differences all range from -6.510-4 to

-310-4, which demonstrates that the iterative algorithm is of fairly high precision.
-4 -4
x 10 x 10
-3 -3

-3.5 -3.5
difALSEP difALSEU

-4 -4
Difference/rad
Difference/rad

-4.5 -4.5

-5 -5

-5.5 -5.5

-6 -6

-6.5 -6.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
a) Time/day b) Time/day

10-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

-4 -4
x 10 x 10
-3 -3

-3.5 -3.5
difALSLU difALSLP

-4 -4
Difference/rad

Difference/rad
-4.5 -4.5

-5 -5

-5.5 -5.5

-6 -6

-6.5 -6.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
c) Time/day d) Time/day

Fig.6 Differences between the iterations and the approximations during one year: a) differences for ALSEP b) differences for ALSEU c)

differences for ALSLU d) differences for ALSLP.

As for the simulation above, take the penumbra for example to yield the Pins common convergence region as [3.60,

5.79] (rad), and the Pouts common convergence region as [0.60, 2.63], as shown in Fig.7. For any time in a year, any

value inside Pins common convergence region can work as the initial iteration value to converge to ALSEP. The same

conclusion can be achieved for Pout. However, the other intervals (-0.49, 0.60) and (2.63, 3.60) are not included in both

common convergence regions, which means the value in these intervals may converge to ALSEP at some time of a year,

but can also converge to ALSLP at another time of a year. For the umbra, the Qins common convergence region is [3.61,

5.78], and the Qouts common convergence region is [0.61, 2.62].

3 4 4
2.63 common convergence 0.60
region of Pout

common convergence
3.60
region of Pin 5.79(0.49)

5 4 7 4

3 2
Fig.7 Common convergence region of Pin and Pout during one year for Sun-synchronous orbit

11-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

IV.II. Analytical Algorithm between the Updated Moments

The analytical algorithm is used to calculate the ALSEP, ALSLP ALSEU and ALSLU except for the updated

moments. There exists a time range near the updated moment in which the value of is fixed on the updated moment

and the sine and cosine function of in Eq. (7) are expanded in Taylors series at the updated moment.
Assuming that tz is an updated moment, z and z are orbital parameters at the updated moment, the value of

ALSEP or ALSLP is uz acquired by the iterative algorithm mentioned in Section IV.I. Assume ta is an arbitrary moment

during the time range, a and a are orbital parameters at the arbitrary moment, ua is the value of ALSEP or ALSLP

at this moment.

The following expression is valid according to Eq. (11):

Cz sin uz Dz cos uz Ca sin ua Da cos ua (14)

where Cz and Dz are the coefficients of the updated moment contained in the time range, and their values can be acquired

from Eq. (7). Ca and Da are the coefficients of the arbitrary chosen moment.

Assuming that:

ua uz u (15)

The sine and cosine function of a are expanded in Taylors series [14] at the updated moment, then the following

equations are achieved

Ca Cz C (16)

Da Dz D

where

C Cz1 cos z Cz 2 sin z W t

(17)

D Dz1 cos z Dz 2 sin z W t

where Cz1 ,Cz2, Dz1 and Dz2 are obtained according to Eq. (8), W is the change rate of the right ascension of the

ascending node as demonstrated in Ref. [2], and t is equal to ta t z .

Similarly, the trigonometric functions of ua are expanded in Taylors series [14], and the following equations are

acquired:

12-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

sin ua sin uz cos u z u (18)

cos ua cos uz sin uz u

Combine Eqs. (14), (15), (16), (17) and (18), the expression of u is derived:

C sin uz D cos uz
u . (19)
Dz D sin uz Cz C cos uz

Although the expression of u is derived from the penumbral case, the expression (19) is also subject to the

umbral case. Thus, we can utilize the iteration uz on the updated moment and the change u to determine the ALSEP,

ALSLP, ALSEU or ALSLU at any epoch.

V. ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ECLIPSE PREDICTION ALGORITHMS

Numerical variable-step algorithm predicts the eclipse events based only on the Earth-satellite vector r, and the Sun

position vector rs at the specific epoch, whereas the autonomous spaceborne algorithm conducts penumbra and umbra

predictions only by using some orbital elements. Both algorithms are implemented to a Sun-synchronous orbit to

examine the prediction accuracy and assess the corresponding results. The prediction results computed by STK is

regarded as the benchmark for assessments. The altitude of the chosen Sun-synchronous orbit is 500 km, the local time

of descending node is 10:30AM, the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.001, the inclination is 97.402, the argument of perigee

is 0and the mean anomaly is 0. The orbit epoch is 00:00:00, 30 April, 2016(UTC).

V.I. Benchmark for the Assessments

As a powerful tool for numerically integrating a satellites orbit, the STK software develops an effective package to

compute the shadow boundaries based on the Lundbergs algorithm [15]-[16], which is used to correct the crossing

moments of shadow boundaries by multi-step integrators. To achieve the exact value of crossing moments, one of the

significant improvements of Lundbergs algorithm [15]-[16] is to propose an iteration procedure to correct the crossing

moments step by step, and the other is to choose the optimal step size of integrator to minimize the errors of crossing

moments. This algorithm can obtain the exact crossing moments, but with heavy computational demands. Besides, due

to the high-precision orbit propagator (abbr. HPOP) provided by STK, the numerically integrated trajectory is slightly

different from the actual one modeled by TLE data for a LEO satellite according to Ref. [17]-[18]. Thus, the

computation of eclipse events by STK is generally considered as the benchmark for comparison in much previous work

[19]-[21].

13-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

The high-precision package of STK is employed to yield the crossing moments of shadow boundaries, which are

regarded as the benchmark to assess the prediction algorithms proposed in this paper. Several operations are

implemented to yield the shadow moments by STK, as follows:

a) transform the mean orbital elements into the osculating orbital elements (as, es, is, s, s, Ms) for a satellite based

on the Kozai-Iszak theory [7];

b) employ the HPOP and Runge-Kutta 7(8) method to yield the numerically integrated trajectory by STK;

c) utilize the Penumbra and Umbra command (under the Report menu) to generate the report file, which includes

the penumbra start time, penumbra stop time, umbra start time and umbra stop time.

V.II. Assessments for the Numerical Variable-step Algorithm

The value of 1 (or 2) is approximately a constant which is 67.816(or 67.284) according to the chosen orbit.

600s, 60s, 6s, 0.1s, 0.01s and 0.001s are successively chosen as the simulation step size to compute the angle , and then

compare the results with 1 or 2 to determine the eclipse entry and exit moments on 30 April, 2016. Table.1 shows the

eclipse entry and exit moments computed by the numerical variable-step algorithm and the STK. Fig.8 shows the

differences of penumbra entry, umbra entry, umbra exit and penumbra exit with respect to STK. The statistical analysis

of the differences is given in Table.2. It is indicated that the numerical variable-step algorithm is of high precision with

respect to STK according to the Table.1, Table.2 and Fig.8.

Table.1 Penumbra, umbra entry and exit timings (hour: minute: second) using the numerical variable-step algorithm or STK

Numerical variable-step algorithm STK

Penumbra Umbra Umbra Penumbra Penumbra Umbra Umbra Penumbra
entry entry exit exit entry entry exit exit
00:39:47.814 00:39:56.785 01:14:40.542 01:14:49.499 00:39:47.605 00:39:56.566 01:14:40.282 01:14:49.146
02:14:31.868 02:14:40.838 02:49:24.628 02:49:33.584 02:14:31.657 02:14:40.616 02:49:24.366 02:49:33.229
03:49:15.922 03:49:24.892 04:24:08.714 04:24:17.670 03:49:15.706 03:49:24.665 04:24:08.450 04:24:17.315
05:23:59.976 05:24:08.946 05:58:52.800 05:59:01.756 05:23:59.754 05:24:08.714 05:58:52.535 05:59:01.396
06:58:44.031 06:58:53.000 07:33:36.887 07:33:45.842 06:58:43.804 06:58:52.764 07:33:36.620 07:33:45.481
08:33:28.086 08:33:37.055 09:08:20.974 09:08:29.928 08:33:27.858 08:33:36.813 09:08:20.705 09:08:29.568
10:08:12.142 10:08:21.110 10:43:05.061 10:43:14.015 10:08:11.908 10:08:20.865 10:43:04.790 10:43:13.650
11:42:56.198 11:43:05.166 12:17:49.148 12:17:58.102 11:42:55.959 11:43:04.915 12:17:48.876 12:17:57.734
13:17:40.254 13:17:49.221 13:52:33.236 13:52:42.189 13:17:40.011 13:17:48.964 13:52:32.962 13:52:41.823
14:52:24.310 14:52:33.277 15:27:17.323 15:27:26.276 14:52:24.063 14:52:33.016 15:27:17.046 15:27:25.906
16:27:08.367 16:27:17.334 17:02:01.411 17:02:10.364 16:27:08.115 16:27:17.069 17:02:01.131 17:02:09.993
18:01:52.424 18:02:01.390 18:36:45.500 18:36:54.452 18:01:52.168 18:02:01.119 18:36:45.219 18:36:54.079
19:36:36.481 19:36:45.447 20:11:29.588 20:11:38.540 19:36:36.219 19:36:45.174 20:11:29.305 20:11:38.164
21:11:20.539 21:11:29.504 21:46:13.677 21:46:22.628 21:11:20.271 21:11:29.226 21:46:13.394 21:46:22.250
22:46:04.597 22:46:13.562 23:20:57.766 23:21:06.717 22:46:04.327 22:46:13.279 23:20:57.479 23:21:06.339

14-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

0.4

0.35

Penumbra/Umbra Entry/Exit Difference(s)

0.3

0.25

0.2
Penumbra Entry
0.15 Umbra Entry
Umbra Exit
0.1 Penumbra Exit

0.05

-0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Eclipse Times
Fig.8 Penumbra/umbra entry/exit differences with respect to STK (unit: second)

Table.2 Error estimation of the differences (unit: second)

Error measurement Penumbra entry Umbra entry Umbra exit Penumbra exit
Mean () 0.239 0.251 0.273 0.366
Standard deviation () 0.020 0.021 0.009 0.008
-3 0.179 0.188 0.247 0.341
+3 0.299 0.313 0.299 0.391
Compared with the fixed-step algorithm, the numerical variable-step algorithm has much higher computational

efficiency due to adopting multi-scale step sizes to avoid unnecessary integrations far away from the eclipse events. The

numerical simulation has indicated that the numerical variable-step algorithm is about 1850 times more efficient than the

fixed-step algorithm. The detailed comparison of computational efficiency is shown in Table 7 in the section V.III.II.

V.III. Assessments for the Autonomous Spaceborne Algorithm

V.III.I. Prediction Accuracy Assessments
According to the structure of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm, two days are chosen as the time interval

between two adjacent updated moments in the simulation, which means the value of is updated every other two days.

The iterative algorithm on the updated moments and the analytical algorithm between the updated moments are

combined to predict the crossing moments of shadow boundaries. Table.3 shows the approximations acquired by the

fairly precise numerical method, the iterations and the convergence regions needed for the iterative algorithm on the

corresponding updated moments. It is quantitatively indicated that the iterations are reasonable with respect to the

approximations and the method of choosing the initial iterative value on every updated moment is advisable.

Table.3 Comparisons between iterations and approximations and corresponding convergence region on the updated moments (unit: rad)

Updated moments Jan/3 12:00:00 Jan/5 12:00:00 Jan/7 12:00:00 Jan/9 12:00:00 Jan/11 12:00:00
Actual ALSEP 5.5210 5.5182 5.5144 5.5104 5.5056
ALSEP by iterations 5.5207 5.5177 5.5141 5.5099 5.5051
Convergence reign [3.47,6.60) [3.47,6.60) [3.47,6.60) [3.46,6.59) [3.46,6.59)
Actual ALSEU 5.5314 5.5286 5.5251 5.5207 5.5160
ALSEU by iterations 5.5311 5.5281 5.5245 5.5203 5.5156

15-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

Convergence reign [3.47,6.60) [3.47,6.60) [3.47,6.60) [3.46,6.59) [3.46,6.59)

Actual ALSLU 1.5130 1.5083 1.5033 1.4976 1.4913
ALSLU by iterations 1.5126 1.5080 1.5028 1.4970 1.4907
Convergence reign [0.32,3.47) [0.32,3.47) [0.32,3.47) [0.31,3.46) [0.31,3.46)
Actual ALSLP 1.5234 1.5190 1.5136 1.5080 1.5017
ALSLP by iterations 1.5230 1.5184 1.5132 1.5075 1.5012
Convergence reign [0.32,3.47) [0.32,3.47) [0.32,3.47) [0.31,3.46) [0.31,3.46)
The changes between ALSEP on an arbitrary moment and the iterations on the nearest updated moment are

calculated by the analytical algorithm, as well as the changes for ALSLP, ALSEU and ALSLU. Obviously the peak

changes happen on the moments which are in the middle of the interval between two adjacent updated moments, namely

the potential maximum errors of the analytical algorithm happen on these moments (these moments are called the max

error points). Table.4 quantitatively shows the comparisons between the results computed by the analytical algorithm

and the approximations on these max error points. It is shown that the analytical results are extremely close to the

approximations.

Table.4 Comparisons between the results computed by the analytical algorithm and the approximations on the max error points (unit: rad)

The max error points Jan/2 12:00:00 Jan/4 12:00:00 Jan/6 12:00:00 Jan/8 12:00:00 Jan/10 12:00:00
Actual ALSEP 5.5223 5.5198 5.5163 5.5126 5.5082
Analytical ALSEP 5.5259 5.5233 5.5200 5.5162 5.5117
Relative error 0.066% 0.063% 0.067% 0.065% 0.064%
Actual ALSEU 5.5327 5.5301 5.5267 5.5229 5.5185
Analytical ALSEU 5.5364 5.5338 5.5305 5.5267 5.5223
Relative error 0.068% 0.065% 0.069% 0.068% 0.068%
Actual ALSLU 1.5152 1.5108 1.5058 1.5004 1.4945
Analytical ALSLU 1.5119 1.5076 1.5026 1.4971 1.4910
Relative error 0.214% 0.213% 0.208% 0.221% 0.231%
Actual ALSLP 1.5256 1.5212 1.5164 1.5108 1.5048
Analytical ALSLP 1.5224 1.5181 1.5131 1.5076 1.5016
Relative error 0.201% 0.203% 0.218% 0.209% 0.217%
Table.5 shows the eclipse entry and exit moments computed by the autonomous spaceborne algorithm and STK.

Fig.9 shows the differences of penumbra entry, umbra entry, umbra exit and penumbra exit with respect to STK. Table.6

gives the statistical analysis of the differences. According to Table.5, Table.6 and Fig.9, the autonomous spaceborne

algorithm can hold the prediction accuracy with respect to STK, and its mean predicting error is oscillating around 2

seconds.

Table.5 Penumbra, umbra entry and exit timings (hour: minute: second) using the autonomous spaceborne algorithm or STK

Autonomous spaceborne algorithm STK

Penumbra Umbra Umbra Penumbra Penumbra Umbra Umbra Penumbra
entry entry exit exit entry entry exit exit
00:39:50.286 00:39:59.240 01:14:41.167 01:14:50.121 00:39:47.605 00:39:56.566 01:14:40.282 01:14:49.146
02:14:34.180 02:14:43.133 02:49:25.061 02:49:34.014 02:14:31.657 02:14:40.616 02:49:24.366 02:49:33.229
03:49:18.158 03:49:27.111 04:24:09.039 04:24:17.992 03:49:15.706 03:49:24.665 04:24:08.450 04:24:17.315
05:24:02.454 05:24:11.407 05:58:53.334 05:59:02.287 05:23:59.754 05:24:08.714 05:58:52.535 05:59:01.396
06:58:46.141 06:58:55.094 07:33:37.021 07:33:45.974 06:58:43.804 06:58:52.764 07:33:36.620 07:33:45.481
08:33:31.810 08:33:40.764 09:08:22.691 09:08:31.644 08:33:27.858 08:33:36.813 09:08:20.705 09:08:29.568
10:08:14.956 10:08:23.909 10:43:05.837 10:43:14.790 10:08:11.908 10:08:20.865 10:43:04.790 10:43:13.650
11:43:00.793 11:43:09.746 12:17:51.674 12:18:00.627 11:42:55.959 11:43:04.915 12:17:48.876 12:17:57.734
13:17:40.233 13:17:49.180 13:52:31.577 13:52:40.523 13:17:40.011 13:17:48.964 13:52:32.962 13:52:41.823
14:52:23.506 14:52:32.453 15:27:14.849 15:27:23.796 14:52:24.063 14:52:33.016 15:27:17.046 15:27:25.906
16:27:08.554 16:27:17.501 17:01:59.897 17:02:08.844 16:27:08.115 16:27:17.069 17:02:01.131 17:02:09.993

16-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

18:01:52.525 18:02:01.472 18:36:43.869 18:36:52.815 18:01:52.168 18:02:01.119 18:36:45.219 18:36:54.079

19:36:38.003 19:36:46.950 20:11:29.346 20:11:39.293 19:36:36.219 19:36:45.174 20:11:29.305 20:11:38.164
21:11:20.510 21:11:29.457 21:46:11.854 21:46:20.800 21:11:20.271 21:11:29.226 21:46:13.394 21:46:22.250
22:46:06.178 22:46:15.125 23:20:57.521 23:21:06.468 22:46:04.327 22:46:13.279 23:20:57.479 23:21:06.339

5
Penumbra Entry
4 Umbra Entry

Penumbra/Umbra Entry/Exit Difference(s)

Umbra Exit
Penumbra Exit
3

-1

-2

-3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Eclipse Times

Fig.9 Penumbra/umbra entry/exit difference with respect to STK (unit: second)

Table.6 Error estimation of the differences (unit: second)

Error measurement Penumbra entry Umbra entry Umbra exit Penumbra exit
Mean () 1.924 1.918 0.105 0.261
Standard deviation () 1.521 1.522 1.404 1.426
-3 -2.640 -2.649 -4.106 -4.017
+3 6.488 6.486 4.316 4.539

V.III.II Computational Efficiency Assessments and Spaceborne Application

The quantitative comparison of computational efficiency for the fixed-step, variable-step and spaceborne algorithm

are presented in this section. This comparison should be implemented under the same computational accuracy. Thus, to

meet the predicting accuracy of 0.001s, the step sizes or iterative number of the three algorithms are set as follows: the

step size of fixed-step algorithm is 0.001s to check the eclipse condition. The minimum step size of the variable-step

algorithm is set as 0.001s to meet the predicting accuracy, and the maximum step size is set as 600s to accelerate the

integrations when the eclipse events are far away. The iterative procedure is required by the spaceborne algorithm to

yield the updated moments, and the stopping criterion for iteration is set as 0.001s, i.e., the iterative number is set more

than 10.

Numerical simulations are implemented by the Matlab2012a tool on a computer with an Intel COREi5 processor

and 4G RAM. These three predicting algorithms are respectively employed to predict the shadow moments during one

day, two days and one week, and the computing time of the three algorithms is shown in Table.7. Predictably, the

autonomous spaceborne algorithm has the best computational efficiency with respect to two other algorithms.

17-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

Table.7 Comparisons of computational efficiency for the three algorithms (unit: second )

Computing time 1 day 2 days 1 week

Fixed step algorithm 2776.931723 5427.889526 16970.481139
Variable-step algorithm 1.506111 2.944286 9.520819
Spaceborne algorithm 0.154967 0.304562 1.073083

It is known that both the fixed-step and variable-step algorithms are numerical and computationally demanding,

which are preferable for implementation on the ground, rather than onboard. To reduce most of the computation, the

spaceborne algorithm is derived from the analytical solution of the eclipse condition, instead of the numerical conditions.

Thus, only the FLOPS of the spaceborne algorithm should be analyzed to check whether the on-board microprocessor

could bear the computational burden of spaceborne algorithm. The Lightspeed Matlab toolbox version 2.7 provided by

Minka [22] is employed to calculate the FLOPS of the spaceborne algorithm. This toolbox features a set of routines for

accurate floating-point operation (flop) counting. Taking shadow prediction for one day by the autonomous spaceborne

algorithm for example, and all the FLOPS of every command evaluated by Minkas instructions are summed up to be

3901. For the Andrews model 160 processor with the clock speed of 400 MHz provided by CubeSatShop.com [23], the

one-day shadow prediction by the autonomous spaceborne algorithm will take less than 1 second, which is accepted by

the current on-board processor.

Due to the weak performance of spaceborne processors, only the analytical algorithm is suitable to be done onboard.

Besides, owing to the frequent revisits of satellite to the ground station, some commands or instructions can be uploaded

onto the spaceborne processor on specified days, denoted as command-uploaded days. According to the Chinese

aerospace engineering, the interval between two successive command-uploaded days is 2 days or longer.

According to spaceborne application of Chinese satellites, such as CBERS-02 [24], and HJ-1A and 1B [25], the

traditional on-board eclipse prediction method is presented as follows: a) on a command-uploaded day, the initial

moment of entering or leaving the shadow is evaluated and then uploaded by the ground station, and the pass of orbit

is set as 1; b) before the next command-uploaded day, the moment 2 on the Nth pass of orbit is equal to +(N-1)T,

where T is the orbital period; c) on the second command-uploaded day, this moment will be corrected by the ground

station, and then act as the initial one to yield the new series of moments before the third command-uploaded day.

Compared with the traditional on-board method, the autonomous spaceborne algorithm presented in this paper is

derived based on the analytical solution of the eclipse condition and designed into a two-layer structure. The external

structure is just used to yield the limited updated moments according to an iterative procedure, and the internal structure

is used to check the eclipse condition between the updated moments with the help of Taylor expansion. Considering the

18-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

shadow-entering prediction during two successive command-uploaded days, i.e., 2 days, the comparison of

computational accuracy between the two algorithms is illustrated in Fig.10. The autonomous spaceborne algorithm has a

mean predicting error oscillating around 2 seconds, compared with the gradually increasing error of the traditional

method whose error is up to 16 seconds at the end. The similar conclusions can be achieved according to the

comparisons between the two algorithms on the moments leaving penumbra or umbra. Obviously, the autonomous

spaceborne algorithm has much higher computational accuracy than the traditional one. Thus, the spaceborne algorithm

is suitable for the current on-board processor to predict the shadow moments autonomously.

16 Penumbra Entry for Spaceborne Algorithm 16 Umbra Entry for Spaceborne Algorithm
Penumbra Entry for Traditional Method Umbra Entry for Traditional Method
14 14
Penumbra Entry Difference(s)

12

Umbra Entry Difference(s)

12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
a) Eclipse Times b) Eclipse Times

Fig.10. Comparison of computational accuracy between the autonomous spaceborne algorithm and the traditional method (unit: second): a)

penumbra entry difference b) umbra entry difference; the shadow-entering prediction during two successive command-uploaded days. i.e., 2

days; the accuracy of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm is indicated by the blue solid line, and the accuracy of the traditional method is

indicated by the red dotted line.

VI. CONCLUSION

This paper has transformed the magnitude comparison of two angles in the two-dimensional plane into the eclipse

condition, which is much more useful than the previous conditions. Two algorithms are illustrated to predict the eclipse

events for the LEO satellites based on the eclipse condition. One is the numerical variable-step algorithm whose

computation efficiency is superior to the previous fixed-step algorithm due to adopting multi-scale step sizes. The other

is the autonomous spaceborne algorithm with two-layer structure, which is based on the analytical solution used to

predict the penumbra and umbra. Both algorithms have been applied to a Sun-synchronous orbit, and the prediction

results are compared with STK to explore the prediction accuracy. It is indicated that the numerical variable-step

algorithm is of fairly high precision, whereas the autonomous spaceborne algorithm can hold the mean predicting error

19-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

oscillating around 2 seconds. Besides, the quantitative comparison of computational efficiency has presented that the

autonomous spaceborne algorithm has the best computational efficiency, and its computational burden can be accepted

by an on-board processor. Compared with traditional on-board method, the spaceborne algorithm is more suitable for the

on-board processor to predict the eclipse autonomously due to its higher accuracy. There are three primary contributions

in this paper. Firstly, the analytical solution of the eclipse condition is derived to solve the penumbra and umbra with the

orbital argument of latitude. Secondly, the multi-scale step sizes employed by the variable-step algorithm can save the

computation in the time intervals far away from the eclipse events, which results in improving both the computational

accuracy and burden simultaneously. Thirdly, the spaceborne algorithm is derived based on the analytical solution, and

then designed into two-layer structure with the aim of lowering the computational burden.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to the associate editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and

suggestions on revising the manuscript. The authors thank George Knox for his suggestions to improve this paper. M.

Xu acknowledges the supports of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11172020 and 11432001), Beijing

Natural Science Foundation (4153060), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

VIII. REFERENCES

[1] Escobal, P. Methods of orbit determination. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing, 1976.

[2] Vallado, D. A. Fundamental of astrodynamics and applications. Berlin: Springer, 2007.

[3] Hubaux, C., Lemaitre, A., Delsate, N., and Carletti, T. Symplectic integration of space debris motion considering several Earths

shadowing models. Advances in Space Research, 49, 10(2012), 1472-1486.

[4] Mullins, L. D. Calculating satellite umbra/penumbra entry and exit positions and times. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences

39, 4(1991), 411-422.

[5] Neta, B., and Vallado, D. A. On satellite umbra/penumbra entry and exit positions. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 46,

1(1998), 91-103.

[6] Wertz, J. R. Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control System, Amsterdam: Kluwer, 2002.

[7] Montenbruck, O and Gill, E. Satellite orbits: models, methods, and applications, Berlin: Springer, 2005.

[8] Adhya, S., Sibthorpe, A., Ziebart, M., and Cross, P. Oblate Earth eclipse state algorithm for low-earth-orbiting satellites. Journal

of Spacecraft and Rockets, 41,1(2004), 157-159.

20-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

[9] Vokrouhlicky, D., Farinella, P and Mignard, F. Solar radiation pressure perturbations for Earth satellites: effects of the Earths

polar flattening on the shadow structure of the penumbra transitions. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 307, (1996), 635644.

[10] Woodburn, J. Effects of eclipse boundary crossings on the numerical integration of orbit trajectories. AIAA Paper (2000), 2000-

4027.

[11] Hujsak, R.S. Solar Pressure. Presented at the Proceedings of the Artificial Satellite Theory Workshop, USNO, Washington,

America, 1993.

[12] Srivastava, V. K., Ashutosh, A., Roopa, M. V., Ramakrishna, B.N., Pitchaimani, M., and Chandrasekhar, B.S. Spherical and

oblate Earth conical shadow models for LEO satellites: applications and comparisons with real time data and STK to IRS

satellites. Aerospace Science and Technology, 33, (2014), 135-144.

[13] Romero, L. and Mason, J. Evaluation of direct and iterative methods for overdetermined systems of TOA geolocation equations.

IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,47, 2(2011), 1213-1229.

[14] Wang, M.S., Wu, W.Q., Wang, J.L., and Pan, X.F. High-order attitude compensation in coning and rotation coexisting

environment. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 51, (2015), 1178-1190.

[15] Woodburn, J. Mitigation of the effects of eclipse boundary crossings on the numerical integration of orbit trajectories using an

Encke type correction algorithm. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 108, (2001), 1679-1690.

[16] Lundberg, J. B. Mitigation of satellite orbit errors resulting from the numerical integration across shadow boundaries. Applied

Mathematics and Computation, 112, 2-3(2000), 193-211.

[17] Cai, L., and Gong, J. Y. The simulation of satellite tracking and orbit prediction, considering the swaths. Presented at the

Geoinformatics 2008 and Joint Conference on GIS and Built Environment: Geo-Simulation and Virtual GIS Environments,

Guangzhou, China, Jun.28-29, 2008.

[18] Kessler, P. D., Killough, B. D., Gowda, S., Williams, B. R., Chander, G., and Qu, M. CEOS Visualization Environment (COVE)

Tool for Intercalibration of Satellite Instruments. IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, 51, 3(2013), 1081-1087.

[19] Srivastava, V. K., Kumar, J., Kulshrestha, S., Srivastava, A., Bhaskar, M.K., Kushvah,B.S., Shiggavi, P., and Vallado, D.A.

Lunar shadow eclipse prediction models for the Earth orbiting spacecraft: Comparison and application to LEO and GEO

spacecrafts. Acta Astronautica, 110, (2015), 206-213.

[20] Tian, X., Tao, M., Hao, W., Ke, H., and Zhong, H. J. Design and on-orbit performance of the attitude determination and control

system for the ZDPS-1A pico-satellite. Acta Astronautica, 77, (2012), 182196.

[21] Lee, B. S., Hwang, Y., Kim, H. Y., and Kim, J. Design and implementation of the flight dynamics system for COMS satellite

mission operations. Acta Astronautica, 68, (2011), 12921306.

[22] Minka, T. The Lightspeed Matlab toolbox. (2014) [Online]. Available: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/minka/

software/lightspeed/.

21-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

[23] Innovative Solutions In Space. Categories. (2015) [Online]. Available: http://www.cubesatshop.com/index.php?page=shop.

product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=94&category_id=8&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=75.

[24] Dong, S.Y., Jiang, T., Lu, W. H., and Han, M.Q. Dynamic monitoring of vegetation coverage change in mining area based on

CBERS-02 imagery. Presented at the 3rd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, CISP 2010, Qingdao, China,

Oct. 16 Oct. 18, 2010.

[25] Wang, Q., Wu, C. Q., Li, Q., and Li, J. S. Chinese HJ-1A/B satellites and data characteristics. Science China Earth Sciences, 53,

(2010), 51-57.

Xianghua Jia received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in School of Astronautics from
Beihang University, Beijing, China, in 2014 and 2017, respectively. His research
interests include orbital dynamics and control, orbit design and optimization, and
system modeling and simulation for spacecraft.

Ming Xu received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in aerospace engineering from
Beihang University, Beijing, China, in 2003 and 2008, respectively. He served as
an engineer of orbital design and operation in DFH Satellite Co., Ltd., China
Academy of Space Technology, Beijing, China, until 2010. Then, he joined in
Beihang University as an assistant professor and then was promoted as an
associate professor in 2012. His current research interests include the applications
of dynamical systems theory into astrodynamics and orbital control. Dr. Xu serves as associate
editors for the journals of astrodynamics, and Advances in Aircraft and Spacecraft Science. Dr. Xu
recieved National Top 100 Excellent Doctoral Dissertation Award nomination in 2010 and Third
Class Prizes of the National Defense Technology Invention Award in 2016. He has 50 publications
in journals, books and proceedings.

Xiao Pan received the B.S. degree in School of Astronautics from Northwestern
Polytechnical University, Shaanxi, China, in 2015. She is currently completing the
Ph. D. degree in Spacecraft Design &Engineering at Beijing University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China. Her research interests include
circular restricted three-body problem, trajectory design, navigation technology
and formation flying.

22-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAES.2017.2722518, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

Xintao Mao received the B.S. Degree in Mechanical manufacturing and

automation from Harbin Institute of Technology in China, in 2002, and the M.S.
Degree in fluid mechanics from Harbin Institute of Technology in China, in 2004,
and the Ph.D Degree in mechatronic engineering from Harbin Institute of
Technology in China, in 2009. His research interests include industrial automation
and robot control technology.

The figure captions of the article are listed as follows.

Fig.1 Earths penumbra and umbra.

Fig.2 Earths conical shadow geometry with the penumbra/umbra shadow angle method.

Fig.3 Numerical variable-step algorithm: a) big step, b)small step.

Fig.4 Structure of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm.

Fig.5 Transient Pin and Pout in the interval [0, 2] for non-Sun-synchronous orbit: a) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 January, 2016; b) the

transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 April, 2016; c) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1 July, 2016; d) the transient Pin and Pout on the day, 1

October, 2016.

Fig.6 Differences between the iterations and the approximations during one year: a) differences for ALSEP b) differences for ALSEU c)

differences for ALSLU d) differences for ALSLP.

Fig.7 Common convergence region of Pin and Pout during one year for Sun-synchronous orbit.

Fig.8 Penumbra/umbra entry/exit differences with respect to STK (unit: second).

Fig.9 Penumbra/umbra entry/exit difference with respect to STK (unit: second).

Fig.10. Comparison of computational accuracy between the autonomous spaceborne algorithm and the traditional method (unit: second): a)

penumbra entry difference b) umbra entry difference; the shadow-entering prediction during two successive command-uploaded days. i.e., 2

days; the accuracy of the autonomous spaceborne algorithm is indicated by the blue solid line, and the accuracy of the traditional method is

indicated by the red dotted line.

23-23

0018-9251 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.